Isaac Asimov on climate change, 1989, 1977

[IanC]

traker said-

Actually the most important element of science, is the data, the measurements, the empiric evidences. The explanations are merely the tools used to categorize, and relate the data. This is why explanations change as understandings grow and are enhanced, but the data always stays the same.

temperature data doesnt stay the same, although it probably should in most cases. and you never got back to me when I answered your request to show updated data sets that were not being used because the new data did not support the climate alarmist point of view.

you seem to have a very peculiar opinion of how science should be done when it comes to climate studies.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you think that all of the climate science is done to appropriate standards and that any criticisms are from anti-scientific crackpots with evil motivations. to help dispell that notion I present a piece of a Muller video lecture. I would even suggest you watch some of his classroom climate lectures also available so that you can assure yourself that he is a warmist and generally a supporter of the IPCC.

 

[Old Rocks]

Walleyes,

Trying to save yourself with silly insults are we? A scientist looks at the whole story you silly person, not just that which conforms to your particular tale. You silly anti-science cultists only look at the last thirty years as if that is a meaningful span of time. It isn't, it is merely the latest in a long line of cycles going back to the beginning of time on this planet.

.....................................................................................................................................

Spoken like a high school sophmore.

Yes, the atmosphere of this planet is constantly changing. As are the temperatures. And those changes have causes. Increasing or decreasing GHGs, the sun, the albedo of the planet, all are part of the equation.

Now, when you change the equation, you get a change. Mankind has significantly changed the equation. 40% more CO2, 250% more CH4. We are changing the atmosphere and the temperatures. The correct name is Anthropogenic Global Warming. And people making silly claims concerning cycles on the internet will change the results not at all.

 

[westwall]

Walleyes,

Trying to save yourself with silly insults are we? A scientist looks at the whole story you silly person, not just that which conforms to your particular tale. You silly anti-science cultists only look at the last thirty years as if that is a meaningful span of time. It isn't, it is merely the latest in a long line of cycles going back to the beginning of time on this planet.

.....................................................................................................................................

Spoken like a high school sophmore.

Yes, the atmosphere of this planet is constantly changing. As are the temperatures. And those changes have causes. Increasing or decreasing GHGs, the sun, the albedo of the planet, all are part of the equation.

Now, when you change the equation, you get a change. Mankind has significantly changed the equation. 40% more CO2, 250% more CH4. We are changing the atmosphere and the temperatures. The correct name is Anthropogenic Global Warming. And people making silly claims concerning cycles on the internet will change the results not at all.

Riddle me this batman, how is it that everything you silly people claim is evidence of GW has happened in the past without mans influence? Hmmm? How is it that every "precipitation event" has happened in the past and many times was far more powerful then the "events" that happen today, or tomorrow or whenever they happen? Hmmm?

How is it that the Vostock ice core data shows no correlation between atmospheric CO2 content and temperature? Hmmm?

Until you can satisfactorily discount all natural causes for the "globalwarmingclimatchangeglobalclimatedisruption" phenomena that is observed you have nothing but a failed theory which has been turned into a religion by true believers like yourself.

So run along oltrakarfraud.

 

[Trakar]

I'll tell you at least four things involved in scientific method, which are completely missing form gullible warming science fiction.

First, it might help if you distinguish what you consider to be "gullible warming science fiction," and what you consider to be respectable mainstream science climatology.

1) A static control.

A static control is a good element of a properly designed experiment, but such is generally impractical when looking at any planetary scale processes, unless you are looking at limited variable simulations and models of those processes (which is done in most sciences looking at problems of this nature). Neither science, nor science methodology require such controls, though they are the best way to isolate effects and impacts of interest. Too bad you weren't around to demand a control when our ancestors who started this climate change experiment of dumping the product of fossil fuel combustion into the atmosphere first began the process!

2) Falsifiability (IOW words, all other possibilities or combinations thereof can't be disproved).

Every element of AGW is falsifiable

3) Can't be reproduced on demand and in context.

Which aspects of AGW do you feel are incapable of being reproduced?

4) Can't be positively quantified.

What aspects do you feel can't be measured and assessed?

You may now feel free to post some meaningless charts and graphs.

why waste bandwidth on material that is beyond your capacity and/or penchant for understanding? We'll stick to the basics until you demonstrate the ability and willingness to move beyond knee-jerk ideological rhetoric.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's really this simple:

Show me one repeatable laboratory experiment where temperature rises from increasing CO2 by 150PPM, or shut the fuck up.

 

[Trakar]

...Trying to save yourself with silly insults are we? A scientist looks at the whole story you silly person, not just that which conforms to your particular tale. You silly anti-science cultists only look at the last thirty years as if that is a meaningful span of time. It isn't, it is merely the latest in a long line of cycles going back to the beginning of time on this planet.

Amazing, the contortionist knots you seem to tie yourself in by simultaneously rejecting and denouncing mainstream science and yet trying to rely upon mainstream science to support your misunderstandings. Have you considered counselling?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is not Science, it's solidly between palmistry and phrenology and way behind astrology.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Time to Play everybody favorite Settled Science Game

Wheel

Of

Climate

Change!!

 

[Trakar]

traker said-

Actually the most important element of science, is the data, the measurements, the empiric evidences. The explanations are merely the tools used to categorize, and relate the data. This is why explanations change as understandings grow and are enhanced, but the data always stays the same.

temperature data doesnt stay the same, although it probably should in most cases. and you never got back to me when I answered your request to show updated data sets that were not being used because the new data did not support the climate alarmist point of view.

Muller is distorting and fabricating results. If he were authentic and acting in scientific interest and in an effort to establish facts he would publish, show me the published results supporting these assertions rather than a youtube/classroom stage show, and I'll look at his information.

The issue with tree-ring divergence is directly related to CO2 influences in tree growth rates after the late fifties. Interesting how Muller eliminates all other proxy studies which corroborate and support the overall graphing trends and focusses upon specific tree-ring studies focussed upon high lattitude tree species samples that most clearly exagerate the declining correlation between those tree-rings (and their changing growth patterns due to changing environments and higher atmospheric CO2) and temperature.

IMO, based upon his statements in that video, he should be up for academic review. We shall see, though as stated earlier, this is simply another nail in the coffin of the legitimacy and unbiased nature of the proposed Berkeley statistical review of global warming project.

 

[Oddball]

traker said-

Actually the most important element of science, is the data, the measurements, the empiric evidences. The explanations are merely the tools used to categorize, and relate the data. This is why explanations change as understandings grow and are enhanced, but the data always stays the same.

temperature data doesnt stay the same, although it probably should in most cases. and you never got back to me when I answered your request to show updated data sets that were not being used because the new data did not support the climate alarmist point of view.

Muller is distorting and fabricating results. If he were authentic and acting in scientific interest and in an effort to establish facts he would publish, show me the published results supporting these assertions rather than a youtube/classroom stage show, and I'll look at his information.

IOW, run it past the hoaxers who faked the data, or one of their "peers" within the hoaxer community, to see if they'll own up to it.

 

[Trakar]

Riddle me this batman, how is it that everything you silly people claim is evidence of GW has happened in the past without mans influence? Hmmm? How is it that every "precipitation event" has happened in the past and many times was far more powerful then the "events" that happen today, or tomorrow or whenever they happen? Hmmm?

How is it that the Vostock ice core data shows no correlation between atmospheric CO2 content and temperature? Hmmm?

Until you can satisfactorily discount all natural causes for the "globalwarmingclimatchangeglobalclimatedisruption" phenomena that is observed you have nothing but a failed theory which has been turned into a religion by true believers like yourself.

So run along oltrakarfraud.

Why do you believe, that because certain events have happened before (due to understood factors not currently present), that this somehow means that the factors we see in place now cannot be responsible for the events we understand them to be related to? What is the source of your rejection of the same science that you seem to feel accurately and adequately explains and affirms your understanding or these past events, but you feel fails utterly in its ecplanation of current and modern events?

 

[Trakar]

It's really this simple:

Show me one repeatable laboratory experiment where temperature rises from increasing CO2 by 150PPM, or shut the fuck up.

Such is a rather trivial and rather ancient experiment performed repeatedly over the last century or so. A simple search of Arrhenius(1896), Tyndall(1859), Simpson & Hulbert (early 1930s) etc., should reveal all of their early experiments regarding the various greenhouse gasses and the radiation transfer experiments and calculations that support their findings. Glass jar experiments of this effect are rather common jr. High general science/chemistry demonstrations and have been so for much of the last few decades at least.

Here are a few links:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...gMmEAg&usg=AFQjCNHgeMEf_j5Utxoq1gdsTFdc-lki7A

Experiment - The Greenhouse Effect

Of course, to modify these experiments to your precise sepcifications will require you to control and calculate (or measure) the CO2 precisely, but this is rather simply done, if you wish to confirm the effect for yourself.

Arrhenius, Svante, 1896, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground.” Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-76, [full text]

Callendar, G. S., 1938, “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature”, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Volume 64 Issue 275, Pages 223 – 240, [abstract]

Hulburt, E. O., 1931, “The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth”, Physical Review, vol. 38, Issue 10, pp. 1876-1890, [abstract]

Plass, Gilbert N., 1956b, “Carbon Dioxide and the Climate” – article was re-published in 2010: American Scientist, Volume 98, Number 1, Page: 58, DOI: 10.1511/2010.82.58, [full text]

Tyndall, John, 1861, “The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction”, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 11:100-104; doi:10.1098/rspl.1860.0021, [abstract, full text]

Weart, Spencer, 2009, “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect”, [full text]

Fleming, James R., 2002, “The carbon dioxide theory of climate change: emergence, eclipse, and reemergence, ca. 1850–1950″, 13th Symposium on Global Change and Climate Variations, AMS, [Abstract, full text]

 

[Trakar]

IOW, run it past the hoaxers who faked the data, or one of their "peers" within the hoaxer community, to see if they'll own up to it.

If this is your impression of mainstream science then your conspiracy theory is without factual remediation or amelioration.

 

[Trakar]

AGW is not Science, it's solidly between palmistry and phrenology and way behind astrology.

Unsupported and demonstrably false assertions.

AGW is accepted mainstream science by mainstream Climate science and all major branches of scientific consideration and understanding.

 

[Oddball]

No, it's accepted by all of those who obtain their economic sustenance from it, and the rubes sucked in by them.

To most of the rest of the people in the world who work for a living, it looks like the latest MLM fad.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's really this simple:

Show me one repeatable laboratory experiment where temperature rises from increasing CO2 by 150PPM, or shut the fuck up.

Such is a rather trivial and rather ancient experiment performed repeatedly over the last century or so. A simple search of Arrhenius(1896), Tyndall(1859), Simpson & Hulbert (early 1930s) etc., should reveal all of their early experiments regarding the various greenhouse gasses and the radiation transfer experiments and calculations that support their findings. Glass jar experiments of this effect are rather common jr. High general science/chemistry demonstrations and have been so for much of the last few decades at least.

Here are a few links:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...gMmEAg&usg=AFQjCNHgeMEf_j5Utxoq1gdsTFdc-lki7A

Experiment - The Greenhouse Effect

Of course, to modify these experiments to your precise sepcifications will require you to control and calculate (or measure) the CO2 precisely, but this is rather simply done, if you wish to confirm the effect for yourself.

Arrhenius, Svante, 1896, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground.” Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-76, [full text]

Callendar, G. S., 1938, “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature”, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Volume 64 Issue 275, Pages 223 – 240, [abstract]

Hulburt, E. O., 1931, “The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth”, Physical Review, vol. 38, Issue 10, pp. 1876-1890, [abstract]

Plass, Gilbert N., 1956b, “Carbon Dioxide and the Climate” – article was re-published in 2010: American Scientist, Volume 98, Number 1, Page: 58, DOI: 10.1511/2010.82.58, [full text]

Tyndall, John, 1861, “The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction”, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 11:100-104; doi:10.1098/rspl.1860.0021, [abstract, full text]

Weart, Spencer, 2009, “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect”, [full text]

Fleming, James R., 2002, “The carbon dioxide theory of climate change: emergence, eclipse, and reemergence, ca. 1850–1950″, 13th Symposium on Global Change and Climate Variations, AMS, [Abstract, full text]

Again, don't show us that CO2 is a GHG, that's not the issue and that's not what you're alleging.

Step up to the front of the classroom and show the class how a 150PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature

Can you do that even one time?

 

[Oddball]

IOW, run it past the hoaxers who faked the data, or one of their "peers" within the hoaxer community, to see if they'll own up to it.

If this is your impression of mainstream science then your conspiracy theory is without factual remediation or amelioration.

My impression of the AGW cargo cultists comes from them themselves....They're basically a closed-shop circle jerk.

The sham "investigations" at Penn St. and East Anglia -basically Richard Nixon telling us that Liddy, Hunt and Halderman did absolutely nothing wrong- further buttresses that observation.

 

[westwall]

...Trying to save yourself with silly insults are we? A scientist looks at the whole story you silly person, not just that which conforms to your particular tale. You silly anti-science cultists only look at the last thirty years as if that is a meaningful span of time. It isn't, it is merely the latest in a long line of cycles going back to the beginning of time on this planet.

Amazing, the contortionist knots you seem to tie yourself in by simultaneously rejecting and denouncing mainstream science and yet trying to rely upon mainstream science to support your misunderstandings. Have you considered counselling?

Come again oltrakarfraud?

There is nothing contortionist at all about my post. There is merely a request that real scientific protocols be followed. And for your information, proving yet agian your claims of a science background are BS, the computer models themselves are a hypothesis. They need to be capable of recreating what has occured in the last week or so before we can lend them any credibility at all when it comes to predictive capability.

And the assertion that AGW theory is falsifiable is laughable. EVERYTHING IS ASCRIBED TO AGW! If it's too hot, if it's too cold, if it's too wet, if it's too dry etc. etc. etc. You loons have painted yourself into a corner and now you can't get out. Congrats, when you claim everything is because of something the people finally figure out that NOTHING is the fault of what you say. You screwed the pooch boys, you screwed the pooch.

 

[westwall]

Riddle me this batman, how is it that everything you silly people claim is evidence of GW has happened in the past without mans influence? Hmmm? How is it that every "precipitation event" has happened in the past and many times was far more powerful then the "events" that happen today, or tomorrow or whenever they happen? Hmmm?

How is it that the Vostock ice core data shows no correlation between atmospheric CO2 content and temperature? Hmmm?

Until you can satisfactorily discount all natural causes for the "globalwarmingclimatchangeglobalclimatedisruption" phenomena that is observed you have nothing but a failed theory which has been turned into a religion by true believers like yourself.

So run along oltrakarfraud.

Why do you believe, that because certain events have happened before (due to understood factors not currently present), that this somehow means that the factors we see in place now cannot be responsible for the events we understand them to be related to? What is the source of your rejection of the same science that you seem to feel accurately and adequately explains and affirms your understanding or these past events, but you feel fails utterly in its ecplanation of current and modern events?

You claim to have a science background and this is the question you come up with? Look up UNIFORMITARIANISM and when you understand what it means come back and talk to us. Now you're starting to sound like konrad!

 

[Trakar]

Amazing, the contortionist knots you seem to tie yourself in by simultaneously rejecting and denouncing mainstream science and yet trying to rely upon mainstream science to support your misunderstandings. Have you considered counselling?

...There is nothing contortionist at all about my post...

From the bizarre warpage evidenced in your statements, your perspective is unsurprising.

Support any of your contentions with legitimately sourced (preferrably published)mainstream scientific consideration and understanding, and I will give your comments the reflection and understanding they deserve, if all you are going to do is stamp your feet and repeat the same unsupported dredge, there is little sense in wasting much time on it.