Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Natural Environment
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Natural Environment How Human History has been impacted by the environment, science, nature, geography, weather, and natural phenomena


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 7th, 2015, 09:51 AM   #51

David K's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: California
Posts: 1,083

Gravity is not a theory it is a fact.

If you let go of something, it WILL fall to the ground (as you say)!

A theory is an unproven idea.

A fact is proven.
David K is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 7th, 2015, 05:27 PM   #52

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 8,517

Climate Change Incorporated, previously known as not-for profit Weather.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old June 8th, 2015, 07:13 AM   #53

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,335

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks And L0ve View Post
What nonsense.

Gravity is just a theory, we know if we let go of something it will fall to the ground.

Your GPS system wouldn't work if we couldn't make predictions about the future.
GPS depends upon satellites maintaining a specific position relative to the planet Earth. It is not predicated on stellar positions. Hence it is based on technology and science that really isn't much different than the old "triangulation" method of line of sight. It's just that the satellite is so much higher. My GPS system consistently will attempt to ignore a road that goes through (it doesn't think this road exists) and will consistently attempt to use one route going to a location and a different route for return (the distance clearly hasn't changed so the return trip ought to mirror the outbound route given the same access / debarkation start/finish).

As for Gravity: Text : Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? | The Happy Scientist
Quote:
So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other.
Gravitational Theories
Quote:
A theory of gravitation is a description of the long range forces that electrically neutral bodies exert on one another because of their matter content...However, high precision measurements of motions in the solar system and in binary pulsars, the structure of black holes, and the expansion of the universe can only be fully understood in terms of a relativistic theory of gravitation. Best known of these is Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which reduces to Newton's theory in a certain limit. Of the scores of rivals to general relativity formulated over the last half century, many have failed various experimental tests, but the verdict is not yet in on which extant relativistic gravitation theory is closest to the truth.
This is why when someone asserts that the issue of "Climate change" is a fixed fact and no disputation of the "reality" should be allowed is, scientifically, about as non scientific as one can get. NO theory is beyond challenge and testing.

In the case of the "global warming" / "climate change" there is significant evidence the "warming" hasn't been happening for the last 18 years, which falsifies most (possibly all of them) of the models predicting the change based on "warming", that some of the data selection has been "cherry picked" (ignoring data that doesn't substantiate one side or the other), that the data sources are not consistent (the tools of 1700 regarding temperature being different from the ones of 2015 and the measuring devices being in varying locations). A lot of dispute exists regarding how much cities influence local weather (and thus temperature measurements). and since the planet itself has had "climate change" as evidenced in geological / fossil evidence (Antarctica was at one time ice free and had it's own plants and animals) long before humans were present, there's a question how much influence humans currently have on any change that is occurring.
Finally, there's the presumption that any climate "change" must ipso facto be detrimental to all life on the planet and all humans in specific. That may or may not be the case at all.
Lowell2 is offline  
Old June 8th, 2015, 05:10 PM   #54

David K's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: California
Posts: 1,083

Thanks Lowell2!
David K is offline  
Old June 9th, 2015, 03:04 AM   #55

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 7,876

Theories must be falsifiable. As I understand it, there must be certain boundary conditions or certain external factors under which they must fail. Any theory which is impossible to reject is charlatanism. ( I am paraphrasing this last sentence from N.N.Taleb from his book ' Fooled by Randomness ' page 126 of Penguin Books edition 2007 ). So also any theory which says that the humanity is not affecting the climate adversely is falsifiable.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old June 9th, 2015, 07:41 AM   #56

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,335

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvsakhadeo View Post
Theories must be falsifiable. As I understand it, there must be certain boundary conditions or certain external factors under which they must fail. Any theory which is impossible to reject is charlatanism. ( I am paraphrasing this last sentence from N.N.Taleb from his book ' Fooled by Randomness ' page 126 of Penguin Books edition 2007 ). So also any theory which says that the humanity is not affecting the climate adversely is falsifiable.
and any theory saying humanity is affecting the climate adversely (adversely to whom?) is equally falsifiable. As I noted, the predictions of the "climate change" models have been shown incorrect and therefore the theories could not have been completely accurate. Since it's impossible, either way, to replicate the models or to conduct replicate tests, the discussion should certainly not be regulated to one side, nor should politicians be announcing the "science is settled" when it clearly is not.

I'm all for humans being more efficient in use of energy, less wasteful in use of resources. So far we are all still regulated to one planet and if we ruin it or eliminate the resources we use, it will be less pleasant for ourselves or our posterity. (it may be very beneficial to other animals. Roaches may bless such). I object, however, to false science or asserting technology exists that does not as reasons for mandating behavior in one group by those who don't apply the rules to themselves. Jetting around in an airplane to tell me to not use a car to drive the 12 miles to the nearest grocery is not just annoying, it's insulting. Telling me to conserve water (I'm in California) while 100 year old pipes regularly give out dumping millions of gallons is equally annoying and insulting (maybe they should have bothered to replace those pipes instead of indulging in getting a new football stadium or basketball team). I see no reason to prefer a delta smelt to someone's orange grove.
Lowell2 is offline  
Old June 9th, 2015, 08:59 AM   #57

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 7,876

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell2 View Post
and any theory saying humanity is affecting the climate adversely (adversely to whom?) is equally falsifiable. As I noted, the predictions of the "climate change" models have been shown incorrect and therefore the theories could not have been completely accurate. Since it's impossible, either way, to replicate the models or to conduct replicate tests, the discussion should certainly not be regulated to one side, nor should politicians be announcing the "science is settled" when it clearly is not.

I'm all for humans being more efficient in use of energy, less wasteful in use of resources. So far we are all still regulated to one planet and if we ruin it or eliminate the resources we use, it will be less pleasant for ourselves or our posterity. (it may be very beneficial to other animals. Roaches may bless such). I object, however, to false science or asserting technology exists that does not as reasons for mandating behavior in one group by those who don't apply the rules to themselves. Jetting around in an airplane to tell me to not use a car to drive the 12 miles to the nearest grocery is not just annoying, it's insulting. Telling me to conserve water (I'm in California) while 100 year old pipes regularly give out dumping millions of gallons is equally annoying and insulting (maybe they should have bothered to replace those pipes instead of indulging in getting a new football stadium or basketball team). I see no reason to prefer a delta smelt to someone's orange grove.
India is a poor country and we are struggling to raise ourselves from our present conditions. Unfortunately we do not have much gas or oil resources. We are going in a big way for solar and wind power but as you are aware they are costly and not really meant to take base loads. We are hurrying up with Nuclear Power Installations but many are being resisted politically. We are presently left with no viable option except coal burning plants as the sites for hydro projects are getting over. Even then there is a national awareness to conserve electricity and oil / gas.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old June 9th, 2015, 07:42 PM   #58

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,335

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvsakhadeo View Post
India is a poor country and we are struggling to raise ourselves from our present conditions. Unfortunately we do not have much gas or oil resources. We are going in a big way for solar and wind power but as you are aware they are costly and not really meant to take base loads. We are hurrying up with Nuclear Power Installations but many are being resisted politically. We are presently left with no viable option except coal burning plants as the sites for hydro projects are getting over. Even then there is a national awareness to conserve electricity and oil / gas.
Chemical Looping Could Eliminate Coal Power Plant Pollution | MIT Technology Review
Quote:
Coal is abundant and cheap, but burning it is a dirty business. This week researchers at Ohio State University announced a milestone in the development of a far cleaner way to use the energy in coal—a process called chemical looping that has the potential to reduce or eliminate a wide range of pollutants, including carbon dioxide and smog-forming nitrogen oxides.
Clean Coal Technologies | Carbon Capture and Storage | CCS

Natural gas in India | Distribution and consumption trends- Energy Alternatives India - EAI.in
Quote:
India had 38 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven natural gas reserves as of January 2007.The total gas production in India was about 31,400 mcm in 2002-03 compared with 2,358 mcm in 1980-81. At this production level, India's reserves are likely to last for around 29 years; that is significantly longer than the 19 years estimated for oil reserves. Almost 70% of India�s natural gas reserves are found in the Bombay High basin and in Gujarat. Offshore gas reserves are also located in Andhra Pradesh coast (Krishna Godavari Basin) and Tamil Nadu coast (Cauvery Basin). Onshore reserves are located in Gujarat and the North Eastern states (Assam and Tripura).
There's a few technologies regarding using waste for fuel too. None are easy, none are going to make a country independent on their own. Each little bit can help.

Research into various fuel/ power systems and making them more efficient and "clean" only makes sense even if one doesn't buy off on the "climate change" mantra. One doesn't have to accept "climate change" as a proven theory to accept the concept that one ought not to gratuitously trash the planet wherein one dwells.
Lowell2 is offline  
Old June 10th, 2015, 06:17 AM   #59

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 7,876

I happened to read this by chance, today, while net surfing. All interested may please have a look.Nasa Releases Detailed Global Climate Data Change Projections | NDTV Gadgets
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old June 10th, 2015, 06:51 AM   #60

Lowell2's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: California
Posts: 6,335

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvsakhadeo View Post
I happened to read this by chance, today, while net surfing. All interested may please have a look.Nasa Releases Detailed Global Climate Data Change Projections | NDTV Gadgets
Climate scientists criticize government paper (Karl et al. 2015) that erases ?pause? in warming | Watts Up With That?
Quote:
“While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the study.

And in an interview, Curry told FoxNews.com that that the adjusted data doesn’t match other independent measures of temperature.
Both NASA and NOAA are quasi Government -- they depend on Government money to exist. They are unlikely to disagree with the current government position. NASA's claim to impartiality was permanently destroyed when they allowed a launch of a space shuttle in very cold weather despite warnings by multiple senior engineers that the O rings were not cold hardy and could fail. NASA insisted on the launch to meet schedules dictated by the politicians and news, not based on engineering and science.

Quote:
“The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets,” she said. “The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and satellite analyses.”
This is changing the facts to meet the preferred theory and is about as valid as the old geocentric astronomical models. Less so, since some of those actually could be used to calculate the date.
Lowell2 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Natural Environment

Tags
change, climate, denial, extinction, koch brothers



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Before Climate Change was around... Congo Natural Environment 57 September 27th, 2014 12:27 AM
mpact of climate change on politics Port Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 September 22nd, 2014 04:25 PM
Climate Change (% influenced by Man) Congo Natural Environment 713 June 21st, 2013 05:09 PM
climate change c.500 BC ? Widdekind Ancient History 34 March 31st, 2012 04:36 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.