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
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrix_neo wrote:
Crybabies with low on arguments, I suppose.

This is what happens when people become emotionally invested in a theory (or actually invested, as the case may be). Then they use a religion-like approach to convince a bunch of lemmings (e.g., mcgruffs) to shout down anyone who says different. This is the cult of Scyents. Problem is, science is not a religion. Homey don't play dat.
_________________
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 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We can keep on doing this for another four pages if you want: science is not a religion science is about... wait for it...

publishing detailed mofo arguments in mofo journals

The problem you guys have is that you are trying to have a scientific discussion using unscientific sources.

Why go out of your way to find poor sources like Shitbyrd's informal (ie unpublished) lectures when there are so many other good sources to learn about climate?

Dat's game yo. Nomsen? Yeah you knows it true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 374
Location: Svedala

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 4:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
patrix_neo wrote:
Crybabies with low on arguments, I suppose.

This is what happens when people become emotionally invested in a theory (or actually invested, as the case may be). Then they use a religion-like approach to convince a bunch of lemmings (e.g., mcgruffs) to shout down anyone who says different. This is the cult of Scyents. Problem is, science is not a religion. Homey don't play dat.


I've seen/been abused before. This one takes the price, when Svensmark gets "attacked" by three so called colleagues under a debate. No matter if he is right or wrong, I think it shows how emotional GW is for those (C)AGW people.


mcgruff:

I've read about cases where scientists under the IPCC umbrella had valid critics, peer-reviewed but never got published. It's not always that easy to be published when the publisher chooses what to be published. Of course, since scientists is so honorable, this cant be possible..</sarc off>

I don't think we will see any new revelations in here. I think I can improve my grammar, debate technique, roll my eyes and even learn something though.
I know that 13-15 years are short-term. I just came to think of it after lying in bed, do'h. I am weird..Should be doing something else then.
I can see the oceans sucking heat and co2, but how long will it take for it to be a factor? When will we see a rise in the global temperature again do you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
We can keep on doing this for another four pages if you want: science is not a religion science is about... wait for it...

publishing detailed mofo arguments in mofo journals

Wrong again. That's only a small part of it. A very small part.
_________________
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: Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrix_neo wrote:
I've seen/been abused before. This one takes the price, when Svensmark gets "attacked" by three so called colleagues under a debate.


Good scientists should criticise bad science. That's their job. Svensmark was wrong about cosmic rays.

However, the video doesn't show anyone being "attacked" thus providing evidence for a cognitive impairment on your part although sadly not for your claim.

patrix_neo wrote:
I've read about cases where scientists under the IPCC umbrella had valid critics, peer-reviewed but never got published.


Sources? Or it didn't happen.

Good science will always get published.

patrix_neo wrote:
I can see the oceans sucking heat and co2, but how long will it take for it to be a factor? When will we see a rise in the global temperature again do you think?


The oceans are always a factor to be considered in the transfer of energy through earth systems.

Global temperature has not stopped rising.

If you're talking specifically about surface temperatures, they haven't stopped rising either.

If you're talking about the recent flattening in the surface temperature record, you should understand that natural variability creates temperatures which oscillate above and below the average because of a variety of influences with different frequencies and amplitudes. The temperature trend lies within our predictions even with the current flattening. We could reasonably expect an increase in gradient very soon. In climate terms "soon" means "any time in the next few decades".

When the gradient does start to increase, the issue will be quietly dropped by the denier camp, like irritable toddlers bored with a new toy, and they'll move on to some other piece of anti-scientific nonsense.
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: Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Wrong again. That's only a small part of it. A very small part.


If bravery means arguing a position which can't possibly be correct with evidence which can't possibly be true and thought processes which bend over backwards to make connections which don't exist, quite probably you are the bravest man I have ever met.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Wrong again. That's only a small part of it. A very small part.


If bravery means arguing a position which can't possibly be correct with evidence which can't possibly be true and thought processes which bend over backwards to make connections which don't exist, quite probably you are the bravest man I have ever met.

If you believe science is about publishing, then you obviously don't know science from your ass. You have zero credibility. Just stop wasting air.
_________________
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: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
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.
If I wouldn't know who wrote this funny equation, I would have guessed that it was a first attempt by a child. Your math skills are not rusty, they are not existing. No problem with that, except that you do not realise how ridiculous it is when you talk about "teh scyents". Sorry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Wrong again. That's only a small part of it. A very small part.


If bravery means arguing a position which can't possibly be correct with evidence which can't possibly be true and thought processes which bend over backwards to make connections which don't exist, quite probably you are the bravest man I have ever met.

If you believe science is about publishing, then you obviously don't know science from your ass. You have zero credibility. Just stop wasting air.

So if Saudi Arabia is publishing Quran as science, it must be science, right?
_________________
“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a radical notion. Bipedal primates using little machines which they have built to to understand a system so complex that they actually admit they leave out data from, are demanding radical shifts in how other bipedal primates live because their admittedly incompetent models *might* show a pattern if you ignore enough data points.

Skepticism of this is not only rational, it is normal.
_________________
“If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on.” ~ T. McKenna
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scientific models by definition, are complexity reductions and leave superfluous data out. The power and purpose of a scientific model isn't that it's covers every possible variable, it's the exact opposite, in fact, that it boils away superfluity and still makes useful predictions. Newton's F=G(m_1*m_2/r^2) is a simplistic model of gravitation, it has since been corrected by Einstein's more accurate and robust relativistic model, but it still useful for space flight so that's what we still use to get around the Solar system.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 374
Location: Svedala

PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:

Good scientists should criticise bad science. That's their job. Svensmark was wrong about cosmic rays.

However, the video doesn't show anyone being "attacked" thus providing evidence for a cognitive impairment on your part although sadly not for your claim.


Verbally attacked, abusively so. And three, really? Did they need three bullies to give a go at him? I find it repulsive and morally wrong. Critics are always good to improve and solidify science.
I can get that the impact of GCR's are not a bigger deal, but it creats droplets in the atmosphere. Proved in CERN Cloud tests. Obviously it is still an active project

Quote:

Sources? Or it didn't happen.

Good science will always get published.


I think you are naive, since IPCC is more of a political organ.
No, I have no reliable sources, since this won't be reported by IPCC, so then It has to be an inside information. A blog or a tweet at best, a newspaper. But, then again, what newspaper would do that?
Some healthy paranoia from my part. lol

Quote:

Global temperature has not stopped rising.


Come again?

Quote:

If you're talking specifically about surface temperatures, they haven't stopped rising either.

If you're talking about the recent flattening in the surface temperature record, you should understand that natural variability creates temperatures which oscillate above and below the average because of a variety of influences with different frequencies and amplitudes.


This sounds vague for an explanation, at best.

Quote:

The temperature trend lies within our predictions even with the current flattening. We could reasonably expect an increase in gradient very soon. In climate terms "soon" means "any time in the next few decades".


Hm. That this current flattening now is within the predicted timeframe, it must have been from an updated model and quite recently? The saying was Unpredicted stop Unaccepted truth has been acknowledged first recently by the IPCC.

Quote:

When the gradient does start to increase, the issue will be quietly dropped by the denier camp, like irritable toddlers bored with a new toy, and they'll move on to some other piece of anti-scientific nonsense.


That is a prediction? :)
I have little trust in they who act like that and makes me angry. But I try to, like in this case, find what seems reasonable within an argument, even if it's result looks broken.
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: Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
So if Saudi Arabia is publishing Quran as science, it must be science, right?


Take a wild guess.
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: Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrix_neo wrote:
I can get that the impact of GCR's are not a bigger deal, but it creats droplets in the atmosphere. Proved in CERN Cloud tests.


I'm sure we've done this before. CERN/CLOUD hasn't proven anything about GCRs.

patrix_neo wrote:
I think you are naive, since IPCC is more of a political organ.


IPCC exists to periodically review the current scientific knowledge of climate, a job it does extremely well.

patrix_neo wrote:
No, I have no reliable sources


Wittgenstein: "whereof one cannot speak thereof one should STFU".

patrix_neo wrote:
Quote:

Global temperature has not stopped rising.


Come again?


I said global temperature HASN'T STOPPED RISING DEAR. Can I get you a blanket? A BLANKET? How about a NICE CUP OF TEA?

patrix_neo wrote:
Hm. That this current flattening now is within the predicted timeframe, it must have been from an updated model and quite recently? The saying was Unpredicted stop Unaccepted truth has been acknowledged first recently by the IPCC.


In your own source (!) Pachauri says that we can't say the warming trend has paused unless it flatlines for 30 to 40 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 374
Location: Svedala

PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I can recall lightly a debate about the CLOUD experiment. So why do CERN have the project active if he was so wrong?
And please, use more reliable sources than a blog post like realclimacteria.com
mcgruff wrote:

In your own source (!) Pachauri says that we can't say the warming trend has paused unless it flatlines for 30 to 40 years.


Ok, then I got you wrong in my posts above. Sorry for that.
We have had "global warming" started before the 80:s as well. 1910-1950 (about) Did that continue? In a grander scale, from 1850 and up, it has. But what I was trying to show, is that IPCC just is full of themselves Sometimes. They just have to admit their accelerated runaway case are off at times.

And now if temperature causes CO2 and CO2 gives higher temperature, how come the Medieval Warming Period did not give a runaway effect?
Yes, recent findings indicate it was global.

They should admit when being wrong a bit faster next time. The implications would be devastating to today's road society is heading. I guess that is what matters more than scientific results for the IPCC.

Quote:

I said global temperature HASN'T STOPPED RISING DEAR. Can I get you a blanket? A BLANKET? How about a NICE CUP OF TEA?


You left out accelerating
[edit] I read through that realclimate article. The writer tries to point as if the paper shows the cause for GW is GCR with a great magnitude. I am not a believer of that either.
This is why I think the IPCC act to GW is flawed, since the only molecule to focus on is CO2. Their feedback mechanics just doesn't show up. We have to wait those 30-40 years then, maybe.

Finally, my original point with Svensmark, was not about the science it self, it was a point of how emotional GW is and how IPCC-folk gang up on anyone criticising their papers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16102
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Science is settled" LOL
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 374
Location: Svedala

PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some more about CO2 the past 500 million years:

I see a CO2 top under a cooling period (Fig.4)

This is more informative, and an interview of a pro-agw scientist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
"Science is settled" LOL

And there is a set of theories, views and people which comprise "The Scientific Orthodoxy".
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meanwhile, some of the leading scyents say otherwise:
http://disinfo.com/2013/07/we-must-learn-to-love-uncertainty-and-failure-say-leading-thinkers/
_________________
“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They're not Orthodox.
_________________
True Liberals are individualists. Democrats, on the other hand, are authoritarian collectivists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
They're not Orthodox.

I was lazy, should have responded to some of the earlier posts where some lemming was trying to prove "knowledge" :)
_________________
“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”
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: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrix_neo wrote:
why do CERN have the project active if he was so wrong?


That doesn't make any sense. The processes investigated by CLOUD are interesting and important, even if there is no smoking gun with cosmic rays. Why would they cancel research just because some guy got caught with his dick in his hand?

patrix_neo wrote:
And please, use more reliable sources than a blog post like realclimacteria.com


Realclimate is one of the most detailed and scientifically literate resources on climate on the internet. I fully understand if that is a problem for you but if you want to find out what real climate scientists think as opposed to unqualified blowhards with a blog like Anthony Watts, that's where to go.

patrix_neo wrote:
And now if temperature causes CO2 and CO2 gives higher temperature, how come the Medieval Warming Period did not give a runaway effect?
Yes, recent findings indicate it was global.


There was no globally synchronised medieval warm period. The paper which you cite doesn't even demonstrate a temperature trend in Antarctica never mind globally.

There were a variety of regional warming and cooling trends on various timescales overlaid on top of a general (global) cooling trend.

patrix_neo wrote:
Finally, my original point with Svensmark, was not about the science it self, it was a point of how emotional GW is and how IPCC-folk gang up on anyone criticising their papers.


Scientists have an important job to do. Part of that job is to tell people who spew anti-scientific nonsense to f*ck off.

patrix_neo wrote:
Some more about CO2 the past 500 million years


Rothman was wrong. I think he messed up his proxy work by sampling mixed organic matter when his method demanded fossil shells exclusively.

Every time we've thought we've seen a divergence in CO2 and temperature it turns out to be wrong after further research with improved methods.

patrix_neo wrote:
This is more informative, and an interview of a pro-agw scientist.


We've done this already. It hasn't stopped warming. Even if it had, anyone who claims such a short period is significant has just self-identified as scientifically illiterate.

Climate scientists will of course be curious about temperatures which might appear to have stalled. They'll want to try to explain it because they're interested in climate processes on all scales. However, they will not claim that short timescales such as this prove anything about global climate trends. They don't really need to: there are more than enough stupid people around to take that job on.


Last edited by McGruff on Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
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: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
They're not Orthodox.


Did someone drop you on your head when you were a baby? I've already explained what I meant by "climate orthodoxy". The big picture of climate forcings and future effects is very well known and has a solid evidentiary basis but it's not set in stone. To me an "orthodoxy" also implies that there also may be unorthodox views. That's fine - providing they are based on solid science.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
known

orly?
_________________
“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”
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: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7338164.html#7338164
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 4 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