Contents:
He is the author of more than research papers published in leading science magazines and several books of which most notable are Quantum gravity , What if Time didn't exist? The first scientist Anaximander and his legacy. Home Books The first scientist. Book is added to the cart - finish purchase.
Reviews From media External links. Carlo Rovelli. By Carlo Rovelli. Items Per Page: 15 30 60 Year Newest Pub. Check box to include out-of-stock items.
It seems to me that there must be two quite distinctive types of forcings; those that change the lapse rate and those that don t. Now Andy Lacis claims that for the radiative forcing caused by increasing CO2 levels in the atmopshere, it is only radiation effects that carry a change of energy to the TOA. I can see no reason whatsoever why a change in solar forcing does not change the lapse rate. In which case, a very small, and completely unknown, change in surface temperature is all that is required to overcome this change in solar forcing.
It is only when the lapse rate is assumed not to change, that a large change in surface temperature is required. So, I have two questions for the denizons of Climate Etc. Are there, in fact, two disticntly different types of forcings, those that affect the lapse rate, and those that do not? And if, it has to be assumed that a change in radiative forcing does not affect the lapse rate, where is there a reference in the peer reviewed literature that justifies this assumption?
Jim D. The premise of the AGW effect is that a doubling of CO2 will create an additional resitance to outgoing long wave radiation about the tropopause which while cause 1 to 1. In the tropics at an altitude of 8. Move the observer up to 8. A difference of 0. If 50 meters can have a 1. It means established as correct, valid, true, or genuine.
Does anybody in their right mind question whether science has proven earth is spheroid rather than flat? And who doubts that our planet turns on its axis as it revolves around the sun other than crackpots and the religiously delusional? No, he speaking precisely.
For example, when we speak of proof in mathematics or logic we talk about certainly true. And we mean that it could not be otherwise. There is no proof in science. Earth is flat, locally for some purposes, round for some purposes, spheroid for other purposes, oblate spheroid for still other purposes. For some purposes I might consider it to be a point. Steven, if WE wanted to appoint an idiot to redefine words in science or in common English so nothing makes sense, you would be the OUR first choice.
However, for people to carry on a meaningful discussion, we need to use words as other people understand them — or at least offer a new definition for the sake of discussion. As regards proof in science, if you propose that any given science operates on a system of postulates — and climate science does just that in its uses of physical information and theory, or there could be no such thing as a computer model — then that system of postulates is subject to the incompleteness theorems of Kurt Goedel.
Editorial Reviews. About the Author. Carlo Rovelli received his Ph.D. in physics at the The First Scientist: Anaximander and His Legacy - Kindle edition by Carlo Rovelli. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or . The First Scientist book. Read 35 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. “Marvelous A wonderful book.”—giuliettasprint.konfer.eu“Rovelli is.
It quite literally cannot be proven. Then human issues intrude: does one reparameterize the model, argue with the data, fudge the data through adjustments to better match the models, or most difficult and true to the scientific ideal, rethink from first principles and try to see where the logic missed the switch and wound up on a siding. Not doing so may well mean that one may end up on that same shelf of theoretical dead ends with phlogistics and the geosynclinal theory of orogeny. They said it was so flat there that a man on horseback riding west was still visible the next day. It is obvious that the IPCC deals only in the politics of fear and from the beginning was never driven by truth and honesty.
The simple fact of the matter is that global warming alarmism is based on an ideologically-driven agenda supported by lies, damn lies, and statistics. Of course, CRU admitted to losing the raw data that would have directly addressed this issue. The degree of warming and climatic influence the MWP varied from region to region and, hence, its consequences were manifested in several ways.
But that it occurred and was a global phenomenon is certain; there are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles that bear witness to this truth. Climate Change Reconsidered. I can only speculate as to why you would make a false statement about the graph, but some possibilities are:. All we are asking is give honesty a chance — that is the only change needed as far as climate science is concerned.
This is a pretty nice introduction to the limits of both data and theory, why there are no critical tests or obvious falsifications, and so forth. You entertain no doubt about a Celtics victory because of a willing suspension of disbelief. I did not meant my comment to be taken litterally. You could try to parse it using online dictionaries, but it would be a futile exercises.
Resorting to litteral meaning makes for trivial wins. Just take any claim and try to understand it by parsing the words through online dictionaries. Common knowledge is quite useful to communicate. Among useful knowlege there are pragmatic bits, e.
Living without access to pragmatic is no fun. If you have any experience dealing with people on the autistic specter, you should know what I mean. Metaphysically Positive B. Very C. Somewhat D. Not at all E.. Reblogged this on evilincandescentbulb and commented: The evidence must of course be empirical, meaning that it is independent of theory. Although each of these issues may say something about whether or not global warming is or was occurring, none of them say anything about the causes of global warming.
It would make no difference to these issues if the recent global warming was caused by CO2 or by aliens heating the planet with ray guns. To the charge of being an empiricist, I plead Guilty as charged on all counts. Of course science is about much more than data, but the data is, as I call it, the Supreme Court of Physics. The rock bottom foundation of any study in physics is the data. I heard a talk on the radio about the search for the Higgs boson.
I heard a description of the camera that has been built. It measures megapixel 3D pictures at some astronomical speed.
And why? Because without the data provided by all this hardware we cannot know for sure whether the Higgs boson exists. It is because, as others have note, it started with the idea that the science was settled. It ignored every other idea of what might influence climate, and concentrated solely on the idea that adding CO2 to the astmosphere would cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately, organizations, led by the Royal Society and the Amercian Physical Society, lined up at the feeding trough to rake in the billions of dollars that our governments have, so very inadvisedly, poured into the search for CAGW.
So, until climate science bites the bullet, and acknowledges where it has gone so grievously wrong, billions more dollars are going to be wasted. It is going to be very painful for someone to be the first to note where climate science has gone so badly wrong. Something that has been happening on Earth for billions of years is by definition, reality. And we have a word of it: Nature.
For the last couple of decades, a relatively few number of Western scientists have created a fictional world based on global climate models GCMs that defy reality. They call it the greenhouse effect that they claim is the physical basis for their claim that CO2 emissions are causing the climate to change. I would say, what is important is to know what causing cooling. Well, that seems certainly like it seems to be an interesting question.
I wonder why no one has ever looked into that.
But wait, wait: what about UV? Hang on, now, hang on… gbaikie talked about magnetism, what about THAT? It is not there.