Climate Change means no more flying for you after 2050

denverpilot said:
That was his point. The Scientific Method requires the theorem be tested and proven. Else, it is only partially completed science.

All sorts of people on TV claiming this science is "settled". It's not, and never can be. Just like economics, which you call "soft" science.
Click to expand...
I don't care what "all sorts of people on TV" are claiming. A theory can be proven but that doesn't mean it can't be revised. I don't keep up on particle physics, but it seems to me that more particles have been discovered in recent years, so the old theory had to be modified. In the case of the climate studies, a large preponderance of the results lean in one direction. Does that mean that that the findings are 100% certain? No.
 
denverpilot said:
And I never claimed their motivations weren't altruistic either, but I claimed that most of them will go where the jobs and the money are.

Just wanting to know how the world works, doesn't negate that economic fact of life.
Click to expand...
If scientists were that interested in lucrative jobs, they would go into industry instead of research.
 
Everskyward said:
If scientists were that interested in lucrative jobs, they would go into industry instead of research.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. Many want to "be" scientists. They don't care necessarily what they study as scientists, but want to say they are one. They'll happily stay broke to be a "scientist" but within science they'll go after the money.

The indoctrination is also very strong in academia.

"Hey, you're the new scientist, and going to figure out all of the secrets of the world that nobody else is smart enough yet to figure out. Welcome. We have ten studies going and we'll assign you to one to be the coffee boy for the professor. Let's see here, we have nine global warming studies currently ongoing and one tree frog study. Which would you like? By the way, it looks like the tree frog study may lose funding next week... wink wink... perhaps you've heard of the Great Professor Dr. Suess over here? He's published 100 papers on climate change and gets invited to all the best cocktail parties. You might get to work for him."

The path of least resistance is a huge factor.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't care what "all sorts of people on TV" are claiming. A theory can be proven but that doesn't mean it can't be revised. I don't keep up on particle physics, but it seems to me that more particles have been discovered in recent years, so the old theory had to be modified. In the case of the climate studies, a large preponderance of the results lean in one direction. Does that mean that that the findings are 100% certain? No.
Click to expand...

By the definition of science the "revision" isn't a revision, it's a new theory after the first was disproven.

And you still haven't explained why we should believe any of the modern predictions over the ones that were flat wrong 30 years ago.

But I've adequately explained how people end up believing the garbage. Articles like the original one I posted.

Consensus without testing isn't settled science. It's just a well formed opinion. Why act like it is? Because people want tested and proven answers and think these theories were proven.

Consensus in science without proof has been consistently proven a very poor indicator of accuracy. Just like your example, one person found a new particle and hundreds of thousands of scientists had to change their consensus.

It was only 100 years ago that "science" thought the Gulf Stream would make the North Pole look like a nice sauna bath. Science claiming to be able to figure out climate on a global scale in the time since Orville and Wilbur flew the first airplane is at best laughable, and at worst ludicrous.

And yet we have people threatening others with jail time over the theories. Hmmm. Sounds like a cult, to me.
 
azblackbird said:
Here's an easy one for you. We all know water boils/freezes at a certain temp conducive to what the altitude/atmospheric pressures are... right? According to the climate change theorists, CO2 leads temperature... right? I need you to show me the formula/chart/data that given a certain saturation point (ppm) of CO2 at a static altitude/atmospheric pressure, what will the atmospheric temperature be? This should be an easy one for you. ;)

If you could show me something similar to this, I'd be much appreciative.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are trying to show with that chart Bear with me a few minutes.

You started with a correct premise some posts ago...water vapor is the "primary" greenhouse gas that traps most of the radiation (about 60% of the warming radiation). Water exists as 3 states on earth- solid as ice or snow, liquid as water, and gas as vapor. The vapor traps the radiation, and is in equilibrium with the solid and liquid. So at a given temperature, there is a certain percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere. So at a given average temperature, there is a certain amount of water vapor and a certain amount of radiation trapped. Clouds reflect radiation from space, but also more effectively trap it from below. Snow and ice also reflect radiation too. So you want a chart like this one: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/maximum-moisture-content-air-d_1403.html
Or maybe this:
WaterinAir.gif


An increase in carbon dioxide does lead to warming, which leads to an increase in carrying capacity of water vapor. A new equilibrium establishes itself with a higher concentration of water vapor, trapping more heat due to the increased water.
 
denverpilot said:
Consensus without testing isn't settled science. It's just a well formed opinion. Why act like it is? Because people want tested and proven answers and think these theories were proven.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with a well-formed opinion? Everything we make decisions about, either individually or collectively, is based on opinion, well-formed or not.
 
denverpilot said:
Not necessarily true. Many want to "be" scientists. They don't care necessarily what they study as scientists, but want to say they are one. They'll happily stay broke to be a "scientist" but within science they'll go after the money.

The indoctrination is also very strong in academia.

"Hey, you're the new scientist, and going to figure out all of the secrets of the world that nobody else is smart enough yet to figure out. Welcome. We have ten studies going and we'll assign you to one to be the coffee boy for the professor. Let's see here, we have nine global warming studies currently ongoing and one tree frog study. Which would you like? By the way, it looks like the tree frog study may lose funding next week... wink wink... perhaps you've heard of the Great Professor Dr. Suess over here? He's published 100 papers on climate change and gets invited to all the best cocktail parties. You might get to work for him."

The path of least resistance is a huge factor.
Click to expand...
It doesn't work that way. I don't know why you keep repeating it. Repetition isn't going to change anything.
 
Everskyward said:
What is wrong with a well-formed opinion? Everything we make decisions about, either individually or collectively, is based on opinion, well-formed or not.
Click to expand...

Nothing until you have attorney generals threatening to jail people for it. Then it's become a cult.
 
PaulS said:
Jack, go back through this thread, there is at least one GW guy here telling us that it is "incontrovertible". It is a major theme in the press and with most who argue we must do something to stop it. The "deniers" have said nothing of the sort. It is actually refreshing to see a GW believer, you, state the obvious, most refuse, they are too vested in being right to understand they may be very wrong.
Click to expand...
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/333908-the-science-is-settled-until-its-not

How many times have we heard that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees?
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
It doesn't work that way. I don't know why you keep repeating it. Repitition isn't going to change anything.
Click to expand...

Describe it then. A scientist above mentioned he's been at it for decades and now only barely has access to funding. So who pays the bills on the way to the funding level, and there's no politics involved in who's butt you kiss to stay paid until you can get your own? No decisions about what to study are based upon paycheck, or impressing the boss, ever? Scientists can just apply for jobs that don't exist because there's no funds to pay for their work or the lab or anything? Do tell.
 
denverpilot said:
Describe it then. A scientist above mentioned he's been at it for decades and now only barely has access to funding. So who pays the bills on the way to the funding level, and there's no politics involved in who's butt you kiss to stay paid until you can get your own? No decisions about what to study are based upon paycheck, or impressing the boss, ever? Scientists can just apply for jobs that don't exist because there's no funds to pay for their work or the lab or anything? Do tell.
Click to expand...
It would be helpful if you just gave a thread number for that scientist, I'm not asking you to quote it. But if someone hypothesized a theory that a certain gene was involved in cancer and it could be cured by manipulating that gene, they could apply for a grant from the NCI. He would need to present his past work to support their hypothesis. They do the work and find the hypothesis was incorrect, but showed there is a protein folding error, the NCI wouldn't shut him/her down because the hypothesis was wrong and they couldn't cure that cancer.
 
denverpilot said:
That was his point. The Scientific Method requires the theorem be tested and proven. Else, it is only partially completed science.

All sorts of people on TV claiming this science is "settled". It's not, and never can be. Just like economics, which you call "soft" science.
Click to expand...
I watch Fox News. It is on TV. No one there claims the science is settled.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
An increase in carbon dioxide does lead to warming, which leads to an increase in carrying capacity of water vapor. A new equilibrium establishes itself with a higher concentration of water vapor, trapping more heat due to the increased water.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, there should be a plethora of YouTube videos showing controlled lab experiments using the latest and greatest equipment; to replicate the sun and earth's atmosphere, and to prove once and for all that CO2 is the primary driver in man made climate change.

Could you do me a big favor and please point me to those videos? :dunno:
 
The environmentalist's dream is an egalitarian society based on: rejection of economic growth, a smaller population, eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.

Aaron Wildacsky
Professor UC Berkeley

It seems it has boiled down to those who believe science is impervious to outside influences and those who believe otherwise. Ignoring that the politics surrounding GW has any influence whatsoever is ignoring reality.
 
“Thus, two of the three pillars of the global warming and carbon dioxide paradigm are open to reinvestigation.The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. Yes, there always will be a few deniers and obstructionists.” [3]

Pete Chylek
  • Ph.D., Physics, University of California, Riverside (1970). [1],[2]
  • Diploma, theoretical physics, Charles University, Prague (1967). [1],[2]
  • Adjunct professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie Unicersity
 
"Scientist who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to find a way to scare the public....and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

Petr Chylek
 
azblackbird said:
If that's the case, there should be a plethora of YouTube videos showing controlled lab experiments using the latest and greatest equipment; to replicate the sun and earth's atmosphere, and to prove once and for all that CO2 is the primary driver in man made climate change.

Could you do me a big favor and please point me to those videos? :dunno:
Click to expand...
You don't seem to read very well. I said, as you did, that water vapor was the major component of the atmosphere that traps the radiation.
Much of the work was done prior to youtube.
Here's some that shows the relative adsorptions of water and CO2:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022407366900720
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786448108626963 (this may be the original paper that posited that CO2 absorbs heat, back in 1881)
Here's something you can do: https://www.picotech.com/library/experiment/global-warming

Here's some history by physicists (not climate scientists) that you may find interesting- this debate has been going on far longer than you think, but but the people involved weren't saying that people were following money or some of the other BS in this thread.
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
 
Dav8or said:
If Burt Rutan writes a paper about aeronautics, or engineering, aerodynamics, I'd read it and put a lot of weight to those words, but when Burt Rutan writes a paper about climate change, he's just another opinion and a distraction.
Click to expand...

He wrote the paper on all the flaws in temperature collection and data analysis. Any scientist/engineer/chemist/biologist worth his in salt can recognize that. It is what you are taught, the scientific method of analysis
When a recording unit has been in a field for 30 years and now sits behind an air conditioning unit in the middle of town.. Hmmm, don't have to be a climatologist to see the flaw in that.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
I said, as you did, that water vapor was the major component of the atmosphere that traps the radiation.
Click to expand...
So why are you guys always trying to make CO2 the bad guy? Be thankful the ppm is as high as it is, as many regions of the world have continued to enjoy bumper crop harvests during the last few decades. Mother Nature has a master plan for all of us. Why try to fight her? You'll never win! ;)
 
I guess climate change has nothing to do with politics or money. Lol

President Barack Obama proposed shifting more than $400 million from space programs to climate change research – an area of study whose budget has already increased by 63 percent over the last eight years, the congressman said.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I'm not sure what you are trying to show with that chart Bear with me a few minutes.

You started with a correct premise some posts ago...water vapor is the "primary" greenhouse gas that traps most of the radiation (about 60% of the warming radiation). Water exists as 3 states on earth- solid as ice or snow, liquid as water, and gas as vapor. The vapor traps the radiation, and is in equilibrium with the solid and liquid. So at a given temperature, there is a certain percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere. So at a given average temperature, there is a certain amount of water vapor and a certain amount of radiation trapped. Clouds reflect radiation from space, but also more effectively trap it from below. Snow and ice also reflect radiation too. So you want a chart like this one: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/maximum-moisture-content-air-d_1403.html
Or maybe this:
WaterinAir.gif


An increase in carbon dioxide does lead to warming, which leads to an increase in carrying capacity of water vapor. A new equilibrium establishes itself with a higher concentration of water vapor, trapping more heat due to the increased water.
Click to expand...
I think it's much more complicated than that. The atmosphere is a swirling mass with varying pressure zones and varying humidity. There must also be some natural cooling effect continually happening.
 
If Al Gore hadn't made "An Inconvenient Truth", my old HS girlfriend wouldn't have won an Oscar.


Interesting title block, (2:48 mark) "Within the decade, there will be no more glaciers in Glacier National Park".

That was over 10 years ago. I haven't been to GNP for a pirep.
 
Everskyward said:
They are suing a company (Exxon), that is countersuing. And, according to this, which is about as unbiased an account as I can find, they (the AGs) are not having much success.

https://www.law360.com/articles/907613/exxon-s-texas-suit-over-ags-climate-probes-sent-to-ny
Click to expand...

So there's no people in companies, and no harm will come to anyone working there from a successful lawsuit? (Which was their intent, even if they're not having much luck at it.)

And is there any harm caused the people of a company by simply bringing the lawsuit in forcing the people who work at a company work with less resources that had to instead be spent on lawyers?

The threat of a lawsuit is enough to get 80% to settle out of court, they're so expensive these days. You get as much justice in America as you can afford. Lawyers don't work for free either.

And which majority constituency told the AGs to pursue a losing lawsuit? Or was it just a radical political cult's idea to go waste public money and time on it? Why would all those altruistic politicians serving "everyone" convince a group of thugs with law credentials to bring such a suit?

Surely there is something else more important for Attorney Generals to be spending their time on that benefits everyone?

Point is: Trying to pretend it's about "discovery" and "science" becomes a smokescreen after it's turned into a fiscal weapon. Maybe it once was, but it's way beyond that now.

And now the poor scientists and friends feel "picked on" after cozying up to populists with agendas like that? Maybe they should be doing the picking about how their incomplete studies are being used? Loudly?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I watch Fox News. It is on TV. No one there claims the science is settled.
Click to expand...

Wrong channel. Or so I hear. They apparently say it over on MSNBC but I don't watch either one of those drivel-filled channels. Not enough hours in the day to listen to the BS from either cult.
 
denverpilot said:
So there's no people in companies, and no harm will come to anyone working there from a successful lawsuit? (Which was their intent, even if they're not having much luck at it.)

And is there any harm caused the people of a company by simply bringing the lawsuit in forcing the people who work at a company work with less resources that had to instead be spent on lawyers?

The threat of a lawsuit is enough to get 80% to settle out of court, they're so expensive these days. You get as much justice in America as you can afford. Lawyers don't work for free either.

And which majority constituency told the AGs to pursue a losing lawsuit? Or was it just a radical political cult's idea to go waste public money and time on it? Why would all those altruistic politicians serving "everyone" convince a group of thugs with law credentials to bring such a suit?

Surely there is something else more important for Attorney Generals to be spending their time on that benefits everyone?

Point is: Trying to pretend it's about "discovery" and "science" becomes a smokescreen after it's turned into a fiscal weapon. Maybe it once was, but it's way beyond that now.

And now the poor scientists and friends feel "picked on" after cozying up to populists with agendas like that? Maybe they should be doing the picking about how their incomplete studies are being used? Loudly?
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that either side (the AGs or Exxon) is "right". Nor do I care that much.
 
Or just retarded articles are being written like the one that started the thread.
 
GlennAB1 said:
I think it's much more complicated than that. The atmosphere is a swirling mass with varying pressure zones and varying humidity. There must also be some natural cooling effect continually happening.
Click to expand...
It is more complex than that. But please take the comments in the context they were intended. Of course there is a natural cooling effect, radiative transfer into space, and as I posted much earlier, scientists in the 1800's had a pretty good climate model that explained the location of deserts, the trade winds, and the doldrums between them. What you quoted was a starting point to build upon.

I'm pretty much done with this thread. We have people who aren't in the field telling me how science works. It would be like me telling you how to properly maintain an aircraft, my having no credentials as a mechanic.

One person claimed there was more water vapor (25%) in the atmosphere than oxygen.

I'm tired of people making up "facts" as they go along

Then we also have this guy with these historical contradictions...
denverpilot said:
Of course many people of science believe today that Galileo was tortured by the church for his heresy... and that's not true either. More like pampered...

"Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the source of controversy, previously had been read and approved by the Church's censors; and Pope Urban VIII, who presided over the trial, was Galileo's friend and admirer. Consider also: prior to the trial, Galileo stayed in the Tuscan embassy; during the trial, he was put up in a six-room apartment, complete with servant; following the trial, his "house arrest" consisted of being entertained at the palaces of the grand duke of Tuscany and the Archbishop of Siena. Galileo, apparently, was no ordinary heretic."

There's a number of coddled scientists today, collecting nice paychecks too, as long as their study is passed through the slightly more unofficial censorship of popularity. Nothing new under the Sun, even if it isn't the center of the Universe anymore. ;)
Click to expand...


denverpilot said:
I've already given examples from history where all the major scientific minds believed the world was flat.
Click to expand...
I don't think there was any time scientists felt the world was flat. If you knew about the Galileo house arrest (and you have that correct, he mainly PO'd the Pope, who previously supported him, with that Simplicio character), then you also know that Eratosthenes of Cyrene knew the world was round and did a pretty good job of calculating it's circumference around 240 years before the birth of Christ. Sailors knew the world was round because they could see the hull, followed by the masts and sails, disappear from view as they opened the distance from the another ship.
 
denverpilot said:
Or just retarded articles are being written like the one that started the thread.
Click to expand...
Anyone can write an article. Do you realize that was from a site called "Jalopnik", not something a lot of people read, I'm guessing.
 
Yeah, it's all from some obscure article that no one reads. There's no money to be made, no political ambitions involved, no freedoms that will be sacrificed, just pure science.
 
Everskyward said:
Anyone can write an article. Do you realize that was from a site called "Jalopnik", not something a lot of people read, I'm guessing.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media

Jalopnik is quite popular. Probably not as popular as the other Gawker subdivisions, but under Univision management they also heavily cross-pollinates stories between their subdivisions, making them quite visible via media syndication and targeted content.

All it took for me to see it was to have an interest in cars and airplanes to see it. Someone got paid to push that crap content into one of my media sources.

Of course normally I'd just scroll on by it, but the clickbait headline had me curious. That's just how online media works these days.
 
denverpilot said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gawker_Media

Jalopnik is quite popular. Probably not as popular as the other Gawker subdivisions, but under Univision management they also heavily cross-pollinates stories between their subdivisions, making them quite visible via media syndication and targeted content.

All it took for me to see it was to have an interest in cars and airplanes to see it. Someone got paid to push that crap content into one of my media sources.

Of course normally I'd just scroll on by it, but the clickbait headline had me curious. That's just how online media works these days.
Click to expand...
That's all it was, clickbait, just like the tabloid newspapers in the grocery store line, and most likely with less exposure. Some gullible people believe anything, and they always have.
 
Everskyward said:
That's all it was, clickbait, just like the tabloid newspapers in the grocery store line, and most likely with less exposure. Some gullible people believe anything, and they always have.
Click to expand...
Is it all just clickbait? Is it your view that all the dire warnings are nothing more than attempts to generate counters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top