|
U-Know! Forum » Mainstream media starts to wake up on climate change fraud |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
CraigR 455 posts |
Feb 04, 2010, 18:18
|
||
|
Indeed! Really though, I've rarely (on here) read such patronising twunt!
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Feb 04, 2010, 18:37
|
||
|
Hahahahahahahaha. It gets better! Once more my sides split! You and Merrick would make an excellent double act at a scientific conference - they'd be rolling in the aisles. A small clue: pattern does not equal predictability. Think on that for a while. I think your undertanding of physics is still in Newton's era c.f. predictability. That's not an insult, just that it is to be expected from a normal secondary school education (I'm assuming you're past that age). Be honest you're trolling, right?
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Feb 04, 2010, 18:42
|
||
What's next once this one has been beaten to death? Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
|
|||
PMM 2941 posts |
Feb 04, 2010, 18:43
|
||
To be honest, DM, I'm finding it hard not to. I do want to try to engage with you, but you're responding to a very simple idea by telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. To accuse me of trolling is just the cherry on top really. It would be very easy to just take the piss out of you, but I will try not to.
|
|||
|
PMM 2941 posts |
Edited Feb 04, 2010, 22:21
Feb 04, 2010, 19:26
|
||
|
So anyway, here's my understanding of how chaos theory works in practice. I used the analogy of a grain of sugar. Thousands of grains in fact. It would be impossible to predict where any individual grain will end up, as there will be variation in the position from which it leaves my hand. There will also be variation in the way it interacts with the air, particularly if there are any air currents, and how it interacts with other airborne grains. Once it hits the pile of sugar, it will respond, according to it's shape, the shape of other grains it hits, the angle at which it hits them, the speed at which it is travelling, and probably other factors such as humidity, air pressure, etc. This means that I cannot predict exactly where that grain will end up. I do know however, that if I have 100,000 grains of sugar in my hand, and I pour them from my hand onto the table, they will form a cone shaped pile. I can also guess that the gradient of the sides of the pile will be fairly constant every time I do this test, as long as the material used, the height from which it is dropped, etc, remain constant. I can predict that if I use a material who's individual grains are more nearly spherical than sugar crystals, the pile will tend to be wider and flatter. Since I have a theory about it, I can then run a test to assess whether my theory is correct. If I find that the results fit my test, I can run further tests, or even go on to form further theories. And from there I can do further experiments. If the tests disprove my theory, then I change the theory. So how does that method of operating apply to the climate? Well take a nice easy example. We make the sun burn hotter. We increase the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth. I predict that this would make the Earth's average temperature increase. I'm sure you won't disagree and tell me that either this would make the Earth cooler, or that Chaos Theory makes it impossible to predict the effect of a bigger, hotter sun. We can test this in a laboratory. Put a thermometer next to a bunsen burner, and see what happens when you increase the size of the flame. From that simple test, we can form a scalable theory. Use a thermometer at a set distance from a nuclear explosion. Then use the same thermometer at the same distance from a larger nuclear explosion and you'd expect the thermometer to record a higher temperature. We know, by observation, that the amount of energy reaching the Earth from the Sun varies slightly over time, and that it does indeed affect the climate. So here's another theory. "Carbon dioxide absorbs infra red radiation, and this causes the temperature of the medium containing carbon dioxide to increase". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw Since energy cannot be either created or destroyed, that infra red radiation has to go somewhere, and it disperses through the medium as heat. It is reasonable to predict that by increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide, you will increase the amount of absorption of infra red energy, and therefore the temperature of the CO2 carrying medium. Isn't it? And it's also reasonable to expect this to happen if we increase the scale. We could get a huge chamber and a great big candle, and expect the same thing to happen as happened in the video. Yes? We cannot precisely predict how the increased temperature will affect the climate. If I was to say that if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it will rain a week on Wednesday, then obviously I'd be talking out of my arse. But we can say that ther average temperature of thew world is likely to increase if we increase the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. From that we can then say that some of the ice is likely to melt. And from that we can say that sea levels are likely to rise. Indeed, by observation, we know this is already happening. It's also happening due to thermal expansion - another well understood principle. We can also say with some certainity that some of the permafrost will melt, and that this will cause another even more potent greenhouse gas, methane, to be released. We can even say that increased evaporation from warmer temperatures will cause an increase in atmopheric water vapour, which helps to trap further heat. Anyway, I'm not going to go into the entire science here. I just wanted to point out that complexity does not necessarily equate to incomprehensibility or unpredictability. If you're trying to say that chaos theory means that making the planet warmer means that ice might or might not melt, then I'm afraid the observed results don't match your theory.
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Feb 05, 2010, 01:48
|
||
|
Now I really know you're lost! You are giving dubious simplistic black and white examples & extrapolating to real world complex ones e.g. climate. You don't know how the various factors (yes including the sun & CO2) interact in the Earth to drive climate one way or the other over the long term. Nobody does! I'll reiterate: the starting conditions are not known precisely & the interactions are poorly understood. Which of those two statements is false? Even if the second IS false, my arguement holds. To believe it's as simple as the sun being a little brighter or if CO2 (a minor greenhouse gas BTW) rises a little the planet will get warmer is naive. Not even a holder of a Nobel award for climate science know how it all works or can predict it. Keep digging if it pleases you.
|
|||
|
PMM 2941 posts |
Edited Feb 05, 2010, 07:16
Feb 05, 2010, 02:35
|
||
|
DarkMagus wrote: Now I really know you're lost! You are giving dubious simplistic black and white examples & extrapolating to real world complex ones e.g. climate. You're partially correct. I am simplifying things. This is a discussion board, not PhD thesis, and I'm limited in both time and available characters. I'm also trying to put what I understand in simple terms, rather than getting myself or my audience bogged down with the minutae. Also, I'm a layman, not a scientist. I have a general understanding, but I'm not an expert. I am an expert driver though, should you wish to pick me up on this point. Not being an expert doesn't prevent people from having enough understanding to be able to drive. DarkMagus wrote: You don't know how the various factors (yes including the sun & CO2) interact in the Earth to drive climate one way or the other over the long term. Nobody does! I'll reiterate: the starting conditions are not known precisely & the interactions are poorly understood. Which of those two statements is false? Even if the second IS false, my arguement holds. OK. Here's a jug of water. I don't know how hot it is. Now I'm going to put it in the microwave for 2 minutes. Sorry but I don't precisely understand how microwaves affect things. Something to do with radiation, isn't it? I am just a humble nobody after all. So I don't know the starting conditions, and I don't understand how it works. Will the water in the jug get hotter? Or is it impossible for me to predict? Yup. I'm giving a simplified answer again. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make? If so, do you accept that it's not always necessary to know the precise starting positions or the precise nature of the inteactions in order to form a general idea of how things behave? DarkMagus wrote: To believe it's as simple as the sun being a little brighter or if CO2 (a minor greenhouse gas BTW) rises a little the planet will get warmer is naive. I'm not sure I understand this bit. Are you saying that I am naive because I believe things to be as simple as a brighter sun? I started off that bit by making it clear that it was a simple example. Not that it encompassed the entire canon of climate science. So, you're chasing after a strawman on that one. The video showed that CO2 absorbs infra red energy. Yes? And when the proportion of CO2 was increased, the absorption of infra red energy also increased, yes? You did watch it and see that this is the case, right? So what happens to this energy DM? It doesn't just disappear. It gets turned from one form to another, in accordance with the law of conservation of energy. It becomes heat, which dissipates through the atmosphere, causing an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere. If you think otherwise, and you can prove your belief, then you're on course for becoming the most famous person of the 21st century. DarkMagus wrote: Not even a holder of a Nobel award for climate science know how it all works or can predict it. Keep digging if it pleases you. Nah. This is the last I'm going to say in the issue with you. I do understand the point you're making, but don't agree with it. You, on the other hand, seem to be unable to grasp the point I'm making, even when I try to break it down into bite-size portions. So, no. I'm not going to dig any further. Probably.
|
|||
Squid Tempest 6704 posts |
Edited Feb 05, 2010, 10:09
Feb 05, 2010, 10:02
|
||
|
*applause!* Well, I understand and agree with you PMM, if that's any consolation. And I am a scientist*. *Computer scientist that is ;-) Edit: P.S. I'm beginning to wonder if DM is Jeremy Clarkson...
|
|||
|
DarkMagus 170 posts |
Feb 05, 2010, 12:43
|
||
|
We're back to the religious analogy. You have faith, I don't! My lack of faith is based on my understanding of science and its limitations. Climatology can study what happened in the past, with so-so accuracy (lots of iffy proxies), describe the current situation reasonably well, but has no chance of predicting the future with any certainty. Here's an anology regarding the sun. Say you turn on the heating in your house, does it get warmer? Probably, but not if someone opens all the windows & it's -10 outside. Now in the case of the house you easily observe what's going on & tell the kids to close trhe damned window, on the planet (as Laresident pointed out earlier) we have a vague idea of what's going on. It isn't a linear system, it's chaotic & attempts to impose order are futile.
|
|||
|
Squid Tempest 6704 posts |
Feb 05, 2010, 12:56
|
||
|
DarkMagus wrote: Here's an anology regarding the sun. Say you turn on the heating in your house, does it get warmer? Probably, but not if someone opens all the windows & it's -10 outside. But you would have to be stupid to leave the windows open if you wanted it to warm up. Similarly with climate change, we would have to be stupid not to take precautions against greenhouse gasses heating up the atmosphere.
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
- ©2012ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page