To Think Global Warming Can't Be All Bad?

[afteralongsquawk]

My carefully planted main crop tomatoes are long finished; but the runty little seedlings I dumped on the compost heap are doing great and still producing lovely toms in the last third of Nov!

AIBU to rather approve of this global warming thing?

Riggght

"he said, if time moves at the same rate at different velocities, I am wrong."

Erm I don't think you'll find that is what the theory of special relativity relativity says at all.

"of course it was a few years before anyone managed to set up the experiment."

Which experiment is that? I have only seen theoretical proofs. But I am quite out of date.

Happy red wellies.

I think you will find that most sceptics actually accept the greenhouse theory. Their argument is that it it so insignificant in its effect as to be meaningless.

Even the IPCC issued a report this weeks accepting that natural variability is enough to swamp the CO2 signal.

Thats the first crack in the dam

sardine, time slows as you approach the speed of light.

"natural variability is enough to swamp the CO2 signal"

What does this mean? CO2 doesn't emit a "signal", does it? It's not like a pulsar or something.
Do you mean enough to swamp the CO2 measurements?

oldmac

You are citing the special theory of relativity and apparently quoting einstein. Saying that if his theory could be proved wrong then it is right.

The time slowing down thing is a consequence of the theory of special relativity, it is not what the theory actually states. Einstein's theory is not what you seem to think it is.

I don't think that maybe you have enough of a grounding in basic scientific practice and principle to appreciate the finer points of the scientific discourse surrounding these issues and ideas.

Eisteins theory of special relativity states that:

"Light always propagates through a vacuum at a definite velocity, c, which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Just to clear that up

never argue with a fool, they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

my dad told me that

For anyone interested in learning more about relativity, I just found this here

The example they use for special relativity involves people with a laser inside a spaceship. I learnt it using a train carriage and someone striking a match so it shows it was a while ago that I learnt it!

What does that even mean oldmac?

Given that you are posting a load of nonsense about science? Were you hoping no-one would notice? Never a good idea on MN.

I think what OldMac might be referring to (because the IPCC report was about extreme weather) is that when looking at any one single natural disaster you can't state that it is definitely due to climate change because natural variability also involved. However an increase in the average strength of hurricanes over time, for example, could more confidently attributed to climate change (you would expect this in theory because of the effect of warming surface waters of oceans).

I think that might be a very generous interpretation of what oldmac "might mean".

Given that she has written nothing but a load of gobbledigook.

thats right happy red wellies.
But the climate has always changed. the planet heats up. the planet cools down.

It's not as if everything was exactly the same for billions of years till mankind came along.

So if things are always changing, how do we know what our impact could be ? There would have to be a strong correlation between CO2 and temps ( a signal) bit there is not.

If we looked back to when there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, we would expect to see high temperatures, but there were not.

the signal is missing

I can help you there actually - during the period when there was high CO2 but not a dramatic rise in temperatures, this is because the sun was cooler than it is now. see here

This is all getting a bit X-files for me

The signal is missing DAN DAN DAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH

happy red wellies,

a lot of sceptics would thank you for that :)

so the IS something else that can out-punch CO2.

anyway thanks for the chat, must dash. Its always nice to talk to someone who can disagree without being nasty , small minded and insulting.

til the next time HRW

If there are 10 ways to prove a theory wrong then it is a shit theory, oldmac, not a good one.

You seem to have an endeveloped grasp of how science works.

Sardine, you seem to have completely misunderstood OldMac's point.

Why would there being 10 ways to prove a theory wrong mean it's a 'shit theory'?

If there were 10 different proofs of a theory being wrong, then yes it might be a shit theory.

If there are 10 ways to prove a theory wrong it just means that there are 10 possible ways that you could disprove that theory, if there were evidence available to that end.

Thank you Whatme for articulating all of the points I would have liked to have made here far more succinctly than I could have.

Has OldMacEIEIO gone to deliver an important lecture to global experts on climate science?

""a good scientific theory is one that can be proven wrong"

shelly that is what oldmac said

what do you think of that?

And what are your views on her comments about special relativity, CO2 signals and the rest?

oldmac is adjusting her tinfoil hat so it can better pick up the "missing signals"

lol
watch it. funny face

Sorry I should say that is what oldmac claims einstein said.

Sardine, ShellyBoobs is right - a disproveable theory is a good one.

As I explained above, global warming is a disproveable scientific theory and not a 'faith' whatever some people might like to think.

Sardine, yes I know that's what she said.

I was trying to help by pointing out what (I think) OldMac meant to say.

I'm not too sure about the CO2 signals, however...