Science is falsifiable

[SSDD]

What's that? No time stamp? No such discussion or measurement? Just one more instance of you just making it up as you go in an attempt to give the appearance of rationality to your arguments....they all fail and that in and of itself is tedious...

I can't help it if you have such a low understanding of science and experiments that you can't figure out what is happening. Even if the exact humidity was given, you would find something else to complain about - barometric pressure, date and time, longitude, latitude. That is just one more instance of you just making it up as you go in a vain and tedious attempt to give rationality to your arguments.


.

So no time stamp...the humidity in the bottle was neither measured, nor discussed...even though you suggested that it was....like I said...making it up as you go...the tedium never ends with you does it?

 

[Crick]

The world's average temperature has been getting hotter unnaturally since the industrial revolution.

How was the global average temperature measured in the 18th Century?

How is it measured even TODAY?? We don't have NEAR enough thermometers to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis of a 'global temperature'...

That is incorrect. It was measured in the 1800s by thermometers. The limited data from the 1800s is augmented with various proxies. And it would be nice to have more thermometers but don't forget we have satellites that can measure temperatures of the atmosphere and the surface.

 

[Wuwei]

What's that? No time stamp? No such discussion or measurement? Just one more instance of you just making it up as you go in an attempt to give the appearance of rationality to your arguments....they all fail and that in and of itself is tedious...

I can't help it if you have such a low understanding of science and experiments that you can't figure out what is happening. Even if the exact humidity was given, you would find something else to complain about - barometric pressure, date and time, longitude, latitude. That is just one more instance of you just making it up as you go in a vain and tedious attempt to give rationality to your arguments.

So no time stamp...the humidity in the bottle was neither measured, nor discussed...even though you suggested that it was....like I said...making it up as you go...the tedium never ends with you does it?

No time stamp? That's a lie. They recorded the time on a chart - every minute for 32 minutes.

That's a lie. I never suggested the humidity was measured or discussed. I said that equilibrium was obvious when neither temperature changed after about 15 minutes.

I finally understand what you mean by tedium. It's a code word for you that you have no cogent argument and were boxed in a corner, and simply want to lie about it.


.

 

[toobfreak]

The world's average temperature has been getting hotter unnaturally since the industrial revolution.

How was the global average temperature measured in the 18th Century?

Ever heard of ice cores?

Haven't they all melted?

 

[toobfreak]

The world's average temperature has been getting hotter unnaturally since the industrial revolution.

Problem is that you can't test that theory without going back and repeating the same period sans the one variable: INDUSTRY. Without that, there is no way of actually knowing it wouldn't have gotten warmer anyway. The great failure of science (I say this as a scientist) is that we tend to (perhaps unconsciously) set up experiments to get the outcome we were looking for!

That's why every "known" and "proven" scientific fact almost always eventually gets proven wrong and replaced with a new, better theory. That's not necessarily a failure of science but in the fact that mankind's understanding of things are imperfect.

 

[SSDD]

No time stamp? That's a lie. They recorded the time on a chart - every minute for 32 minutes.

And the tedium of correcting you continues...you know full well that i asked for a time stamp where they discussed, or measured the humidity in the bottles...they didn't ..so you can't provide a time stamp at the time the measurement or discussion occurred...it is all lies all the time with you....so f'ing tedious.

That's a lie. I never suggested the humidity was measured or discussed. I said that equilibrium was obvious when neither temperature changed after about 15 minutes.


post 252

Science is falsifiable

Equilibrium in the relative humidity was demonstrated for both bottles.

So again...got a time stamp where that was demonstrated?

 

[toobfreak]

The world's average temperature has been getting hotter unnaturally since the industrial revolution.

How was the global average temperature measured in the 18th Century?

Ever heard of ice cores?

Determining the temperature in Africa, or any other area largely unknown to 18th Century science, from ice cores taken from the poles is done by extrapolation, not measurement.

I asked how it is measured.

Sorry, you post nothing but nonsense in every thread you're in. See ya.

Nonsense? If it is nonsense, then you as a scientist should be able to easily disprove it. After all, fncceo is just a LEO. His point is valid:
If there were no scientists in Africa in the 18th century (let's just go with that)
No thermometers in Africa in the 18th century
No ice cores in Africa in the 18th century,
then all conclusions about what went on there temperature-wise must be either anecdotal passed down from the historical record, or extrapolated from data taken from polar ice cores with assumptions made about Africa, or extrapolated indirectly from African rocks, trees, plant or animal remains, etc.

The more indirect the method, usually the greater the value of uncertainty.

 

[Wuwei]

No time stamp? That's a lie. They recorded the time on a chart - every minute for 32 minutes.

And the tedium of correcting you continues...you know full well that i asked for a time stamp where they discussed, or measured the humidity in the bottles...they didn't ..so you can't provide a time stamp at the time the measurement or discussion occurred...it is all lies all the time with you....so f'ing tedious.

That's a lie. I never suggested the humidity was measured or discussed. I said that equilibrium was obvious when neither temperature changed after about 15 minutes.


post 252

Science is falsifiable

Equilibrium in the relative humidity was demonstrated for both bottles.

So again...got a time stamp where that was demonstrated?

I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to with "time stamp". I simply don't know how you think. I already told you equilibrium was reached and roughly where it was reached.

You took my quote out of context. Here it is in full:

Equilibrium in the relative humidity was demonstrated for both bottles. Notice both temperatures become flat after the mid point of the experiment. If humidity equilibrium was not reached, what do you think would happen to the temperature plots beyond a half hour? See the 2:00 mark in the video I provided.

Here is another quote that explains why equilibrium was reached. Do you not understand what equilibrium means? It means a final value for all the gas variables, including humidity. You keep chasing unicorns. If you think the humidity is not settled you will have to say why.

I never suggested the humidity was measured or discussed. I said that equilibrium was obvious when neither temperature changed after about 15 minutes.

You keep going in circles. No wonder you are whining about tedium. Just try to comprehend my replies and you won't suffer tedium.


.

 

[Crick]

The world's average temperature has been getting hotter unnaturally since the industrial revolution.

How was the global average temperature measured in the 18th Century?

Ever heard of ice cores?

Determining the temperature in Africa, or any other area largely unknown to 18th Century science, from ice cores taken from the poles is done by extrapolation, not measurement.

I asked how it is measured.

Sorry, you post nothing but nonsense in every thread you're in. See ya.

Nonsense? If it is nonsense, then you as a scientist should be able to easily disprove it. After all, fncceo is just a LEO. His point is valid:
If there were no scientists in Africa in the 18th century (let's just go with that)
No thermometers in Africa in the 18th century
No ice cores in Africa in the 18th century,
then all conclusions about what went on there temperature-wise must be either anecdotal passed down from the historical record, or extrapolated from data taken from polar ice cores with assumptions made about Africa, or extrapolated indirectly from African rocks, trees, plant or animal remains, etc.

The more indirect the method, usually the greater the value of uncertainty.

Almost all of Africa were European colonies at the time. There were scientists there, there were thermometers there, accurate records were being taken.

 

[toobfreak]

How was the global average temperature measured in the 18th Century?

Ever heard of ice cores?

Determining the temperature in Africa, or any other area largely unknown to 18th Century science, from ice cores taken from the poles is done by extrapolation, not measurement.

I asked how it is measured.

Sorry, you post nothing but nonsense in every thread you're in. See ya.

Nonsense? If it is nonsense, then you as a scientist should be able to easily disprove it. After all, fncceo is just a LEO. His point is valid:
If there were no scientists in Africa in the 18th century (let's just go with that)
No thermometers in Africa in the 18th century
No ice cores in Africa in the 18th century,
then all conclusions about what went on there temperature-wise must be either anecdotal passed down from the historical record, or extrapolated from data taken from polar ice cores with assumptions made about Africa, or extrapolated indirectly from African rocks, trees, plant or animal remains, etc.

The more indirect the method, usually the greater the value of uncertainty.

Almost all of Africa were European colonies at the time. There were scientists there, there were thermometers there, accurate records were being taken.

I began this merely as a hypothetical, but actually, quoting directly from an article I just looked up on the exploration and colonization of Africa:

"Overall, European exploration of Africa in the 17th and 18th centuries was very limited. Instead they were focused on the slave trade, which only required coastal bases and items to trade. The real exploration of the African interior would start well into the 19th century."

Seems their interest was mainly twofold in the 1700s (18th century):

• Africa was something to sail around to get to the Spice Islands of the East Indies.
• They set up colonies at the Cape and west coast mainly to trade for slaves.

If scientists were there with thermometers, I'm not sure why just to get slaves. That sounds like something more to occur well into the 1800s (exploration and settlement of the interior). Either way, you are welcome to link us to some climate data taken directly in Africa in the 1700s, though I'm not sure why they'd bother.

 

[fncceo]

I'm going out on a limb here and speculating that their temperature measurements were a little less than comprehensive.

 

[fncceo]

An 18th Century scientist measuring the temperature of Africa may have recorded abnormally hot conditions ...

 

[Crick]

And do you think this clever cartoon or your archaic map refute AGW?

 

[fncceo]

And do you think this clever cartoon or your archaic map refute AGW?

No more than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company.

It does however suggest that belief in the existence of comprehensive temperature measurements of unexplored areas of the earth from the 18th Century might be a wee-bit optimistic.

 

[SSDD]

I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to with "time stamp". I simply don't know how you think. I already told you equilibrium was reached and roughly where it was reached.

You really aren't very bright are you? When talking about video...asking for a time stamp is asking for a particular point in the video when a particular thing happened...I asked for a time stamp when the humidity in the bottles was discussed and or measured...

You took my quote out of context. Here it is in full:

I provided the entire sentence from capital E to the period..the sentence was in context....unlike you, who have been known to take just a few words from a sentence and provide them as a quote.

Here is another quote that explains why equilibrium was reached. Do you not understand what equilibrium means? It means a final value for all the gas variables, including humidity. You keep chasing unicorns. If you think the humidity is not settled you will have to say why.

The fact is that you have no idea...just more bullshit made up fake facts in an attempt to make your argument seem rational... it isn't working.

The simple fact is that you were fooled...once again...

 

[Crick]

And do you think this clever cartoon or your archaic map refute AGW?

No more than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company.

It does however suggest that belief in the existence of comprehensive temperature measurements of unexplored areas of the earth from the 18th Century might be a wee-bit optimistic.

1) AGW is not dependent on 18th century temperatures.
2) Limited instrumental temperature data may be augmented with proxy data which can be calibrated against thermometer readings
3) I've been wondering if you're still laughing about Hurricane Idai in Mozambique?

 

[fncceo]

I've been wondering if you're still laughing about Hurricane Idai in Mozambique?

Moved on ... there is a lot of good news this weekend.

 

[Wuwei]

You really aren't very bright are you? When talking about video...asking for a time stamp is asking for a particular point in the video when a particular thing happened...I asked for a time stamp when the humidity in the bottles was discussed and or measured...

You saw the video. There was no strawman "time stamp". I told you why the humidity was in equilibrium. If you don't understand it, I really can't help you. We already know that you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics, nor much of anything else in physics for that matter.

I provided the entire sentence from capital E to the period..the sentence was in context.

Nope. The context was in the paragraph. Try for more comprehension in reading science. You have very little.

The fact is that you have no idea...just more bullshit made up fake facts in an attempt to make your argument seem rational... it isn't working.

The simple fact is that you were fooled...once again...

Nope. You don't understand equilibrium in physics, and don't know it when you see it demonstrated. Your ignorance is tedious.


.

 

[gfm7175]

First, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. Second: do you understand the concept of falsification?

Correct, and yes I do.

If I put forth a hypothesis in the natural sciences, I can only gather evidence that does or does not support my hypothesis. Without the possibility of proof, I cannot prove it is true. However, I CAN logically prove it false.

By "hypothesis", you mean 'theory', since you are speaking of an explanatory argument here... A theory is an explanatory argument.

For example, suppose I hypothesize that all swans are white. I can count white swans all day and the more white swans I find, the more likely is my hypothesis to be correct.

No, the more white swans you find does NOT in any way make your "hypothesis" (you actually mean 'theory') any more correct, or any more likely to be correct. All that means is that your theory hasn't been falsified as of yet. You would be reasonable to accept the "all swans are white" theory as correct until you or someone else falsifies it.

But if I come across a single black swan, my hypothesis is done for because I said "ALL swans are white".

You mean 'theory', not 'hypothesis', but yes you are correct here. The sighting of the black swan completely falsifies your theory. It is no longer a theory of science.

Of course, I might just coincidentally count a very large number of white swans and never run into a black one and this might be enough evidence that I and my co-researchers become convinced that the hypothesis is correct.

Nope, not how science works. It's not about "enough evidence" to "become convinced"... That is how RELIGION works, NOT science... Your coincidentally counting a very large number of white swans (never running into a black one) only means that your theory of science is withstanding null hypothesis testing. It is continuing to remain a theory of science.

In pseudoscience, however, you will frequently see hypotheses that are simply not falsifiable. Anything that makes use of the supernatural: claims that a certain god exists or that any god exists or claims that some event was caused by a supernatural entity is not testable because the supernatural by definition, cannot be tested by scientific methods. Hypotheses such as the existence of the Loch Ness monster, the Abominable Snow Man, Bigfoot, alien visitors cannot be falsified and so are not valid hypotheses.

You mean 'theory', but yes, god(s), Loch Ness, Bigfoot, etc. are all religions. They are not falsifiable, thus they are not within the realm of science.

There has long been an argument that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was not falsifiable. My list was simply a dozen ways in which it COULD be falsified. They are the foundations of the theory. Take any of them away and the theory collapses.

It is not even a defined term... So far, it has only been circularly defined... That type of definition is meaningless...

And, of course, every one of them HAS been thoroughly tested.

Many of those things actually show the complete denial of science and mathematics by the AGW crowd...

CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in several discrete bands. That is all that is required to determine that it is a greenhouse gas.

Absorbing IR is not trapping heat, air, nor thermal energy.

However, further testing has definitively shown that it produces increased warming from exposure to infrared radiation, another demonstration of its satisfaction of the definition of a greenhouse gas. Look up the absorption spectrum of CO2.

CO2 cannot warm the Earth. Heat cannot flow backwards, Crick... See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...

Several organizations have been collecting CO2 level data since the 1950s. They all show levels steadily increasing. Look up the Keeling Curve.

Sure, data is being collected. I don't deny that. I am simply telling you that the data being collected is NOT 'global CO2 content' data... It is measured at specific locations, and those locations are subject to location and time biases, which are not properly accounted for. Mauna Loa has been known to cook their data, so they aren't even putting out raw data. Statistical Mathematics axioms are not being followed, rendering the data (on a global level) useless.

Isotopic analysis of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has repeatedly shown that 131 ppm of the current 411 ppm originates with the combustion of fossil fuels.

Made up numbers... It is not possible to measure global CO2 content. We don't have enough stations (nor are they uniformly spaced and simultaneously read) to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis.

Additionally, calculations based on accurate estimates of the amount of fossil fuel burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution closely match the results of isotopic analysis.

We have never used fossils for fuel. They do not burn very well. Also, more made up numbers... See above.

Virtually every molecule of CO2 above the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm came from the combustion of fossil fuels and is thus of human origin.

Again, more made up numbers. See above.

You're new to these arguments, aren't you.

No, I'm not. I've heard them before. This is nothing new for me.

You misunderstand. I am listing methods by which the theory of AGW could be falsified. The theory is falsifiable. It is valid in that regard. That is has not BEEN falsified by anyone so far is another strong piece of evidence that it is correct

Global Warming (Climate Change) isn't even adequately defined, Crick... Circular definitions do not work. They are meaningless.

I've shown elsewhere precisely how AGW denies both science and mathematics (in addition to denying logic).

 

[toobfreak]

You mean 'theory', but yes, god(s), Loch Ness, Bigfoot, etc. are all religions. They are not falsifiable, thus they are not within the realm of science.

Therefore atheism, agnosticism, the "scientific" theory promulgated by the likes of Hawking, Sagan, et al., is a religion too, because the theory that the universe created itself on its own without the need for some supreme consciousness or directing force are not falsifiable either.