Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Consider the following descriptions of three scientific theories. Which is the odd one out?
1. The buildup of anthropogenic carbon dioxide may lead to dangerous climate change, not because CO2 is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas, but because the slight warming caused by excess CO2 will cause sea water to evaporate, filling the atmosphere with water vapour. Water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The evaporation of water vapour will trigger a chain reaction, a runaway greenhouse effect, in which global warming caused by the evaporation of ever increasing amounts of sea water forces yet more sea water to evaporate. In Dr. James Hansen’s words, “The oceans will begin to boil”.
2. We have already been visited by aliens, who most likely continue to monitor us. The alternative is to believe the preposterous proposition that we are the only intelligent life inhabiting any of the planets circling our galaxy’s 100 billion stars. The reason this must be true – all we have to do is look in the mirror. In a few decades, or at most a few centuries, humans will have the technology to build nanotech space probes the size of a grain of sand or smaller. Probes which can visit other stars, and transmit information back to us. Such probes are already on the drawing board.
See: http://www.space.com/612-nanotechnology-scientists-pin-big-hopes-small-scale.html
Since the probes we shall build will be incredibly small, it will be possible to launch them at near light speed, for trivial economic cost. Scientists have even discovered ways such probes could be steered and decelerated as they approach their destination, using the Galactic magnetic field. If just one group of intelligent aliens in our galaxy of 100 billion stars reached our level of technology, at least half a million years ago, and made the decision to send out such space probes, then there has already been enough time for their high speed probes to reach our star system, and report back what they found.
3. Human lives are in danger right now, from asteroids and comets flying through space. As the shock advent of the Chelyabinsk meteor demonstrated, Earth can be struck unexpectedly at any time by meteors and other space bodies, many of which have the potential to cause widespread devastation. The Chelyabinsk meteor detonated with a force of 500 kilotons of TNT – it is only due to good fortune that the explosion, which caused some buildings to collapse and widespread damage and injuries from breaking glass, did not cause serious loss of life.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor
So which theory is the odd one out?
The answer is theory three of course. Unlike the other two theories, theory three is supported by observational evidence. The other two theories, however compelling they seem, are just speculation.
| Story Title | Separating fact from fantasy |
| One line summary of story |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Expertise in public affairs often seems to me to consist of the ability to take some short tangent to the curve of events and evidence and extrapolate it to the point that it describes an urgent or dangerous situation. The expert then elaborates this scenario, and, a la Mencken’s hobgoblinizing, scares up some support and funding. Complex excuses and “explanations” suffice to sustain his position and income for a while when reality curves away from his linear projection, but ultimately a new tangent-flogger takes his place and profit.
So it goes.
PS;
The entirety of current “climate science” can be viewed as a linear extrapolation of the waming burst at the very tail end of the last century, projected fore and aft (via adjustments and revisions). The jibe about Stalinist history applies: “The future is certain; only the present and past are subject to change.”
typo:
wamingwarming burstAlan
Yes the Chesapeake Bay meteor was probably the last big impact. It created a tsunami higher than the Empire State Building. It would make the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed 230,000 people tiny by comparison. We are overdue to be hit again by a big one. There is at least 10% chance of being hit since NASA has not yet determine the trajectories of 10% of the identified near earth asteroids in the asteroid belt. But they have not searched the Kuiper belt, which contain over 100,000 objects, and the Oort Cloud which has over a trillion objects.
David G, I’m not sure what you mean. As far as I know Einstein’s models do a very good job of predicting phenomena he attempts to explain. There are some problems reconciling Quantum Physics with Relativity, so there must be a theory beyond Einstein’s theory – but as far as I know, so far Special Relativity has passed every lab test with flying colours.
Bart says:
April 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm
What I described was positive feedback. But I knew as I wrote it that some fool would come along and say it wasn’t. It happened to be Bart, who is prone to this sort of thing. Congratulations!
It is positive feedback because the original input is amplified, not reduced. A positive feedback is a process in which an initial change brings about an additional change in the same direction.
Pete Miller – I’ve always considered the lack of evidence in the geological record for for previous CO2 driven CGW to be pretty conclusive. Not that it makes any difference to the Climate Change bulldozer.
Kano – The 1998 event is fascinating. If we’d had access to realtime global temperature figures at that time, instead of waiting years for the data to be collated, the warmists would have KNOWN they were right. It looked exactly like the final uptick of the hockey stick. (And then it ticked down again.) One wonders what their reaction would have been, especially given that most of them own beachfront property…
This could indeed be the endgame. Then again, over the years I’ve seen the warmists predictions become progressively less apocalyptic, but their degree of hysteria about them remains undiminished. Once we were expected to panic over total planetary meltdown. Now we are told to panic just as hard over moderate sea level rise and a bit of extreme weather. I can easily imagine them one day admitting that there is no global warming, and saying “Let’s just panic anyway!” And governments will listen to them.
I’d just like to say, one of the problems we face is that there is no law against scientific fraud. If proven, it could destroy someone’s career and reputation, but there are no legal repercussions. It’s even questionable whether or not a fraudster could have his academic pension denied. And if he has built a second career on highly publicised BS, he’s in clover.
Of course, one of the reasons why there isn’t a law is because it is so difficult to prove. And if it is proven, it’s difficult to explain to a judge and jury; worse even than the situation in modern financial fraud trials!
MikeB says:
April 12, 2014 at 7:04 am
“It is positive feedback because the original input is amplified, not reduced.”
I am really getting sick of idiots giving me a bunch of snark about things they do not understand. I tried to be nice, and explain things to you, and you spit in my face.
No, no, no! A thousand times, NO! This is not the definition of positive feedback!
Your system is this:
T(k+1) = 0.5*T(k) + 1
The sequence is
T(1) = 1
T(2) = 1 + 1/2
T(3) = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4
and so on. It is precisely what you have written in words, translated into mathematics.
Is this a positive feedback system? NNNNOOOOOOO!!!!!!
log(1/2) = -0.6931
Negative feedback. Simple. Capiche?
One reason NASA and other facilities tracking asteroids or meteors is because if they are coming from the direction of the sun, they can’t see them until it is nearly too late. I remember moon bathing on night and saw a bomb burst (like a firework) in the high atmosphere. I was a very large meteor that exploded. Glad it didn’t make it to earth.