Hawking's blunder on black holes shows danger of listening to scientists!

[chraland51]

Just remember that you are very much more likely to get federal funding for a study if you go in wanting to prove that man-made global warming is happening. Those who wanted to prove something to the contrary rarely got federal funding. This was definitely happening in the early 90s and most likely long before that. I guess in a way, this is similar to only conservative groups being targeted by the IRS. Our great government definitely has iits own agenda.

 

[Whitsettd8]

Science isn’t exact and neither is religion both are ever evolving based on the current societies views, beliefs and technology. Look at homosexuality; a sin directly called out in the bible it used to be punishable by death now it’s accepted in some factions of Christianity.
If you open any Philosophy book and insert any of the great minds you will see they were all wrong for the most part. Yes their thinking got close but as science advanced and technology evolved eventually they were proved wrong. The Pre-Socratic’s thinkers had some crazy ideas but were and still are regarded as geniuses of their time. Is man creating global warming …. probably not like previously mentioned a major volcanic eruption or meteor strike would generate far move Co2 or atmospheric debris than man is capable of. One day 100-1000 years from now if man is still around Hawkings may be viewed as the Descartes of the time.

 

[Tsigos]

Actually, the greenhouse effect has almost nothing to do with reflecting or absorbing sunlight itself. Basically, when sunlight hits the Earth's surface, it is either reflected back toward space or absorbed. When it is absorbed, the byproduct of that process is infrared radiation--heat. That is why standing in the sunlight gives you a warm feeling on your skin. CO2 in the atmosphere is transparent to sunlight, but does absorb infrared radiation. It doesn't reflect that wavelength back so much as trap it in the CO2 itself, and later it is spread through the atmosphere and back toward the ground by convection, conduction, or radiation as with any other energy transfer. If any/all of this sounds Greek to you, I did a quick search and found the following video that might help:

ACTUALLY, NASA's own scientist call CO2 and NO the "two most efficient COOLANTS in our atmosphere", they reflect IR radiation BACK INTO SPACE, again this is from NASA.

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

These guys are showing how our atmosphere reflects radiation from the sun BACK INTO SPACE, Here is your quote since you prolly wont read the article from nasa's own website btw...."Infrared radiation from CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

I love how this article deals with your claim of IR radiation and how its NASA's own scientists and website showing you they are coolants and radiating this energy from the sun back into space, which is what my initial "quick thought" was all about!! Really nice jab about sounding Greek to me, now it looks as though you have egg on your face, as your own liberal organization just made your point flat out wrong. Sorry. If that article sounds Greek to you, i'll be happy to translate. Sounding smart isnt the same as being smart. Your "Greek" was just a bit off.

What your linked article points out is nothing new and only points out the cooling effect on the upper atmosphere but not of the Earth's surface (where humans live). Climate change denier websites leached onto the article that you cited because it had a NASA connection and knew that it would be read by people with little understanding of climate science. People who bash all popularly-accepted scientific theories are usually very quick to embrace any scrap of information that appears to further their conspiracy theories.

Greenhouse gases also cause stratospheric cooling

However, this recovery of the ozone layer is being delayed. A significant portion of the observed stratospheric cooling is also due to human-emitted greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Climate models predict that if greenhouse gases are to blame for heating at the surface, compensating cooling must occur in the upper atmosphere. We need only look as far as our sister planet, Venus, to see the truth of this theory. Venus's atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, which has triggered a run-away greenhouse effect of truly hellish proportions. The average surface temperature on Venus is a very toasty 894 °F! However, Venus's upper atmosphere is a much colder than Earth's upper atmosphere. The explanation of this greenhouse gas-caused surface heating and upper air cooling is not simple, but good discussions can be found at Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and realclimate.org for those unafraid of radiative transfer theory. One way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrared heat energy radiated out to space by a planet is roughly equal to the amount of solar energy it receives from the sun. If the surface atmosphere warms, there must be compensating cooling elsewhere in the atmosphere in order to keep the amount of heat given off by the planet the same. As emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, their cooling effect on the stratosphere will increase.

Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling | Weather Underground

 

[Blackhawk2001]

No one is talking about religion. There is no diety. There isn't any worship, prayer, or infallible holy books.

We are talking about science.

Do you understand the difference?

There is no practical difference where Global Warming is concerned. You believe what you believe despite all contradictory evidence and call those who present the contradictory evidence "deniers." Your defense of the Global Warming mantra is no different than my defense of Roman Catholic church dogma.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

The funny thing about this particular thread is that the OP posted a link to a story indicating that Steven Hawking made a big mistake in his crazy genius-guy theory and THAT proves that ALL science is fallible and thus we should never use science on which to base actual legislation.

I knew as soon as I read the post title that it was going to be another attack on climate science. Funny thing was, niether the OP, nor the first, like 50 posters even mentioned climate science; they were doing more of an end-around, saying that, in general, or in principle, science is a very shaky endeavor, and that scientists lie, or that they just make crazy claims today that we all know will be proven wrong tomorrow. A lot of picking and pecking all around the sides of what I knew was the real target.

I went along, thinking "Wait for it.................." and eventually, yes, BAMMMMMMMMMM, we have a climate science thread.


And I still think it's funny that a guy can get so worked up, and be filled with such a sense of instantaneous doubt and denial when confronted with science in the form of a climate science article, and yet, when confronted with the science of something else, like ED treatment, he is mostly quick to embrace that little blue pill and give it a try without so much as a question.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The funny thing about this thread to ME, is that people seem to continue to raise scientists to godhood, insisting that their judgments are infallible, when it's awfully damn certain they aren't. Science is supposed to be about searching for answers to questions; it's not supposed to be about establishing dogma; that's for religions, since religion, almost by definition, is based on "faith" over "facts" rather than the other way around.

You folks who insist that this theory or that theory is "proven science" in the face of data which don't agree with the particular theory aren't practicing "science," you've just transferred your religious alliegence to a different sort of religion. This is also the reason that "hard scientists" bemoan the science appellation on the so-called "soft sciences" of human interactions - because so much of "social science" is wishful thinking and fuzzy logic.

I think "Global Warming" as it was originally presented is bad science. I believe it because the same folks were claiming we were all going to freeze to death in the 1970s based on the same specious weather observations and short, short, short historical timelines that ignored the billions of years of "weather" and "climate change" that have occurred - according to "science" before humans ever became a factor. I think, and there is evidence to support this thinking, that some scientists with a particular ecological axe to grind and a particular political agenda in mind have fudged their data to create not only a lucrative grant situation for themselves, but also to create a particular political result. NONE of the emergency actions called for by the Global Warming lobby have any measurable effect on the climate, but they are having a measurable deleterious effect on the general economic prosperity of every country in which they've been enacted.

All that aside, it's a general perversion of the Scientific Method to make your research conform to the results you want to see, and this is becoming an apparently increasingly common phenomenon in the scientific community.

 

[DarkLight]

Actually, the greenhouse effect has almost nothing to do with reflecting or absorbing sunlight itself. Basically, when sunlight hits the Earth's surface, it is either reflected back toward space or absorbed. When it is absorbed, the byproduct of that process is infrared radiation--heat. That is why standing in the sunlight gives you a warm feeling on your skin. CO2 in the atmosphere is transparent to sunlight, but does absorb infrared radiation. It doesn't reflect that wavelength back so much as trap it in the CO2 itself, and later it is spread through the atmosphere and back toward the ground by convection, conduction, or radiation as with any other energy transfer. If any/all of this sounds Greek to you, I did a quick search and found the following video that might help:

ACTUALLY, NASA's own scientist call CO2 and NO the "two most efficient COOLANTS in our atmosphere", they reflect IR radiation BACK INTO SPACE, again this is from NASA.

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

These guys are showing how our atmosphere reflects radiation from the sun BACK INTO SPACE, Here is your quote since you prolly wont read the article from nasa's own website btw...."Infrared radiation from CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

I love how this article deals with your claim of IR radiation and how its NASA's own scientists and website showing you they are coolants and radiating this energy from the sun back into space, which is what my initial "quick thought" was all about!! Really nice jab about sounding Greek to me, now it looks as though you have egg on your face, as your own liberal organization just made your point flat out wrong. Sorry. If that article sounds Greek to you, i'll be happy to translate. Sounding smart inst the same as being smart. Your "Greek" was just a bit off.

Sorry, but I have to interject on this. CO2 and NO act as thermostats, they absorb and reflect certain radiation wavelengths which act to help balance the Earth's temperature. In the case of these two molecules, they reflect radiation that is around the range of 4 microns and higher. The NASA article states that it was infrared radiation that was being dumped into our atmosphere from the recent solar storm. Infrared radiation is in the range of 0.7 to 100 microns in wavelength. So it would make sense that most of this 'heat energy' was reflected back into space.

However, most of the energy we receive from the sun is in the form of visible light, wavelength range of 0.4 - 0.7 microns. The Earth's surface absorbs this energy and reemits it as thermal radiation (wavelength range of 8 - 12 microns). When these waves interact with the gases in the atmosphere, they are no longer so short in wavelength to pass through and instead get radiated back down to the Earth's surface.

I can't say how much of an impact Humans have made in changing the climate of our planet, but I believe climate change is 100% real. It is true that some scientists have been accused of fudging numbers, but majority still seem to agree that our world as a whole is getting warmer. Its been a few years, but I remember seeing oceanic models that predicted a wide range of effects from the oceans raising even a couple degrees in temperature. Europe would freeze from the disruption in the Gulf Stream, the US's mid-west would experience extreme drought due to changes in rain fall, etc. The nomenclature of Global Warming is still accurate, but caused misconceptions that it meant increased 'warmth' everywhere.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

All that aside, it's a general perversion of the Scientific Method to make your research conform to the results you want to see, and this is becoming an apparently increasingly common phenomenon in the scientific community.

So, that's something you've noticed after years of perusing various scientific journals?

 

[printcraft]

You know what is really cool about this pro climate change thing?
You can blame it when hurricanes happen and when blame it when hurricanes don't happen.
You can have it both ways...... that truly is a special kind of belief.

Al Gore: Hurricane Katrina and Global Warming | Climate change and global warming

Climate Change Blamed For Lack Of Severe Weather | Real Science

 

[eric001]

I think you may be onto something, Cathy. I pretty much stay out of the "causes for global warming" debate, as there just isn't enough known and understood about feedback mechanisms, both from pre-existing natural cycles and human activities. The one that I think is most indicative of the whole mess is indeed water vapor--more precisely, cloud formation from water vapor. At low levels, clouds tend to bounce sunlight back into space, thus lowering overall surface temperatures, yet higher level clouds tend to have a blanket effect of trapping infrared radiation and raising overall surface temps. I have yet to see any reliable predictions about what proportion of water vapor evaporating from surface sources (primarily oceans, of course) would end up at the various atmospheric levels as clouds. Without knowing that single mechanism, how can we reliably predict global warming or cooling? And it seems that there are many such mechanisms at work.

I used to tell my students that trying to predict climate is like trying to solve a mathematical equation...but one that has a thousand variables and most of those variables aren't even known yet.

Not to Cathy, but to the original purpose of the thread:
On the other hand, I fully support the efforts of scientists to discover those processes, understand those variables, and piece the equations together bit by bit. That's the real difference between the bronze age that lasted thousands of years and today's age of information acquisition. We see science answering some questions and asking multitudes of better questions on a yearly, even daily basis compared to generations of technological (and arguably intellectual) stagnation.

 

[rhino]

Ah, Bach . . .

 

[eric001]

And I just want to point out that Zippy23 quoted my original post, but without quotes. I am in NO way associating myself with the posts in which it SEEMS that *I* linked to a NASA page somehow refuting CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That is all Zippy's ball of wax. My whole point with my original post was simply to point out how CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths.

 

[octalman]

And no, global cooling was never considered legitimate. Again, it is an extremist talking point.

I call BS. Global Cooling was ABSOLUTELY considered legitimate. Studied every piece of information that I could find from the perspective of true believer. Global Cooling was indeed widely promoted as a scientific fact. Never considered legitimate? HA! BS! Being young and dumb at the time, I believed the Earth was headed for an Ice Age. As soon as the mantra flipped to Global Warming, a healthy dose of skepticism kicked in. Almost overnight the same data claimed to be proof of a coming Ice Age was transformed to proof of out of control Global Warming.

It is the pinnacle of narcissistic arrogance to believe that humans can positively or negatively overpower the complex processes at work on the Earth. Climate happens - always has, always will. We are simply along for the ride. Human presence is a tiny blip on the timeline of the Earth. Evil industrialized Human activity is a microscopic blip on the timeline of the Earth.

As smart as we are, Humans are not nearly as smart as we think we are. Cite all the sources you like. Stack studies to the sky. Still only guesses based on a miniscule period of time. Where is the control system for validation? That is the ONLY correct scientific method to reach a high level of confidence. Yes, HIGHLY simplified experiments have been performed. They prove nothing with certainty because the complexity of the Earth is not duplicated.

The computer model promoted as the best and most accurate did not baseline with actual current conditions. It was exposed as starting with baseline conditions that did not reflect any current climate conditions. When a foundation of lies are used to reach a desired result, the outcome cannot be trusted. Does not take a PhD to grasp that results based on lies are garbage.

 

[printcraft]

I think AlGore's time as the global warming/climate change spokesperson has come and gone.

We need an expert in make believe to carry the banner for the man made climate change followers.

It's fun to make believe children!

What?! You don't believe in man made global warming.... errrr.... climate change?!

 

[Manatee]

Some science is junk science.

But I'd rather have dinner with a theoretical physicist than a TV evangelist.

 

[spaniel]

It is the pinnacle of narcissistic arrogance to believe that humans can positively or negatively overpower the complex processes at work on the Earth.

And this statement is based on what evidence? Or only an assumption based on the unwillingness to believe it?

Humans have driven many species extinct. Reshaped the entire ecosystems of continents. One can stick their head in the sand, but without data I'm not buying it. Not that I'm convinced one way or another of our effect on the climate, either.

I find it highly, highly unlikely that a single person on this forum has the comprehensive knowledge of the relevant body of data to comment intelligently on the validity of any climate change hypothesis. Myself included. So watching people arguing so vehemently about it, I think you could make better use of your time.

Finally please, as a Christian and a scientist, quit confusing religion and science. Religion is taken on faith without proof. Science is based on hard evidence, reproducible, and interpreted with deliberate skepticism. There is a range in the level of proof behind various scientific findings....law, theory, model, hypothesis, etc. Laws govern things like internal ballistics, things we reproduce every day and are largely beyond question. Climate change findings are only theories or hypotheses, largely based on models built from incomplete data collected over far too short a time and and far too few variables to fully capture an extraordinarily complex system.

There is even one model out there that shows what begins as global warming, triggering polar melting, will lead to a salinity imbalance in the ocean which will shut down the Gulf Stream and throw northern Europe into an ice age. Average temperature change is only one data point of thousands.

Edited to add: I do believe it is poor practice to drive policy affecting the livelihoods of millions of people off science that still has a LOT of holes in it and unanswered questions.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I think that the one thing that seems evident to me is that a whole bunch of people are getting their science information from politically-based sources.

It's like asking for a pizza at a Chinese restaurant. Sure, you might get one, but don't be surprised if it has a little soy sauce and squid on it.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So, that's something you've noticed after years of perusing various scientific journals?

Please. Not all scientists agree on every theory. And despite strenuous attempts (see the East Anglia University email scandals) to suppress contrary findings, there have been a number of scientists who study climatology who don't agree with Manmade Global Warming. There are also non-climatologists who claim to be climatologists who subscribe to the Manmade Global Warming theory without substantiating their claims to expertise. There were also about 1500 scientists who had their names appended to scientific claims purporting to substantiate the Manmade Global Warming theory when they did not, in fact, support the theory. There has been a substantial campaign to railroad anyone who disagrees with MGW, and there have been catastrophic forecasts made about the effects of MGW which, if they were true, should have already occurred and haven't (such as claims that the polar ice caps are melting and would already be melted by this time when, ironically enough, the MGW scientists who were going to prove those predictions just had to be rescued from Antarctica when their ship got stranded IN THE ICE.)

I thought a scientific theory was supposed to propose a model which could be tested for accuracy, and if such data could not be reproduced, or if the data turned out not to match the theoretical model, the theory would be discarded or modified. NONE of the short-range predictions for MGW have panned out (re: printcraft's links upthread concerning hurricane predictions) nor have the catastrophic sea level rises claimed twenty years ago, then ten years ago, then five years ago panned out.

I don't think your snide reference to whether or not I've studied various scientific journals is sufficient to demolish my doubts about MGW in view of these facts, but I'll certainly be curious to see how you respond.

 

[mrjarrell]

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

A Study Asked How Many Scientists Don't Believe in Global Warming. Here Are the Results. - PolicyMic

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think that the one thing that seems evident to me is that a whole bunch of people are getting their science information from politically-based sources.

It's like asking for a pizza at a Chinese restaurant. Sure, you might get one, but don't be surprised if it has a little soy sauce and squid on it.

Politically-based sources? How about the historical fact that there was much more global warming in the 1300s than our so-called scientists are sh*tting themselves over now? How about the fact that the politics of fear are obviously alive and well, and how do you trump the fear of destroying the planet out from under ourselves?

As for your analogy, are you suggesting that we should get our information from those who accept global warming as both a scientific fact and a religion? Sounds just a bit biased to me.