Are you scientifically literate?

[palerider]

Of course physical laws support the theory of flight, as well as the greenhouse effect. We see both in everyday life all of the time.

Physical laws support the greenhouse effect in a glass house. Which physical laws support the greenhouse effect as claimed by AGW?

 

[PLC1]

Physical laws support the greenhouse effect in a glass house. Which physical laws support the greenhouse effect as claimed by AGW?

The same ones that support the greenhouse effect in a glass house, the changing of wavelength of light due to passing through a denser medium.

If the atmosphere of the Earth did not provide a greenhouse effect, then this planet would be frozen solid. Even small changes in the composition of that atmosphere can cause small changes in the average temperature. It is still just high school physics.

So, back to the subject, what is the difference between an hypothesis and a theory?

 

[palerider]

The same ones that support the greenhouse effect in a glass house, the changing of wavelength of light due to passing through a denser medium.

Sorry, but that simply is not true.

So, back to the subject, what is the difference between an hypothesis and a theory?

A hypothesis is a testable statement offered up as an explanation for some specified phenomenon. It may be simply a claim or an argument based on accepted fact. A theory is an offered explanation that lacks sufficent evidence to be stated as fact or called a natural law.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

So, there is disagreement within the scientific community. How is it that when confronted with disagreement as to whether a phenomenon exists or doesn't, your solution is to stop looking?

Again, that doesn't sound very scientific to me.

He hasn't once said that we should stop looking. That position is actually held by the left, who would like to believe that "the science is in" and anybody who disagrees is tantamount to a holocaust denier.

He's saying that what has been passed off as scientific consensus and real research, is a hoax. He has not said, and in fact has himself refuted once already in this very thread the accusation that he has said, that we should stop researching climate change.

 

[palerider]

He hasn't once said that we should stop looking. That position is actually held by the left, who would like to believe that "the science is in" and anybody who disagrees is tantamount to a holocaust denier.

He's saying that what has been passed off as scientific consensus and real research, is a hoax. He has not said, and in fact has himself refuted once already in this very thread the accusation that he has said, that we should stop researching climate change.

They don't read for comprehension. Their debate tactics are very much like the "research" tactics used by climate pseudoscience. Preordained conclusion and whatever interpretation of the available data (or fabrication if necessary) is needed to reach the already decided upon conclusion.

 

[PLC1]

Sorry, but that simply is not true.

You're saying that it is not true that light speed changes in a denser medium, and that explains things like how a prism works, and how a greenhouse stays warm inside?

Your reference to "that" is not clear. What I posted is simple physics.

A hypothesis is a testable statement offered up as an explanation for some specified phenomenon. It may be simply a claim or an argument based on accepted fact. A theory is an offered explanation that lacks sufficent evidence to be stated as fact or called a natural law.

Close.

An hypothesis is a testable statement offered up to explain observed facts. If it is tested and the test verifies it, it is still an hypothesis. When many independent testers verify it many times, then it becomes a theory. A scientific theory is then accepted as valid unless new facts come to light to refute it.

A law is something that has been observed happening, like the law of gravity, or the speed of light.

 

[numinus]

....Another miracle. Imagine that.. Now we have the scientific community claiming at least two miracles in the process of the big bang. First, a small dense hot point that came from nowhere and started everything in motion, and in order to explain it, a magical suspension of the laws of physics for “just a little while” so that everything can expand at a speed they themselves have found to be impossible. I am all for science, but the claim of two physical miracles and a couple of mathematical miracles is just to many for any scientific theory to hold water with me.

There is something fundamentally wrong with your interpretation of the big bang.

Einstein's field equation holds only up to 1 planck time after the big bang. Earlier than that, the fundamental units of physics cannot exist in a rational manner -- a time interval is dilated to infinity, spatial displacement is contracted to nothing, and mass/density approaches infinity.

What that is, as far as epistemology is concerned, is essentially METAPHYSICAL.

But I do agree, the big bang theory has some very persistent and enduring riddles -- horizon and homogeneity, flatness, and the cosmological constant riddles to name a few.

 

[palerider]

You're saying that it is not true that light speed changes in a denser medium, and that explains things like how a prism works, and how a greenhouse stays warm inside?

Your reference to "that" is not clear. What I posted is simple physics.

I am saying that the physics that make a glass house warm don't work in the atmosphere.

An hypothesis is a testable statement offered up to explain observed facts. If it is tested and the test verifies it, it is still an hypothesis. When many independent testers verify it many times, then it becomes a theory. A scientific theory is then accepted as valid unless new facts come to light to refute it.

That is what I said. If you were going to go to a dictionary to find the difference, why didn't you just post the definitions you found rather than clouding the meanings trying to put them in your own words?

By the way, lets see some actual proof that establishes AGW as either a workable hypothesis or a theory. Thus far, none of the claims match observed data.

 

[PLC1]

I am saying that the physics that make a glass house warm don't work in the atmosphere.

If that were true, then the Earth would be frozen solid. of course, the atmosphere helps keep the planet warm.

Why did you think it's colder in higher elevations?

That is what I said. If you were going to go to a dictionary to find the difference, why didn't you just post the definitions you found rather than clouding the meanings trying to put them in your own words?

OK, no need to quibble over definitions. The point is, a theory has been pretty thoroughly tested by a variety of people before it becomes a theory. It takes some new facts and observations to cast doubt on an established theory. An hypothesis is still up for testing and debate.

By the way, lets see some actual proof that establishes AGW as either a workable hypothesis or a theory. Thus far, none of the claims match observed data.

Well, it has been proposed as an explanation of observed data, and tested by independent scientists worldwide.

 

[palerider]

If that were true, then the Earth would be frozen solid. of course, the atmosphere helps keep the planet warm.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the "greenhouse" effect and its application to the atmosphere. It is your scientific illiteracy that allows you to accept the terribly flawed AGW theory. Let me see if I can explain this in terms that a person who has no science can understand.

First, and foremost, the atmosphere does not behave like a greenhouse. I have already stated that basic fact and apparently you can' not wrap your mind around the fact because you don't understand the basic fact. A glass house is warm inside because the glass prevents the exchange of air between the inside and the outside. It has nothing to do with changing wavelengths as you so eroneously suggested. Wavelengths may be absorbed but they are not changed.

The glass keeps the warmed air inside the greenhouse so that it can't be carried away. Clearly that is not how the atmosphere is warmed. The fact is that the atmosphere encourages, not discourages convection (the exchange of air between warmer and cooler layers).

The atmosphere does not trap heat as does a greenhouse. If the atmosphere were capable of trapping heat, then the temperature would steadily rise as happens in a greenhouse. Clearly that does not happen as the atmospheric temperatures remain relatively constant because energy is not trapped. Energy escapes the atmosphere as quicily as it comes in.

Why did you think it's colder in higher elevations?

It is cooler in higher elevations because the air is thinner and less longwave radiation leaving the earth is absorbed. Check the temperature on the floor of a greehouse and at the ceiling. You will find that the temperature is the same no matter how tall the greenouse is. That fact alone should clue you in to, at least, the idea that a greehouse is operating under an entirely different principle than the atmosphere if you are thinking critically.

OK, no need to quibble over definitions. The point is, a theory has been pretty thoroughly tested by a variety of people before it becomes a theory. It takes some new facts and observations to cast doubt on an established theory. An hypothesis is still up for testing and debate.

New facts and observations. How about the fact that the outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum has not changed since the 1970's in spite of more CO2 being in the atmosphere? If AGW theory is correct, then more CO2 would result in less outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum due to the absorption of more OLR by the CO2. That clearly isn't happening.

Well, it has been proposed as an explanation of observed data, and tested by independent scientists worldwide.

No. It has been proposed as an explanation of simulated data. Warming is only happening in the simulations. The satellite data record does not show any warming and the ground based data collection system has been corrupted to the point that it is useless. Thousands of ground based stations have been taken offline and the vast majority of those were in rural areas. What we are left with is stations in metropolitan areas that are subject to the heat island effect and naturally show higher temperatures. NOAA and GISS have acknowledged that their temperature record is not as accurate as the CRU record which has now been proven to be flawed beyond repair. The fact is that the only data record that can be trusted (the satellite record) does not show any warming trend and yet, the believers keep on believing.

Believing simply because a theory aligns with your political motivations is not scientific literacy.

 

[PLC1]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the "greenhouse" effect and its application to the atmosphere. It is your scientific illiteracy that allows you to accept the terribly flawed AGW theory. Let me see if I can explain this in terms that a person who has no science can understand.

First, and foremost, the atmosphere does not behave like a greenhouse. I have already stated that basic fact and apparently you can' not wrap your mind around the fact because you don't understand the basic fact. A glass house is warm inside because the glass prevents the exchange of air between the inside and the outside. It has nothing to do with changing wavelengths as you so eroneously suggested. Wavelengths may be absorbed but they are not changed.

You're trying so hard to make a scientific theory into a political point that you're trying to refute basic physics.

Shorter wave lengths of light pass more readily through a denser medium. That is why the sky is blue, BTW.

Here is an animated illustration of the greenhouse effect as it applies to Earth's atmosphere.

The glass keeps the warmed air inside the greenhouse so that it can't be carried away. Clearly that is not how the atmosphere is warmed. The fact is that the atmosphere encourages, not discourages convection (the exchange of air between warmer and cooler layers).

The atmosphere does not trap heat as does a greenhouse. If the atmosphere were capable of trapping heat, then the temperature would steadily rise as happens in a greenhouse. Clearly that does not happen as the atmospheric temperatures remain relatively constant because energy is not trapped. Energy escapes the atmosphere as quicily as it comes in.

The temperature of the Earth is a lot higher than that of Mars, yet a lot less than that of Venus. Now, part of that difference is the relative distance from the sun, of course, but most of it is due to the relative thickness of the atmosphere's of the three planets. The thicker the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped, and the warmer the planet.

It is cooler in higher elevations because the air is thinner and less longwave radiation leaving the earth is absorbed.

Exactly. That phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect, as the thicker atmosphere at lower elevations traps more heat. The long wave radiation can escape more readily at higher elevations.

Check the temperature on the floor of a greehouse and at the ceiling. You will find that the temperature is the same no matter how tall the greenouse is. That fact alone should clue you in to, at least, the idea that a greehouse is operating under an entirely different principle than the atmosphere if you are thinking critically.

You will probably find that the air is warmer near the ceiling due to warm air rising. Of course, there are some differences.

New facts and observations. How about the fact that the outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum has not changed since the 1970's in spite of more CO2 being in the atmosphere? If AGW theory is correct, then more CO2 would result in less outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum due to the absorption of more OLR by the CO2. That clearly isn't happening.

No, that's one I hadn't heard. I thought I had heard all of the science vs. political arguments about global climate change.

How do you know that your statement is correct? It contains one obvious error: CO2 is not a part of the spectrum.

No. It has been proposed as an explanation of simulated data. Warming is only happening in the simulations. The satellite data record does not show any warming and the ground based data collection system has been corrupted to the point that it is useless. Thousands of ground based stations have been taken offline and the vast majority of those were in rural areas. What we are left with is stations in metropolitan areas that are subject to the heat island effect and naturally show higher temperatures. NOAA and GISS have acknowledged that their temperature record is not as accurate as the CRU record which has now been proven to be flawed beyond repair. The fact is that the only data record that can be trusted (the satellite record) does not show any warming trend and yet, the believers keep on believing.

Believing simply because a theory aligns with your political motivations is not scientific literacy.

Your last statement is correct. I can agree with that 100%. That's why I like to rely on apolitical sources like Discover Magazine for information about scientific issues.

Here is a discussion of global warming from the latest issue:

Where does climate science go from here? The Copenhagen talks were a dud. Stolen e-mail correspondence has embarrassed some leading climatologists. If the science is settled and the threat is urgent, why has global warming become a soap opera? To find out, DISCOVER sought two different, important views, from Penn State’s Michael Mann and Georgia Tech’s Judith Curry.

 

[palerider]

You're trying so hard to make a scientific theory into a political point that you're trying to refute basic physics.

Sorry guy, but it is you who is attempting to refute physics.

Shorter wave lengths of light pass more readily through a denser medium. That is why the sky is blue, BTW.

Irrelavent. It is not the short wave radiation coming in that warms the atmosphere, it is the long wave radiation on the way back out into space that gets absorbed that causes warming.

Exactly. That phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect, as the thicker atmosphere at lower elevations traps more heat. The long wave radiation can escape more readily at higher elevations.

That is what it is called, but the name is a misnomer. It is not a greenhoue effect as the atmosphere behaves nothing like a greenhouse. Tell you what, why don't you set yourself up a greenhouse. Or use your car. Get yourself a tank of CO2 and fill the entire volume of your car, or your greenhouse with said CO2 and see if it gets even one degree warmer because of the amount of CO2 inside. Here's a clue. It won't. Why you may ask. It is because the saturation point of CO2 (that is the point at which CO2 can no longer absorb radiation) is far lower than even the present atmospheric CO2 levels.

You will probably find that the air is warmer near the ceiling due to warm air rising. Of course, there are some differences.

Actually you won't because the whole purpose of a greenhouse is to prevent convection.

No, that's one I hadn't heard. I thought I had heard all of the science vs. political arguments about global climate change.

I posted the evidence on the "bullet to the head of AGW theory" thread. Feel free to have a look.

How do you know that your statement is correct? It contains one obvious error: CO2 is not a part of the spectrum.

Again, you are cripled by your lack of scientific knowledge. You are arguing about things that you simply don't understand. Do you understand that long wave radiation has a spectrum as well? Do you understand that the spectrum goes both above and below the visible light spectrum? Have you ever heard the term spectrometry? Do you understand that certain substances absorb certain wavelengths of radiation? CO2 absorbs longwave radiation in the 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometer wavelenghts.

The fact is, (and feel free to look at the spectra in the above mentioned thread) that the outgoing long wave radiation spectra as viewed from space remains the same today as it was in the 70's in spite of higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. If AGW theory were correct, then the more modern spectrographic snapshots should show less outgoing long wave radiation in the spectrum absorbed by CO2. Alas, that is not the case.

Trying to be too cute by half only exposes the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about.

Your last statement is correct. I can agree with that 100%. That's why I like to rely on apolitical sources like Discover Magazine for information about scientific issues.

Discover? Apolitical? Now that's a chuckle.

 

[PLC1]

Sorry guy, but it is you who is attempting to refute physics.



Irrelavent. It is not the short wave radiation coming in that warms the atmosphere, it is the long wave radiation on the way back out into space that gets absorbed that causes warming.



That is what it is called, but the name is a misnomer. It is not a greenhoue effect as the atmosphere behaves nothing like a greenhouse. Tell you what, why don't you set yourself up a greenhouse. Or use your car. Get yourself a tank of CO2 and fill the entire volume of your car, or your greenhouse with said CO2 and see if it gets even one degree warmer because of the amount of CO2 inside. Here's a clue. It won't. Why you may ask. It is because the saturation point of CO2 (that is the point at which CO2 can no longer absorb radiation) is far lower than even the present atmospheric CO2 levels.



Actually you won't because the whole purpose of a greenhouse is to prevent convection.



I posted the evidence on the "bullet to the head of AGW theory" thread. Feel free to have a look.



Again, you are cripled by your lack of scientific knowledge. You are arguing about things that you simply don't understand. Do you understand that long wave radiation has a spectrum as well? Do you understand that the spectrum goes both above and below the visible light spectrum? Have you ever heard the term spectrometry? Do you understand that certain substances absorb certain wavelengths of radiation? CO2 absorbs longwave radiation in the 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometer wavelenghts.

The fact is, (and feel free to look at the spectra in the above mentioned thread) that the outgoing long wave radiation spectra as viewed from space remains the same today as it was in the 70's in spite of higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. If AGW theory were correct, then the more modern spectrographic snapshots should show less outgoing long wave radiation in the spectrum absorbed by CO2. Alas, that is not the case.

Trying to be too cute by half only exposes the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about.



Discover? Apolitical? Now that's a chuckle.

I can't believe I really let myself be sucked into yet another climate change debate.

Yes, the science behind it is solid, no, Discover Magazine is not political, yes, light rays change wave length when passing through a denser medium, like glass, water vapor, or carbon dioxide.

And no, there is no such thing as the CO2 spectrum. Sorry. the spectrum refers to wave length of light, not to any gas, greenhouse gas or otherwise.

And yes, the atmosphere of the Earth does trap heat.

Further, yes, the air at the top of a greenhouse is likely to be warmer than that near the floor. Glass or not, warm air still rises.

And that's just basic science, no politics involved.

Now, how does an internal combustion engine work?

 

[Helicitor]

Discover? Apolitical? Now that's a chuckle.

Agree--I canx my subscription to Discover because they were trying to pass off about 1-2 political articles a month as science. I can't stand that in a science magazine. It is not the only one.

 

[Helicitor]

Further, yes, the air at the top of a greenhouse is likely to be warmer than that near the floor. Glass or not, warm air still rises.

True. But in the atmosphere, gas expands adiabatically (fancy word for conserving mass) as it rises, with the net result that it cools about 10 degrees Celsius per kilometer. However, if it has water vapor that is condensing in the column as the air is rising, then it only cools at around 6.5 degrees per kilometer (near the surface). Because of the interaction of water vapor in convection, it is nearly impossible to factor in the effects of so called greenhouse gases on the environment because they affect the water cycle in ways that no computer model can adequately resolve. It is not settled science. Models show the sensitivities of the various parameterization schemes implemented in the model, which may, or may not, reflect how the real atmosphere would react. My experience is that no parameterization scheme pans out in all scenarios.

So, I can't say man-made global warming is occurring or not. Man's inhumanity towards man is still my number one concern. Science has limitations, after which reason and risk management must take over.