Don’t worry about it. None of this adds up to anything.
Just fine. Of course, it doesn’t come within several orders of magnitude of being a “complete technical explanation”, but it’s absolutely right about the basic facts that (1) anthropogenic greenhouse-gas atmospheric warming is mostly just straightforward physics, and (2) the specific impacts of such warming on climate systems are MUCH less straightforward, much less well understood and represented in quantitative models, and much harder to predict, especially in detail and/or in the near term.
None of this is in any way contrary to mainstream climate science research. In fact, all of it comes directly from mainstream climate science research.
The technical part is actually quite complex, not the sort of thing one just spews forth in an unscientific manner.
I’ve never posted anything that isn’t from SCIENCE!
It’s why I sleep well at night.
Yes. These are the well-known Milankovitch cycles whose periodic effects can be observed in, e.g., ice core records. While it’s true that these periodic orbital effects on climate are not yet fully understood in every detail, the science on them is not so open-ended that we can just throw any climate anomaly in there and affirm “the Milankovitch cycles done it”.
In particular, AFAIK nobody has so far come up with any detailed quantitative hypothesis that successfully explains how orbital variations might have produced the observed warming of recent decades.
On one end of the validity spectrum we’ve got serious climate researchers studying Milankovitch cycles to better understand the role they play in climate phenomena, but so far not finding any plausible mechanism to attribute recent warming to them. On the other end, we’ve got so-called “skeptics” vaguely asserting “hey, the Milankovitch cycles might of done it! You haven’t proved they didn’t!”, but not providing any actual scientific hypotheses to justify such an attribution.
[QUOTE=watchwolf49]
The argument against this hypothesis is that it is, in of itself, inadequate.
[/quote]
As I noted above, it’s not a hypothesis at all in the scientific sense.
A scientific hypothesis explains a phenomenon via a detailed quantitative model, not just a speculative qualitative Just-So-Story. If you can’t point to research that quantitatively and specifically describes how the physics of orbital changes could have produced recent warming over and above the known periodic climate cycles that are attributed to them, you haven’t got a scientific hypothesis.
[QUOTE=watchwolf49]
Almost all hypotheses fail to adequately describe the data we have
[/quote]
This is absolutely true: no current scientific model of climate systems is anywhere near completely understood or reliable.
But that doesn’t mean that any speculative two-sentence notion pulled out of some ignorant person’s ass is just as good, scientifically, as any serious and specific research hypothesis that actually engages with the technical details of modeling physical phenomena.
[QUOTE=watchwolf49]
Unless you can prove your pet hypothesis is completely adequate, it’s anti-science to reject any other hypothesis.
[/quote]
It’s not anti-science to point out when one hypothesis is a lot more adequate than others, even if the best known hypothesis still isn’t anywhere near completely adequate.
And it’s not anti-science to point out that summarily listing a few isolated science-related concepts (“Orbital Mechanics. Cosmic Rays.”, etc.) doesn’t even qualify as putting forth a scientific hypothesis at all.
What’s anti-science is attempting to argue that an incoherent string of sciencey nouns and some naive inferences about casual random observations (like watching black smoke from jet engines) should be regarded on an equal footing with actual scientific research hypotheses.
Nonsense. That is saying there are no hypothesis to explain any of the warming periods in the last 18,000 years, or the cooling periods.
There are plenty. The most recent warming, since the LIA, used to be considered solar in nature, as it is the best fit of evidence. Quiet sun, colder climate. Active sun, climate warms. Sun is the most active in hundreds of years, climate warms.
It’s pure propaganda to say there are no “detailed quantitative hypothesis” about climate change.
A few posts later…
You know, I couldn’t agree more.
Damn right. It also has to contain a way so that science can know if it correct, or incorrect. It’s exactly why efforts have been made, fruitless of course, to get the members using terms to define them.
When I first asked about the theory of global warming, some fuckhead claimed it wasn’t a theory, it was just a fact. And they couldn’t grasp why I slapped them around for being too stupid to breathe.
You may find it hard to believe, but there is a LOT of terrible science out there, especially about the greenhouse effect, and CO2.
For example:
The Greenhouse Effect: How Does It Work?
A lot of people actually think THAT IS CORRECT.
It makes me want to yell BITCH! NO IT AIN’T!
No, it isn’t. There certainly are serious and detailed research hypotheses explaining how periodic orbital phenomena can account for climate cycles over thousands of years, as I noted above. But none of them attributes recently observed warming to periodic orbital phenomena alone, or even primarily.
If you know of a counterexample in the research literature, then by all means go ahead and cite it. I would be very interested to correct my understanding on the matter.
Moreover, no attempts to attribute recent warming to some other cause than anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions have successfully explained why in their scenarios the anthropogenic emissions didn’t produce warming, as basic physics predicts they would.
You can’t possibly be that ignorant. It’s not possible.
I don’t find it hard to believe at all, nor have I ever denied that there’s a lot of terrible material published about climate science. I’ve read some of it.
But the existence of terrible science doesn’t mean that good science doesn’t exist, nor does it invalidate the findings of the good science.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
For example:
The Greenhouse Effect: How Does It Work?
A lot of people actually think THAT IS CORRECT.
It makes me want to yell BITCH! NO IT AIN’T!
[/quote]
Well, for the sake of your blood pressure, you might be better off engaging mainstream climate science at the level of research publications, rather than elementary popular interpretations of it on websites whose readers evidently can’t even cope with simple equations.
You are probably right.
:dubious: Gosh, it’s really incomprehensible why you don’t have better luck with promoting better scientific communication and understanding. I mean, anyone would expect that your unfailing good-natured courtesy and self-effacing focus on constructive dialogue would make you a tremendously effective communicator.
You would think so. But goddamn if people ain’t stupid and shit.
You probably weren’t reading back when the thread went from an ironic discussion of record cold and global warming, IMNSHO, to a Pit thread, but even so it all went to shit only after the usual fuckheads started calling names.
See? Up until then it was all good nature and fun and shit like that.
then the curse of all global warming thread showed up, and things really went downhill.
:smack: It’s like denialist mad-libs.
Did I say Milankovitch cycles, no I didn’t, what’s with the strawman argument, I thought you to be better than that. I’m proposing orbital perturbations as a mechanic for climate change. Milankovitch cycles do not change input flux, it doesn’t matter how the Earth is orientated towards the sun, only how far away the Earth is. On the other hand, if the Earth’s orbit is farther away from the sun over the past couple of million years than is was 100 million years ago, we’ll see profound climate change over that time span. If you look at the entire ice core dataset, you’ll note the “clockwork” pattern … something the lamestream utterly fails to address.
I hate doing this to you, but I’m going to refer you to Wikipedia’s definition of hypothesis. Seems the only requirement is that the hypothesis be stated so that it can be disproved by experiment. The actual experiments need not be done for it to be scientifically sound.
Scientific method … we start by stating our hypothesis, conduct experiments to demonstrate our hypothesis, then publish our data where we either confirm or denounce our hypothesis. Not done yet, because now we’ll need someone independent of our research to duplicate our experiments and themselves publish, stating their own conclusions. If both sets of experiments agree, then we have the start of a scientific theory. Along with the above, we must have yet another researcher saying we are wrong because of this or that factor. More hypotheses are formed, more experiments conducted until all the questions are answered.
Hand waving away my eight alternate hypotheses is philosophical, not science.
There you go again, getting all factual. complicating the thread with science and definitions.
Nobody said anything like that.
Yeah, but handwaving is the most common way to debunk anything that might make you have to think. Plus, warmists already know everything, so they don’t even have to read anything.
Haha wow, you originally posted this in Great Debates or IMHO? I guess on top of:[ul]
[li]climate science[/li][li]any other science[/li][li]metaphors and analogies[/li][li]self-awareness[/li][/ul]I guess we can add “posting things in the proper subforum” to the list of “things FXMastermind mistakes his He-Man action figures for.”