Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

DavidJ wrote:

‘accepted scientific fact’

I’m pleased you are comfortable with your evangelical belief for what you see as accepted scientific fact. Most scientists do not accept that there are many hard scientific facts. Quantum Mechanics raised many questions for traditional Newtonian mechanics on small scales.

However, accepted scientific fact has occasionally been found to be wrong over history. When I was at university the age of the universe was accepted fact as 13.7 billion years now I think they’ve corrected to 13.8.

I will admit that trying to claim hard facts from attempts to model a tremendously complex system which is still not well understood I find a bit tricky. Especially when claiming doomsday scenarios. Yet not having accurate detailed data over a geologically significant period of time does add significant difficulty.

Off_Field wrote:

However, accepted scientific fact has occasionally been found to be wrong over history. When I was at university the age of the universe was accepted fact as 13.7 billion years now I think they’ve corrected to 13.8.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if these so-called ‘scientists’ can’t even get the date of the universe correct to <0.7% then all bets are off.

Yes, I think we may have reached the end of the road now. It’s starting to resemble the ‘debate’ I had last night about bath time with my son, and he’s 6.

But that’s ok. Obfuscation and distraction are as old as the hills, and if those are looking shaky there’s always the shadowy cabal of Soros, Gates and Bono (Bono?!?) to fall back on, as someone did earlier. Global conspiracy bingo never fails.

LeSving wrote:

Humans breath out more CO2 and fart more methane for a total green house effect by several orders of magnitude compared with what GA is capable of.

Humans are doing it in a cycle though, the CO2 a human breathes out was recently absorbed by the atmosphere by food crops.

Andreas IOM

It was outside the margin of error that we held over the previous data. Again margin of error on data isn’t something you really care about. Changing some of the input data for climate models by 0.7% could yield wildly different results. There can very much be a compounding of errors effect.

Off you go with hyperbole. I was trying to point out that sometimes accepted scientific fact can be wrong. I’m not saying because we change things as we learn and understand more that we take all bets on everything off.

My concern is at the moment we are trying to make incredibly detailed predictions and forecasts with a model which is far from perfect with not a geologically significant amount of data to put in to it. And we still can not predict or model many of the factors.

The various solar cycles play a huge effect on solar insolation. Also the Earth’s magnetic field variations I would expect to have an effect on our climate. Especially if we are headed towards a pole reversal.

Well, the theory of gravity has been adjusted from Aristotelian “gravitas” via Galieleian earth-centric “free fall”, Newtionian universal gravity to Einstein’s general relativity; and we hope someone will iron out some of the remaining kinks where we know it is STILL WRONG.

Yet, I would be well advised to pull the parachute with some time to go to the ground rather than betting my life on that the theory of gravity is so wrong that I will miss the ground altogether.

Biggin Hill

Cobalt wrote:

and we hope someone will iron out some of the remaining kinks where we know it is STILL WRONG

In science at least it is not about right/wrong, all you need is to explain under some fair assumptions, if you have a super theory it has to degnerate into the existing ones under some relaxed assumptions

Obviously, if you can survive free-falls into black holes then you should survive free-falls without parachutes

ESSEX, United Kingdom

I clearly did forget the sarcrasm emoticon behind STILL WRONG… but I will remember that if I ever find myself in the vicinity of the event horizon of a black hole massive enough for me to survive “until” I cross the event horizon – although the word “until” makes little sense that close to it. I will send you a postcard when I cross it

Biggin Hill

just remember while both you (in free-fall) and observer (outside) agree on the few principal, there is a complete disagreement on your death faith

ESSEX, United Kingdom

Ooooh, general relativity one-upmanship, I love it. It’s a shame that you will never find out which exciting new way I found to die below the event horizon because my postcard will never arrive.

Biggin Hill

… when a thread drift is really refreshing. Thanks!

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top