[Misc] The Big Bang (or not).

[The Clamp]

Huge innit.

 

[larus]

BBC News - Great Barrier Reef sees record coral cover, but it is highly vulnerable
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-62402891

Fact vs opinion.

The fact is it's at 40 (FORTY) year highs. The opinion (scare stories) were that it was dying (due to the bleaching which happened).

Same as the arctic would be ice-free by 2012 - never happened.

Also, notice that there's been no news about Greenland recently. No reports about the gains in Greenland ever during this 'hot spell'.

 

[drew]

Seems the OP likes to phrase things to suit his own agenda/sceptism.

Firstly, I don't know anyone that assumes scientist 'know everything'. Far from it. Scientists are learning more and more but are a long way from knowing everything. What I do know is that I err on believing what scientist suggest rather than politicians and big business!

Secondly, he states that Many dispute that the warming is all caused by CO2 and that it is damaging. You don't think changes in climate can be damaging?? Raised sea levels for example aren't a problem to low lying countries.

As for the great barrier reef, the OP seems to ignore that the recovery of parts of the reef may be due to the interventions of man to protect it??

 

[Frutos]

Fact vs opinion.

The fact is it's at 40 (FORTY) year highs. The opinion (scare stories) were that it was dying (due to the bleaching which happened).

Same as the arctic would be ice-free by 2012 - never happened.

Also, notice that there's been no news about Greenland recently. No reports about the gains in Greenland ever during this 'hot spell'.

View attachment 150986

The fact is you said it hadn't been covered by the BBC.

The fact is you were wrong.

Your whataboutery doesn't change either of those facts.

 

[beorhthelm]

I am aware someone was found to be tickling their numbers some years ago, but if got any evidence for that claim, lay it on us.

as you say someone was tickling their numbers, was glossed over. i remember some articles showing some models were flawed, missing key inputs and constants used where input would vary. alot of predictions made dont happen, forgotten about rather than feed back into revision as they should. trouble is sources for any sort of doubt on historical numbers and models are usually scepitcal sources, so immediatly discredited. it becomes too much like faith, not looking at the data and models but chosing a side.

the real problem with climate change (for this is what the thread is about), is not wether its happening or what models predict, its what we do about it. we've adopted energy policies that have led to the current energy crisis in Europe, advocating unreliable or intermittent energy which use gas as back up, and various other policies which make us poorer and more dependant. what we could do is push nuclear and carbon sequestering to address the problem, but those options are off the table because reasons.

 

[larus]

The fact is you said it hadn't been covered by the BBC.

The fact is you were wrong.

OK, I don't listen to the biased BBC nor go onto their 'scientific' climate stuff.

The important facts are the climate scare stories are gradually falling apart.

Failed climate predictions:

'Some' Climate Forecast Headline Predictions

1967 Salt Lake Tribune: Dire Famine Forecast by 1975, Already Too Late
1969 NYT: "Unless we are extremely lucky, everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years. The situation will get worse unless we change our behavior."
1970 Boston Globe: Scientist Predicts New Ice Age by 21st Century said James P. Lodge, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
1971 Washington Post: Disastrous New Ice Age Coming says S.I. Rasool at NASA.
1972 Brown University Letter to President Nixon: Warning on Global Cooling
1974 The Guardian: Space Satellites Show Ice Age Coming Fast
1974 Time Magazine: Another Ice Age "Telling signs everywhere. Since the 1940s mean global temperatures have dropped 2.7 degrees F."
1974 "Ozone Depletion a Great Peril to Life" University of Michigan Scientist
1976 NYT The Cooling: University of Wisconsin climatologist Stephen Schneider laments about the "deaf ear his warnings received."
1988 Agence France Press: Maldives will be Completely Under Water in 30 Years.
1989 Associated Press: UN Official Says Rising Seas to 'Obliterate Nations' by 2000.
1989 Salon: New York City’s West Side Highway underwater by 2019 said Jim Hansen the scientist who lectured Congress in 1988 about the greenhouse effect.
2000 The Independent: "Snowfalls are a thing of the past. Our children will not know what snow is," says senior climate researcher.
2004 The Guardian: The Pentagon Tells Bush Climate Change Will Destroy Us. "Britain will be Siberian in less than 20 years," the Pentagon told Bush.
2008 Associate Press: NASA Scientist says "We're Toast. In 5-10 years the Arctic will be Ice Free"
2008 Al Gore: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013.
2009 The Independent: Prince Charles says Just 96 Months to Save the World. "The price of capitalism is too high."
2009 The Independent: Gordon Brown says "We have fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe."
2013 The Guardian: The Arctic will be Ice Free in Two Years. "The release of a 50 gigaton of methane pulse" will destabilize the planet.
2013 The Guardian: US Navy Predicts Ice Free Arctic by 2016. "The US Navy's department of Oceanography uses complex modeling to makes its forecast more accurate than others.
2014 John Kerry: "We have 500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos" discussed Sec of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabious at a joint meeting.

 

[AstroSloth]

Exactly - but most people still assume that 'scientists' know everything.

When you hear statements like "This science is settled" - all that means is one side doesn't want to debate. If they are so confident of their position they would happily debate with people who disagree.

Not at all and this statement shows you simply don't understand scientific theory.

Gravity for example is a settled theory that has become a law. It works in every possible situation we have come up with.

The Big Bang Theory has always been the most likely theory of how the universe came into being, with there being multiple theories for the origin of the big bang, but not completely discrediting other theories.

 

[larus]

Seems the OP likes to phrase things to suit his own agenda/sceptism.

Firstly, I don't know anyone that assumes scientist 'know everything'. Far from it. Scientists are learning more and more but are a long way from knowing everything. What I do know is that I err on believing what scientist suggest rather than politicians and big business!

Secondly, he states that Many dispute that the warming is all caused by CO2 and that it is damaging. You don't think changes in climate can be damaging?? Raised sea levels for example aren't a problem to low lying countries.

As for the great barrier reef, the OP seems to ignore that the recovery of parts of the reef may be due to the interventions of man to protect it??

Considering it was based on the claims that it was global warming causing the death of the reef, what do you suggest has been done to mitigate that FFS?

Yep, nothing. Jeez.

 

[Swansman]

View attachment 150985

Posting some meme-pic will making no arguments certainly falls into the "very stupid" category.

 

[AstroSloth]

Unless it's climate science where the historical data gets adjusted to support the narrative.

Okay so you're just a conspiracy theorist who thinks all scientists are liars it would seem.

 

[The Clamp]

What an odd interpretation of a news story.

Hypothesising is not “making things up”. It’s using the best knowledge we have to theorise about the unknowns.

 

[Soton Seagull]

This is fantastically representative of the odd Internet world in which we live. Someone posts an interesting article, provoking some decent debate, but then uses it to peddle their conspiracy agenda via the back door.

 

[drew]

Okay so you're just a conspiracy theorist who thinks all scientists are liars it would seem.

Now your theory is science I can believe!!!

 

[AstroSloth]

Exactly. The Big Bange Theorists will be looked on like the earth flatters from a couple of hundred years ago, are now.

It's always seemed to me to try and explain something that they (we) haven't a clue about how it happened with some theory that could possibly have been, with a considerable skew of the data.

That's not at all what it was. As flat earthers were laughed at even then.

The big bang theory has been structured based on the mathematics and phenomena we observe in our universe to our current understanding.

It's been the theory that makes the most sense currently for quite a while now and has been revised with each scientific discovery.

The piece the OP linked takes a very simplified look at it and decides that because their idea of the big bang isn't possible within what we see it's impossible.

That's not how science works as it looks at every avenue to a hypothesis and a new theory could come into play off these discoveries.

Dark matter, a revision of the early elements of the universe are possible explanations for what we see now.

 

[larus]

Okay so you're just a conspiracy theorist who thinks all scientists are liars it would seem.

Jeez, some people are so dumb it's painful. I bet you know nothing about the science behind the climate scare.

What about ENSO?
AMO?
PDO?
There are 5 climate temperature datasets and they don't agree. 3 are LOTI and 2 are satellite.
More energy is stored in the oceans than in the atmosphere.
What about cloud cover (hint - climate models don't model cloud cover very well)?
What about ocean cycles which run over decades?
Water vapour is much more of a greenhouse gas then CO2. Just think about how much hotter it is when it's humid. That's because the air retains more heat it there's more water vapour.
Etc, etc.

 

[AstroSloth]

This is fantastically representative of the odd Internet world in which we live. Someone posts an interesting article, provoking some decent debate, but then uses it to peddle their conspiracy agenda via the back door.

Conspiracy theorists rely on using articles that aren't necessarily about the topic they are talking about to try and prove that topic is a conspiracy.

Probably because they don't actually understand the topic itself and as such don't understand that the article they refer to doesn't prove anything.

 

[Baldseagull]

Considering it was based on the claims that it was global warming causing the death of the reef, what do you suggest has been done to mitigate that FFS?

Yep, nothing. Jeez.

Rises in temperatures happen periodically and it bleaches the coral, this could be seen as similar to wildfires destroying forests, it also creates an environment for regrowth, the problem is the frequency and intensity has been increasing, not allowing for much recovery to take place, if strong winds create strong waves it can destroy the reef in its weakened state, I don't know if measures have been put in place at the barrier reef, but I know some places have protected their reefs from the waves whilst in a weakened, bleached state.

 

[The_Viper]

The main issue with this article is that the author has a chip on his shoulder. He has a pet theory that he did not theorise to explain the new data, from what I can gather it's been his thing for 30 odd years and he's just saying that if some predictions of the big bang are wrong, he was right all along. I'm sure in the future we'll realise how little we really do know about this universe we all inhabit, but I'm not sure this guy is the one to pin your confidence on.

 

[A1X]

So why is the OP so desperate for the science of climate change to be wrong? I get that it’s frightening but hoping it’s not there and just goes away is a really terrible idea.

 

[AstroSloth]

Jeez, some people are so dumb it's painful. I bet you know nothing about the science behind the climate scare.

What about ENSO?
AMO?
PDO?
There are 5 climate temperature datasets and they don't agree. 3 are LOTI and 2 are satellite.
More energy is stored in the oceans than in the atmosphere.
What about cloud cover (hint - climate models don't model cloud cover very well)?
What about ocean cycles which run over decades?
Water vapour is much more of a greenhouse gas then CO2. Just think about how much hotter it is when it's humid. That's because the air retains more heat it there's more water vapour.
Etc, etc.

And what you're saying about the oceans agree with climate science.

The ice albedo effect.

Sea ice reflects light from the sun.

Warming oceans melt sea ice, meaning less sea ice is reflecting sunlight which leads to oceans warning further, melting more sea ice creating a positive feedback loop. This traps heat in the oceans for a start.

Water vapour trapping heat is being driven by increase CO2 levels. The increase of CO2 means more water vapour is trapping heat creating another positive feedback loop. Water vapour by itself doesn't drive this, it's being driven by the increase of other greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane.

CO2 is the primary driver of climate change with water vapour being a secondary effect of increased CO2 levels.