Previous  1 ... 14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Science can be used quite successfully to prove things with certainty. You're using a computer whose layers and layers of technology are certain proof of literally millions of hypotheses that have been proven irrefutably.



Water turns into a solid at 0C/32F each and every time. It also becomes less dense as a solid than it was as a liquid despite the fact that every other element known to man becomes more dense as it cools.

Absolute zero (4.5 × 10-10 Kelvin) is absolute.

Gravitational force is an absolute constant G = 6.67 x 10-11 N(m2/kg2) in all circumstances.

The speed of light is an absolute.

You can see where I'm going here.

There are, indeed, absolutes in nature. Nature is rife with them.



All people like myself are asking scientists to prove is their assumption that human activity is causing 100% of the miniscule amount of climate change that has occured in somewhat-accurately recorded history (about 150 years) with accurate readings only going back to the 1950's.

   

What exactly would it take to convinve you? Do you believe that massive toxic spills have a devestating affect on the enviornment with lasting effects. Are you aware of the persistence of DDT in the food chain?



That is not quite true. In any case, periodic episodes of volcanic eruptions may indeed raise CO2 levels for a brief time but it is compensated for by the buffering action of the oceans & large bodies of water unless that water has already been saturated by constant increased CO2 levels. In other words, in the absence of human activity, these periodic massive outbursts of CO2 would eventually be compensated for as the earth adjusts back but we are preventing that from happening.



How much of it is caused do you think? We have hard core data showing increased CO2 concentrations around every single modern city. We have data showing this has been increasing since they started making the graphs. It is not hard to come to the conclusion that we are raising CO2 levels (even after factoring in volcanic eruptions). Regardless of what cycle is normal for the planet we do know that prior to 150 years ago humans were not significantly causing CO2 generation. Maybe we should be on a cooling cycle instead of the current warming trend and humanity has thrown the earth off its cycle?



The difference is that the scientists who know this are also giving cautionary warnings.



They certainly will. They will say that now that we are industrialized we have no right to tell them they can't do it. Regardless, it doesn't negate our responsibility to do all that we can to minimize pollution, recycle were efficient, restore the environment that we have effected, and generally develop technology that would allow industrialization to occurr with the damage that we caused.

   

Sorry, Derby, but these same scientists at their best can only predict weather with any accuracy three to four days in advance. What's really terrible is that the very best computer modeling programs cannot predict what the weather was ten days ago.

But we're supposed to believe them that humanity is 100% of the cause of a .6 degree change in climate across a .0000000056% sample of earth's climate history as their data sample?

In what other discipline besides climate science is a .0000000056% data sample considered enough data to formulate a 100% certainty?

   

Hardly. Weather patterns are caused by a myriad of unpredictable factors. They can reasonably attribute the earths warming to know effects of CO2 concentrations. You use weather predicitons as the "hallmark" of science but lets try chemistry. We know the physical structure & properties of all elements, well the first 80 or so. We can use this knowldege to predict with almost certainty how they will react under given consitions. We use this to build complex chemicals which we also know their reactions as well. Science can and will make accurate predictions and determine the causes of certain phenomenons. We don't need a weather report for every day the last billion years to draw accurate conclusions about current warming trends. You want to stick your head in the sand then thats OK. I will believe the experts when they say that human made CO2 is a major contributing factor in the current temperature increase.

   

Water turns to ice at close to zero degrees C. Things like small quantities of other substances (eg dissolved salts, gases), imperfections in the vessel holding the water, motion in the water, pressure, outside atmosphereic conditions, etc., all change the freezing point. Water, I believe, has been supercooled to about -40 without turning to ice.

Absolute zero is a concept -- it doesn't exist in the universe (as far as science knows). As I understand it can't be achieved because to do so would violate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says that we can't know both the momentum and the position of a particle absolutely (there's that "absolute" term again).

The speed of light that we use is the speed of light in a vacuum. Since a total vacuum (a volume that contains no matter) dosn't exist anywhere, the speed of light is abstract. Thus light, in reality, always travels at less than the constant that we use for the speed of light.

All these absolutes we use are mere abstractions we use to more easily do the calcuations. But things like Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, chaos theory, automata systems, Hesienbergs Uncertainty principle, wave/particle duality and quantum virtual particles all demonstrate that our ability to know anything absolutely is limited, not just in practice, but also in principle.

Rene des Cartes tried to formulate a single absolute certainty from basic principles and came up with "Cognito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Whether this was a true has been argued ever since!

Thus your request that something in the real world be proved 100% is an unachievable burden of proof.

   

Absolutely incorrect, but it's a common misconception.



Physicians have indeed given exact values to certain quantities, but string theory is finding them to be less than exact, or constant. Certain supposedly fundemental constants have been shown to change over time.

One can only describe the speed of light as 299.7(10^8 )m/s based on observations, but it can't be explained. We've 'settled' with a numerical quantity for now, until we can explain it physically.



No scientist assumes 100% responsibilty of humans. It's obvious, from a cursory glance at climate data, that fluctuations occur constantly.

It's not likely you who scientists are trying to convince of anything either. The fact that you can so easily discredit glacier ice core studies because it doesn't sound very accurate to you is a likely reason for this.

   

And the fact that Krakatoa cooled the global climate.

   

Absurd.

   

Due to the particulate matter blocking sunrays from hitting the earth with full effect.

   

In other words, you can't manage to follow the argument anymore, and have decided to talk about something else.

   

BartSimpson has pushed you off your absolutist assertion that CO2 is the cause of global warming!!!!!!!!

   

Once again you missed the point. Doesn't it ever bother you?

   

CO2 being the major contributing factor is saying that it is causing global warming. Others things can add up as well. Get it now?

   

Previous  1 ... 14  15  16  17  18  19  Next