|
|
Post by calasmith on May 26, 2009 16:29:16 GMT
While I am very much the AGW skeptic, I appreciate the willingness of the true believers amongst us to debate the issues. I don't think it is beneficial to stifle debate as Gore, Hanson, et al do with their "the science is settled" nonsense. Thomas Fuller recently interviewed Steven Schnieder on his blog, www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m5d24-The-global-warming-debates-Stephen-Schneider. Schnieder made an incredible statement that skeptics are afraid to debate the leading climate scientists. Roger Pielke Sr., while denying that he is a skeptic, immediately proposed a debate. climatesci.org/2009/05/25/debate-question-for-professor-steve-schneider-and-colleagues/I think all who are interested in the subject should utilize every venue possible to promote in depth, scholarly, and widely viewed debates. Who wouldn't love to witness a McIntyre/Mann debate or a Monken/Gore or a Watt/Hansen I would like to hear others suggestions on how to accomplish this goal. I am now heading over to facebook. |
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on May 27, 2009 0:26:00 GMT
Scientific debates take place in scientific journals. Scientists publish their findings and evidence. Other scientists try to pick them apart or replicate the findings using alternative methods. As for AGW, the science is settled. If both quantum mechanics and the conservation of energy are true, then if you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet will warm. What isn't settled is how fast the planet will warm and what the specific impacts will be. However, most of the evidence now indicates climate change will occur faster than expected and the impacts will be very hard on the unprepared. So all you deniers out there, if you can demonstrate that either quantum mechanics or the conservation of energy is wrong, write it up, get it in a science journal, and get your tux ready for the Nobel Prize presentation  |
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 27, 2009 4:00:56 GMT
ken: " If both quantum mechanics and the conservation of energy are true, then if you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet will warm."
What effect would doubling the primary GHG water vapor have ken? Would that cause the great deserts to be as hot as the equatorial rainforests?
|
|
|
|
Post by calasmith on May 27, 2009 4:12:36 GMT
Wow! It must be nice to know all there is to know about anything let alone things as complex as the solar system and the earth's climate.
I didn't realize that quantum mechanics and the conservation of energy were the Rosetta Stone of Climatology. Just accept that they are true and one can be as enlightened as Mr Feldman
|
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on May 27, 2009 5:14:52 GMT
ken: " If both quantum mechanics and the conservation of energy are true, then if you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet will warm." What effect would doubling the primary GHG water vapor have ken? Would that cause the great deserts to be as hot as the equatorial rainforests? It would have the effect of "rain", which would lower the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Doubling the amount of CO2 doesn't do that. CO2 just stays in the atmosphere until it gets turned into seashells or trees ... |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 27, 2009 6:15:10 GMT
Scientific debates take place in scientific journals. Scientists publish their findings and evidence. Other scientists try to pick them apart or replicate the findings using alternative methods. As for AGW, the science is settled. If both quantum mechanics and the conservation of energy are true, then if you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet will warm. What isn't settled is how fast the planet will warm and what the specific impacts will be. However, most of the evidence now indicates climate change will occur faster than expected and the impacts will be very hard on the unprepared. So all you deniers out there, if you can demonstrate that either quantum mechanics or the conservation of energy is wrong, write it up, get it in a science journal, and get your tux ready for the Nobel Prize presentation When will you AGW zealots out there wrap your heads around the fact that for the most part the universe conspires to prevent energy imbalances. If CO2 raised the level at which it radiated energy and increased temperatures at lower levels...the rate of evaporation in the oceans would go up exponentially, partly offsetting the affects of CO2 (because the energy of vaporization doesn't raise the temperature of the water) and then drag all that energy up to whatever level would be necessary to dissipate the heat....and would emit it mostly outside of CO2's spectrum. Given the FACT that rates of temperature increase are undershooting even the lowest IPCC estimates by quite a bit and given the likelihood that half of the observed rate was natural anyway...it would seem that climate sensitivity is pretty darned low. When the heck will AGW zealots come to terms with this? I grow tired of the idiotic "global warming is accelerating" rhetoric. |
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 27, 2009 6:20:31 GMT
Thanks Furry: "It would have the effect of "rain", which would lower the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere."
So, if "rain" lowers the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (as you claim) then wouldn't the increased water vapor that would result from the addition of CO2 lead to "rain", which would lower the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? I don't know if mr. ken will agree with that. I will await his reply. He is smart.
|
|
|
|
Post by calasmith on May 27, 2009 14:36:52 GMT
I once read an explanation of quantum mechanics as the mathmatical process by which multiple mutually incompatible interpretations become possible.
Maybe the climate debate its self is proof of the truth of quantum mechanics
|
|
|
|
Post by w7psk on May 27, 2009 16:39:31 GMT
I just want to know Oh Knowledgeable one since AGW Is set in stone as you say
Why has the Earth been warmer by a few degrees as we are now hundreds of times without Human intervention.
Why has it been colder and the ice ages develop (many Many).
Why did the little Ice age come to be.
and my biggest question.
Why did Al Gore start his Carbon Trading company before he released his movie. And who stands to benefit if the People are taxed beyond belief to pay for this. And why does Al Gore not follow his own principles by having the biggest mansion ever, that's fully lit 24/7, has like 10 SUVs and 2 Private jets but says its ok cause he bought carbon credits (he didn't really buy them his company gave them to him as options).
And what 3rd world countries are going to go to hell as the big nations trade credits to keep their current status quo.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 30, 2009 17:28:10 GMT
Scientific debates take place in scientific journals. Scientists publish their findings and evidence. Other scientists try to pick them apart or replicate the findings using alternative methods. As for AGW, the science is settled. If both quantum mechanics and the conservation of energy are true, then if you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet will warm. What isn't settled is how fast the planet will warm and what the specific impacts will be. However, most of the evidence now indicates climate change will occur faster than expected and the impacts will be very hard on the unprepared. So all you deniers out there, if you can demonstrate that either quantum mechanics or the conservation of energy is wrong, write it up, get it in a science journal, and get your tux ready for the Nobel Prize presentation It is actually quite easy to get papers published that (claim to) demonstrate the various things like quantum mechanics, relativity etc are wrong. There is no funding or political downside in these areas. You try to publish a paper that is against AGW and you are into an uphill battle. Peer review that for AGW papers is almost a rubber stamp suddenly becomes very picky - if the editor even lets the paper get that far. Politics and funding trump real science every time. To the extent that if you want a paper published nowadays it almost always has to have a climate catastrophe slant in it somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on May 31, 2009 13:41:10 GMT
|
|
