| General > General Technical Chat |
| heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial. |
| << < (51/67) > >> |
| Wallace Gasiewicz:
Quote from: tom66 on Today at 10:56:10 pmQuote from: vad on Today at 09:23:01 pm I was always wondering why there is the consensus in climate science, especially when other scientific fields often leave ample room for debate. In physics, for example, there is no consensus on topics such as dark matter. The Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) theory, which is one of the alternatives to the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) model, is still very much alive. Popular theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder is one of the vocal proponents of MOND. If you read scientific journals, you will find that in modern cosmology there is no consensus on topics such as the age of the Universe (some recent paper claims the age is twice as long), and that in physics of condensed matter there is no consensus on whether LK99 is really a superconductor. --- End quote --- A lack of consensus in the area of dark matter is hardly surprising given no one has actually been able to observe anything other than its proposed impacts on large galaxies and their neighbours. We don't even know if it actually exists or not, it's just that there doesn't seem to be a better explanation for their rotational characteristics, for instance. There is reasonably strong consensus in other non-climate science fields. For instance, quantum mechanics is more or less universally accepted as the explanation for the very small behaviors at the subatomic level. There may be the odd disagreement here or there as to the theoretical level with things like string theory. The same applies in climate science, but everyone agrees with the observed results even if they don't fully accept how things got there. I don't know why you think the edge of theoretical physics is a good retort to some physical system that we can observe and model well with mostly well understood physical principles. For instance, you can measure a good part of the LWIR absorption of CO2 very accurately using a $200 thermal camera and a blackbody. The emission profile of the sun is well understood. Plug the two together and you have a first-order estimate for CO2 forcing in watts per m^2 per part million, then input the amount of CO2 that we've pushed into the atmosphere and you have a good estimate for warming. There are lots of factors to correct, like the percentage of CO2 which ends up in oceans, but it'll show the effect closely enough if you struggle to believe that it exists at all. No one serious in climate science disagrees that the planet is warming and that humans are causing it. There's debate as to the exact extent of the anthropogenic component, and how harmful that is, but the consensus is pretty solid on the outcomes being overall bad. Anytime someone says something like "No one serious in climate science disagrees". I get a bit dubious as to the actual facts. This is the kind of statement that leads to ignoring or "cancelling" opposing views. This is exactly the type of speech used when the Governments imposed the COVID policies, which were not "scientific" or even logical. --- End quote --- |
| vad:
--- Quote from: cbutlera on August 08, 2023, 10:43:11 pm --- --- Quote from: vad on August 08, 2023, 09:23:01 pm ---... In physics, for example, there is no consensus on topics such as dark matter. ... However, in climate science, somehow there is consensus. I wonder why? --- End quote --- Because climate science does not lie at the outer boundaries of theoretical physics. When there is only one credible theory it can hardly be surprising that there is a consensus. There has long been consensus on all of the relevant thermodynamic and other physical laws on which climate science is built. The basic theory of anthropogenic global warming is more than 100 years old. Using modern GCMs (general circulation models) this theory has been thoroughly tested against the last 50 years or so of climate records. Where are the alternative competing theories that can, when tested with GCMs, get even remotely as close to the same level of agreement with those records? --- End quote --- You didn't watch the video, did you? It's 7.5 minutes long. There couldn't be any alternative theory. Judith Curry clearly explains why. |
| vad:
--- Quote from: tom66 on August 08, 2023, 10:56:10 pm ---I don't know why you think the edge of theoretical physics is a good retort to some physical system that we can observe and model well with mostly well understood physical principles. --- End quote --- In fact, there are many similarities between cutting-edge physics theories and climate models. Neither can be validated through direct experiments. Validating string theory requires particle accelerators beyond our current technological capabilities, while validating climate models demands a planet similar to Earth and waiting time of hundreds of years. You can find numerous scientific articles critical of string theory. How many climate models that contradict the Green’s agenda are you familiar with? |
| cbutlera:
--- Quote from: vad on August 08, 2023, 11:33:50 pm --- --- Quote from: cbutlera on August 08, 2023, 10:43:11 pm ---... There has long been consensus on all of the relevant thermodynamic and other physical laws on which climate science is built. The basic theory of anthropogenic global warming is more than 100 years old. Using modern GCMs (general circulation models) this theory has been thoroughly tested against the last 50 years or so of climate records. Where are the alternative competing theories that can, when tested with GCMs, get even remotely as close to the same level of agreement with those records? --- End quote --- You didn't watch the video, did you? It's 7.5 minutes long. There couldn't be any alternative theory. Judith Curry clearly explains why. --- End quote --- Did you watch it? Where is this testable alternative theory described? The video is almost entirely propaganda, built around a claim that 2006 was an unusually quiet year for hurricanes and storms. Cherry picked newspaper headlines and video clips of talking heads prove nothing. The current scientific consensus means the consensus as expressed by the IPCC in the full AR6 report. Where in this report does it predict that hurricane and storm frequency will increase monotonically year on year? Where in this report is there any claim that is not well supported by scientific research? |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: cbutlera on August 09, 2023, 09:08:01 am --- --- Quote from: vad on August 08, 2023, 11:33:50 pm --- --- Quote from: cbutlera on August 08, 2023, 10:43:11 pm ---... There has long been consensus on all of the relevant thermodynamic and other physical laws on which climate science is built. The basic theory of anthropogenic global warming is more than 100 years old. Using modern GCMs (general circulation models) this theory has been thoroughly tested against the last 50 years or so of climate records. Where are the alternative competing theories that can, when tested with GCMs, get even remotely as close to the same level of agreement with those records? --- End quote --- You didn't watch the video, did you? It's 7.5 minutes long. There couldn't be any alternative theory. Judith Curry clearly explains why. --- End quote --- Did you watch it? Where is this testable alternative theory described? The video is almost entirely propaganda, built around a claim that 2006 was an unusually quiet year for hurricanes and storms. Cherry picked newspaper headlines and video clips of talking heads prove nothing. The current scientific consensus means the consensus as expressed by the IPCC in the full AR6 report. Where in this report does it predict that hurricane and storm frequency will increase monotonically year on year? Where in this report is there any claim that is not well supported by scientific research? --- End quote --- The video is about a woman who published a climate study that followed the general consus and was idolised. Then people pointed out flaws. She looked at them, realised some of what she had written was incorrect, and published the adjustments needed. For this she was vilified. The video is certainly mostly about propaganda, but is not propaganda. Have you ever looked at any of the IPCC reports? Not the media's write ups about them, but the actual reports? When I have looked at exerts they sound much less scary than the media reports, but the activists don't like anything but the most extreme arguments. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |