Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
AGW, Science is settled?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
There is no room for a concept of "orthodoxy" in real science.


What about gravity?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

energyman76b wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
While it's widely accepted, climatic greenhouse effect is a theory. It's not a Boolean issue either; theories are often somewhat right and somewhat wrong and require refinement over time. It's entirely possible, even likely, that we do not fully understand the role of CO2.


indeed, it is a THEORY not a HYPOTHESIS.

Please compare those two terms. Thanks a lot.

It is a theory. What Dr. Salby has is, as I said, some hypotheses. Suck my balls and open a book once in a while. Thank you.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
There is no room for a concept of "orthodoxy" in real science.


What about gravity?

What about it?
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is there room for gravity orthodoxy in science?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
energyman76b
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2025
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
energyman76b wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
While it's widely accepted, climatic greenhouse effect is a theory. It's not a Boolean issue either; theories are often somewhat right and somewhat wrong and require refinement over time. It's entirely possible, even likely, that we do not fully understand the role of CO2.


indeed, it is a THEORY not a HYPOTHESIS.

Please compare those two terms. Thanks a lot.

It is a theory. What Dr. Salby has is, as I said, some hypotheses. Suck my balls and open a book once in a while. Thank you.


Theory: something that has been accepted by the scientific community as a good model to describe the observerd facts.
Hypothesis: something that has not been run throught any tests and may or may not be a good model.

There you go.
_________________
AidanJT wrote:

Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.

Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
energyman76b
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2025
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
There is no room for a concept of "orthodoxy" in real science.


What about gravity?

What about it?


gravity is a theory.
_________________
AidanJT wrote:

Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.

Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Is there room for gravity orthodoxy in science?

No. The whole concept of orthodoxy is contrary to science.

Gravity is a theory, and we don't fully understand it (for example, the relationships between gravity, space, time, mass, and dimensions).

However, the idea of a "climate science orthodoxy" is far more ridiculous than that of a "gravity orthodoxy", because we have a pretty complete understanding of gravity as it pertains to us in our everyday lives here on Earth today, whereas we have a largely incomplete understanding of climatology as it pertains to us in our everyday lives here on Earth today.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're arguing with something you think I said rather than something I did say.

The climate orthodoxy is the current evidence-based understanding of climate. We know that the climate is warming very rapidly and that human emissions are responsible for this. We know the consequences of continued unchecked emissions will be catastrophic in terms of species loss (a mass extinction event from which it will take tens of millions of years to recover), coastal inundation, extreme weather, major losses in agricultural productivity and consequent famines in some parts of the world which are likely to cause deaths in the hundreds of millions. Agricultural productivity underpins the global economy and hence there will be severe effects on standards of living even in countries which believe themselves to be exempt from the worst effects of warming.

That's what we know. We have a solid mass of evidence from a variety of multi-disciplinary sources and a global research effort which includes satellites in space and boots on the ground in Antarctica. There is no evidence to challenge this. The only people who don't agree are a handful of cranks, unqualified blowhards on the internet, and propagandists paid to protect the interests of the fossil fuel industry.

If someone wants to add to our understanding, all they have to do is craft a rigorous, evidence-based scientific argument and have it published. If it's important, the "orthodoxy", ie our best understanding based on available evidence, will be adjusted to take account of that.

If they are unable or unwilling to publish, they can go f*ck themselves. That's science.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to see a few more samples of BoneKracker's math skills. I do have a theory and want to conduct a further experiments. Assuming there is no objection from animal right groups or anyone else for that matter. The cage is already prepared.
As everybody knows, it is hard to argue about a natural scientific topic without sufficient math skills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
I would like to see a few more samples of BoneKracker's math skills. I do have a theory and want to conduct a further experiments. Assuming there is no objection from animal right groups or anyone else for that matter. The cage is already prepared.
As everybody knows, it is hard to argue about a natural scientific topic without sufficient math skills.

You want a math debate? There's plenty of math debaters around here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 374
Location: Svedala

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

energyman76b wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
While it's widely accepted, climatic greenhouse effect is a theory. It's not a Boolean issue either; theories are often somewhat right and somewhat wrong and require refinement over time. It's entirely possible, even likely, that we do not fully understand the role of CO2.


indeed, it is a THEORY not a HYPOTHESIS.

Please compare those two terms. Thanks a lot.


The CO2 in it self as a greenhouse gas is no hypothesis. But since we don't have the full picture of it's effect in the atmosphere, for me, I'd say it's an incomplete theory as well. I do retract from my earlier statement though. I was a bit emotional, and got carried away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrix_neo wrote:
we don't have the full picture of it's effect in the atmosphere


We do. See my last post but one. There is no doubt whatsoever that all this stuff is going to happen - and in fact it's already begun. We've got our foot jammed on the climate change accelerator pedal and the only real uncertainty is if we'll be doing 100mph or 110mph when we run out of road. That's not really the point though, is it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
The climate orthodoxy is the current evidence-based understanding of climate.

Wrong. That may be what you call "climate orthodoxy", but "orthodoxy" is entirely the wrong word. Words have meaning; if you don't know what a word means, you should look it up before you use it. There is no such thing as "scientific fact", and all theories are just that: theories. In reference to science, this term is used derogatorily, to refer to the tendency of people to resist, as a group, deviation from generally accepted theory. This sort of behavior becomes even more ridiculous if observed in an area of rapidly evolving theory.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
I would like to see a few more samples of BoneKracker's math skills. I do have a theory and want to conduct a further experiments. Assuming there is no objection from animal right groups or anyone else for that matter. The cage is already prepared.
As everybody knows, it is hard to argue about a natural scientific topic without sufficient math skills.

I have the math skills you'd expect of someone with a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering and a Master of Science in Operations Research & Systems Analysis. Some of those skills are rusty, but they're there. mcgruff has the math and science skills of the owner of the hotdog vending cart that parks in front of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6813066.html#6813066
OK, fifth grade (EU standard). And more likely a bit helpless instead of rusty. Fair enough?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BK has teh scyents!

So how come every time you open your mouth on climate change you get your ass kicked?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More like every time you open your mouth about it, somebody gets a rim job. :lol:
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wildhorse wrote:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6813066.html#6813066
OK, fifth grade (EU standard). And more likely a bit helpless instead of rusty. Fair enough?

There's nothing wrong there. I was correcting the fact that he had assumed initial velocity to be zero, which is bad form if you are trying to express a general case.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 374
Location: Svedala

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
patrix_neo wrote:
we don't have the full picture of it's effect in the atmosphere


We do. See my last post but one. There is no doubt whatsoever that all this stuff is going to happen - and in fact it's already begun. We've got our foot jammed on the climate change accelerator pedal and the only real uncertainty is if we'll be doing 100mph or 110mph when we run out of road. That's not really the point though, is it?


But if the accelerating T is here, show me where I can get a proper diagram of that.
The observed data diagram shown in my OP video shows a flat lined trend in temp. for the last 13-15 years, while the CO2 keeps increasing. Is that wrong?

[edit] removed for reading errors [/edit]
[edit] The effects, where it actually happends like you said in that post above, I believe you. The so called accelerated global mean temp rise has to start first. I think the CO2 molecule gets too much attention to the whole picture.


Last edited by patrix_neo on Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1564
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrix_neo wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
patrix_neo wrote:
we don't have the full picture of it's effect in the atmosphere


We do. See my last post but one. There is no doubt whatsoever that all this stuff is going to happen - and in fact it's already begun. We've got our foot jammed on the climate change accelerator pedal and the only real uncertainty is if we'll be doing 100mph or 110mph when we run out of road. That's not really the point though, is it?


But if the accelerating T is here, show me where I can get a proper diagram of that.
The observed data diagram shown in my OP video shows a flat lined trend in temp. for the last 13-15 years, while the CO2 keeps increasing. Is that wrong?

100mph sounds very unlikely. from 0.280-0.400 mph in a time span of 100 years, where some per cent is man made. It would take a while matching 100 mph.
There isn't coal enough to get to those levels. (coal cycle).

Furthermore, mcgruff's religion-like approach to this is more like, "ZOMG slam on the brakes, and squeeze your eyes shut when you do it!", when the right answer is probably more like, "Hmmm.... take your foot off the gas and take the on-ramp to I-95 up here... oh, and roll your window down if you're going to fart again, please."
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrix_neo wrote:
The observed data diagram shown in my OP video shows a flat lined trend in temp. for the last 13-15 years, while the CO2 keeps increasing. Is that wrong?


It's both wrong and irrelevant. The temperature has been increasing, although most of it has gone into ocean heating. Surface temperatures do not show this.

It wouldn't matter anyway even if the earth had conclusively been shown to be cooling on such a short timescale. There are many factors which influence global climate (eg El Nino) and they all add their own cyclical variations onto the global temperature record on a variety of timescales. Imagine you were measuring the warming trend in a particular locale as the season changes from spring to summer. If you took a temperature reading at midday, and another at midnight, you would see a downward "trend" on the graph. Summer has not stopped, however.

The convention for the minimum relevant time period when considering global climate trends is 35 years or more. That helps to remove the noise from the signal. Anyone discussing global trends on shorter timescales has self-identified as scientifically illiterate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 374
Location: Svedala

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
patrix_neo wrote:
The observed data diagram shown in my OP video shows a flat lined trend in temp. for the last 13-15 years, while the CO2 keeps increasing. Is that wrong?


It's both wrong and irrelevant. The temperature has been increasing, although most of it has gone into ocean heating. Surface temperatures do not show this.

Exactly what does this 'gone into ocean heating' mean? Because the oceans themselves has to be in account in the mean surface temperature, right? If so, the landbased areas should be colder. Assuming flatlined temperature. I think I have read that the models predicted a flat lined temp, but it has been way longer in time than predicted.

Quote:

It wouldn't matter anyway even if the earth had conclusively been shown to be cooling on such a short timescale. There are many factors which influence global climate (eg El Nino) and they all add their own cyclical variations onto the global temperature record on a variety of timescales.

I'd like to include the sun in the equations. The Oscillation of jet streams are also a phenomenon affecting the climate.

Quote:

The convention for the minimum relevant time period when considering global climate trends is 35 years or more. That helps to remove the noise from the signal. Anyone discussing global trends on shorter timescales has self-identified as scientifically illiterate.


I totally agree about that last part. I cannot agree that a climate trend can be settled to 35 years though. Or what can you say after a 35 year period about the climate? What state it has been? That doesn't help much. Trends? While the climate is in constant change of properties, I cannot see any real pattern in it. I have a hard time with the 30-35 year motto for state of global climate. I do not know what foot to stand on here actually.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrix_neo wrote:
I do not know what foot to stand on here actually.

I'd make a decision before you stand up, otherwise you will fall over.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 374
Location: Svedala

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
patrix_neo wrote:
I do not know what foot to stand on here actually.

I'd make a decision before you stand up, otherwise you will fall over.


Yeah, it's hangin' in the balance, right? :)

I just have to put in, that prof. Salby has gotten all eyes on him in the climate campus of scientists, and some say his conclusions/hypothesis has merits to it. He has also, supposedly, been gotten lots of enemies. Crybabies with low on arguments, I suppose.

If his numbers are right and formulas correct, I believe he can handle the math and his findings should then be taken seriously. I am curious about the outcome coming later on.
What baffled me was having one formula for a short term scenario (models are using these, according to Salby) and another for a long term scenario. The short term causes the expected runaway temp scenario, while the long term shows a stabilizing outcome, if I am correct.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum