Global Warming - yes, no, maybe?

[HiLo 10]

Oh, it's political alright. And the politicians simply can't be objective. Always looking to their supporters. Copenhagen needed fewer politicians, and more scientists and people who knew what actually could be achieved.

[GaHillBilly 10]

Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the putative cause of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). You can read the abstract below yourself, but for those not versed in statistical science-speak,

=> the bottom line is that the data shows no increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years.

[vol_scouter 365]

GaHillBilly,

 

You beat me to the punch on those articles! The argument for AGW seems to more political with decreasing evidence.

[HiLo 10]

I'd suggest that most of the argument both for AND against AGW that the general public hears is political.

[vol_scouter 365]

HiLo,

 

That is certainly true. Part of the problem is understanding what probabilities in science mean so the politicians bend it to their benefit.

[WAKWIB 107]

Well, it would be nice if the scientists would get their act together and pull us out of the abyss. According to Prince Charles in his speech at Copenhagen, our days are numbered and quite short.

Says the Prince:

"For the grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/15/prince-charles-speech-copenhagen-climate

 

Wishing one and all a blessed and productive 2010 from the heartland of America where it is a balmy 9 degrees (F).

 

WAKWIB

 

 

[vol_scouter 365]

Who would listen to this guy. He, like Gore, is not a scientist and has demonstrated his poor judgment by dumping the beautiful and charming Diana for the unattractive Camilla. In this area, I have avoided listening to any of the politicians. They are parrots at best. They do not understand the mathematics required for the climate modeling and therefore have absolutely no conception of limitations and uncertainties in the model. Charles' statement is clearly ridiculous. Even some of the worst scenarios for AGW take many decades before most of the human race would be dead. A large scale nuclear exchange is a real and more likely scenario especially with Iran developing nuclear weapons and Pakistan being unstable. So ignore the politicians. Read what the scientists write in papers and remember that consensus opinions are required when the science is NOT settled, i.e. it is not scientifically shown which side is correct.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter writes:

Read what the scientists write in papers and remember that consensus opinions are required when the science is NOT settled, i.e. it is not scientifically shown which side is correct.

 

Science doesn't show "which side is correct." It's all consensus opinions.

[vol_scouter 365]

Merlyn,

 

You clearly know little about science. Quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, special relativity, classical mechanics in a classical region, et cetera are considered to be correct and there was no need for a consensus opinion because the correctness was clear (in some cases nearly immediately). My statement was correct.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter, you're the one ignorant about science. Quantum mechanics and general relativity conflict, and haven't been reconciled. GR says the influence of an event can't go faster than the speed of light, while QM disagrees, for one problem. And classical mechanics is "correct" only if you don't care about the small errors you get by ignoring relativistic effects (or the larger errors you get for e.g. predicting Mercury's orbit). That is to say, it's wrong. It isn't correct, it's only approximate. That's fine in a lot of cases, but it's like using 32 ft/s^2 to calculate how long it takes an object to fall from the top of the Empire State building. You know that you're ignoring friction caused by air and the slight increase in gravitational force as the object falls.

[GaHillBilly 10]

"Quantum mechanics and general relativity conflict, and haven't been reconciled. "

 

Merlyn, please name an area of engineering, particle physics, or astrophysics where scientists are unable to decide whether to apply quantum physics & the standard model OR the general theory of relativity, and thus are unable to perform the requisite calculations.

 

 

Failing that, please have a generous helping of your own words for your New Year's meal

 

 

Neither quantum theory nor general relativity are a Grand Unified Theory (GUT). Quantum theory and the standard model work very, very well for the little stuff. And general relativity works well for the big stuff.

 

So although neither works outside their 'realm', but I'm not aware of any conflict except in the minds of theorists who want one theory to cover both the big and the little.

 

 

GaHillBilly

[vol_scouter 365]

Melyn,

 

Please quit showing your ignorance. General relativity and quantum mechanics are well verified theories. The Gravitational field has not been successfully quantized which does not mean that they are not reconciled. It has to do with grand unification. The Strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic field have been successfully quantized. If the gravitational field can be quantized, then all forces could be derived from a single force. This does not mean that general relativity is questioned or that quantum mechanics is questioned. Whether or not they can be combined into a single theory is not answered and has fundamental implications. That does not mean that there is doubts of the correctness of the theories.

 

Special relativity says that information cannot be sent faster than the speed of light. Quantum entanglement does not transfer information faster than the speed of light. Rather it is a type of coding. There might be ways to exploit this which has intense interest. I may soon be involved in a quantum entanglement experiment. If there is a way to exploit quantum entanglement, it would not damage the theories of quantum mechanics and special relativity.

 

I qualified my statement by saying that classical mechanics would have to be employed in classical realms. So you comments are silly since I had already said that. In your example, the friction of the atmosphere is primarily a first order differential effect with only a small second order component. My PhD is in physics, please stick to areas that you know.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

GaHillBilly writes:

Neither quantum theory nor general relativity are a Grand Unified Theory (GUT). Quantum theory and the standard model work very, very well for the little stuff. And general relativity works well for the big stuff.

 

Like you agree, there's no GUT yet. Both theories work well in certain areas. But they aren't completely compatible with each other.

 

vol_scouter writes:

General relativity and quantum mechanics are well verified theories.

 

That still doesn't reconcile them. Or your silly statement that sciences shows "which side is correct."

 

There isn't a GUT yet because QM and relativity haven't been reconciled.

[vol_scouter 365]

Merlyn,

 

As usual, I regret ever responding to you. First, the most accurate theory none to man is quantum electrodynamics. The general relativity and quantum mechanics do not have to be reconciled because they are not making conflicting predictions. As I said before, whether or not the gravitational field can be quantized will provide fundamental understanding but it does not affect the validity of either theory if the gravitational field cannot be quantized. You seem to revel in showing how little you understand. As usual, you change the subject because you are simply wrong. Consensus in science is used when the correct scientific explanation has been elucidated. In AGW, it is becoming more doubtful that it is correct. Consensus opinions in science and medicine are issued when the science is still not clear.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter writes:

As usual, I regret ever responding to you.

 

The feeling is mutual.

 

Now your statements aren't even consistent:

Consensus in science is used when the correct scientific explanation has been elucidated.

Consensus opinions in science and medicine are issued when the science is still not clear.

 

"Elucidated" means made clear, so your first sentence says consensus is used when the science IS clear, and your second sentence says consensus is used when it's NOT clear.

 

Oddly enough, I agree, because consensus is used in both cases. You seem to think there's some magic threshhold where consensus turns into "what science says is correct" or something like that. But that's just more consensus.

 

It's "consensus" and not "correct" because "what science says is correct" can still turn out to be wrong, such as Newton's laws of motion. They're useful, they're quite close for most purposes, they were considered correct for a long time, but they aren't correct. The observed universe doesn't quite act the way classical mechanics describes. Even if it's "very close," it is not correct.