Earth in hot water? Worries over sudden ocean warming spike

[The Barbarian]

Like science has never been wrong

Science is the process of moving from wrong to less wrong. That's why it works better than anything else humans can do, to understand our physical world. This is why we see such science envy on the part of YE creationists. They can't make belief do what science can do.

To be fair, science can't say anything about the supernatural. But then, scientists don't want or need to use it that way. For that, we have faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be fair, science can't say anything about the supernatural.

Only to contradict the Bible.

If we tore every page out of the Bible that science disagrees with, the Bible would look like a phone book for a tiny village.

 

[eleos1954]

Science is the process of moving from wrong to less wrong. That's why it works better than anything else humans can do, to understand our physical world. This is why we see such science envy on the part of YE creationists. They can't make belief do what science can do.

To be fair, science can't say anything about the supernatural. But then, scientists don't want or need to use it that way. For that, we have faith.

Yeah, the supernatural is beyond many scientists understanding. Basically when one looks at nature they either believe millions of random happenings over billions of years ... or one sees design ... if design then there's a designer.

I spend a lot of time in nature and I see marvelous design everywhere ... a lot of harmony going on with all the creatures.

Random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the theory of evolution cites that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection.

No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process.

Also, the premise of evolution is evolving from smaller to bigger ... the fossil record shows differently

Larger Organisms in the Past | Genesis Park

Some believe the theory of evolution ... ok ... others don't ... also ok .... if a creator God then one day we will know .... if evolution .. it will never be known.

A little off topic .... sorry .... but was responding to

That's why it works better than anything else humans can do, to understand our physical world.

and evolution is sciences understanding of the physical world.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Also, the premise of evolution is evolving from smaller to bigger ... the fossil record shows differently

That is not a 'premise' of evolution. Nor is it a conclusion or prediction.

No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial

This thread has a few beneficial mutations, including this one:

Apolipoprotein A-1 Milano

Apolipoprotein A-1 Milano (also ETC-216, now MDCO-216) is a naturally occurring mutated variant of the apolipoprotein A1 protein found in human HDL, the lipoprotein particle that carries cholesterol from tissues to the liver and is associated with protection against cardiovascular disease. ApoA1 Milano was first identified by Dr. Cesare Sirtori in Milan, who also demonstrated that its presence significantly reduced cardiovascular disease

 

[Hans Blaster]

Like science has never been wrong

At least we fix our errors. (And this isn't one of them.)

 

[eclipsenow]

Like science has never been wrong

That is not the claim.
It's that - as the largely Christian founders of the scientific method understood - us humans are often wrong. Prejudiced, distracted, full of weird assumptions - the scientific method was born out of the understanding that even the human intellect is fallen. Christians helped develop the methods of investigation that try to double-check our understanding of the world with empirical tests.

Or let me put it another way. Science has often been wrong - but using the scientific method is all we've got. Some things are pretty much 'known' - like the boiling point of water or how much CO2 warms the atmosphere. But even in climate science there are still a few smaller debates.

Does CO2 warm air? Yes. Easily confirmed in any decent lab.
Does this look like a real problem? Yes - accelerated water cycles means more drying and drought here, and dumping deluges over there. Moving ecosystems, destroyed ecosystems, extinctions, crop cuts - we are getting glimpses of all these things now and they're accelerating.

BUT - what is the exact Climate Sensitivity of the earth's system?

• Climate sensitivity​

  This tells us how sensitive our climate is to rising greenhouse gas emissions from human activities — specifically, how much warmer the planet will get if we double our carbon dioxide emissions.

Glossary – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

But the great James Hansen - the grandfather of modern climate science - says we're all a bit too conservative - and that the earth is far more sensitive and there will be FAR more warming from the CO2 we have emitted. Now - I'm not a scientist let alone a climate scientist studying one of the most complex interacting systems we've ever tried to analyse. But I take comfort in that Michael Mann has had to respond to his hero James Hansen and try to correct him somewhat. It looks like Hansen - who I respect enormously as an incredible scientist and passionate advocate for sustainability - may have fallen in with some younger scientists that were swayed by some argument from the paleoclimate record that doesn't quite pass muster.

Because if the earth's climate is THAT sensitive - then we may as well join "Toby" from "The Office". (I love that they chose this actor to play a climate doomer in "The Newsroom" - as it's like Aaron Sorkin was keeping the joke running. No one liked "Toby" either - and here he is as a climate doomer bringing everyone's Friday night waaaaaay down!)

For the record - this is NOT what I understand the IPCC to be saying - and "Climate Doomers" are now actually being sponsored by Big oil. Why? Because if Big Oil has failed to stop people taking climate change seriously - they've found that getting them to take it TOO seriously also achieves their goals.

Becoming a Doomer robs people of the will to try - to do any activism. For without any hope for the future you may as well "Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Live it up - guilt free - because there is no point to any pesky activism. But now it gets sinister. Climate Doomers are SUCH an effective deterrent to climate activism that Big Oil are sponsoring Climate Doomers! So to any Climate Doomers here - be careful who you believe online - because Big Oil might just be buying your opinion for you! Atmospheric Physicist and youtuber Simon Clark explains.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least we fix our errors. (And this isn't one of them.)

Fix?

Or patch?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Fix?

Or patch?

There are two cases.

If the theory accommodates both 1,000 years and 10,000 years, then the new evidence or analysis doesn't patch the theory.
If the theory doesn't, then the new evidence or analysis causes a modification or replacement of the theory, which doesn't patch the theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are two cases.


If the theory accommodates both 1,000 years and 10,000 years, then the new evidence or analysis doesn't patch the theory.
If the theory doesn't, then the new evidence or analysis causes a modification or replacement of the theory, which doesn't patch the theory.

And that's considered "fixing it"?

Just replace one wrong theory with another wrong theory?

 

[essentialsaltes]

And that's considered "fixing it"?

In case 1, we fixed some error in measurement or analysis.

In case 2, we replaced a theory that agrees with reality almost all of the time with a theory that agrees with reality all the time (so far as we know so far).

 

[AV1611VET]

In case 1, we fixed some error in measurement or analysis.

In case 2, we replaced a theory that agrees with reality almost all of the time with a theory that agrees with reality all the time (so far as we know so far).

Temporary fixes.

If a planet's moon is 500,000 miles out, and science initially says it is 300,00, then "fixes" it later to 400,000, was it really fixed?

Don't you guys look forward to your theories being busted in the future?

If so, how do you "fix" something?

You can't.

You can patch it, but not fix it.

If you had a leaky pipe, and your plumber "fixed" it, then said he couldn't wait to see his "fix" shown to be wrong, would you accept that?

 

[Ophiolite]

If a planet's moon is 500,000 miles out, and science initially says it is 300,00, then "fixes" it later to 400,000, was it really fixed?

Please provide documentary evidence that this, or similar, has happened in the form of links to papers in peer reviewed science journals, or bona fide science textbooks. If you are unable to do so, please withdraw your question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please provide documentary evidence that this, or similar, has happened in the form of links to papers in peer reviewed science journals, or bona fide science textbooks.

Uh-huh.

I'll get right on that.

If you are unable to do so, please withdraw your question.

Nope.

I don't back down from science.

I want it answered.

 

[Ophiolite]

Uh-huh.

I'll get right on that.



Nope.

I don't back down from science.

I want it answered.

I'll answer it as soon as you provide the requested information. In the meantime you can tell me your estimate of how long gathering this will take?

 

[AV1611VET]

In the meantime you can tell me your estimate of how long gathering this will take?

Let's put it this way:

Don't hold your breath.

 

[eleos1954]

At least we fix our errors. (And this isn't one of them.)

Debatable ... the intent is to fix .... but if the original premise is in error then everything after that will be in error as well.

Not everything is testable so then that's when theory comes in.

 

[eleos1954]

That is not the claim.
It's that - as the largely Christian founders of the scientific method understood - us humans are often wrong. Prejudiced, distracted, full of weird assumptions - the scientific method was born out of the understanding that even the human intellect is fallen. Christians helped develop the methods of investigation that try to double-check our understanding of the world with empirical tests.

Or let me put it another way. Science has often been wrong - but using the scientific method is all we've got. Some things are pretty much 'known' - like the boiling point of water or how much CO2 warms the atmosphere. But even in climate science there are still a few smaller debates.

Does CO2 warm air? Yes. Easily confirmed in any decent lab.
Does this look like a real problem? Yes - accelerated water cycles means more drying and drought here, and dumping deluges over there. Moving ecosystems, destroyed ecosystems, extinctions, crop cuts - we are getting glimpses of all these things now and they're accelerating.

BUT - what is the exact Climate Sensitivity of the earth's system?

• Climate sensitivity​

  This tells us how sensitive our climate is to rising greenhouse gas emissions from human activities — specifically, how much warmer the planet will get if we double our carbon dioxide emissions.

Glossary – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

But the great James Hansen - the grandfather of modern climate science - says we're all a bit too conservative - and that the earth is far more sensitive and there will be FAR more warming from the CO2 we have emitted. Now - I'm not a scientist let alone a climate scientist studying one of the most complex interacting systems we've ever tried to analyse. But I take comfort in that Michael Mann has had to respond to his hero James Hansen and try to correct him somewhat. It looks like Hansen - who I respect enormously as an incredible scientist and passionate advocate for sustainability - may have fallen in with some younger scientists that were swayed by some argument from the paleoclimate record that doesn't quite pass muster.

Because if the earth's climate is THAT sensitive - then we may as well join "Toby" from "The Office". (I love that they chose this actor to play a climate doomer in "The Newsroom" - as it's like Aaron Sorkin was keeping the joke running. No one liked "Toby" either - and here he is as a climate doomer bringing everyone's Friday night waaaaaay down!)

For the record - this is NOT what I understand the IPCC to be saying - and "Climate Doomers" are now actually being sponsored by Big oil. Why? Because if Big Oil has failed to stop people taking climate change seriously - they've found that getting them to take it TOO seriously also achieves their goals.

Becoming a Doomer robs people of the will to try - to do any activism. For without any hope for the future you may as well "Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Live it up - guilt free - because there is no point to any pesky activism. But now it gets sinister. Climate Doomers are SUCH an effective deterrent to climate activism that Big Oil are sponsoring Climate Doomers! So to any Climate Doomers here - be careful who you believe online - because Big Oil might just be buying your opinion for you! Atmospheric Physicist and youtuber Simon Clark explains.

I (and many) don't deny the climate is changing .... we differ of what the cause(s) are.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not everything is testable so then that's when theory comes in.

It's possible you need a better understanding of what a scientific theory is.

A theory does not "paper over" the stuff we can't test.

A theory provides a framework for explaining the things that are testable.

Things we can't measure, like sin or souls, are not part of science at all.

 

[eleos1954]

It's possible you need a better understanding of what a scientific theory is.

A theory does not "paper over" the stuff we can't test.

A theory provides a framework for explaining the things that are testable.

Things we can't measure, like sin or souls, are not part of science at all.

Things we can't measure, like sin or souls, are not part of science at all.

I understand it.

We collect physical information .... from that information there are many theories (possible explanations offered) of which there are many.

Don't claim that it is .... the Bible is about relationships ... not so much about explanation of the physical world.

The theory of evolution is based on speculation and not valid scientific observation and testing. It's impossible to do so. Nobody has ever seen "life" just pop up by itself .... life comes from life and that is what is observed. It is a theory and will remain as such.

The theories are attached to the material only ... an dismisses anything beyond that ... whereas creation doesn't limit itself to the material.

No one was there to witness the beginning of life), so any ideas about who or what caused the creation or evolution of life can only be speculative theories and therefore never provable.

Creation beliefs do not require something physical .... evolution eliminates anything beyond that (the physical)

Creation beliefs include the supernatural

Supernatural

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.

Do you believe there is intelligence life in the universe other than ourselves?

If so, why? If not ... why not?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The theory of evolution is based on speculation and not valid scientific observation and testing.

Have you read On the Origin of Species? Darwin details (sometimes to a punishing degree) a wealth of observations that motivate his reasoning and future avenues of research to confirm or explode his theory.

Since then, there's been more than a century of experimentation and evidence gathered that has helped to revise and modernize the theory to its present form.

Nobody has ever seen "life" just pop up by itself

It is not a prediction of evolution that we should do so.

Do you believe there is intelligence life in the universe other than ourselves?

If so, why? If not ... why not?

I think it quite likely, but I wouldn't say I believe it. There is no evidence of any.