Re: carbon dioxide up, will evolution , accelerate?
John W Edser
"Cj" <C...@mist.net> wrote:-
> The concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere has reached a record high, according
to new figures that renew fears that climate
change could begin to slide out of control.
Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii
say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand
at 387 parts per million (ppm), up almost 40%
since the industrial revolution and the highest
for at least the last 650,000 years.
JE:-
The correlation of sharp, recent CO2 increases
with climate change have not been explained using
any falsifiable theory, i.e. a theory within which
at least one observation of nature remains a
prohibited deduction from the theory under test.
To my knowledge, just one researcher has attempted
to provide a point of empirical falsification.
With regards to the evolution of theories,
while it makes sense to suggest that climate
change is caused by recent CO2 increases, the
opposite equally applies: recent CO2 increases
were caused by climate change. This could be
produced in many different ways, e.g. the seas
warming due to increased volcanic activity
releasing CO2 stored in the water. In general
just four self exclusive possibilities exist
that can explain a correlation in a falsifiable
way:
1) A causes B which in set theory is
represented by B remaining a proper subset
(nested subset) of A.
2) B causes A which in set theory is
represented by A remaining a proper subset
of B which provides the reverse
absolutely contradictory proposition.
3) C causes both A and B which in set
theory is represented by both A and B
remaining a proper subset of C which
may be an unknown.
4) There is no causal relationship between
A and B just a correlation. In set theory
this is represented by neither A nor B as
proper subsets of each other.
Please note: proper (nested) subsets are
NOT the intersecting sets employed within
mathematics which remain reversibly
intersected and not non reversibly nested.
Each theory type has to be tested without bias.
While it may appear "prima face" i.e. on-the-face
of it that CO2 causes climate change the reverse
cannot be discarded unless tested to refutation.
The big problem with any group based consensus
is that political correctness can provide such
an enormous tribal based bias, it can hold back
science for centuries. Unless an empirical frame
of reference is explicitly provided as a critical
part of a proposed theory 1) cannot even be
distinguished from 2). So what is the frame of
reference for today's theory of climate change?
The requirement for a falsifiable frame of reference
was proven by Galileo in the mid 1600's who for
the very first time was able to separate the favored
earth centric theory of the solar system from
the shunned sun centric theory critically employing
a star as a fixed, refutable frame of reference.
The same problem is illustrated within Zeno's Paradox,
within which a hare cannot catch, let alone overtake
a tortoise given a head start as just an
oversimplified mathematical model (a model within
which a critical constant has been deleted or reduced
to just a variable). Zeno's mathematical paradox
can only be solved if the start and the end of the
race become explicitly included as critical theory
constants allowing the distance of the hare from
the tortoise to be measured relative to these as
critical, constant frames of reference, i.e. not
relative to just the variables provided by the
position of a moving hare relative to a moving
tortoise as remains the case within the Paradox.
It seems to me that yet again, mathematical modeling
has been allowed to substitute for theory as is sadly
the case within Neo Darwinism. Don't get me wrong, I
strongly acknowledge the power of simplified/
oversimplified mathematical models to help test a
theory but I repudiate absolutely that such models
can validly replace the theory they were simplified/
oversimplified from! My proposition is that these
models have and remain, misused. Today's popular
climate change model presents another extraordinary
example.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
>
> The figures, published by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
> Administration (NOAA) on its website, also confirm that carbon dioxide, the
> chief greenhouse gas, is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than
> expected. The annual mean growth rate for 2007 was 2.14ppm – the fourth year
> in the past six to see an annual rise greater than 2ppm. From 1970 to 2000,
> the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual
> rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm.
>
> Scientists say the shift could indicate that the Earth is losing its natural
> ability to soak up billions of tons of carbon each year. Climate models
> assume that about half our future emissions will be re-absorbed by forests
> and oceans, but the new figures confirm this may be too optimistic. If more
> of our carbon pollution stays in the atmosphere, it means emissions will
> have to be cut by more than currently projected to prevent dangerous levels
> of global warming.
>
> Martin Parry, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
> working group on impacts, said: "Despite all the talk, the situation is
> getting worse. Levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise in the atmosphere
> and the rate of that rise is accelerating. We are already seeing the impacts
> of climate change and the scale of those impacts will also accelerate, until
> we decide to do something about it."
>
> · Martin Parry will be speaking at the Guardian Planning for Climate
> Adaptation conference on May 19
>
>
>
Cj
news:g0f8en$4t7$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
I've noticed that there are a lot of very vocal AGP denialists in Australia
and New Zealand. Is is geography, education or conservatism? As a
biologist I have noted enormous changes in the distribution and abundance of
both terrestrial and marine species in eastern North America in the last two
decades. These changes are unidirectional and strongly correlated with
contemporary temperature records. These data are not climate models but a
summation of all available data in my area of interest, represented by a
number of theoretical models, suggests that AGW is a very probable prospect.
Cj