Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

Well put.

Overfishing, deforestation, rampant consumption and landfill disposal, commuting solo in peak hour traffic, etc etc. All these issues are far more important than a 2 deg temp rise in a 100 years.

We cant reliably predict the weather more than 3 days out so calling climate modelling science is complete bs. Science requires you to conduct experments to validate or refute an hypothesis.

Carbon taxes and climate agreement are about as effictive as a chocolate teapot.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

^^ This!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

Science requires you to conduct experments to validate or refute an hypothesis.

And where will we find the control planet "Earth" for this experiment?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

BTW folks, the big bang, like string theory is just theory. Like god, there is no proof of it. The big bang sort of fits the observed universe. But it is only one theory of many. There is steady state (though perhaps with an isolation) and the universe riding on the back of a pandimensional turtle. Oddly equally valid, in theory.

We do not know all that we don't know. There is the niggly bit of extra acceleration that objects in a sling shot around a gravity well, picks up. It's tiny (fraction of a MPS), but no one knows where it comes from.

I tend the think the big bang could be valid. But lets not chastise people that finds fault with it. There is after all no convinsing proof that is how the universe came into being.

Much like climate models. The models are true only if they model everything without assumptions. The models may predict climate, but may not be complete or conclusive.

Hold on there SC. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang theory. Steady State was long ago discredited. It does not fit the observable universe. As far as the gravity well example, I suspect you're referring to the relatively recent (decade-old) confirmation that the universe's expansion is accelerating. IOW, the energy density of the vacuum is not, in fact, zero as had long been thought based on the observable evidence. The so called cosmological constant in General Relatively (yet another "theory") has now been measured to have a positive value. This is the field of Dark Energy (not Dark Matter ... completely different stuff). Dark energy is really just a way of saying we don't know what the heck is going on at this level.

But none of this diminishes the Big Bang theory.

BTW, the term "theory" in science is not used in the same way as it is used in the vernacular, and perhaps not the same as in engineering (I was never smart enough to be an engineer). It is also different than a scientific model, which is more like a tool to help analyse a phenomena. A scientific theory is not just some general idea about a subject. A scientific theory is a clear, consistent and coherent explanation for the range of phenomena being studied. Theories grow from evidence that supports a hypothesis. As facts accumulate around a scientific hypothesis they become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. This is how a scientific consensus emerges.

Scientific theories and laws are always contingent on evidence, on facts. Scientific theories can certainly be wrong. The process of science is such that often theories are found to be partial truths (such as Newtonian theory of gravity vs General Relativity). As more and new evidence accumulates, scientific models, theories and laws evolve, change or are completely scrapped for better theories.

That is the wonder of science, as opposed to dogma-driven ways of "knowing," like religion, politics or the "self-evident truths" of philosophy. Scientific understanding is always contingent on actual evidence.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As far as the gravity well example, I suspect you're referring to the relatively recent (decade-old) confirmation that the universe's expansion is accelerating.

Dark energy is really just a way of saying we don't know what the heck is going on at this level.

But none of this diminishes the Big Bang theory.

Oh I love the big bang theory. You could call me a banger, but please don't . It does match observed data rather well. My only thought is we should not mock others that believe differently. Respect for all, as it were. Sort of like the whole warmest / denier thingy.

BTW, I'm not actually religious, despite being an ordained minister in the church of the flying spaghetti monster.

The gravity well thingy, also called the flyby anomaly. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly. I suspect the flyby Anomaly is a bit of that dark energy thingy. That is things we have not quite figured out yet. Or as sailors said long ago.... Here there be dragons.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Oh I love the big bang theory. You could call me a banger, but please don't . It does match observed data rather well. My only thought is we should not mock others that believe differently. Respect for all, as it were. Sort of like the whole warmest / denier thingy.

You're right, of course, SC. I do try and remain civil when disagreeing with people (as we've done here). And you're right, mocking others for their positions is never useful. I do try, perhaps not always successfully, to disagree with ideas, not people.

The challenge I feel comes down to the old adage, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. This is why I'm not engaging in the "my expert is bigger than your expert" debate. But when people blatantly state falsehoods, such as Third's comment about the Big Bang (not yours), it is necessary to correct such statements.

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

The gravity well thingy, also called the flyby anomaly. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly. I suspect the flyby Anomaly is a bit of that dark energy thingy. That is things we have not quite figured out yet. Or as sailors said long ago.... Here there be dragons.

THANKS! This is wonderful. I'd not heard of this phenomena, and it does indeed seem to be a head-scratcher. Love it!

Lots of interesting hypothesis about the phenomena, from solar wind and magnetic effects all the way to dark matter in orbit. This is a great example of the process of science. With each flyby more evidence is collected and hypothesis are tested and challenged. At some stage a hypothesis will evolve to a scientific theory, and perhaps to a new scientific law.

And just to bring this all back to something resembling the subject, rapid climate change is at the level of theory.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And where will we find the control planet "Earth" for this experiment?

Yet you want to disrupt the World Energy source based on what....
Eco Imperialists actually Kill people in Poor/developing Countries

[Reefmagnet]

Has anyone considered for one moment that homo sapiens evolved in the womb of a frozen world? It was only once the world started to thaw that our species really started to motor on. It's no coincidence that advanced human civilization kicked off at fundamentally the same moment the interglacial period started. Granted Neanderthals didn't fare so well but that's evidence, to me at least, that us modern humans needed a warm and cosy world to really kick into gear. Ironically that particular climate change event makes the current one look like small change.

To a cave man of 100000 years ago, we are presently living in a world of catastrophic climate change and unprecedented sea level rise.

Just some food for thought.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Retro article (2001) on job prospects created by AGW...

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org...75374879060306

Not sure the projections have reached fruition yet, as the emphasis was on careers researching solutions whereas it seems to me the majority of current research is still focussing on problems.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

But when people blatantly state falsehoods, such as Third's comment about the Big Bang (not yours), it is necessary to correct such statements. .

Falsehoods...according to you?
There we go again....
Only your opinions matter and those that have others are just pushing falsehoods. See how the game goes

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Has anyone considered for one moment that homo sapiens evolved in the womb of a frozen world?

Just some food for thought.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Has anyone considered that homo sapiens and their food crops evolved in a world where CO2 never exceeded 300 ppm, until we started dumping trillions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere creating levels not seen in 3-5 million years?

Just some food for thought.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Retro article (2001) on job prospects created by AGW...

Careers in Global Warming: Heating Up | Science Careers

Not sure the projections have reached fruition yet, as the emphasis was on careers researching solutions whereas it seems to me the majority of current research is still focussing on problems.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

It seems to me that more is being spent on solutions than problems.

FY 2014 Proposed Budget Authority (millions of dollars)

US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 2,658
Clean Energy Technologies 7,933

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...o-congress.pdf Table 1

[troppo]

But will I still be using sails on my boat in 100 years? Perhaps my boat will be run by nuclear energy.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Has anyone considered that homo sapiens and their food crops evolved in a world where CO2 never exceeded 300 ppm, until we started dumping trillions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere creating levels not seen in 3-5 million years?

Just some food for thought.

Has anyone proved we won't adapt?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by troppo

But will I still be using sails on my boat in 100 years? Perhaps my boat will be run by nuclear energy.

Your sailboat is already nuclear powered the sun creates the weather and associated winds.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by troppo

But will I still be using sails on my boat in 100 years? Perhaps my boat will be run by nuclear energy.

And your sails could be made from petrochemical feedstocks, if we do not burn what reserves we have left.

As to a power source, nuclear might just be the ticket.

Small Nuclear Reactors Are Becoming Big Business - Businessweek