Is there a Scientific Theory to explain Climate Change?

[Crick]

Consensus positions have been wrong too many times over the centuries

This is a common comment from deniers. You all seem to think that science is frequently wrong and that it tends to stick with bad theories for bad reasons. I don't know if you pay much attention to astronomy and cosmology, but for decades, science was absolutely certain that the universe's expansion was slowing down. The only question was whether or not it would eventually stop and begin shrinking or would simply forever continue to slow. When someone finally got a good look at a range of Type 1A novas (the "standard candle") they discovered that the expansion had slowed for about 8 billion years after the Big Bang but then had begun to accelerate. This violated known physics at the time. The Type 1A observations were repeated and lots of people examined the data. And, within about 18 months, the accelerating expansion had achieved consensus and had become the new accepted theory. That's how science actually works. So when you and yours throw up these shallow attempts to discredit science as if you've reviewed all of science history and smirked at people who believed the Earth was flat or that everything was made of earth, air, water or fire or that space was filled with an ether or that flammable materials contained the element phlogiston and have now concluded that science will never be trustworthy - except when it has been responsible for the development and creation of almost every single human construct that surrounds you day and night, you make me ill.

 

[Sunsettommy]

They have been using reproducible research for global climate
but it in its infancy. There are some things they need to figure out.

LOL the AGW conjecture has failed thus all those so called "reproducible research" claims are false.

The two benchmarks for the AGW conjecture don't exist thus invalidated.

Only climate cults still hang onto it as the world has slowly moved on.

 

[jc456]

If there is disagreement then scientific consensus is used. I am not talking about politics.

Dude, stfu, that’s your entire play. Consensus isn’t science

 

[jc456]

This is a common comment from deniers. You all seem to think that science is frequently wrong and that it tends to stick with bad theories for bad reasons. I don't know if you pay much attention to astronomy and cosmology, but for decades, science was absolutely certain that the universe's expansion was slowing down. The only question was whether or not it would eventually stop and begin shrinking or would simply forever continue to slow. When someone finally got a good look at a range of Type 1A novas (the "standard candle") they discovered that the expansion had slowed for about 8 billion years after the Big Bang but then had begun to accelerate. This violated known physics at the time. The Type 1A observations were repeated and lots of people examined the data. And, within about 18 months, the accelerating expansion had achieved consensus and had become the new accepted theory. That's how science actually works. So when you and yours throw up these shallow attempts to discredit science as if you've reviewed all of science history and smirked at people who believed the Earth was flat or that everything was made of earth, air, water or fire or that space was filled with an ether or that flammable materials contained the element phlogiston and have now concluded that science will never be trustworthy - except when it has been responsible for the development and creation of almost every single human construct that surrounds you day and night, you make me ill.

Science is typically wrong! In fact science fails over 75% of the time. And no such thing as consensus for the umpteenth time

 

[Crick]

OP JWoodie doesn't seem too interested in his thread.

 

[Crick]

Science is typically wrong! In fact science fails over 75% of the time. And no such thing as consensus for the umpteenth time

Science is the best method we know for determining how the universe operates. I have no idea where you got 75% but it's bullshit. And, of course there is such a thing as a consensus.

 

[jc456]

Science is the best method we know for determining how the universe operates. I have no idea where you got 75% but it's bullshit. And, of course there is such a thing as a consensus.

How many experiments, how many models would you say got the results that are inaccurately distributed today? Are you going to tell the class they were represented from the first test? That they never saw failure of anything? Come on man you'd earn more respect if you were honestly debating in here.

 

[Crick]

How many experiments, how many models would you say got the results that are inaccurately distributed today? Are you going to tell the class they were represented from the first test? That they never saw failure of anything? Come on man you'd earn more respect if you were honestly debating in here.

Are you rejecting the scientific method? That's what it sounds like and if that IS the case, there is no more debate here.

 

[jc456]

Are you rejecting the scientific method? That's what it sounds like and if that IS the case, there is no more debate here.

It seems that is 180 degrees off. Scientific method is trial and error against theory! Not sure your definition

 

[Crick]

It seems that is 180 degrees off. Scientific method is trial and error against theory! Not sure your definition

And, of course, you're incapable of looking one up.

The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from a hypothesis. Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to a remote mountaintop to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.

Wikipedia: The Scientific Method

 

[jc456]

And, of course, you're incapable of looking one up.

The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the expectations deduced from a hypothesis. Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to a remote mountaintop to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.

Wikipedia: The Scientific Method

testing scientific theory

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis.

 

[Leo123]

Sorry that is what republican thinks in their rational. It has nothing to do with equality as its an issue of adding more warmth to the earth. You seem to think your the only ones who are aware of the North pole and the South pole. The issues with greenhouse effect is not what happens naturally. You state the obvious . Greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere naturally.

The issues is when man contributes to the warming that happens naturally . Its specific to what man does.

Greenhouse gasses allow sunlight to bath the earth in warmth, it also traps heat by not letting it escape. This is nature and happens naturally.

When man adds to the amount of greenhouse gasses then it gets warmer as heat is not escaping.

Activities that increase the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere such as burning fossil fuels. Burning coal which is found in the earth. Man digs it up and burns it , Thus adding to the amount of greenhouse gasses. Heat is trapped. Now since man has been doing this for ages. There comes a point when there is an effect.

cause and effect

Analogy is smoking in an enclosed room. If the smoke does not escape then it gets trapped in the enclosed room.

Coal which is found in the earth is burned by man in his activities and releases more CO2 in the atmosphere. Which naturally traps heat from leaving the earth thus the earth gets warmer.

Its like you leaving the water on. Eventually there will be a problem because of your actions.

So if you have a billion people doing this with no thought of the consequences because man's life span is limited. If your worried about me and have no concern for the future of your children children then never mind. You don't get it because you care about the here and now.

There are over 300 topics on this one subject in the USMB So I am out of here, as I done this a few times and it gets boring.

Do an actual experiment, like bringing rain to an arid area, or, stopping a hurricane, etc. if you can’t do that, there is no scientific basis for your human caused climate change.

 

[jc456]

Do an actual experiment, like bringing rain to an arid area, or, stopping a hurricane, etc. if you can’t do that, there is no scientific basis for your human caused climate change.

I’ve been asking for the experiment where CO2 creates clouds

 

[EMH]

Global Warming had a CO2/Hockey Stick argument to support its proposition, but its successor, Climate Change, doesn't seem to have any scientific argument to explain a cause/effect relationship. Instead, it has devolved into a constantly changing series of social/political theories which do not even purport to be connected to physical weather events. Is there any scientific theory to explain why current Climate Change is different from past Climate Change?

This topic

For the last Time, "skeptics," the SUN is NOT the cause of climate change, and "solar cycle" was put out by the fraud

Many Republicans who watch Fox "News" think the Sun is the source of climate change on Earth. They parrot every single piece of this BS they can. The Data - during the past million years, GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED The SUN did NOT do that. Earth climate change is not about...

www.usmessageboard.com

explains it gradually, because it starts out discrediting Co2 and SUN as cause of

Greenland freezing while North America was thawing the past million years.


In short, Earth's climate is dictated by how much land is close to the poles. 90% of Earth ice is on Antarctica, while 7% is on Greenland, and 0.3% is on Ellesmere Island (northern Canada). Those are the three land masses currently in "ice age," which is another term that should have been updated after we found out the plates move... but wasn't because the Co2 FRAUD does not want you to pay any attention. An "ice age" is a continent specific event, and it starts when the land gets to within 600 miles of a pole, which then causes the following - the annual snowfall ceases to fully melt in the "summer" which then causes it to stack. An "ice age" like North America ends when the tectonic plate moves away from the pole - Europe too now fits that description...

The Antarctic Circle is on average 50F colder than the Arctic on the surface, and like an AC in a room it cools Earth's air. AA cools Earth's air more than Arctic. For oceans, AA dumps 46 times the H20 the Mississippi River dumps in the Gulf, and that ice is way colder than the ice in your freezer. AA dumps 10 times the ice the Arctic does, so AA cools earth's oceans more than Arctic.

Earth is a giant room with two AC units, Arctic and Antarctic, each with settings 0 = off and 10 = maxCOOL.

Right now, the Arctic AC is set at 1 and the AA AC is set at 9. That dictates ice quantity and hence ocean level and temps... and that's the climate. Two polar oceans and Earth has no ice at all....

The homO administration knew that in 2010 and sold out as usual to keep the closet door shut and the ripoff of the taxpayer going...

obama climate silence 2010 2012 - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

 

[jc456]

This topic

For the last Time, "skeptics," the SUN is NOT the cause of climate change, and "solar cycle" was put out by the fraud

Many Republicans who watch Fox "News" think the Sun is the source of climate change on Earth. They parrot every single piece of this BS they can. The Data - during the past million years, GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED The SUN did NOT do that. Earth climate change is not about...

www.usmessageboard.com

explains it gradually, because it starts out discrediting Co2 and SUN as cause of

Greenland freezing while North America was thawing the past million years.


In short, Earth's climate is dictated by how much land is close to the poles. 90% of Earth ice is on Antarctica, while 7% is on Greenland, and 0.3% is on Ellesmere Island (northern Canada). Those are the three land masses currently in "ice age," which is another term that should have been updated after we found out the plates move... but wasn't because the Co2 FRAUD does not want you to pay any attention. An "ice age" is a continent specific event, and it starts when the land gets to within 600 miles of a pole, which then causes the following - the annual snowfall ceases to fully melt in the "summer" which then causes it to stack. An "ice age" like North America ends when the tectonic plate moves away from the pole - Europe too now fits that description...

The Antarctic Circle is on average 50F colder than the Arctic on the surface, and like an AC in a room it cools Earth's air. AA cools Earth's air more than Arctic. For oceans, AA dumps 46 times the H20 the Mississippi River dumps in the Gulf, and that ice is way colder than the ice in your freezer. AA dumps 10 times the ice the Arctic does, so AA cools earth's oceans more than Arctic.

Earth is a giant room with two AC units, Arctic and Antarctic, each with settings 0 = off and 10 = maxCOOL.

Right now, the Arctic AC is set at 1 and the AA AC is set at 9. That dictates ice quantity and hence ocean level and temps... and that's the climate. Two polar oceans and Earth has no ice at all....

The homO administration knew that in 2010 and sold out as usual to keep the closet door shut and the ripoff of the taxpayer going...

obama climate silence 2010 2012 - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

Chicago was in the Arctic?

 

[EMH]

Chicago was in the Arctic?

Tectonic direction of NA = SW. Chicago was inside the Arctic Circle possibly 30 mil years ago - a guess.

Greenland is today's exhibit of an ice age. The middle of Greenland went ice age 400-800k years ago, but it started at the northern tip, which was completely green 2 million years ago. On the tail end outside of the Arctic Circle, the Vikings farmed the southern tip of Greenland until 1400s when the ice age advanced to cover Greenland completely. Ice obviously melts outside of the Arctic Circle, but the "glacier manufacturing system" is the land within 600 miles of the pole. Alaska is not in ice age because it is not that close to the Pole, but is in the Arctic Circle. AA also demonstrates a continent specific ice age will drive glaciers right out of the polar circle.

 

[jc456]

Tectonic direction of NA = SW. Chicago was inside the Arctic Circle possibly 30 mil years ago - a guess.

Greenland is today's exhibit of an ice age. The middle of Greenland went ice age 400-800k years ago, but it started at the northern tip, which was completely green 2 million years ago. On the tail end outside of the Arctic Circle, the Vikings farmed the southern tip of Greenland until 1400s when the ice age advanced to cover Greenland completely. Ice obviously melts outside of the Arctic Circle, but the "glacier manufacturing system" is the land within 600 miles of the pole. Alaska is not in ice age because it is not that close to the Pole, but is in the Arctic Circle. AA also demonstrates a continent specific ice age will drive glaciers right out of the polar circle.

Let’s see a globe view

 

[jc456]

Tectonic direction of NA = SW. Chicago was inside the Arctic Circle possibly 30 mil years ago - a guess.

Greenland is today's exhibit of an ice age. The middle of Greenland went ice age 400-800k years ago, but it started at the northern tip, which was completely green 2 million years ago. On the tail end outside of the Arctic Circle, the Vikings farmed the southern tip of Greenland until 1400s when the ice age advanced to cover Greenland completely. Ice obviously melts outside of the Arctic Circle, but the "glacier manufacturing system" is the land within 600 miles of the pole. Alaska is not in ice age because it is not that close to the Pole, but is in the Arctic Circle. AA also demonstrates a continent specific ice age will drive glaciers right out of the polar circle.

Where?

 

[Crick]

testing scientific theory

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis.

LINK?

 

[Crick]

Where?
View attachment 766781

LINK?