Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by MrTLegal, Jan 11, 2020.

  1. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your scientific materials have been contradicted. Your scientific materials have been produced as the result of the government take over of science as Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech. And you won't challenge those scientific materials by answering simple questions.
     
    guavaball likes this.
  2. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it cannot be proven it is not convincing especially as a reason to spend trillions of dollars negatively affecting economic growth for no significant reduction in global CO2 emissions..
     
  3. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    “The hypothesis that the current warming is caused by increasing human CO2 emissions cannot be scientifically proven.” (AFM)

    “The only way to scientifically prove that increasing CO2 emissions is causing our current warming is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere which is impossible to do.” (AFM)

    “It is impossible because the climate cannot be put into a test tube. That’s basic science and that is the scientific method.” (AFM)


    I don’t see any metaphor, you have clearly stated that one must remove something to prove addition causes something; logically, according to you, that means to prove that increased CO2 causes global warming, following your method, we must reduce emissions.

    You have reduced the options available under the scientific method: one, accept that increasing something cannot harm us, two, we must remove something. That leaves us one option, remove something; we must under your constrictions of the Scientific Method reduce CO2 emissions.

    Example 1: I could add a low restriction air filter to my motorcycle, but under your “scientific method,” I cannot prove that it is harmful; you have removed the ability to prove adding the low restriction filters can cause harm, just as you have forced us to accept increases in CO2. I am stuck with blue pipes and a badly running motorcycle. Then if I used the real scientific method, I can increase the size of the jets; a scientist knows increasing greenhouse gases causes harm, just like a mechanic knows increasing airflow without enriching the mixture causes a lean condition and harm.

    Example 2: A hot chick in a “metaphorical” test tube could increase her eating of carbon, but under your “scientific method” no harm can be proven unless we remove all her carbon; under your “scientific method, we must kill her before we can prove her eating habits are harmful.
     
  4. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right over your head. You claim that the current global warming is the result of increasing CO2 emissions resulting in increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. The only way to scientifically prove that is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere resulting in decreasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and measure the global average temperature. And then add back the CO2 to the atmosphere. If temperature goes down as CO2 is removed and temperature goes back up when CO2 is added the hypothesis that increasing CO2 is causing the current global warming is scientifically proven. This is impossible to do on the necessary global scale with today's technology so the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the current global warming cannot be proven.
     
    guavaball likes this.
  5. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I'm flabbergasted this idiocy is still going to page 46.

    The only question is can you prove not speculate prove with science and actual percentages of man producing pollution that man is the primary source of climate change?

    If you can't do it then your argument is null and void. All you have done is describe climate change without being able to prove we have the power to change it in any meaningful way.

    The OP couldn't do it. Can you fair any better?
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2020
    AFM likes this.
  6. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113

    This is getting so funny it reminds me of that crap called Chicago everyday "Squares Lattice Math," the new "new math."

    If we apply your “scientific method” to a host of applications:

    We increase CO2, have no ability to determine harm, and simply must accept the outcome.
    We increase voltage to a circuit, have no ability to determine harm, and simply must accept the outcome.
    We increase the amount of code, have no ability to determine harm, and simply must accept slow.

    And let’s not forget political science:

    The phrase “test tube” is a metaphor for the capability to control the independent variables such as Congressional Republican concentration. That is impossible to do in the national environment, therefore, AOC/TAX increases cannot be scientifically proven. You would have to show that reducing the concentration of Republicans would result in bad economy and subsequent addition would result in good economy.


    Therefore, increases in the new AOC variable cannot be proven to be bad without first removing the Republicans.
     
  7. In The Dark

    In The Dark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NASA has sold all of their credibility on this topic for a pocket full of magic socialist power grabbing beans.

    A decade of Hansen and his 'adjustments' have killed them.
     
    guavaball likes this.
  8. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    then prove the science wrong, using your own data and experimentation.
     
  9. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    we have already done experiments showing how green house gasses increase the temperature. Students in middle school confirm this in basic earth science classes.
     
  10. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You cannot prove cause and effect the cornerstone of any science and you cannot do it.

    There is no definitive evidence man is the primary source for climate change. None. There are theories abound probably by the same moron scientists that claim a gay gene exists but the reality is you cannot prove man's production is the primary source of climate change and that is a requirement for your argument.

    Without it all you are doing is describing the weather and posting theories to the cause.

    The only question is can you prove not speculate prove with science and actual percentages of man producing pollution that man is the primary source of climate change?
     
  11. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    “The only way to scientifically prove that is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere resulting in decreasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and measure the global average temperature. And then add back the CO2 to the atmosphere. If temperature goes down as CO2 is removed and temperature goes back up when CO2 is added the hypothesis that increasing CO2 is causing the current global warming is scientifically proven.” (AFM)

    One does not have to remove the sun to prove the sun can cause sunburn. Just as one does not have to remove the brain and put it back in to prove the brain is the organ responsible for speech…

    We have something that already exists; we do not have to remove its existence to prove a change to it is causing an effect.

    We do not have to remove all drugs from a person’s system to know that an increase in one can cause an effect. If say you only smoke one joint a day, and switch to an ounce of dope per day, certainly there will be a cause and effect; you don’t have to stop that one joint to know that.

    Like if we had a computer program, added lots of extra code, we can see cause and effect to the existing program without removing the program. I would suggest Ruby, start with a simple pong game, add spin to the ball such as when it hits a wall it has “English,” see what happens.
     
  12. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You would fist have to prove that human created CO2 represents the majority of CO2 in our atmosphere then prove CO2 is the direct cause of climate change.

    Neither have been proven.
     
    AFM likes this.
  13. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a ridiculous condition; nature produces the most CO2 in the atmosphere.
     
  14. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am now convinced of that, and flunking; I just can't explain this sentence out of moderation. Hopefully you understand.
     
  15. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no I don’t understand. Your post is incoherent. Can you try again?
     
  16. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, sorry, it has something to do with the majority of CO2 in my noodle. I'm getting faint. natures killing me must oo go now.
     
  17. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly my point.

    So how in hell can you prove humans are the primary source of climate change?
     
  18. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's the scientific method. You would do well to review it sometime.
     
  19. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what ?? That has nothing to do with proving that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the current global warming.
     
    guavaball likes this.
  20. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's up to those who claim that human CO2 emissions are causing the current global warming. That is their hypothesis which cannot be scientifically proven for the reasons I've stated. This is basic science.
     
    guavaball likes this.
  21. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,376
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, from the perspective we’re dealing with here nothing is special.

    Clever avoidance of the question though. :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2020
    guavaball likes this.
  22. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19,292
    Likes Received:
    7,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Remember all that Antarctic ice on the move
    BLAME PEOPLEKIND is back seat to Blame :flagcanada: for me.
    I mean those "scientist" :worship: found flowing water under the ice
    at terra firma regardless of top side ice insulation.


    The Heat Source
    Diving For Dollars Scientist :worship:
    Do Not Discuss is Geothermal.
    No Dollars In That. Probably "blacklisted" from grants.



    The change in geothermal effects is most visible
    in the Arctic & Antarctic but is evident world wide
    if someone would just stick a thermometer in some Earth's :rolleyes:.
    Blobs of Warm Water as off the California coast.
    Australian Reef and other coral die offs world wide.
    Notice the above 2 exist in areas of geothermal plate tectonic activity.



    What Am I Missing Here?



    Moi :oldman:
    Support Static Earth







    Canada-3.png
    :flagcanada: is draining a lot of
    Fresh Water on our
    Oceanic Thermal Conveyor systems.

    Global Terrorism :rant:
    Shutting down oceanic thermal conveyors
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2020
  23. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It directly shows human CO2 emissions are responsible for warming.
     
  24. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They’ve already proven it. “Nuh uh” isn’t a rebuttal to the science. Feel free to present your data and experiments which refute the data we have currently.
     
  25. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can’t make this up. Your post indicates a white flag resulting from a lack of understanding of the scientific method.
     
    guavaball likes this.

Share This Page