Science vs Politicians

[mtrycrafts]

We're not seriously discussing the Earth being flat, are we?

No, just responding to that link to a PhD thesis to align it with the Koran.

 

[Pogre]

We're not seriously discussing the Earth being flat, are we?

I was hoping not!

The subject came up and I just put my .02 in and you asked me about it. I didn't think you were being serious.

 

[shadyJ]

We're not seriously discussing the Earth being flat, are we?

How is that anymore ludicrous than a handful of non-scientists thinking they know climate science better than the entire professional discipline of climatology?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Why not? Aren't they smarter and know more than the climate scientists, or generals?

 

[highfigh]

How is that anymore ludicrous than a handful of non-scientists thinking they know climate science better than the entire professional discipline of climatology?

Or Algore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for his movie, Obama getting it for what they hoped he would do.....

The scientific community has been wrong before, they'll be wrong again. Re-writing their thesis to fit the test results isn't scientific, it's fudging.

The problem with making predictions is that nobody wants to admit they were wrong when the results show they are.

 

[ski2xblack]

The scientific community has been wrong before, they'll be wrong again. Re-writing their thesis to fit the test results isn't scientific, it's fudging.

So you're leveling an attack on science because it's not perfect and infallible? Someone else pointed out this flaw in your thinking up-thread.

Unlike other traditions that do purport to provide perfection and infallibility, the scientific method is the only epistemological approach that is self correcting in light of new facts. That isn't a bug, it's a feature.

 

[Irvrobinson]

The scientific community has been wrong before, they'll be wrong again. Re-writing their thesis to fit the test results isn't scientific, it's fudging.

Baloney. Was Newton fudging because his theory of gravity was proven incomplete? No. Newton's laws were superseded by the General Theory of Relativity. Assuming scientific investigation is supported and not suppressed or discounted, further investigation usually increases understanding and produces more complete theories. Naturally, as soon as the new theory is revealed the old one looks inadequate (mostly to people who can't seem to marvel in the genius it took to produce the first theory, like Newton did).

 

[Steve81]

Yes, methane is one. But, at least in the US, it was only 10% emission in 2015, CO2 82%.

Who knows about CO2? Really? Yes, water vapor is plentiful, CO2 causes a major feedback loop:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

There's less methane than CO2 being produced, but as far as I'm aware it's a significantly more potent greenhouse gas, so still a concern. Water vapor is of course also a greenhouse gas, and water itself is the source of a couple feedbacks, positive and negative:

1. Decreasing ice will tend to decrease planetary albedo. Any other GHGs trapped in the ice will also be released.

2. Higher temps will produce more water vapor, and given that water vapor is a GHG, that can lead to further positive feedback as the article you link mentioned.

3. Increased cloud cover will tend to increase planetary albedo.

 

[everettT]

Is there an argument that increased co2 has caused the rainforests' to thrive?

 

[Pogre]

Is there an argument that increased co2 has caused the rainforests' to thrive?

That kind of makes sense. With all the deforestation happening though, it's hard to say the forests are "thriving". It also means there are fewer trees to process that co2. Trees disappearing and us increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere isn't good. Trees provide us with a lot of our o2 as well.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Is there an argument that increased co2 has caused the rainforests' to thrive?

I've been following this question for a while, and the research seems to be mixed. Here's an article on the positive side:

https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html

 

[everettT]

I've been following this question for a while, and the research seems to be mixed. Here's an article on the positive side:

https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html

Thanks for the link. I too have been following this. The fine line of semblance makes debate harder.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Is there an argument that increased co2 has caused the rainforests' to thrive?

Well, all depends, again:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346


They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.

The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.

The new study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change by a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries.