What is science?

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***Additionally, I dont claim that climate change is not happening.

Really? Then you should probably find out what is causing it.

Lots of things. Anthropogenic causes are contributory But, gee, I'm really not seeing any difference in weather events since my childhood, except the US hasnt been getting clobbered with hurricanes the way it used to back in the good old days.

Quote

If you don't come to the same conclusion virtually all of the experts in the field have, then you can write a paper about it and possibly win the Nobel Prize.

Until then, you might want to look at what the vast majority of experts have to say about the subject.

I keep good track of it. As far as what is causing the climate to change, I can only offer you this:
S/4(1-a)=eoTe^4.

As far as social significance, this is the recent version of e=mc^2. We mess with a or e with human activity. Hence the reason why I think humans have some role.

I've noticed what is almost a worship of weather disasters. Hurricanes are hyped, but they have been wakening since WWII. Obviously this is horrible. It's getting so bad that weather disaster worshippers are in awe of non hurricanes. Tornado deaths are lowering. The number of tornadoes is decreasing.

This adds to a culture of distortion. My longstanding stance that global warming is real and humans have something to do with it is enigma to most people. We don't have everything to do with it. We can't stop it. If we completely stopped all fossil fuels it would continue unabated for centuries.

And the unabated advancement of global temperatures will cause what it has caused: longer lives, increased crop yields, increased food, longer growing seasons with more rain and continually increased standards of human living.

"Climate change." Just call it "Global Warming" and be real. "Climate change" is way argumentative and is qualitative. Global Warming is quantitative. And the alarmists have evidence on their side.

That's not enough. Predictions of disaster are needed. Post hoc attribution is preferable to deductive reasoning and scientific method. Projections take the place of predictions.

I like reading the science and not the reports of it. I like checking out the underlying assumptions.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>global warming, warms the poles, not the equator.

Nope, it is warming both. See below for the 2014 warming.

http://publicradio1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/newscut/files/2015/01/NOAA-Global-2014-YTD.gif

I have some problems with this image. Just offhand:
(1) smoothing SST and land temps is ridiculous. One need merely look at the gulf stream and the northeast of North America. They are both subject to different forces. DO land. Do sea. Anyone from Cali can talk about how the ocean moderates the temperature on the coast.

(2) The image shows evidence contrary to the predictions of AGW theory. AGW gases have the greatest effects in the driest air. The effects predominate in winter over summer. And at night over day. The PREDICTED signal is disproportionate warming of dry air, as was predicted and actually happened in Siberia. IN the summer it was predicted to predominate in the driest places. Like the Sahara, which was seen.

(3) This is weather. The focus on short-term issues when discussing science is still a head scratcher. Both sides do it. But it is inductive reasoning by its nature.

The evidence is all over the place.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jclalor 12]

Only a lawyer could pose the exact same question 17 different ways.

[billvon 2,991]

>and it's the difference in temps that causes gradients which drives those crazy
>weather events

Agreed. A system in equilibrium will tend to have less extreme weather. A system that is changing rapidly will tend to have more extreme weather, since not all those changes will proceed at the same rate.

[billvon 2,991]

>The image shows evidence contrary to the predictions of AGW theory. AGW gases have the
>greatest effects in the driest air. The effects predominate in winter over summer. And at night
>over day. The PREDICTED signal is disproportionate warming of dry air, as was predicted and
>actually happened in Siberia.

Right - but that does not equate to "so therefore only dry places will warm up." Your furnace doesn't just heat up your air vents - nor are they the hottest parts of your room all the time.

>This is weather. The focus on short-term issues when discussing science is still a head
>scratcher.

That's averaged over a year. A ten-year or twenty-year averaged map would show similar patterns.

>The evidence is all over the place.

True for the evidence for AGW, and the evidence that vaccines are effective, and the evidence for evolution, and the evidence that smoking is bad for you. It's the nature of science to generate a lot of evidence, and there will always be outliers. ("My uncle smoked two packs a day and lived to 100!") Fortunately we have tools that let us see the underlying statistical patterns.

[jakee 1,489]

brenthutch

Lighten up, it is called the Socratic method.

Careful now, you know Socrates was executed for being really, really annoying, right?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

.
that does not equate to "so therefore only dry places will warm up." Your furnace doesn't just heat up your air vents - nor are they the hottest parts of your room all the time.

But that is inconsistent with the theory. You are correct - everyplace will warm up. But the poles were predicted to warm more because that is where you find the signal - where the water vapor isn't.

If you are seeing something else then you are dealing with an "observations don't match the predictions." For a time the observations did meet the predictions. But things are differing.

I just don't know why you're posting something that shows observations that are a significant departure from the theory. You're right. The furnace heats the whole place. But you'd still expect the furnace to be hotter than the other locationS.

Quote

>This is weather. The focus on short-term issues when discussing science is still a head
>scratcher.

That's averaged over a year. A ten-year or twenty-year averaged map would show similar patterns.

That's my concern. That observations are opposite of prediction is being

Quote

>The evidence is all over the place.

True for the evidence for AGW, and the evidence that vaccines are effective, and the evidence for evolution, and the evidence that smoking is bad for you. It's the nature of science to generate a lot of evidence, and there will always be outliers. ("My uncle smoked two packs a day and lived to 100!") Fortunately we have tools that let us see the underlying statistical patterns.

I disagree. Evidence for vaccines is pretty convincing. For example the eradication of smallpox is a good sign. As is the evidence of the general absence of polio on our shores.

Evidence of harm from smoking is also convincing. We dont expect smokers to have clean lungs. And the evidence of evolution is also pretty good. There isn't another testable hypothesis to explain what we have seen.

Do we have any other explanation for the genetic drift that we see? Yes. But an untestable one, and one that shows that things were around more than 6k years ago.

Do we have another explanation for climate change besides human involvement. Why, yes we do. The same thing happened before without human involvement. If there is another rational explanation then the science is open and not settled.

Fact is that global warming happens outside of human involvement.

Fact is that human activity can and has caused changes to the climate.

Fact is that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from about 280 ppm in 1750 to about 290 ppm in 1860 to about 310ppm in 1960. And now it may ready 400 ppm this year. Basically meaning that the effects would mostly be seen after 1959 or 1960. It should be noted that measurements outside of ice cores come from Mauna Loanand started in 1958.

My conclusion is that the earth is warming and both human and natural causes are associated. How much has the climate changed? Not much. How much of that effect is nature and how much of it is anthropogenic? There's a big question.

Fact - we don't know what future climate change will be. however, if history is a guide, it won't change much. Other than fewer tornadoes and hurricanes the last few years and fewer wildfires, as well as a dramatic increase in human population and longer lifespans, I would think that the future includes more of the same.

Let's be scientific. Let us challenge the assumptions upon which the projections are based. Let us identify the uncertainties and discuss them. Let us be clear that we don't know what the CO/ is going to do to water vapor and we don't know what the water vapor will do. It may act to mitigate wArming. It may act to a accelerate. We don't know.

I'm personally stoked about the DSCOVR satellite. Besides it being at L1 (LaGrangian points get me hard) it served a purpose of potentially saving people's lives and monitoring albedo. As you know, bill, many years ago I suggested that we need to monitor the whole S part and the "a" part of the "S(1-a)" part of the climate equation.

We won't get any team idea what is going on for another 40-50 years. But it's a start.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 220]

quade

Until then, you might want to look at what the vast majority of experts have to say about the subject.

You mean the ones that receive funding by companies, entities, and groups with an agenda, the ones that manipulate the data to reach the preconceived conclusions? THOSE vast majority?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

You wanted to know what anti-science was? Turtle pretty much nails it: the presumption that all scientists are greedy frauds, and science is nothing more that a money grab.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

You wanted to know what anti-science was? Turtle pretty much nails it: the presumption that all scientists are greedy frauds, and science is nothing more that a money grab.

So you'd be willing to say that Pat Michaels and Judith Curry and Lindzen and the like are being unfairly characterized? Note that out of all climate scientists j find myself agreeing most with Michaels. The quintessential lukewarmist and thus hated by the climate science community.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 220]

DanG

You wanted to know what anti-science was? Turtle pretty much nails it: the presumption that all scientists are greedy frauds, and science is nothing more that a money grab.

I was thinking about this . . .

I think the question that Lawrocket is really asking is what is "mainstream" science.
It's an industry that can be, and is, in some circumstances, corrupted by the influences of monetary gain and sustainment.

Science - is pure - in the letter and spirit of the definition.

Anti science is possibly equatable to religion. It's not fact based, but faith based.

Ant-science could also be self induced ignorance, and denial of the physical properties of the world around us.

But, science, as we have it published today, has the possibility to be easily corrupted and is subject to interpretations. IMO it is that "interpretation" variable that discredits what the community of scientists have to combat.

It has been proven time and time again that some of the "Science" cannot be trusted.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skypuppy 1]

quade

***Paul - you have to give something that is objective and testable and measurable.

I did. Just because it doesn't fit with your view doesn't mean it's not objective (which it is) nor testable (which it also is) nor measurable (which it absolutely is).

Show me where extreme weather events of all types around the globe; hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, ice packs are neither increasing nor decreasing, etc. are lessening since the industrial revolution, and I'll begin to believe you when you say climate change isn't happening.

Until then, you're simply blathering.

to begin with, you'll have to define extreme...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

DanG

You wanted to know what anti-science was? Turtle pretty much nails it: the presumption that all scientists are greedy frauds, and science is nothing more that a money grab.

I don't think he said anywhere that 'all' scientists are greedy frauds. But it only takes a substantial number of them to make a bloc. And again, for many of us, it's not necessarily the 'facts' we disagree with - it's the severity, the, causes, which are not all known or understood, and the reactions and sacrifices that should be required...,

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[turtlespeed 220]

skypuppy

***You wanted to know what anti-science was? Turtle pretty much nails it: the presumption that all scientists are greedy frauds, and science is nothing more that a money grab.

I don't think he said anywhere that 'all' scientists are greedy frauds. But it only takes a substantial number of them to make a bloc. And again, for many of us, it's not necessarily the 'facts' we disagree with - it's the severity, the, causes, which are not all known or understood, and the reactions and sacrifices that should be required...,
I agree on most points.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

I'm actually suggesting that there is a "mainstream"'concept of science. And that the concept is wrong.

There are many things that science does. One thing it doesn't do is care. It is or it isn't. If somewhere between there are probabilities.

Think of the science of UFOs. What is it about? Right. There isn't any science because there is nothing to study. There are people who seek to link events with it and prove UFOs through the use of overwhelming evidence of their existence compared to the lack of evidence of their nonexistence.

They are in identified. Stop there. "I don't know" is an adequate answer. Problem is the public doesn't like that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 220]

lawrocket

I'm actually suggesting that there is a "mainstream"'concept of science. And that the concept is wrong.

There are many things that science does. One thing it doesn't do is care. It is or it isn't. If somewhere between there are probabilities.

Think of the science of UFOs. What is it about? Right. There isn't any science because there is nothing to study. There are people who seek to link events with it and prove UFOs through the use of overwhelming evidence of their existence compared to the lack of evidence of their nonexistence.

They are in identified. Stop there. "I don't know" is an adequate answer. Problem is the public doesn't like that.

Critical thinking in the UFO realm is almost untenable.
Critical thinking in regards to the "other" more relevant science in the "mainstream" is different. Or, maybe not.

I think we agree on this. . . but I'm not exactly sure.

Are you meaning that the public has been scared into believing that AGW is real and dangerous?

Because UFO's DO fit that bill.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

skypuppy

******Paul - you have to give something that is objective and testable and measurable.

I did. Just because it doesn't fit with your view doesn't mean it's not objective (which it is) nor testable (which it also is) nor measurable (which it absolutely is).

Show me where extreme weather events of all types around the globe; hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, ice packs are neither increasing nor decreasing, etc. are lessening since the industrial revolution, and

ActuallyI'll begin to believe you when you say climate change isn't happening.

Until then, you're simply blathering.

to begin with, you'll have to define extreme...

Actually, I'll add that "extreme" should be defined into something measurable. Because tornadoes happen in the US a thousand times per year. Hurricanes are a fact of life. Earthquakes are expected in California. Is an earthquake an extreme event? Depends on perspective.

"Extreme" is qualitative. It's why "extreme weather" is being used. Because it cannot be disproven. It can't bd proven, either. Which is why I allege that the term is rhetoric and not scientific.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm not arguing the science is not real.

I'm saying that if you go out looking for a UFOS you'll find one. If you have a mission to find extreme weather then you'll find it. Want to find S&M in Under the Blade by Twisted Sister? Then you'll find it because you'll interpret the lyrics that way.

If anyone wants to find evidence of AGW, all they have to do is think it's everywhere. D

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 220]

lawrocket

I'm not arguing the science is not real.

I'm saying that if you go out looking for a UFOS you'll find one. If you have a mission to find extreme weather then you'll find it. Want to find S&M in Under the Blade by Twisted Sister? Then you'll find it because you'll interpret the lyrics that way.

If anyone wants to find evidence of AGW, all they have to do is think it's everywhere. D

Yes. That is true.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,991]

>But that is inconsistent with the theory. You are correct - everyplace will warm
>up. But the poles were predicted to warm more because that is where you find
>the signal - where the water vapor isn't.

Uh - OK. I haven't heard that theory before, but let's go with it.

>If you are seeing something else then you are dealing with an "observations
>don't match the predictions."

OK. Sounds like your theory doesn't hold up then.

>I just don't know why you're posting something that shows observations that
>are a significant departure from the theory.

?? Uh, you do know that that plot did not show the poles, right? And the actual data may well be a departure from your theory above, but that seems more like a good reason to revisit your theory than to claim some flaw in the science behind AGW.

>You're right. The furnace heats the whole place. But you'd still expect the
>furnace to be hotter than the other locationS.

Not when it's off. Take an infrared scan of your house. Between furnace cycles you might well discover that your fridge is the warmest thing in your kitchen. It would be foolish to conclude "therefore the furnace doesn't heat my house; the refrigerator is responsible!"

>I disagree. Evidence for vaccines is pretty convincing. For example the
>eradication of smallpox is a good sign. As is the evidence of the general
>absence of polio on our shores.

Not to anti-vaxxers. They will claim that happened because of better primary medical care, more breastfeeding and the natural evolution of disease. Diseases have cycles, you see, and plenty of human diseases have died out without vaccines - so how can scientists say it was vaccines that did it? And they have dozens of studies that "prove" how ineffective and harmful vaccines are. They even have lists of doctors who don't believe in vaccines. THE SCIENCE ISN'T SETTLED! THERE'S NO CONSENSUS!

>Evidence of harm from smoking is also convincing.

Not to some people who smoke. They prefer to believe that they are not harming themselves, and can point to quite a body of research from Seitz and Singer that claim that government studies were flawed, and in fact you can get lung cancer from anything. They invariably point to an uncle who smoked two packs a day and lived to be 100, and to the fact that no autopsy has ever listed "smoking" as the cause of death.

>Do we have another explanation for climate change besides human
>involvement. Why, yes we do. The same thing happened before without
>human involvement. If there is another rational explanation then the science
>is open and not settled.

Right. And diseases have died out without vaccinations before. That means there can be another rational explanation for why people have stopped getting polio. The science isn't settled.

And people get lung cancer without smoking. Did you know asbestos can cause lung cancer? Therefore there is another rational explanation for what causes lung cancer and the science is not settled.

And evolution is just plain impossible. There's microevolution, you see, that can make you taller. Everyone agrees with that. But there's NO WAY that tiny changes to your body can make you grow wings. It's clearly impossible; the science on evolution is not settled because they have no explanation for such macroevolutionary changes.

Science denialism is on the rise in the US, and it is, in general, immune to the rational arguments you make against it. Indeed, in a recent study, anti-vaxxers become MORE strident after hearing facts about vaccination, not less strident. The same seems to be true with climate change deniers here, as several regular posters consistently demonstrate.

(To be clear, I don't consider you a science denier.)

[DanG 1]

I'm sure some people mischaracterize them unfairly, and others don't.

Being anti-science isn't disagreeing with, or disliking, a particulat scientist. It is presuming ALL scientists are lying for personal gain. We see that all the time here. Whenever there is a report cited that supports AGW (which we all know is what this thread is really about) certain posters go out of their way to explain how Big Science is corrupt and only reports pro-AGW results. That is anti-science.

Picking apart the science on its merits is not anti-science. Dismissing the science without cause simply because it is against your worldview is anti-science.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Bill:

You know that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. And you know that it is by far the most significant GG. So if you are looking for a global warming signal from CO2, you will find the greatest effect in a place that doesn't have water vapor.

That's why AGW theory predicted all along that there would be greatest warming at the poles. Or in places like Siberia. You know that. It's not my theory. It's what was openly discussed back when the actual science was still important. And warming was what they found.

By the way, I remember when I used to be a hardcore AGW denier. You and kallend actually got me to look at the underlying scienceand brought me over to a lukewarmist thing. Yes, I credit you with making want to actually know what I'm discussing

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

DanG

I'm sure some people mischaracterize them unfairly, and others don't.

Being anti-science isn't disagreeing with, or disliking, a particulat scientist. It is presuming ALL scientists are lying for personal gain. We see that all the time here. Whenever there is a report cited that supports AGW (which we all know is what this thread is really about) certain posters go out of their way to explain how Big Science is corrupt and only reports pro-AGW results. That is anti-science.

Picking apart the science on its merits is not anti-science. Dismissing the science without cause simply because it is against your worldview is anti-science.

Actually, there have not been any supporting roports (new ones anyway) in quite some time
The same stuff just gets recycled and new spins have been put on them
The new reports and ideas seem to support that man has very little to do with it. And even if this angle is rejected at least the science that is coming, that is new, had other ideas as to what may be happening.
Fact is, the projections that were made nearly 20 years ago have not come to pass
Why?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

I'm sure some people mischaracterize them unfairly, and others don't.

Being anti-science isn't disagreeing with, or disliking, a particulat scientist. It is presuming ALL scientists are lying for personal gain. We see that all the time here. Whenever there is a report cited that supports AGW (which we all know is what this thread is really about) certain posters go out of their way to explain how Big Science is corrupt and only reports pro-AGW results. That is anti-science.

Picking apart the science on its merits is not anti-science. Dismissing the science without cause simply because it is against your worldview is anti-science.

Part of the problem with AGW science is the heat that scientists brought on themselves. I've often said that the CRU hack was less of a blow to the science as it was to the scientists. The e-mails and the subsequent investigations revealed the climate science community to be a clique. It showed that the scientists involved were assholes who sought to punish those who were not toeing the line.

It was a big hit to scientist credibility. I think that it knocked scientists off of a lofty pedestal that they shouldn't have been on to begin with. They were actually viewed as people, with their own biases and foibles. The scientists were engaged in some anti-science behaviors, but some normal human behaviors.

Picking apart the non-science has become an issue. For example, why the hell did Mann tweet that the excessive warm temperatures thY didn't exist were responsible for the large depth of snow? There was something he hoped to gain.

Is Mann anti-science? I don't think he was antiscience so much as he was just plain wrong. Being wrong is something that scientists are used to. Science doesn't advance only on being right all the time

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,027]

turtlespeed

***

Until then, you might want to look at what the vast majority of experts have to say about the subject.

You mean the ones that receive funding by companies, entities, and groups with an agenda, the ones that manipulate the data to reach the preconceived conclusions? THOSE vast majority?

No, he wasn't referring to the recipients of largesse from Exxon Mobil and the coal industry. He was referring to actual experts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.