Originally posted by Fusion
View Post
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov
― Isaac Asimov
No, your statement about science is bunk because of the actions of IPCC is not valid, not is your assumption that models which do not perfectly predict future temperatures because of a declining, uncontrolled input mean that the science is flawed. Nor is your statement that because reduced solar input reduces the greenhouse effect therefore the science is bunk. It is an obvious and inherent property of energy conservation! This highlights a complete and utter lack of understanding of the subject matter and how unable you are to grasp the topics at hand. All you have is a poor education of science and a hatred of the politics and pundits, while taking out your anger on the science which you are ignorant of.
Attacking models does not invalidate the science in which they are based upon but simply demands better coefficients. These coefficients can be altered down based upon variable plankton absorption of CO2 or heat found below 700 meters that was ignored previously. But the direction and foundation is on the ball, especially considering the complexity of the heatsink that is Earth.
To underline the significance of the deep ocean heat found, as well as George's ignorance of laughing it off, let's talk about a basic concept called specific heat. Now this is a subject that anyone who has walked barefoot on a beach during the day and night, or be in/out of a pool during the day and night, should be able to understand rather quickly. It is also a lesson intended for ELEMENTARY school children: http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/heat/ Because the sand has a much lower specific heat than water (and different radiation absorption / reflective properties...), it gets hotter much quicker than water during the day. The same with concrete. Walking barefoot on sand/concrete during the day can be uncomfortably hot while the water is still cool. When the sun sets and the radiation goes away, the sand turns cold rather quickly while the water in the ocean or pool remains warmer and for much longer. This is because the heat capacity of water is 5x that of sand/soil/concrete and many other materials. It takes much more energy per unit mass for water to increase a degree of temperature than the sand/soil/concrete, as does it take a lot more loss of energy to decrease in temperature. If you are able, leverage this basic understanding of science to that deep ocean heat that was not accounted for previously and see that it would equate to 5x the temperature difference on soil than water for a given energy amount. Now whether or not George has ever walked on a beach during the day and night, or if he just didn't put this concept into thought before laughing off the heat found in deep water is unclear. But, it is important to understand the fundamentals of science before going out and making attacks of it based on nothing more than the conclusions of the people who said second hand smoke wasn't dangerous.
Anyone who understands the foundations of the science at hand should be able to comprehend their application to the Earth as a heatsink, or at least they should attempt to evaluate the subject of global warming / climate change based on those before denying it. Regardless of my political leaning to the right and past voting for Republicans, I cannot cast off science in order to adopt an ignorant stance to fit in with the people who care little about facts to make their claims. I put facts in front of conclusions and not the other way around, which is something RWNJ do not do. Actually, they attack anyone who focus on the facts / science at hand as the enemy, a progressive, a liberal, or an extremist for simply not joining in and abandoning all logic and reason to accept an ignorant belief repeated by well-funded think tanks or lobbied politicians. I would say such behavior of basing reality or facts on contributions is the utmost lack of integrity and corruption of truth. George and your attempts at claiming that modern science is assuming global warming is for the money lacks the historical factual basis that it originates long before the money for its research did and based on science provided by the same guys who have enabled innovation which largely made fossil fuels useful in engines. But even these guys considered the impact of their actions before it was sinful to do so in the eyes of those that care little for facts.
As research continues and science locks down the coefficients and factors in the models more precisely, the quantitative will continue to support the qualitative truth of the scientific fundamentals that the science is based upon - and then you will have little to complain about, except that the physics that was well understood and known by those who were the least bit interested in it remain valid. But even until the models reach perfection, it is clear that even with reduced solar activity, the temperatures experienced are elevated compared to the long-run recorded history of the planet and that the blanket of the atmosphere is retaining more heat than it otherwise would have because of GHGs. And this is based upon well proven science, even if the models are not as precise as you desire yet.
Until you two or someone else is capable of explaining how energy can be conserved and greenhouse gases operate as they do, while the Earth does not experience an increase in energy given a fixed solar input, then denying AGW is simply denying science. Attacking politics which advocate for the consideration of this science and impact on society or the precision of models does nothing to fight physics and long-understood fundamentals. But we are all well aware that you two don't care about reality, facts, science, or truth... all you want to do is arrive at the conclusion that it's all bull instead of understanding what you are actually attacking.
Whether or not people believe in physics, it still affects them. It's like not believing in gravity and jumping off a tall building... like it or not, physics with slap you in the face with concrete. Now, one might think it would be wiser to objectively learn about the world based on facts instead of motivated reasoning... but that's just the people who care about truth. Our society seems to care more about what they want to believe or hear rather than what is really reality. Fortunately, science is true regardless of if you believe in it.
Regardless of how hard RWNJs attack science, physics will remain true to itself. Al Gore or IPCC cannot negate scientific fundamentals, nor can the Heartland Institute or Anthony Watts. Eventually, more humans may come into understanding of the science and some may put aside their ignorant beliefs to recognize reality.
No matter how hard the church fought against the concept that the Earth orbited the Sun, it still was true.
Comment