Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

o.O

I typed in the address wrong. It should be www.dhmo.org instead of www.dhmo.com

Precise/Accurate: we're going off different definitions then. If you say a thermometer in an ice bath reads 5.335 Celsius, I would say that it is not precise. In fact, I would say it is wrong http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

But that isn't the point. The purpose of examining the records is not to find that it was X degrees at time Y. The purpose is to find how the temperature changed at a specific location over a long period of time. Even better is if you can get lots of records in a relatively small geographic area, and average them for specific time periods. Multiple measurements leads to better data sets. We're looking for trends here, so inaccuracies in measurement are irrelevant as long as those inaccuracies are consistent. For an example of this, look at graphs of the calculated average global temperature. There will be several data sets graphed usually. They will change in the same manner, but the magnitude will vary between them (or, the graph of their derivatives will match up very closely, so the plots are off by a constant term).

And increased temperature causing increased CO2, I said that does not make sense with the permafrost melting in mind. There have been cycles of warming and cooling in the past, and past warming would presumably cause CO2 release. But when it re-freezes, the permafrost does not magically take it all back. So it does not make sense that CO2 would go back down when temperatures do. Yet that's what the graphs show. A more likely scenario is that increased carbon dioxide along with other factors, results in an increased heat retention; you say it's IR absorption spectra, I say it acts a lot like a greenhouse does, hence greenhouse gas http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

When you get down to it, the gasses labeled as greenhouse gasses have been shown to be in higher concentrations when temperatures rise. AGW points out that a lot of the increased concentrations are due to human actions. Sure it doesn't prove a causal relationship, but me dropping a pen onto the floor doesn't prove a causal relationship with gravity, either. It does, however, demonstrate that the model fits the data, and that is a necessary and sufficient condition in science. The "opponents" have only taken pot-shots at specific graphs or studies, without demonstrating a better model that explains all the data that the current model explains. So, like I said, you can be skeptical (which is good, so the model can be refined to be even more accurate). But unless you have something better, you can't put forth a denial.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Might it be...just maybe...the dreaded *gulp*...water?



http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

HP and R13,

Honestly: let's just not discuss anomalies in AGW at all. I have never said that AGW is perfect, no one ever has. You keep talking about anomalies in the research program, and then claiming that invalidates the theory. That is entirely NOT the point, and two thousand years of philosophy says I'm right.

Once more:

If you only point out that data is imprecise, or that there are holes in a hypothesis, then you are showing nothing except that anomalies exist. You have to come up with an alternative that better explains the phenomenon in question if you want to question a theory. Otherwise, you're just showing your ignorance of how science works.

I've tried to illustrate this in the above posts with analogies to Copernicus-Newton-Einstein, but you both keep coming back to talking about anomalies in AGW, as if their existence alone threw AGW into question.

I'm not making my point well, so I'll use Will's words: "you can be skeptical about the degree of that impact, but you cannot deny it unless you present a viable (and better) alternate explanation."

EVERY THEORY IN THE UNIVERSE has anomalies. The presence of anomalies alone is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is how well a different theory accounts for those anomalies. And if a new theory can account for those anomalies, and can explain everything the old theory did and more, then it "wins" and the old theory is tossed out.

Again, two thousand years of philosophy says I'm right.

Re: "Guys, I'm just scratching the surface here!"

No, what you are doing is the same thing that those untrained in philosophy of science have always done: throwing out an entire research program based on one question about the data (not even really an anomaly) without suggesting an alternative. It's bad science. End of story.

It's the kid-dad analogy:

Kid: Dad, why is the sky blue?
Dad: Because of X.
Kid: No it's not!
Dad: ok, then what causes it to be blue?
Kid: I don't know, but it isn't X!
Dad: Well, we'll have to continue to say it's caused by X until you come up with something better.

That...is science.

QED.

AMF.

PS: As for my 'sickened' statement, what I said, in full, was: "Often, I am literally physically sickened when I see people making important decisions based on their self-interest, ideologies, or dogma, rather than facts and scientific methods. In my line of work, I see it a lot, and it puts people's lives at risk. I can't help but get angry when people make important decisions based not on facts but on what they WANT to believe."

I don't see how that is ambiguous - to wit, I get disgusted with people when they make important decisions based on what appears to be their ideologies, or dogma, or self-interest, rather than an understanding of the facts and, more importantly, scientific methods. Full stop. No interpretation of "what I really meant" is needed, or desired.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I should probably have specifically responded to this as well.

Re:

This is certainly true, and is what I have in part been saying all along.

If such a theory existed, then to derive a replacement research program is a trivial matter. But, really, until you have an alternative, you have to go with what you have in place at the moment, because to do otherwise is non-rational because it would have no logic inherent in it. It would be, for example, totally ad hoc, self-contradictory, incoherent, etc…it would essentially be like saying “well, every possible thought we have given on this matter is so terrible that we have no possible explanations for it, and we can’t think of anything better” – even the most bizarre phenomena that mankind has ever experienced don’t fit that. At the very least, the explanation for something like that would be “The Gods make the sky blue because they like the color blue.” This at least is a theory, albeit a very silly one that would, thereby, be relatively easy to supplant with a better one.

This is why I use the phrase ‘research program’ not theory or hypothesis (when I remember to…). We do risk getting into obtuse terminology here, but a research program is a theory or succession of theories that is, at least in principle, empirically testable. These theories share “a hard core, a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses, and a heuristic, i.e., problem solving machinery. Thus, in the Newtonian programme, the laws of motion and the universal law of gravitation are the hard core. Anomalies in the motion of planets are dealt with by considering factors that may affect the apparent motion, e.g., refraction of light or the existence of a hitherto unknown planet. The problem solving machinery is the vast body of classical mathematical physics.”

In AGW, the hard core would be the belief that human activity contributes to global warming. I’d have to give some thought to what the negative and positive heuristics would be...but it’s a long weekend coming up, so don’t hold your breath…

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

AMF