(Nov 1, 2017 06:15 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, are you asserting runaway climate change is imminent or already underway?
i am not "asserting"
i am stating a facts(predominantly just posting scientists findings).
i do notice your desire to personalise the entire subject to make it a personal belief of someone rather than scientific facts so you can then attempt to define it as a beleif system to argue your "belief/religion" against theirs.
attempting to render science into a religion does not change science & does not make you any more scientifically valid either.
No, predictions of imminent doom are not facts. Apparently your ignorance extends to the definition of such basic scientific words as "fact". In science, a fact is readily observable. If runaway climate change were readily observable, there would already be no hope of stopping it. And if it's only imminent, it's not readily observable.
I'm only personalizing your obvious ignorance. That's something that does need to be pointed out to you if you have any hope of learning.
It is you reducing science to a personal belief because you refuse to learn the basic terms and methodology of science. You just take someone's word of what they claim as "fact" (or more likely, you just assume as fact) without bothering to learn enough yourself. It's like when the priests were the only ones who could read Latin.
(Nov 1, 2017 06:15 PM)Syne Wrote: Again, are you asserting runaway climate change is imminent or already underway?
i am not "asserting"
i am stating a facts(predominantly just posting scientists findings).
i do notice your desire to personalise the entire subject to make it a personal belief of someone rather than scientific facts so you can then attempt to define it as a beleif system to argue your "belief/religion" against theirs.
attempting to render science into a religion does not change science & does not make you any more scientifically valid either.
No, predictions of imminent doom are not facts. Apparently your ignorance extends to the definition of such basic scientific words as "fact". In science, a fact is readily observable. If runaway climate change were readily observable, there would already be no hope of stopping it. And if it's only imminent, it's not readily observable.
I'm only personalizing your obvious ignorance. That's something that does need to be pointed out to you if you have any hope of learning.
It is you reducing science to a personal belief because you refuse to learn the basic terms and methodology of science. You just take someone's word of what they claim as "fact" (or more likely, you just assume as fact) without bothering to learn enough yourself. It's like when the priests were the only ones who could read Latin.
you are trying to shut down the subject.
why ?
you do not offer any scientific data.
you just point & shout "No".
if your opinion is based in fact then you can simply post some scientific data supporting your position..
though it appears that your position is to simply be in opposition.
being "opposed" to something is not being scientific.
though you do seem to go to some length to attempt to sell that idea.
SyneNov 5, 2017 08:52 PM (This post was last modified: Nov 5, 2017 11:37 PM by Syne.)
(Nov 5, 2017 01:34 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote:
(Nov 4, 2017 04:44 PM)Syne Wrote: No, predictions of imminent doom are not facts. Apparently your ignorance extends to the definition of such basic scientific words as "fact". In science, a fact is readily observable. If runaway climate change were readily observable, there would already be no hope of stopping it. And if it's only imminent, it's not readily observable.
I'm only personalizing your obvious ignorance. That's something that does need to be pointed out to you if you have any hope of learning.
It is you reducing science to a personal belief because you refuse to learn the basic terms and methodology of science. You just take someone's word of what they claim as "fact" (or more likely, you just assume as fact) without bothering to learn enough yourself. It's like when the priests were the only ones who could read Latin.
you are trying to shut down the subject.
why ?
you do not offer any scientific data.
you just point & shout "No".
if your opinion is based in fact then you can simply post some scientific data supporting your position..
though it appears that your position is to simply be in opposition.
being "opposed" to something is not being scientific.
though you do seem to go to some length to attempt to sell that idea.
I require no data to refute a clear ignorance of scientific method and basic definitions, like the difference between facts, findings, predictions, hypothesis, etc..
You asking for me to disprove your hysterical doomsday predictions is the typical crank refrain of "prove me wrong". That is the fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof for your own assertions. That's not how actual science works. YOU have to demonstrate that your predictions are actually accurate. And you haven't. You've only shown a continually changing climate...which it has always done, and recovered from. All your predictions have thus far been way off (which is why we went from doomsday predictions of global cooling to global warming to the largely undisputed climate change). So scientific skepticism requires you to substantiate your claims before anyone is obliged to accept them. And the trend is for doomsayers to weaken their own claims in the face of actual evidence.
For instance, were you ever going to either refute the fact that a long overdue hiatus in hurricanes has coincidentally amplified king tides, showing no evidence for significant sea level rise, or be intellectually honest enough to admit these weren't signs of the coming apocalypse?
stryderNov 6, 2017 06:29 AM (This post was last modified: Nov 6, 2017 06:40 AM by stryder.)
One potential avenue for some sort of "facts" which should suit everyones' interest. While considering one point that Syne mentioned in regards to questioning observable facts like "the rise in water from ice-caps melting".
I started to ponder the effect of tides in relationship to the moon. While the moon indeed creates tides, there is also the added point that the volume of water would increase mass in a given area, which in turn increases gravity. This basically means that the more water in a tide the greater effect on the moon's gravity and orbital trajectory. (Apparently tidal acceleration (wikipedia.org) can increase the distance of moons orbital path) The other interesting point however is that tides act as friction against the planet rotating and actually slows the speed down, this means if tides have higher mass (through higher volume) that they will indeed slow our planets rotation more. An increase in mass also potentially increase what pressure the tectonic plates are under, so there could also be an effect there.
There's always been speculation about what would happen if the planet stopped spinning (or slowed), for instance slowing would pull the faster moving airflows down and would result in hurricanes etc.
There is the proposal however that water would shift from the equator to the poles from how the rotation moves water (Think of water going down a plug hole to understand how it's effected by poles)
There might be proof as to how much the speed of the rotation has been effected as any significant change would be observable in Leap Seconds (wikipedia.org).
Except the only catastrophe people seem to worry about with sea level rise is land loss and population displacement. So even if it could have any measurable effects on rotation, that still doesn't necessarily equate to land loss. If, as you say, slowing rotation reduces centrifugal force pushing more water to the poles, we might even see a gain in coastal land.
Quote:The solar cycle or solar magnetic activity cycle is the nearly periodic 11-year change in the Sun's activity (including changes in the levels of solar radiation and ejection of solar material) and appearance (changes in the number and size of sunspots, flares, and other manifestations).
Quote:"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."
The sun is relatively calm compared to other stars. "We don't know what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now," said Doug Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. "It could be considerably more active and therefore have more influence on Earth's climate."
Or, it could be calmer, creating a cooler climate on Earth similar to what happened in the late 17th century. Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun's surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun's output over hundreds of years. During this period, winters in Europe were longer and colder by about 1 C than they are today.
Quote:Future Measurements of Solar Variability
For three decades, a suite of NASA and European Space Agency satellites have provided scientists with critical measurements of total solar irradiance. The Total Irradiance Monitor, also known as the TIM instrument, was launched in 2003 as part of the NASA’s SORCE mission, and provides irradiance measurements with state-of-the-art accuracy. TIM has been rebuilt as part of the Glory mission, scheduled to launch in 2009. Glory's TIM instrument will continue an uninterrupted 30-year record of solar irradiance measurements and will help researchers better understand the sun's direct and indirect effects on climate. Glory will also collect data on aerosols, one of the least understood pieces of the climate puzzle.
(Nov 6, 2017 06:29 AM)stryder Wrote: One potential avenue for some sort of "facts" which should suit everyones' interest. While considering one point that Syne mentioned in regards to questioning observable facts like "the rise in water from ice-caps melting".
I started to ponder the effect of tides in relationship to the moon. While the moon indeed creates tides, there is also the added point that the volume of water would increase mass in a given area, which in turn increases gravity. This basically means that the more water in a tide the greater effect on the moon's gravity and orbital trajectory. (Apparently tidal acceleration (wikipedia.org) can increase the distance of moons orbital path) The other interesting point however is that tides act as friction against the planet rotating and actually slows the speed down, this means if tides have higher mass (through higher volume) that they will indeed slow our planets rotation more. An increase in mass also potentially increase what pressure the tectonic plates are under, so there could also be an effect there.
There's always been speculation about what would happen if the planet stopped spinning (or slowed), for instance slowing would pull the faster moving airflows down and would result in hurricanes etc.
There is the proposal however that water would shift from the equator to the poles from how the rotation moves water (Think of water going down a plug hole to understand how it's effected by poles)
There might be proof as to how much the speed of the rotation has been effected as any significant change would be observable in Leap Seconds (wikipedia.org).