Re: Question re. Global Warming

Bob, I agree with your definition of how Global Warming statistics are
created by members of the so called "soft sciences", but because all of
the parameters are not fixed and many assumptions and theories are
cranked into the picture, the results have absolutely no significane
from a "hard" physical science perspective.

The hypothesis here is simply that if global warming (or cooling)
really exists, the effects will be manifested on every individual
location on the planet. If global warming is real, the slope of the
curve for one location on earth should be upward, with the same exact
slope as the curve of data points for any other fixed location on
earch.

If the slopes are not the same, then the conclusion is that the
experiment yields no conclusion. If they are the same over a length of
years to produces a statistically significant number data point, then
the slope of the curve will indicate, if positive, global warming. If
the slope is negative, it will indicated global cooling.

This is how physical science reaches it's conclusions. Softer sciences
do much more hand waving and render much more value to expert opinions,
producing somewhat subjective results and conclusions.

As important as the subject of global warming (or colling) is, I'm
simply amazed at the lack of hard empirical evidence and statistics to
support either viewpoint.

I suppose that as a physicist my attitude is "Show me the money". In
this case, it becomes show me the slopes of the temperature curves for
a number of controlled locations thoughout the earth, and to what
extent the slope of these curves match each other. If we can measure
the techtonic plate movements by this method of analysis, it certainly
should be performed for something having far more currrent
significance, like global warming.

I really don't care about the opinions of the majority, unless I can
myself evaluate the data upon which such opinions are based, and so far
I am finding only a great deal of hand waving and guesses based on
someone's pet theory, together with a bit of dogma. Good science has
not operated on this basis since the days of Galileo and Copernicus.

Kindest regards, Harry C.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question re. Global Warming
    ... location on the planet. ... If global warming is real, the slope of the ... curve for one location on earth should be upward, ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Calculus doesnt apply to the unchanging curve
    ... curve. ... Calculus has been called the science of change. ... The definition of derivative, or "slope" as you call it, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: That crashing sound...
    ... And if you are a vigilant observer of the global warming debate, you know how inconveniently cold it is in the Arctic this winter for Al Gore and his army of climate alarmists. ... Granting a long overdue forum to noted dissenting scientists, economists and policy experts from around the world, the Heartland Institute-sponsored symposium at the Marriott Marquis offered welcomed reasoned analysis as alternative to last December's hysterical circus which was Bali. ... Even before the first mention was made of activists and media misrepresenting current climate science while completely ignoring the serious inaccuracies in virtually all IPCC documents at Sunday's opening dinner, alarmist groups were busy marginalizing the event. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: NBC: An Inconvenient Truth
    ... But it doesn't make sense to assume that the science on the ... Is man caused Global Warming a Scientific fact? ... They think that the man's output of CO2 is causing the climate to grow ... There are many claiming to be "climate scientists". ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: NBC: An Inconvenient Truth
    ... But it doesn't make sense to assume that the science on the ... Is man caused Global Warming a Scientific fact? ... They think that the man's output of CO2 is causing the climate to grow ... There are many claiming to be "climate scientists". ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
Loading