Prevention is the best medicine when it comes to avoiding surprise medical bills! Learn more.

 

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
259
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

259 Views
Message 1 of 70

Do you not believe in evolution? That is still a hypothesis. 

 

The scientific method is to propose a hypothesis on a cause and then try to disprove it with observations. To date, no one has been able to disprove the theory of man made climate change. 

 

There is, however, a great deal of evidence refuting the theory that the changes happening to our climate are simply one of the regular cycles of the earth's climate.  Most damning is the fact that they have not been able to find any evidence  similar cycles at any point in earth's geologic record. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
259
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
265
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

265 Views
Message 2 of 70

nothappening wrote"

You read an article that you agree with and accept their "hypothesis" and I disagree with your hypothesis (opinion).

 

I think your next mission is to find someone else to follow you!"

 

And I have asked you for links to support your "opinion" (again facts are not opinion), but you have failed to supply them.

 

The good news for you is that I am going on vacation for 10 days, so you can post what you want.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
265
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
273
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

273 Views
Message 3 of 70

@sp362 wrote:

nothappening wrote"Using YOUR LINK, they use the words:" estimate, sampling, remote sensing".  Do you understand what they mean?  They all mean conjecture and NOT accurate measurements."

 

Thank you for actually reading the link.  There are two things that are wrong with your response:

  1. We know that before the Industrial Revolution, the Earth was in a carbon balance, thus the same amount of carbon produced each was also removed.
  2. An estimate is given because natural emissions will vary.  The estimate is between 65 and 319 MILLION tons.  The amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere each year is over 30 BILLION tons.  Even if you think they are off by a factor of 10 (which I don't) this is still a miniscule amount compared to the CO2 that is being released.  Where do you think the other 99% (90% if you believe they are off by a factor of ten) is coming from?

There is nothing wrong with my response yet you fail to understand that hypothesis and OPINION are very much the same.  You read an article that you agree with and accept their "hypothesis" and I disagree with your hypothesis (opinion).

 

I think your next mission is to find someone else to follow you!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
273
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
283
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

283 Views
Message 4 of 70

Discussing CO2 and how it is measured can't be off-topic can it?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
283
Views
Moderator
0
Kudos
287
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

287 Views
Message 5 of 70

Hi all,

This thread is starting to get off-topic. While you may have different opinions, please remember to be respectful of one another as our guidelines state: This is a diverse community of people with diverse opinions. It is up to each of us to be polite and treat each other with respect.

You can read the full guidelines here: http://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

Thanks and happy posting!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
287
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
295
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

295 Views
Message 6 of 70

nothappening wrote"Using YOUR LINK, they use the words:" estimate, sampling, remote sensing".  Do you understand what they mean?  They all mean conjecture and NOT accurate measurements."

 

Thank you for actually reading the link.  There are two things that are wrong with your response:

  1. We know that before the Industrial Revolution, the Earth was in a carbon balance, thus the same amount of carbon produced each was also removed.
  2. An estimate is given because natural emissions will vary.  The estimate is between 65 and 319 MILLION tons.  The amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere each year is over 30 BILLION tons.  Even if you think they are off by a factor of 10 (which I don't) this is still a miniscule amount compared to the CO2 that is being released.  Where do you think the other 99% (90% if you believe they are off by a factor of ten) is coming from?
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
295
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
305
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

305 Views
Message 7 of 70

@sp362 wrote:

nothappening wrote "We guess at the amount of CO2 from volcanoes and DON'T know exactly how much.  You are entitled to your conjecture but don't ever call them facts.  Facts "they ain't"!"

 

Here is a link to how it is measured:

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/168

 

And here is an explanation for why your assertion is incorrect:

The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject. 

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.


Using YOUR LINK, they use the words:" estimate, sampling, remote sensing".  Do you understand what they mean?  They all mean conjecture and NOT accurate measurements.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
305
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
316
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

316 Views
Message 8 of 70

nothappening wrote "We guess at the amount of CO2 from volcanoes and DON'T know exactly how much.  You are entitled to your conjecture but don't ever call them facts.  Facts "they ain't"!"

 

Here is a link to how it is measured:

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/168

 

And here is an explanation for why your assertion is incorrect:

The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject. 

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
316
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
318
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

318 Views
Message 9 of 70

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

nothappening wrote: "In scientific terms; A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors."

 

This is the definition of theory and climate change fits its rigorous definition:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments."


So we are in agreement that we are at the hypothesis level "at best" while others have their hypothesis!


No, unless you have some other hypothesis that fits the fact of the rapid rise in CO2.  Agan, show us some research from other scientists that say this is not happening with rising CO2 levels.


Give me a break.  Icrease in burning fossil fuels means more CO2Increased people means more CO2.  Increased animals means more CO2.  This doesn't even include methane which is far worse.  CO2 also comes naturally from volcanoes and the ocean.  As far as how much our increase vs naturally occuring affecting warming is conjecture at best.  Again you are welcome to your OPINION or your hypothesis as others are theirs!


You are tryng to distract from the fact that excess CO2 is bad by saying methane is worse (which it is) but has nothing to do with the discussion on CO2.  CO2 can be produced naturally by volcanos.  We know how much is being produced by these volcanos.  Do you think there are more volcanos out there that we haven't discovered?  Oceans only produce CO2 as changes occur, usually they are absorbing CO2, not producing it.  It is not conjecture when you look at past records showing increase in CO2 from volcanos warming the Earth.  Again, you are not entitled to your own facts.


We guess at the amount of CO2 from volcanoes and DON'T know exactly how much.  You are entitled to your conjecture but don't ever call them facts.  Facts "they ain't"!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
318
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
320
Views

Re: Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

320 Views
Message 10 of 70

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

nothappening wrote: "In scientific terms; A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors."

 

This is the definition of theory and climate change fits its rigorous definition:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, predefined, protocol of observations and experiments."


So we are in agreement that we are at the hypothesis level "at best" while others have their hypothesis!


No, unless you have some other hypothesis that fits the fact of the rapid rise in CO2.  Agan, show us some research from other scientists that say this is not happening with rising CO2 levels.


Give me a break.  Icrease in burning fossil fuels means more CO2Increased people means more CO2.  Increased animals means more CO2.  This doesn't even include methane which is far worse.  CO2 also comes naturally from volcanoes and the ocean.  As far as how much our increase vs naturally occuring affecting warming is conjecture at best.  Again you are welcome to your OPINION or your hypothesis as others are theirs!


You are tryng to distract from the fact that excess CO2 is bad by saying methane is worse (which it is) but has nothing to do with the discussion on CO2.  CO2 can be produced naturally by volcanos.  We know how much is being produced by these volcanos.  Do you think there are more volcanos out there that we haven't discovered?  Oceans only produce CO2 as changes occur, usually they are absorbing CO2, not producing it.  It is not conjecture when you look at past records showing increase in CO2 from volcanos warming the Earth.  Again, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
320
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark

Top Authors