|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 29, 2022 10:24:17 GMT
Speaking as a former scientist turned engineer, I was taught that it can’t BE a theory unless it DOES explain all known observations. Until then it is merely a hypothesis. Which sounds like nitpicking but isn’t. And yes, all it takes to demote a theory is one experiment too many. A hypothesis is an assumption you make in order to come up with a theory. So Einstein came up with the hypothesis that the speed of light is constant in order to formulate his theory of relativity. It doesn't mean that the speed of light IS constant, but it's just an assumption made in order to develop the theory. If the theory "works" then the assumption is accepted (until the theory is proved wrong). I've always thought that it was a very strange hypothesis because it actually violates the theory of relativity, in that this theory states that velocity is meaningless without specifying a frame of reference - except that if a body is traveling at the speed of light you DON'T have to specify a frame of reference. It's travelling at the speed of light relative to any and all frames of reference.  Going back to global warming and CO2 the association between warming on Earth and CO2 concentration is actually a hypothesis not a theory. That's because the association is assumed in the models. It's in the form of a coefficient that says for every increase in CO2 concentration (in ppm) there will be a an x degree C rise in temperature. If the models work then that hypothesis is accepted. Unfortunately the models don't work so the hypothesis cannot be accepted. So without wishing to go to far down the Rabbit hole. There is a strong link between poverty and theft. What hypothesis aside from the obvious one is there for the link? Mags suggested that crime causes poverty, but that hypothesis fails when you se the crime does not cause poverty in well to do areas. Or that crime is not carried out by the well off to anywhere near the scale it is among the poor. Evidence that poverty causes crime is found in the fact that where poverty is alleviated crime falls. It is not possible to carry out laboratory tests in this field so one has to rely on field evidence. On Co2 concentrations, it has been proved in laboratory conditions that Co2 does act as a bond for water molecules and thus increases heat retention. It is estimated that without the tiny amount of Co2 currently in our atmosphere the average global temperature would be -50c Deniers claim that because of a plethora of other factors it cannot be proved that the effects of Co2 could not be mitigated naturally. However evidence demonstrates that this is not so as we are seeing temperatures rise. Deniers further claim we cannot know it is not some other factor that is causing global warming, but to date have not been able to find another source for the considerable heat needed to generate the change. Amateurs point to everything from solar activity to tarmac, but all are measurable and found wanting. Idiots claim its things like El Nino, when the change in this is a result of global warming rather than a cause. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 29, 2022 12:45:53 GMT
Well you know what, I've designed and in other roles I've signed off safety critical systems and when it's other people's lives at risk, 'very good' was never acceptable as a standard. 'Proven beyond excellent with no single point vulnerabilities' would be closer to the mark. It's also effectively what's called up in system standards in the UK, EU and USA. Maybe look at real outcomes then. The mag lev trains arrive on time to the millisecond and I only know of one high speed rail crash in China.
The approach I would take is to start installing lidar on trains and develop the system so it is initially just advisory, similar to how they rate self-drive automation in cars. The automation can start in an assistant's role.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 29, 2022 13:38:08 GMT
A hypothesis is an assumption you make in order to come up with a theory. So Einstein came up with the hypothesis that the speed of light is constant in order to formulate his theory of relativity. It doesn't mean that the speed of light IS constant, but it's just an assumption made in order to develop the theory. If the theory "works" then the assumption is accepted (until the theory is proved wrong). I've always thought that it was a very strange hypothesis because it actually violates the theory of relativity, in that this theory states that velocity is meaningless without specifying a frame of reference - except that if a body is traveling at the speed of light you DON'T have to specify a frame of reference. It's travelling at the speed of light relative to any and all frames of reference. Going back to global warming and CO2 the association between warming on Earth and CO2 concentration is actually a hypothesis not a theory. That's because the association is assumed in the models. It's in the form of a coefficient that says for every increase in CO2 concentration (in ppm) there will be a an x degree C rise in temperature. If the models work then that hypothesis is accepted. Unfortunately the models don't work so the hypothesis cannot be accepted. So without wishing to go to far down the Rabbit hole. There is a strong link between poverty and theft. What hypothesis aside from the obvious one is there for the link? Mags suggested that crime causes poverty, but that hypothesis fails when you se the crime does not cause poverty in well to do areas. Or that crime is not carried out by the well off to anywhere near the scale it is among the poor. Evidence that poverty causes crime is found in the fact that where poverty is alleviated crime falls. It is not possible to carry out laboratory tests in this field so one has to rely on field evidence. On Co2 concentrations, it has been proved in laboratory conditions that Co2 does act as a bond for water molecules and thus increases heat retention. It is estimated that without the tiny amount of Co2 currently in our atmosphere the average global temperature would be -50c Deniers claim that because of a plethora of other factors it cannot be proved that the effects of Co2 could not be mitigated naturally. However evidence demonstrates that this is not so as we are seeing temperatures rise. Deniers further claim we cannot know it is not some other factor that is causing global warming, but to date have not been able to find another source for the considerable heat needed to generate the change. Amateurs point to everything from solar activity to tarmac, but all are measurable and found wanting. Idiots claim its things like El Nino, when the change in this is a result of global warming rather than a cause. There's not even a correlation between "poverty and theft" - let alone a causal link. And there are plenty of cofactors - as I said which could cause some association. Such as the fact that criminals are more likely to be illiterate, and illiteracy tends to lead to poverty. You keep on coming up with the same old silly arguments and not understanding clear explanations of why they are wrong. And I KNOW that there is a link between CO2 and heat retention - I said so very clearly. I also explained why it doesn't work in the Earth's system. And there is no such thing as a denier. As for "not being able to find another source for the considerable heat needed to generate the change" that's not true as I said. We're actually spoilt for choice. 75% of the land mass has been repurposed since 1970 and all the changes have led to warming. As I said, if you want to prove that CO2 is the primary cause of "warming" you need to present a detailed attribution list of all the possible causes. Unfortunately no scientist has ever been able to do this. All we've got are models built on the hypothesis of CO2 causing warming which don't work. In fact they've been gradually lowering the coefficient for about 30 years and the hypothesis still doesn't work. Sorry but you're out of your depth. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 29, 2022 14:21:29 GMT
So without wishing to go to far down the Rabbit hole. There is a strong link between poverty and theft. What hypothesis aside from the obvious one is there for the link? Mags suggested that crime causes poverty, but that hypothesis fails when you se the crime does not cause poverty in well to do areas. Or that crime is not carried out by the well off to anywhere near the scale it is among the poor. Evidence that poverty causes crime is found in the fact that where poverty is alleviated crime falls. It is not possible to carry out laboratory tests in this field so one has to rely on field evidence. On Co2 concentrations, it has been proved in laboratory conditions that Co2 does act as a bond for water molecules and thus increases heat retention. It is estimated that without the tiny amount of Co2 currently in our atmosphere the average global temperature would be -50c Deniers claim that because of a plethora of other factors it cannot be proved that the effects of Co2 could not be mitigated naturally. However evidence demonstrates that this is not so as we are seeing temperatures rise. Deniers further claim we cannot know it is not some other factor that is causing global warming, but to date have not been able to find another source for the considerable heat needed to generate the change. Amateurs point to everything from solar activity to tarmac, but all are measurable and found wanting. Idiots claim its things like El Nino, when the change in this is a result of global warming rather than a cause. There's not even a correlation between "poverty and theft" - let alone a causal link. And there are plenty of cofactors - as I said which could cause some association. Such as the fact that criminals are more likely to be illiterate, and illiteracy tends to lead to poverty. You keep on coming up with the same old silly arguments and not understanding clear explanations of why they are wrong. And is the any link between poverty and literacy? Yes there is. Where did you explain this theory of yours? As regarding your hypothesis on land use, what are you talking about? We only use 38% for all our agriculture and 27% of that 38 if pasture and has been for hundreds of years. From which crackpot site did you get 75% in 40 years? No you don't, there is no need to list causes you know are not responsible, that would be daft. We no its not solar activity, milankovitch cycles, etc because we measure them. We know its not rubbing hands together sunlight reflecting of tarmac because they don't produce anywhere near enough heat. We also no its not a sudden change in agricultural use because that hasn't happened and neither would it cause global warming. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 29, 2022 14:51:06 GMT
1. Of course there's a link between poverty and literacy. And there's also a link between literacy and crime. That's called a cofactor. It does NOT mean there's a link between poverty and crime though. Duh.
2. It's not my theory - it's John Tyndall's and was discovered over a century ago. There's no argument about that. The point is that it deosn't work in a buffered system. As I said.
3. When there are many causes of warming (and cooling) you can't say that the primary cause of warming is CO2 without calculating the "attribution" of other factors - like building, deforestation etc etc and natural effects. Yet no one has ever done that. Have you ever noticed that rural areas are cooler tnan urban areas? And not by 1.5C but by up to about 5C. Any idea why? I'll give you a clue - it ain't CO2.
Christ what a plank.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 29, 2022 15:05:51 GMT
Maybe look at real outcomes then. The mag lev trains arrive on time to the millisecond and I only know of one high speed rail crash in China. Which mag lev trains might they be then? As far as I'm aware there's only one high-speed mag lev line in current operation, the one built in Shanghai by Siemens and Thyssen-Krupp. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 29, 2022 17:26:36 GMT
Maybe look at real outcomes then. The mag lev trains arrive on time to the millisecond and I only know of one high speed rail crash in China. Which mag lev trains might they be then? As far as I'm aware there's only one high-speed mag lev line in current operation, the one built in Shanghai by Siemens and Thyssen-Krupp. I do not have the details but understand they will all be mag lev in the future. The Chinese build mag lev trains as well. They got the technology from the Japs, not the Germans. The position of a mag lev train is dependent on the AC of the supply, so they can not gain or lose distance relative to any other trains on the track.
The reliability of British trains is appalling.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 29, 2022 18:43:41 GMT
1. Of course there's a link between poverty and literacy. And there's also a link between literacy and crime. That's called a cofactor. It does NOT mean there's a link between poverty and crime though. Duh. 2. It's not my theory - it's John Tyndall's and was discovered over a century ago. There's no argument about that. The point is that it deosn't work in a buffered system. As I said. 3. When there are many causes of warming (and cooling) you can't say that the primary cause of warming is CO2 without calculating the "attribution" of other factors - like building, deforestation etc etc and natural effects. Yet no one has ever done that. Have you ever noticed that rural areas are cooler tnan urban areas? And not by 1.5C but by up to about 5C. Any idea why? I'll give you a clue - it ain't CO2.3, Christ what a plank. 1, Yes, literacy or lack of it sits alongside poverty and together they lead to crime. There are literally hundreds of studies evidencing this. 2, Lol. John Tyndall who rightly claimed vegetation controls our climate, only in 1850 no one had considered the speed of change humans could generate or that vegetation might not keep up. Sure a few thousand years after we've died out mother gaia will rebalance things but not soon enough for us. At the moment humans are bigger than nature itself. 3, Yes we can because we know it is. We know about the other factors as well you can't have missed the calls to stop deforestation, eating meat etc But you missed the big one, the one you simple humans never spot. US! We are warming your planet to make it inhospitable for you. We tried for years to steer you in the right direction but you're to stubborn to learn so now we are forcing you, your last chance, do or die. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 30, 2022 8:32:46 GMT
You're just making stuff up now, Zanygame. So you're now saying that it's poverty AND illiteracy that lead to crime. Show me just one of these hundreds of studies that show this.
As for Tyndall "claiming vegetation controls our climate", bollocks. He did no such thing. He simply said that various gases could trap heat in a box. So what. The Earth isn't a box or it would have burned up billions of years ago.
As for the causes of warming I asked you for the "attribution" of the causes of so-called warming on Earth. If scientists say that CO2 is the primary driver of warming (as we're regularly told that 95% of scientists say) then what are the proportions of heat of all the other factors and what are the proportions assigned to cooling by photosynthesis (which wouldn't occur without CO2) etc. You won't find it anywhere because it has NEVER been done. All the models do is ASSUME that CO2 causes warming - as I said. And the models don't work therefore the assumption is wrong.
I'm afraid that you have little understanding of scientific method - which is the main reason that western science has given us the technology that makes life so much easier today. This science is not based on people's "opinions" or on what religious leaders say (as in the past). It's based on a rigid methodology where theories are tested by observation and discarded if they don't work. If you start believing theories that are patently wrong you undermine the whole basis of our science. You can say that you still hold your opinions despite the fact that they haven't been scientifically validated - and in fact have been proved to be wrong - but that's what's called ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 30, 2022 16:29:35 GMT
You're just making stuff up now, Zanygame. Well I don't see why you should be the only one. Yes poverty and illiteracy tend to go together. So while illiteracy does not lead to crime directly, it does tend to limit life chances and that leads to crime. scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=poverty+literacy+and+crime&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholartTake your pick. Oh please do show me a quote where he said that. But more importantly show me where he said the temperature of the earth could not be changed. Why would I need to do that. It is already proven the earth is getting warmer, we know that photosynthesis captures Co2. We can measure to amount of Co2 in the atmosphere and we know that despite photosynthesis the amount is growing. Therefore we can conclude photosynthesis is not mitigating AGW. Further as I stated and you ignored, the huge amounts of energy needed to cause global warming would be pretty easy to detect if they were coming from a different source, so what is that source. Your only offer so far is changes in land use, for which you got the amount completely wrong and offered no calculation showing how the change increased Co2 concentrations to the degree we are seeing. How boring. That you have to fall back on the old "I know science better than you" trope. But amusing that my conclusions match 95% of climatologists views and yours don't. Your arguments have huge errors, misrepresentations and holes in them. You throw out words like 'photosynthesis' as if the word itself is supposed to impress, but with apparently no understanding of its part in the maths of climate change. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Dec 31, 2022 9:30:25 GMT
Your whole post is incoherent nonsense but I'll just address a few of your confused post:
1. Your original point was that poverty causes crime - for which you have no proof. The references you provided seem to be arguing that illiteracy causes crime (and poverty). Which is exactly what I was suggesting. But they don't have any evidence of a causal link - and they don't say that poverty causes crime.
2. Tyndall simply showed that CO2 (and water) cause heat retention in a box, He made no studies of adding vegetation to that box, as you claimed he did.
3. Zanygame said "It is already proven the earth is getting warmer, we know that photosynthesis captures Co2. We can measure to amount of Co2 in the atmosphere and we know that despite photosynthesis the amount is growing. Therefore we can conclude photosynthesis is not mitigating AGW."
Wrong. The point is that photosynthesis causes cooling - very significant cooling - because it uses the Sun's energy to convert CO2 an water to make carbohydrates. It's actually one of the most efficient means we know of absorbing the Sun's energy. There have been NO studies of how much cooling this process causes - because the amount of data needed is huge. So we do NOT know whether CO2 causes net heating or cooling in the Earth's system.
4. Zanygame said "Further as I stated and you ignored, the huge amounts of energy needed to cause global warming would be pretty easy to detect if they were coming from a different source, so what is that source."
All the energy we have comes from the Sun. That's a given.
5. Zanygame said "Your only offer so far is changes in land use, for which you got the amount completely wrong and offered no calculation showing how the change increased Co2 concentrations to the degree we are seeing."
Are you completely stupid? The changes in land use CAUSE warming. We know that because, for example, urban areas are warmer than rural areas and we know that deforestation causes warming. We've repurposed 75% of the planet's surface since 1970 which is bound to have warmed the Earth up. It has nothing to do with CO2.
BTW, 95% of scientists do NOT say that CO2 is the primary driver of AGW. That statistic has been totally discredited. But 100% of scientists do say that they don't know yet what causes warming - if indeed warming is occurring. It's the politicians who claim the science is settled. I'm afraid that you're a sucker for this "pseudo science" that is so prevalent nowadays. You need to learn to use your brain - but I suspect that it's too late for you now.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Dec 31, 2022 12:05:40 GMT
Your whole post is incoherent nonsense but I'll just address a few of your confused post: 1. Your original point was that poverty causes crime - for which you have no proof. The references you provided seem to be arguing that illiteracy causes crime (and poverty). Which is exactly what I was suggesting. But they don't have any evidence of a causal link - and they don't say that poverty causes crime. 2. Tyndall simply showed that CO2 (and water) cause heat retention in a box, He made no studies of adding vegetation to that box, as you claimed he did. 3. Zanygame said "It is already proven the earth is getting warmer, we know that photosynthesis captures Co2. We can measure to amount of Co2 in the atmosphere and we know that despite photosynthesis the amount is growing. Therefore we can conclude photosynthesis is not mitigating AGW." Wrong. The point is that photosynthesis causes cooling - very significant cooling - because it uses the Sun's energy to convert CO2 an water to make carbohydrates. It's actually one of the most efficient means we know of absorbing the Sun's energy. There have been NO studies of how much cooling this process causes - because the amount of data needed is huge. So we do NOT know whether CO2 causes net heating or cooling in the Earth's system. 4. Zanygame said "Further as I stated and you ignored, the huge amounts of energy needed to cause global warming would be pretty easy to detect if they were coming from a different source, so what is that source." All the energy we have comes from the Sun. That's a given. 5. Zanygame said "Your only offer so far is changes in land use, for which you got the amount completely wrong and offered no calculation showing how the change increased Co2 concentrations to the degree we are seeing." Are you completely stupid? The changes in land use CAUSE warming. We know that because, for example, urban areas are warmer than rural areas and we know that deforestation causes warming. We've repurposed 75% of the planet's surface since 1970 which is bound to have warmed the Earth up. It has nothing to do with CO2. BTW, 95% of scientists do NOT say that CO2 is the primary driver of AGW. That statistic has been totally discredited. But 100% of scientists do say that they don't know yet what causes warming - if indeed warming is occurring. It's the politicians who claim the science is settled. I'm afraid that you're a sucker for this "pseudo science" that is so prevalent nowadays. You need to learn to use your brain - but I suspect that it's too late for you now. 1, I offered you the links you asked for, that you ignore them tells me what I needed to confirm. 2, I took your point further because the fact that Tyndall made this claim seemed so irrelevant to what is happening today that I assumed you must be leading to something else. Sorry, I hadn't realised you genuinely thought this was an answer to global warming. 3, Yes we agree on that which is why I pointed out that even vegetations effect cannot offset AGW. 4, That does not begin to address my point. The sun has not got hotter or nearer (In fact its just got colder) So what other significant change in energy production, absorption, movement do you have to explain the 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy required to increase earths temperature by just one degree Celsius. 5, Firstly we have not repurposed 75% of the planets surface, nowhere near. For a start 70% of the earth is under water and even on land we only inhabit about 38% and most of that is pasture and has been for hundreds of years. You can't just make shit up and expect people to believe it. BTW. Some stupid blogger tried to re-interpret works by some climatologist to imply they disagreed with AGW. Many dumb deniers leapt on this, but as usual a closer look revealed the dishonesty of the claim. If by using your brain you mean seek out bloggers that support your view, or argue whether its 95% or 90% of climatologists who support AGW, or make up numbers about land use changes. Then I'll politely decline your offer and stick to the more traditional method of reading articles and checking facts. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 1, 2023 9:34:59 GMT
Humans have repurposed 75% of the Earth's land surface since 1970 - mainly by deforestation, creating monocultures of crops and building towns and cities. Look at pictures taken from space over the years. All energy comes from the Sun but - before humans interfered - large amounts of this energy was captured and stored by various means. That's why rural areas are very much cooler than urban areas. Have you heard of the "Urban Heat Island" effect? Urban areas don't capture the Sun's energy (and convert it to carbohydrates, for example) - they absorb the energy and heat up. That's why they raise the temperature of the planet. And it doesn't just raise the temperature of these areas by 1C - it's a lot more than that. Yet this effect is dismissed by the CO2 fanatics.
The reason they dismiss this effect is because they say that the amount of the Sun's energy that is reflected (the albedo) is pretty similar for rural and urban areas - and it's very complex so they don't have the data to calculate it anyway. But the difference is that rural areas capture more of the energy and lock it in, while urban areas capture the energy and heat up. That's why they're warmer. Yet this effect is ignored as our politicians demand more and more building to house larger and larger populations.
And it's also worth pointing out that this progressive urbanisation means that the weather stations that we rely on to record temperatures are now in more urban areas than they were before - which means that they're bound to record higher temperatures.
As for the 95% figure, show me the survey that came up with this figure. (BTW I know where the figures came from and they're completely discredited).
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 1, 2023 9:47:07 GMT
Urban areas are also warmer due to heating of buildings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 1, 2023 11:50:04 GMT
Urban areas are also warmer due to heating of buildings. Especially if they have air conditioners and are close together as they would be in a city. |
|
