Of the co2 in the atmosphere, how much of it is "fossil fuel induced" and how much of it is naturally occurring?
Posted on 06/04/2014 5:38:52 AM PDT by rktman
My favorite has become:
Where is the ‘control’ sample?
If you are going to saw an event is caused by something, you have to have a “control” sample that doesn’t have that something to test it against.
Otherwise it is all speculation.
Of course with algore speculating in the carbon market that would make sense!
I tell them "You're so stupid you don't even know you're stupid!"
I suppose the correct temperature for the earth is exactly what the annual average was on March 31, 1948.
You know, the day Dr. Al Gore was whelped.
Great questions.
I’m taken’em.
You’re close, it is actually from November 31, 1948.
You are quite correct. The arguments and conclusions of the AGW crowd are not based on the Scientific Method but instead lie entirely within the realm of Pseudo-Science.
A working definition of Pseudo-Science comes from Karl Popper's Theory of Demarcation. In it, Popper defines Induction as a process by which conclusions are based upon a series of supporting observations. However, Popper goes on to argue (I'm paraphrasing here) that a truckload of evidence can be found to support virtually any hypothesis, yet a single contrary observation is sufficient to prove the hypothesis false. Therefore, conclusions based on Induction have no place in proper Science and are, instead, the nature of Pseudo-Science.
True Science is based upon the concept of falsifiability: A hypothesis (however formed) must be able to predict at least one non-trivial observable. If the result of the observation is contrary to the prediction of the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is false. This is the fundamental principle of the scientific Method.
What this means is that evidence of warming is not evidence of human-caused warming. It is merely evidence of warming. The only proper scientific way to test AGW is to test its non-trivial predicted observables. In this regard, the AGW hypothesis has failed miserably.
For example, greenhouse gas theory predicts the temperature trend in the tropical troposphere should be increasing at a rate 3 to 4 times faster than the surface rate. Observations show the opposite. The surface trend outpaces the troposphere trend by 2 or 3 times.
Furthermore, greenhouse gas theory predicts radiation into space should decrease as the surface temperature increases (because of certain positive feedback processes integrated into the theory). But observations sow radiation to space increasing by a factor of about three times the amount that greenhouse gas theory predicts it should be decreasing.
Proper Science, by these simple examples prove that global temperature is not driven by greenhouse gases.
Interestingly, the source article on which this topic is based refers to Inductive Science as Proper Science. That is totally backwards! Inductive Science is Pseudo Science. Induction plays a role only in the formation of a hypothesis, never as proof.
Of the co2 in the atmosphere, how much of it is "fossil fuel induced" and how much of it is naturally occurring?
DOH! I completely forgot about that aspect of the equation.
btt
Unbiased data on global warming, does not exist.
Sadly it is, and always has been to a certain extent.
My favorite question: Doesn’t it suggest that Climate Change is not important when, while enjoying a majority in the house and senate, your president chose to pass a healthcare law instead of a CC law? I mean, he had the opportunity to save the entire planet, but instead he did something only for uninsured Americans? Isn’t that a tad selfish?
Control? Sample?
Those terms don’t come up in the science by consensus world the progressive movement subscribes to?
“If everyone in the world does EXACTLY what you demand, how much cooler will it be after 20 year?
Answer: A fraction of a degree.”
Answer: You don’t know. This is the trap the warmists fall into all the time. In order to know, you could conduct an experiment and find out for sure. That’s what real science is all about.
By the way, they aren’t warmists. They are ‘watermelons’ - green on the outside, red (commie) on the inside.
Anybody can build an experiment that shows anthropomorphic CO2 has no measurable impact on the mean air temp of the planet.
CO2 makes up 3 in 1,000,000 molecules in the atmosphere. Using an incandescent light bulb as a thermal energy source (this is cheaper than constructing a nuclear fusion reaction), then create an ‘atmosphere’ identical in the molecular make to Earth’s. Introduce CO2 in increments of 1 ppm until you measure a change in the temperature of the air.
That you haven’t seen any of these experiments conducted, it is because there’s no link whatsoever between CO2, NO, SO, SO2, NH4 or any ‘greenhouse’ gas and a rise in the air temp. None. It HAS been tried, and it never works.
Unless and until you introduce particles into the atmosphere that reflect long and short wave radiant energy back to the thermal energy source, you won’t effect a change in the mean air temp. CO2 doesn’t ‘hold’ heat in close to the Earth, and it doesn’t reflect any back out into Space either.
A greenhouse is something that prevents convection, which traps heat. If you punch a hole in the greenhouse, convection occurs and the heat escapes.
Gravity is what holds the atmosphere to the surface of the earth. That’s it. There’s no invisible cover that holds it on there. Go aboard any ship with a CO2 fire suppression system and check out the room that holds the banks of CO2 bottles.
One of the most important safety devices in that room is a flimsy metal plate at the bottom of the door to that small compartment.
It’s there because if you find yourself locked in that room, and the bottles leak, eventually the CO2 will ‘pile up’ in the compartment and displace all the O2.
The ‘kickplate’ allows you to create a hole in the door so that the CO2 will leave the space and prevent it from displacing the oxygen.
Thermodynamics, and Newton and Einstein, say that matter isn’t created or destroyed, and since all energy is matter, then the same goes for energy.
With planetary thermo, the culprit in changes in air temp is the Sun. The rate at which it generates thermal energy isn’t a constant. Sometimes it throws off more thermal energy, and sometimes it throws off less thermal energy.
It is more reasonable to assume the sun has changed than it is adding one more CO2 molecule to a million other atmospheric molecules is raising (or lowering) the mean air temp.
I can create an experiment to prove this is true and you can get the same results no matter where you conduct the experiment. It even works in a deep freezer.
Put an incandescent light on a dimmer switch. Hold your hand close to it, but not touching. Put the dimmer on the low setting. Record what you feel. Put the dimmer on the max high setting. Record what you feel.
Use any combination of gases you’d like around, in any quantity and combination you like between your hand and the bulb, the effect is going to be the same.
I would recommend not using gases that oxygenate readily in the presence of electricity, however.
I actually believe the government uses the GW hoax to precisely measure the gullibility of the general public for use in creating public policy.
It’s their way of making money through environmental activism, and at the same time scientifically measuring what exactly they can get away with.
It’s so flimsy a lie, and yet we are on the verge of appropriating trillions of dollars globally using this trope as a justification.
AGW is the phrenology of our time. The ‘pet rock’. The bell-bottom pants, afro, and ‘fro pick’ of this decade’s discourse. Everyone is raising money to ‘Save Ferris’, but Ferris is out catching a day game at Wrigley Field.
Last January, it got awfully cold around here. These last few days, however, have been rather on the warm side. I don’t know, maybe there really is something to this climate change thing after all....
Your are correct. My point is that even by their own flawed calculations, following their calamitous prescriptions would accomplish NOTHING.
I actually believe the government uses the GW hoax to precisely measure the gullibility of the general public for use in creating public policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.