Expert: We must act fast on warming

Expert: We must act fast on warming

There are 28463 comments on the Kansas.com story from Sep 24, 2008, titled Expert: We must act fast on warming. In it, Kansas.com reports that:

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Kansas.com.

Science Fact

Minneapolis, MN

#27544 Jan 17, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again...the experiment can't be conducted.
Is that too complicated a concept for you?
If THE IDEA that 'GW is driven by Anthropogenic CO2 and can be mitigated' is not worded in a way that it can be tested then THE IDEA is not structured as a theory. The FACT is: if there is not a test -there is not a theory. This is known as BASIC SCIENCE.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#27545 Jan 17, 2014
Science Fact wrote:
<quoted text>
If THE IDEA that 'GW is driven by Anthropogenic CO2 and can be mitigated' is not worded in a way that it can be tested then THE IDEA is not structured as a theory. The FACT is: if there is not a test -there is not a theory. This is known as BASIC SCIENCE.
Yaas, Brain_Dead has informed us many times that we do not understand BASIC SCIENCE.

Apparently, you are too.

But, nevertheless, the Earth is warming, we are causing it, and there are things we can do to mitigate it. AGW theory remains very much alive.

Sorry, Charlie.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#27546 Jan 17, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yaas, Brain_Dead has informed us many times that we do not understand BASIC SCIENCE.
Apparently, you are too.
But, nevertheless, the Earth is warming, we are causing it, and there are things we can do to mitigate it. AGW theory remains very much alive.
Sorry, Charlie.
brian is not quite so dumb as to suggest AGW is not testable. Of course it is: we just have to measure heat leaving the Earth at the frequency CO2 absorbs it over time and if it drops, then AGW is happening.

The idea that AGW is not testable is simply moronic. brian is cleverer than that, in suggesting it's not experimentally testable, which is true, since we don't have planet duplicator rays and time machines and can't trivially add and subtract half a trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Since: Jul 13

Freehold, NJ

#27547 Jan 17, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
brian is not quite so dumb as to suggest AGW is not testable. Of course it is: we just have to measure heat leaving the Earth at the frequency CO2 absorbs it over time and if it drops, then AGW is happening.
The idea that AGW is not testable is simply moronic. brian is cleverer than that, in suggesting it's not experimentally testable, which is true, since we don't have planet duplicator rays and time machines and can't trivially add and subtract half a trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.
FG.....Something worth reading

http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/upl...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#27548 Jan 18, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
brian is not quite so dumb as to suggest AGW is not testable. Of course it is: we just have to measure heat leaving the Earth at the frequency CO2 absorbs it over time and if it drops, then AGW is happening.
No, you can measure variables over time but you can't attribute cause; that's the problem with purely observational science.

.
Fair Game wrote:
The idea that AGW is not testable is simply moronic. brian is cleverer than that, in suggesting it's not experimentally testable, which is true,
Experimentally testing AGW would be as simple as adding and removing large amounts of greenhouse gas from the air, randomly changing treatments over time, then if you measure a correlated climate change, you've found causation within measurable probability. I'm AGW is testable; just that it fails to pass peer review for publication.

.
Fair Game wrote:
since we don't have planet duplicator rays and time machines
Science doesn't need those imaginary tools to test theory; what's the most compelling experiment for climate change mitigation you've found so far?

.
Fair Game wrote:
and can't trivially add and subtract half a trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.
^^^There's the answer, man's ability to add or remove any greenhouse gas to the atmosphere is nontrivial. Even with billions of dollars spent to research climate change; man's actions are trivial compared to nature. That's why I suspect they don't publish.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#27549 Jan 18, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
brian is not quite so dumb as to suggest AGW is not testable.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, you can measure variables over time but you can't attribute cause; that's the problem with purely observational science.
OK, I guess I was wrong, brian is that dumb.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27550 Jan 18, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
OK, I guess I was wrong, brian is that dumb.
Agreed.

But .. dumb in excess of 45,000 times.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#27551 Jan 18, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The idea that AGW is not testable is simply moronic. brian is cleverer than that, in suggesting it's not experimentally testable, which is true, since we don't have planet duplicator rays and time machines and can't trivially add and subtract half a trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Very good. Science has to be testable but not necessarily tested by 'experiment' which often gives false results anyway (bad design of the experiment). The truth of science is testable theories and AGW is certainly testable and well tested. See www.ipcc.ch for a summary.

B_G often makes this same distortion (and refused to design an 'experiment' such as reducing GHGs to see how the planet reacts. He is intellectually dishonest and deliberately so, trying to create smoke screens, big lies and/or confusion.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#27552 Jan 18, 2014
Yet technology or policy driven by science must necessarily be experimentally testable or its not science. What's the most compelling experimental test you've found for climate change mitigation?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27553 Jan 18, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Yet technology or policy driven by science must necessarily be experimentally testable or its not science. What's the most compelling experimental test you've found for climate change mitigation?
Yet you are mindless; despite national policies and international efforts aimed at mitigating climate change, emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that are warming the planet grew 2.2 percent per year on average between 2000 and 2010, compared to 1.3 percent per year from 1970 to 2000.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#27554 Jan 18, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Yet technology or policy driven by science must necessarily be experimentally testable or its not science.
So what experiment was done to test the theory that CFCs were causing the hole in the ozone layer before they were banned?

What experiment was done to test the theory that pollution from coal fired power stations caused acid rain before the compulsion for removal of emissions from coal smoke?

What experiment was done before coal fires were banned in cities because of toxic smog.(Or what experiments will China do before banning or cleaning up coal fired power stations killing or destroying the lungs of its urban population?)

What experiment would be done before vaccinating a population against a disease that had the potential to be fatal?

What experiment would be done before shooting a missile to destroy an asteroid science said was on a collision course for earth?

What experiment would be done before banning a chemical that was suspected of causing illness in humans?
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#27555 Jan 18, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
So what experiment was done to test the theory that CFCs were causing the hole in the ozone layer before they were banned?
You had a very clear post that science has to be testable but not necessarily 'experimentally tested'. Just making predictions and showing that the predictions are valid.

Now BG has (by obstinate and repeated stupidity) got you muddying up a clear statement. This is what he does. This is ALL that he does..

The truth is clearly that any scientific theory has to be testable by making a prediction that can be verified. This has been done in THOUSANDS of ways for GHG induced AGW. Experiment is only useful on occasion and produces DATA, not 'validation'. And not even that when the experiment is poorly designed or implemented as many are. The 'faster than light' neutrinos are an example. It was comparison with OTHER predictions (i.e the delay between the gamma and neutrino particles from supernova's) that provided the evidence to INVALIDATE the experiment. THAT is how science is done. BG's 'understanding' of science, endlessly harping on 'experiment', is more closely allied to 'alchemy'. Making messes and then trying to rationalize the results without understanding the basic model.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#27556 Jan 18, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
So what experiment was done to test the theory that CFCs were causing the hole in the ozone layer before they were banned?
What experiment was done to test the theory that pollution from coal fired power stations caused acid rain before the compulsion for removal of emissions from coal smoke?
What experiment was done before coal fires were banned in cities because of toxic smog.(Or what experiments will China do before banning or cleaning up coal fired power stations killing or destroying the lungs of its urban population?)
What experiment would be done before vaccinating a population against a disease that had the potential to be fatal?
What experiment would be done before shooting a missile to destroy an asteroid science said was on a collision course for earth?
What experiment would be done before banning a chemical that was suspected of causing illness in humans?
Good post and who knows Brian G might have a mini weather generator that he can conduct all these experiments in. You know dial up a hurricane with just the right amount of CO2 added and bingo!. This the troll might have the recipe to make his own gold if he can use a science lab to reproduce what nature does.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#27557 Jan 18, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
You had a very clear post that science has to be testable but not necessarily 'experimentally tested'. Just making predictions and showing that the predictions are valid.
That's the point.

All these scenarios were or would be testable, but not experimentally, at least on the whole system scale, demonstrating that brian's premise is false.

Can you think of any more?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27558 Jan 18, 2014
Love canal and other superfund sites to clean up,

Dead lakes and rivers to reclaim,

DDT banned,

Mad cow disease stopped,

Bird flu for culling in Asia,

Seat belts, collapsible steering wheels, nonshattering windshields, etc to reduce accident fatalities,

Malaria programs,
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#27559 Jan 18, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the point.
All these scenarios were or would be testable, but not experimentally, at least on the whole system scale, demonstrating that brian's premise is false.
Can you think of any more?
Cold Fusion. It was claimed to show fusion in cold heavy water. It may have done so but there was no theoretical understanding so it was like 'alchemy'. I don't think that the experiments have YET to produce any real science, even if they DO produce data.So experiment is NOT science.

But science can be done without experiment. For example, heliocentric models of the solar system were never 'experimentally tested'. They satisfied occam's razor and the data. Some things like the fact that the earth is round are purely based on scientific models and observation (of the shadow of a pole at different longitudes at the same time). etc. etc.

Too many examples to detail them all. MOST science does NOT deal with significant experimentation. It does deal with testable theory.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#27560 Jan 18, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Love canal and other superfund sites to clean up,
Dead lakes and rivers to reclaim,
DDT banned,
Mad cow disease stopped,
Bird flu for culling in Asia,
Seat belts, collapsible steering wheels, nonshattering windshields, etc to reduce accident fatalities,
Malaria programs,
Mad cow disease is an example I thought of too, as well as lead in petrol.

The bans on feeding animal remains to cows and lead in petrol were put in place on suspicion of transmission of infection and neurological damage respectively.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#27561 Jan 19, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Mad cow disease is an example I thought of too, as well as lead in petrol.
The bans on feeding animal remains to cows and lead in petrol were put in place on suspicion of transmission of infection and neurological damage respectively.
Same as lead in paint products. Freon gas in refrigeration, how come that was not a UN plot for world domination like we are told CO2 reduction is.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27562 Jan 19, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Cold Fusion. It was claimed to show fusion in cold heavy water. It may have done so but there was no theoretical understanding so it was like 'alchemy'. I don't think that the experiments have YET to produce any real science, even if they DO produce data.So experiment is NOT science.
But science can be done without experiment. For example, heliocentric models of the solar system were never 'experimentally tested'. They satisfied occam's razor and the data. Some things like the fact that the earth is round are purely based on scientific models and observation (of the shadow of a pole at different longitudes at the same time). etc. etc.
Too many examples to detail them all. MOST science does NOT deal with significant experimentation. It does deal with testable theory.
Not correct to say "experiment is not science."

Read up Wikipedia's "experiment."

What percentage do you mean when you say "most" science?

As to cold fusion, the subject is not dead. Wait for astrophysics to illuminate more and more.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#27563 Jan 19, 2014
And Alar on apples.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump administration expected to defend tariffs... 5 hr a Clue 1
News APNewsBreak: Consumers Energy to stop burning c... 6 hr Solarman 1
News Arizona Republican outdoes California with 'con... 14 hr Solarman 1
News Residential solar is cheap, but can it get chea... Mon Solarman 1
News Consumers Energy to stop using coal power by 2040 Mon Trump is a joke 1
News Tesla stands to reap solar-tariff rewards as ri... Mon Solarman 1
News Squamish seeks alternatives for clean energy Sun Solarman 1
More from around the web