Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/1/12 08:44 AM, stinkychops wrote: If you didn't know that there's maths involved with electromagnetism/physics you must be an idiot.

this is the dumbest derail ever. whats this say right here? i mean, i dont doubt for a second that i will fall to my death if i jump off a building, that doesnt mean gravity isnt real, even though its a theory. well understood does not mean it's a fact in a pure scientific sense.

At 5/1/12 08:44 AM, stinkychops wrote: What the fuck are you talking about, I said it is a theory. Don't you know what theory means? What is wrong with you, don't you have the attention span to read entire sentences before feeling the need to begin blabbering on?

Ok, I'll take your word over chemist and science book author, Victor Krimsley.

Electromagnetism

Strange, cause I looked at that same site and it talked about history of the theory.

If you didn't know that there's maths involved with electromagnetism/physics you must be an idiot.

Show me then, if you're the king of smart.

At 5/1/12 11:24 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/1/12 08:44 AM, stinkychops wrote: What the fuck are you talking about, I said it is a theory. Don't you know what theory means? What is wrong with you, don't you have the attention span to read entire sentences before feeling the need to begin blabbering on?

Ok, I'll take your word over chemist and science book author, Victor Krimsley.

What exactly do you think theory means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Electromagnetism

Strange, cause I looked at that same site and it talked about history of the theory.

So you agree it is a theory?

If you didn't know that there's maths involved with electromagnetism/physics you must be an idiot.

Show me then, if you're the king of smart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday's_law_of_induction

Scroll through those to see 'maths'.

Are you trying to say that things must be derived entirely from mathematics before we can accept them as factual?

Global Warming isn't a good thing. It provides countless of possibilities of what might happen catastrophic. Well to put it in a way as a good thing, you may be correct. Correct in a way many lives of people will die to a period of starvation to some sudden calamity changes brought by global warming and ecosystem failures, or simply many people will die from calamity hazards or sudden weather changes. As you may feel it now, prices on pretty much everything are rising and some people can't keep up with it. With this it will get rid most of people who depletes natural resources in a fast pace. Not all living things can adapt so easily my friend. Some are bound to get extinct real fast even it means us.

I'm not stating this as a fact; but a mere possibility.
Global Warming did occur once I think. The time of Ice age would be nearest.

At 5/2/12 07:52 AM, stinkychops wrote: What exactly do you think theory means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law."

Straight from your link.

Are you trying to say that things must be derived entirely from mathematics before we can accept them as factual?

They must have a mathmatical formula in order to be a law.

I went to Cracked.com and found an article on what would happen if the polar ice caps melted. It really wouldn't be that bad, at least nowhere near as bad as "Waterworld" depicted it. If you watch Al Gore's "An Inconvienient Truth" you would know that at one point he showed Florida being destroyed but it didn't go much beyond that. That's because that's actually what would happen. It would not flood the whole world, just destroy the coastlines, which would kill millions of people anyway.

At 5/2/12 12:55 PM, Ericho wrote: It would not flood the whole world, just destroy the coastlines, which would kill millions of people anyway.

I'm still lost as to how that would actually kill people. It's like that scene from Austin power where the henchman is like 100 feet from the steamroller, and is screaming for over a minute and then gets smooshed. It's not like the oceans will rise the few feet in a matter of second, minutes, or even hours. It'll be a long drawn out process. The only way to be killed by that (other than the loss of agricultural land or the introduction of disease) would be to be buried neck deep on the beach.

The real devastation will be loss of land, not loss of life.

At 5/2/12 04:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/2/12 12:55 PM, Ericho wrote: It would not flood the whole world, just destroy the coastlines, which would kill millions of people anyway.

I'm still lost as to how that would actually kill people. It's like that scene from Austin power where the henchman is like 100 feet from the steamroller, and is screaming for over a minute and then gets smooshed. It's not like the oceans will rise the few feet in a matter of second, minutes, or even hours. It'll be a long drawn out process. The only way to be killed by that (other than the loss of agricultural land or the introduction of disease) would be to be buried neck deep on the beach.

The real devastation will be loss of land, not loss of life.

it's really hard to get into specific cases because this is kinda far out into the future (relatively speaking) and who knows what measures we will take to keep up with the rising water levels and haywire weather trends, so this is entirely speculation, but i think the biggest threat rising water levels poses to us right now is the loss of current coastal land and possible destruction of entire cities/regions (miami, tampa, the keys, new orleans and the bayous for sure, jersey shore, etc, and thats just in the states) and when you factor in the devastation of already extremely sensitive ecosystems with the loss of farmland and mass exodus to more inland areas, i think it's a pretty good recipe for chaos. who knows what will happen.

So I saw that there has been some talk on this thread about the scientific method and what counts as a scientific law and what a theory is.

One thing to note: science no longer postulates that we can develope infallible scientific "laws"...especially after Einstein showed where Newton's Laws of Motion were incomplete.

But something I'd like to bring up:
In order for a theory to be valid it must be falsifiable...which means that it can be proven wrong either by experiment or observation. One of the main outcomes of falsifiability is that when one makes a theory...one must also postulate one or more Rival Alternative Hypothesis (RAH).

Now with anthropogenic climate change [ACC] (that mankind's CO2 emissions are causing unnatural climate changes) there is at least one RAH: cosmoclimatology (more on that in a minute). But there is one problem: it has thus far had falsifibility problems. ACC is based upon computer models that seek to predict climate (not weather) patterns. Now we in the social sciences have a saying about our computer models (based on statistics and more similar to the "science" of climatologists than most physicists, chemists, biologists or engineers): garbage in, garbage out.

See the climate is a multivariate (fancy term for: many variables) phenomenon. One that is so complex...that not all of its variable can be observed...let alone measured and plugged into a computer model. Therefore because of this incompleteness...the results of climatology are often very far off and their predictions so wide that they are all encompassing. In other words: the poly sci equivalent would be for me to make the following prediction on the 2012 election:

"Either Barak Obama or Mitt Romney will win...with a chance of a third party winning."

Now onto the RAH:
Cosmoclimatology states that cosmic rays have an impact on cloud formation. Cloud formation leads to cooler temperatures because the Earth is covered by shade.

Now here's the rub: Henrik Svensmark a physicst working out of CERN (I know...probably a right-wing wacko infused think tank of radical bible thumpers who want to kill all Muslims and gays and put women back in the kitchen) has actually proven parts of his theory through experimentation rather than computer models! He has actually shown that cosmic rays induce aerosol formation (ie clouds) while vapor traces do not account for any significant cloud formation.

Furthermore, he looked at where cosmic rays come from and found that when the solar system is closer to the center of the Milky Way (and closer to cosmic ray-generating Supernovae) going back as far as astrophysicists and geologists can go...the close proximity to supernovae correspondes pretty much exactly to each ice age. Further-furthermore when we are further away from the Galactic Core...and thus less cosmic rays and shielded from background rays from the sun...we have warming periods.

Furthermore...this theory accounts for several extinction events.

Some of the findings from his upcoming book:
* The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else.

* The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea âEU" the net growth of photosynthetic microbes âEU" depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else.

* Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained..

* As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times.
Source

But I'm one of those evil deniers who are more convinced by hard science (experimentation and predictions that are observed to have some degree of accuracy)...than garbage in, garbage out statistical models which by their nature are severly lacking in their ability to predict phenomenon.

At 5/2/12 10:43 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/2/12 07:52 AM, stinkychops wrote: What exactly do you think theory means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law."

Straight from your link.

Are you trying to say that things must be derived entirely from mathematics before we can accept them as factual?

They must have a mathmatical formula in order to be a law.

Dude. I never said they were laws.

We're both arguing the same thing.

I was disagreeing with OP who was trying to say that global warming was 'just' a theory.

We both agree and, like I said, you need to learn to read.

At 5/2/12 10:12 PM, TheMason wrote: Cosmoclimatology states that cosmic rays have an impact on cloud formation. Cloud formation leads to cooler temperatures because the Earth is covered by shade.

No, they don't. The amount by which cosmic rays effect aerosolization and cloud formation is not sufficient to account for our current warming trend.

Furthermore...this theory accounts for several extinction events.

So, he has some correlational data that seems compelling. It is interesting, no doubt, but I would like to see some CAUSAL factors in there as well. An actual link between cosmic rays and biodiversity on a biochemical level.

At 5/3/12 09:32 AM, Ravariel wrote: No, they don't. The amount by which cosmic rays effect aerosolization and cloud formation is not sufficient to account for our current warming trend.

According to the Discovery article you linked to...the reality is it too early to make either claim (that cosmic rays are significan...or they are not). By itself this study does not go far enough, it is a first step.

Now you may think that having such "weak" results means the whole theory is discredited...but it is a first step to having actual empirical evidence of a theory attempting to explain GCC. Emprical evidence is something that climatologists have so far been unable to produce. Computer models that then fail to produce accurate results are NOT emprical. Therefore given that the methodology of the climatologists are being falsified by observations in the real world...and cosmoclimatology is yielding (albeit weak) emprical results I would say the science points to anthropogenic (and greenhouse gas theory in general) GCC being the weaker and less probable theory concerning climate changes.

Finally, on the Discovery issue I would like to quote Karl Popper who wrote extensively upon the use of the scientific method by flawed, emotional human beings:

"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve."

"A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice." [emphasis mine]

One of the things Popper observed about people is that they will form a "protective belt" around their favored theory. They will adjust the hypothesis or refute criticisms of the theory. Take for example this excerpt from the Discovery article you linked to:

"The problem here is two fold: there doesnâEUTMt appear to be a large variation in EarthâEUTMs temperatures with solar activity, and also that temperatures are rising extremely rapidly in the past 100 years, when solar activity has been relatively normal."

There is a major problem with his refering to temperature rise (and thus the time frame he's looking at):
We have only had the ability to take global measurements of temperatures for 100 years. Furthermore, the technology and methodology to measure global temperature is too variable over this time period for us to make any reliable inferences going back as far as climatologists go. 100yrs ago you had a thermometer and a guy in locales fairly spread out. They may or may not have recorded data from day to day. Now we have satellites that can track temp virtually 24/7. This is significant because the data set now is of far greater accuracy.

Now you may still want to argue that we still have enough data to make an educated guess. But remember that up until the 1970s climatologists looked at this data and predicted cooling instead of warming. Now that there are problems with the climate warming they have to change it to climate change to make the theory fit observations.

Now revision of theory is an acceptable part of the scientific process, your observations/experiments have to at least somewhat match your predictions. Especially before you start going around calling ppl names and passing judgement on RAHs! A historical example is plate techtonics. In 1912 when the theory was introduced to the modern world...it was attacked as ludicrous. In fact in the beginning the theory suffered from weak evidence...but now it is the dominant paradigm. Same thing with BOTH theories of climate change. One (or even another) theory will eventually win out...but not yet.

Now I am not a GCC "Denier". I do not believe that anthropogenic GCC based upon CO2 levels has been totally discredited and shown to be false. But as I look at the data and deviation from their predictions with reality...and I am not convinced that it is all that strong of a theory at this stage. So I am skeptical, in fact I'm skeptical of cosmoclimatology...the experimental results are pointing toward a possible validation but more study is needed.

So, he has some correlational data that seems compelling. It is interesting, no doubt, but I would like to see some CAUSAL factors in there as well. An actual link between cosmic rays and biodiversity on a biochemical level.

1) The biodiversity on a biochemical level is actually irrelevent given that some geologists believe that what has led to these extinction events are based on climate...not disease or biochemistry. The climate warms or cools and creatures that are ill suited to survive die off and the survivor species thrive. I mean I guess there is some biochemical changes that would have to be made in response to climate changes...but that would be indirect to cosmic rays.

2) You talk about correlational data and the lack of causal factors. It is really just as strong as the CO2 theory. Climatologists base their theory on a correlation of a changing dataset and explain it by greenhouse theory. Cosmoclimatologists are examining cosmic rays and the formation of clouds as the causal relationship. While the results of experimentation are weak right now...they do point towards theory validation with more experimentation.

At 5/4/12 01:40 PM, TheMason wrote: According to the Discovery article you linked to...the reality is it too early to make either claim (that cosmic rays are significan...or they are not). By itself this study does not go far enough, it is a first step.

Exactly, which is why claiming "cosmic rays" disprove AGW is premature. The data in the study is conclusively not enough to account for our warming trend. It may be an additional factor, but it is provably not the whole story.

We have only had the ability to take global measurements of temperatures for 100 years.

True, but we also have methods of tracking global temperature retroactively through ice cores, tree rings, and other factors. That data is sufficient to corroborate the less-accurate readings early in the last century, and while the error range is greater than our current one, the trend still arises.

Now you may still want to argue that we still have enough data to make an educated guess. But remember that up until the 1970s climatologists looked at this data and predicted cooling instead of warming.

Bullshit.

1) The biodiversity on a biochemical level is actually irrelevent given that some geologists believe that what has led to these extinction events are based on climate...not disease or biochemistry. The climate warms or cools and creatures that are ill suited to survive die off and the survivor species thrive. I mean I guess there is some biochemical changes that would have to be made in response to climate changes...but that would be indirect to cosmic rays.

Fair enough, I guess. Problem is, extinction-level events require massive changes in climate that happen very rapidly (geologically-speaking). The amount of radiation necessary (per the previous experiment's levels of nucleation) to alter "natural" cloudcover enough to produce these events is too great to be produced by galactically-local supernovae. Like Gravity, the amount of energy that would reach Earth is related to the inverse cube root of the distance between the nova and earth. So while Novae are arguably the second most powerful emitters of gamma rays and other radiation, the amount of that energy that could effect earth would be minuscule (galactically-speaking).

2) You talk about correlational data and the lack of causal factors. It is really just as strong as the CO2 theory. Climatologists base their theory on a correlation of a changing dataset and explain it by greenhouse theory. Cosmoclimatologists are examining cosmic rays and the formation of clouds as the causal relationship. While the results of experimentation are weak right now...they do point towards theory validation with more experimentation.

"Cosmoclimatology" needs far more than "more study" to be a workable theory. It needs local help in order to actually create a climate-wide tipping point. See: Studies of the Little Ice Age and it's relationship to the Maunder Minimum, a significantly dormant period where the Sun produced little to no sunspots, and thus may have contributed to the cooling. However, as the article states it does not have enough punch to make that much of a difference. It is far more likely that Extinction events were triggered by things like Volcanoes and asteroid impacts, and may have been exacerbated, or extended by the increased nucleation from cosmic events, but those events were not enough in and of themselves.

Also, another issue: we have probes measuring all sorts of things around multiple planets and moons in the solar system. If cosmic rays were to blame for Global Warming, we should see similar rises in temperature across the solar system (at least on those planets with atmospheres and clouds). We don't. We have had rovers on Mars for 30+ years, we have had probes around Venus (the best place to confirm such a theory) since 2006, and the Cassini Spacecraft is currently studying Saturn and it's moons. There has been no indication from any of these missions that any similar change in these planets' and moons' climates are changing in a similar way to ours.

There is also the non-model (i.e. empirical) data of HOW the Earth is warming, specifically that our nights are warming faster than our days, which is in direct opposition to the idea that cloud cover is the main culprit, as it is the retention of heat, not the increase in acquisition of heat, that is the problem. If Cosmoclimatology were correct, it would be the other way around.

Cosmic rays may be a factor in climate change, but if it is, it's a small one; not enough to account for the entirety of the change we are experiencing. Considering we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know that we put 100 times more of it into the atmosphere than Volcanoes (hell, the recent Eyjafjallajökull eruption in Icelend ended up being carbon-neutral just from the flights it grounded in England and Europe), and 97% of the scientists who actually study climate believe that we are the main driver behind the change, and the evidence of other possible agents being so weak (so far), there is only one logical position to hold. Granted, if Svensmark's research starts to turn up some more compelling data, we may need to look more closely at the relationship between these disparate factors.

Also something to note: of these two factors... one we can control and mitigate, the other, notsomuch. So if it happens that it is a combination of the two (or more), then really the only thing we can do... is what we're already trying to do. Much like it is unlikely that evidence will rule out evolution as the driving force behind specation, it is unlikely that evidence will completely eliminate the Human effect on climate change, and if there is only one factor we can control, it should be the one on which we focus (not to the exclusion of others, mind, but it should still get more of our attention).

At 5/4/12 06:43 PM, Ravariel wrote: Exactly, which is why claiming "cosmic rays" disprove AGW is premature. The data in the study is conclusively not enough to account for our warming trend. It may be an additional factor, but it is provably not the whole story.

Likewise we cannot say that AGW is truth without:
1) empirical evidence that is independent of itself (ie: statistical models whose predictions are verified by observation) such as experimentation.
2) RAHs are actually examined faithfully and not dismissed or even their investigation hindered by a powerful (but highly non-scientific) protective belt of self-interested researchers.

We have only had the ability to take global measurements of temperatures for 100 years.

True, but we also have methods of tracking global temperature retroactively through ice cores, tree rings, and other factors. That data is sufficient to corroborate the less-accurate readings early in the last century, and while the error range is greater than our current one, the trend still arises.

This is protective belt mythology that actually goes against scientific norms. The measurements are different and therefore could be highly off. In essence relying upon these measures is comparing apples to oranges.

See when it comes to reproducability hard scientists can be very anal. Experiments have to be recorded in such a way that another scientist can come in and repeat the experiment exactly as when the first researcher did it. This means using the same type of measurements, labware, etc.

Now you may be wondering what the hell this means to using tree rings:
In effect what climatologists are trying to do by looking into tree rings, ice cores etc are trying to reproduce climates that existed a long time ago. Now of course we cannot launch time-traveling satellites that can take readings that will use the same tech we have today. Nor can we send weather stations back in time to take ground measurements. So yeah...we have to use proxy measurements.

But let's remember: this difference in measuring instruments means we cannot really make all that precise or accurate models. While I will agree that we can create a reasonable approximation of climates older than 100 years ago...we have to remember that there is also a high degree of probability that we are knowingly putting garbage into these climate models...ergo garbage out.

Therefore we have to be skeptical about what climatologists have to say or else we are NOT being scientific about climate change.

Fair enough, I guess. Problem is, extinction-level events require massive changes in climate that happen very rapidly (geologically-speaking). The amount of radiation necessary (per the previous experiment's levels of nucleation) to alter "natural" cloudcover enough to produce these events is too great to be produced by galactically-local supernovae. Like Gravity, the amount of energy that would reach Earth is related to the inverse cube root of the distance between the nova and earth. So while Novae are arguably the second most powerful emitters of gamma rays and other radiation, the amount of that energy that could effect earth would be minuscule (galactically-speaking).

Dude...guess what? Cosmic rays is actually a misnomer...they are not rays at all. So they are not gamma radiation (for the most part)...but mostly alpha radiation with some minute amounts of antimatter. Thus they are particulate in nature. Now most alpha doesn't travel too far since they are looking for an electron to form a complete H atom. But in the void/vaccum of space how many electrons/atoms are just hanging out waiting for errant alpha particles to react/bond with?

So what's the point? Since alpha radiation is an emitter the only way that its strength will detoriate is through atomic decay (not the inverse square rule)...which varies according to isotope. So yes alpha radiation, antimatter and the rest of the particle radiation that make-up cosmic rays that are spewed from supernovae could very well be just as strong when they hit our atmosphere than when they were released.

At 4/24/12 10:53 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: The ecosystem is not a finely tuned delicate balance that will collapse at the slightest touch, when something changes it simply shifts to a new dynamic equilibrium. So, environmental change can either increase or decrease the amount of resources the ecosystem needs, for instance global warming could cause droughts or it could increase the evaporation of sea water leading to more rain.

Global warming is a very bad thing. What we need is global cooling. That would be awesome.

At 5/18/12 10:02 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: What we need is global cooling. That would be awesome.

Screw that. I'll take some global just-about-right-ing.