Oh dear.
Z.
davezawadi (David Stone):
You need to remember the scientific method: if a theory is disproved by a single detail, one needs to start again, not bring up excuses why the detail may not be correct.
Dear me.
First, there is as yet no identified “scientific method”, as a introductory course in philosophy of science and STS studies of the 20th century would show you. Try
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/
There are a series of methods which people judged to have been good scientists have used. People have had a hard time putting together what they all might have in common.
Second, it is not the case that “if a theory is disproved by a single detail, one needs to start again”. It sounds very Popperian. When a theory is generally confirmed, and an anomaly pops up, there are many things that can happen. Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions is the locus classicus. Again, the above essay is a good intro.
But maybe there is a simple example. Newtonian mechanics is a superb scientific theory. It builds our buildings, drives aerodynamics and the dynamics of road vehicles. But it is wrong, isn't it.
There is a lot of guff around on climate science, and it seems you have picked a lot of it up. Most of the answers to most of the matters you bring up are by now in standard locations, such as John Houghton's 2015 text or the IPCC WG1 Technical Summaries.
I am not pleased you believe that I have picked be up “Guff”. I have no problem with Popper, I do with your idea that science is some kind of consensus. This is the basis of the problem you seem to have. Consensus means nothing, particularly when applied to facts. Science only deals with facts, and whilst these may not be absolutely proven there must be a place for doubt. There is a severe problem with the pure and applied sciences at the moment, this is that any dissension from an accepted view, even with evidence and logical argument is unacceptable.
You seem unhappy with Newton's laws of motion, I am too, but because they are not complete. Why do planets orbit the sun? Please give me an equation for all the forces at every point of the orbit that has an elliptical solution. Why can one focus have a strong gravitational force (the sun) and the other nothing? Why is the elliptical curvature at the two ends identical although the forces acting are very different? Newton offers no solution to that one BTW, not even in Principia. Neither does anyone else, if you ask the question the answer is bluster, the answer ought to be simple. The “Why” question is banned!
I wonder if you have ever tried to get a paper published that offers any criticism of the “Standard Model”, even with evidence of problems? The same with Gravity, Einstein's tensor calculus is false at the fundamental level, the pseudo tensor has no basis whatsoever and is a false construct. This is why we have no proper understanding of gravity or the unification of forces.
You appear to come from a background of philosophy because the sayings of Plato have no meaning in a decision about science. Many people have tried to “decide” science, but Occam has the last laugh, basically, if you cannot explain something exactly it is probably wrong. There is a movement at the moment trying to use the idea of “personal truth” being true to a person, but not true in fact. Identification of Men and Women are typical subjects, it is simply causing a ridiculous mess for everyone, but cannot override the anatomical facts. That is the real “Guff”.
davezawadi (David Stone):
I am not pleased you believe that I have picked be up “Guff”.
OK, but you have. You wrote a long paragraph which includes a lot of guff about climate science and you appear to believe it.
If I may, let me tell you where I am coming from. You wrote
[DS] You need to remember the scientific method: if a theory is disproved by a single detail, one needs to start again, not bring up excuses why the detail may not be correct.
So I instantly know five things about you (if you really mean what you wrote).
One of which is that you don't know much methodology of science. I do.
I have no problem with Popper, I do with your idea that science is some kind of consensus.
Do you have an issue with science as “some kind of consensus”? That is the general STS view.
. Science only deals with facts,
And you think that somehow facts are not to do with consensus? Let me introduce you to C.S. Peirce, William James, American Pragmatism, and Richard Rorty.
Harry Collins has a wonderful example in his book Gravity's Ghost (University of Chicago Press, 2011). He is talking about gravitational waves. (Harry accompanied that scientific endeavour for decades. It constitutes his main corpus). There was a significant and difficult discussion over whether a particular phenomenon was an “event” or not (there is lots of noise, and the signal these people were looking for was tiny). Lots of analysis. Lots of discussion.
Eventually it came to a vote of the delegates: is this an event? The majority voted yes.
As Harry points out, there is an example of the facticity of a phenomenon determined by …. not even consensus, but a majority vote.
I wonder if you have ever tried to get a paper published that offers any criticism of the “Standard Model”, even with evidence of problems?
Dear me. Most of the particle physicists I know think the Standard Model cannot be the whole story. That was the point of Supersymmetry. Are you suggesting that papers on Supersymmetry can't be published? Obviously, they can and have been.
You appear to come from a background of philosophy…..
It is one of my specialities, yes.
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
If you don't get the worry about global warming, I could introduce you to my Californian pals who are worried about the state burning up regularly and that large swathes of it may be rendered unliveable within a couple of decades. Or to my German colleagues trying to clean up after the more-than-thousand-year floods, not to speak of those mourning for friends and relatives they lost. I can also give you a reading list that would make the issues clear.
Here we go again ;)
I thought that we had those sorted out - I did not see any response from you to that quote from CAMS:
"There was a lower-than-average number of wildfires in 2020 despite hotspots such as California and Australia being hit by blazes of unprecedented intensity, the European Union's satellite monitoring service said Monday. A year of data collected by the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) showed that carbon emissions from fires were set to be lower than previous years and that 2020 was one of the lowest years for active fires globally.
globally fires had declined consistently since 2003 when the monitoring service began."
I would be sincerely interested to see your comments to that 27-minute interview with prominent Irish climate scientist Professor Ray Bates who points to research concluding that no trend has been identified in NA or European floods in last 60 years, and accuses IPCC for ignoring uncomfortable research results like his own or of Dr. Lindzen:
Aivar Usk:
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
….. my Californian pals who are worried about the state burning up regularly….. my German colleagues trying to clean up after the more-than-thousand-year floods,…….
Here we go again ;)
I thought that we had those sorted out - I did not see any response from you to that quote from CAMS:……
“Sorted out”? What is “sorted out” here?
Besides, that is not a quote from CAMS. That is apparently a quote from someone claiming to be quoting CAMS.
And yet another link to yet another video of someone saying…… to add to your SEPPS links and your Heartland links and so on.
If you want to make assertions in climate science which we can discuss, go ahead. In more than a month, you have made three. For two of those, you have declined to give any reasons for why you promote them. For the third, given a clear refutation, you deprecated the source; you didn't actually address the issue.
Just to make clear to the audience you are addressing – as with most bots, you are good at giving links to videos/people/WWW sites claiming “alternative facts”. As with most bots, you are incapable of any reasoning in the science on which you are commenting.
Sorry, folks, I understand I am repeating myself. But so is the bot, and the purpose of the bot is to “refute” any post which doubts its message. There is a solution to this, well known for decades.
I have a simple question:
During the Carboniferous period, the Earth's atmospheric CO2 is believed to have been of the order of 6000 parts per million. Why did all life not die due to the temperature that the current models would make several hundred degrees C? Atmospheric CO2 has been much higher than now in several historical epochs, again why are we still here?
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
“Sorted out”? What is “sorted out” here?
Besides, that is not a quote from CAMS. That is apparently a quote from someone claiming to be quoting CAMS.
While I do agree with your criticism on trusting the source, the contents of that quote was correct. I looked it up straight from CAMS, especially for you (and perhaps to test my own gullibility):
"2020 has been a year of extremes when it comes to wildfires. The Arctic and US saw record high levels of activity during the summer, whilst Canada and tropical Africa saw record lows. These lows have contributed to 2020 so far being one of the least active years since Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS*) records begin in 2003.
CAMS data show a generally decreasing trend since 2003, with 2020 one of the lowest years on record."
atmosphere.copernicus.eu/how-wildfires-americas-and-tropical-africa-2020-compared-previous-years
The research report referred to in the interview with Dr. Bates you chose to ignore tells us:
"Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe"
Glenn A. Hodgkins et al, 2017 in the Journal of Hydrology 552
"The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC (Hartmann et al., 2013) that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking. Generalizations about climate-driven changes in floods across large domains or diverse catchment types that are based upon small samples of catchments or short periods of record are ungrounded."
mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/.../MurphyCo_Climate-driven_2017.pdf
Regrettably, the above would probably not be a consolation to your German and Californian colleagues who have suffered. However, it shows that occurrence of such events is very likely not CAGW-related, no need to blame CO2 here.
I would still like to hear your opinion about statements of Dr. Bates in that short video. Would you suggest that he is lying about his research results of ECS about 1 degree C being ignored by IPCC?
Peter, several times you have been asked to provide evidence for your assertion of dangerous “climate change”, that you are obviously considering to be warming. I have posted a very well-respected Professor of Physics telling you why you are wrong on another thread. I would like you to tell us where he is wrong, which piece of physics is incorrect and why the basis of thermodynamics is being misunderstood. If you are unable to do this I suggest you provide an apology to the other posters, because the “Guff” is from you and not us. You should take particular interest in his discussion of Venus, the model for increased CO2 often quoted by persons with beliefs like you. Heat amplification is clearly a fallacy, the positive feedback suggested by modellers is clearly impossible, and the reason why they endlessly say “runaway warming”.
Aivar Usk:
"2020 has been a year of extremes when it comes to wildfires. The Arctic and US saw record high levels of activity during the summer, whilst Canada and tropical Africa saw record lows. These lows have contributed to 2020 so far being one of the least active years since Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS*) records begin in 2003.
CAMS data show a generally decreasing trend since 2003, with 2020 one of the lowest years on record."
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/how-wildfires-americas-and-tropical-africa-2020-compared-previous-years
It is good to see that your handler is moving you away from the questionable WWW sites towards more reliable sources of information.
If you recall, I brought up the California wildfires as an example of climate change, ACC. You tried to downplay that. What the site says about US Western wildfires is
CAMS data revealed that the scale and magnitude of the fires were tens to hundreds of times higher than the 2003–2019 average for the country as a whole and for affected states.
In other words, I was right about it. It is even more evident after the 2021 season, which is not over.
(Not only that, but the season has been dampened this week by the deluges from an “atmospheric river”, a phenomenon which I can't recall happening in fifty years. Note that I am not suggesting such phenomena are unprecedented, as the recent fires are. The Great Flood of January 1862 was caused by one, called the “Pineapple Express” because it flowed NNE from the region of Hawaii.)
Whereas, the quote above talks about “lows” and “least active years” and “generally decreasing trend”. Of what? Perhaps you would care to say?
[Hodgkins, Journal of Hydrology 2017] compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.
However, it shows that occurrence of such events is very likely not CAGW-related.
This is a non-sequitur.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
