The Science Is Settled; No Need for Any More Debate

[rastajenk]

No, not another Global Warming thread!! :D

Is there anything faster than light? (http://gizmodo.com/5843006/faster-than-light-particles-could-wreck-einsteins-relativity-theory) Of course not. But the linked article says, "not so fast, my friend."
This is extremely shocking: CERN scientists using a 1300-ton particle detector have measured particles travelling faster than the speed of light. If confirmed, this discovery could invalidate Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity and revolutionize physics.

All Hail Science! :ThmbUp:

[DJofSD]

They've posted the data and have asked for comments.

Whether or not these results will challenge current models of quantum mechanics remains to be seen.

If it does find its way back to Einstein's initial theories, it will become the next level of insight, the next step in the evolution, not a complete dismissal. Newton's F=ma still works 99% of the time and so will the current application of Einstein's principals.

[Actor]

This is extremely shocking: CERN scientists using a 1300-ton particle detector have measured particles travelling faster than the speed of light. If confirmed, this discovery could invalidate Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity and revolutionize physics.

Actually, Einsteins theory does leave open the possibility of faster-than-light particles. Slower than light particles are called leptons, light particles are called lumons and faster than light particles are called tachyons. (Tachyon is a word you hear on Star Trek, but the writers of Star Trek did not make it up.) I gave a talk on tachyons when I was in college.

Einstein's theory says you cannot accelerate a lepton up to the speed of light because an infinite amount of energy would be required. A closer look at Einstein's math says that a you cannot decelerate a tachyon down to the speed of light because that too would require an infinite amount of energy.

The faster a lepton goes, the more energy it has. The faster a tachyon goes, the less energy it has. There is a possibility that a lepton might quantum leap from a velocity slower than light to a velocity faster than light, becoming a tachyon in the process, and detour around the infinite energy barrier. Anyone ever heard of warp drive?

[DJofSD]

There you go, some one else that understands more than the writer of the article. Good job.

[hcap]

According to relativity:

"In general relativity there are potential means of FTL travel, but they may be impossible to make work. It is thought highly unlikely that engineers will be building space ships with FTL drives in the foreseeable future, if ever, but it is curious that theoretical physics as we presently understand it seems to leave the door open to the possibility."

Furthermore,

There was a young lady named Bright, Whose speed was far faster than light. She went out one day, In a relative way, And returned the previous night

[Robert Goren]

According to relativity:

There was a young lady named Bright, Whose speed was far faster than light. She went out one day, In a relative way, And returned the previous night
I have meet some fast women in my time, but none quite that fast.

[OTM Al]

Anyone ever heard of warp drive?

I always thought the idea of warp drive was one of bending space like folding a piece of paper so going from one edge to the other was a very small physical move though the effective distance travelled in the time required would effectively be faster than the speed of light. Thus the inability to travel faster than light is not violated. Concept I believe also outlined in the famous "Wrinkle in Time" novel.

[classhandicapper]

I'm believe that people often get the right answer for the wrong reason. It obviously happens all the time at the track, but I suspect it happens in science all the time too.

[Greyfox]

The discussion brings back memories of this one.


"There was a young lady named Bright,
whose speed was much faster than light.
She set off one day
in a relative way,
and returned on the previous night."

[DJofSD]

Foxey, I hate to break the news, but, hcap beat you to the punch on that little ditty.

[hcap]

Foxey, I hate to break the news, but, hcap beat you to the punch on that little ditty.Considering the many theories of alternate universes, quite understandable :cool:

[Greyfox]

Foxey, I hate to break the news, but, hcap beat you to the punch on that little ditty.

So he/she did. (Maybe that's why I was reminded of it. I probably saw it subliminally without direct reading.)

[hcap]

So he/she did. (Maybe that's why I was reminded of it. I probably saw it subliminally without direct reading.)
He/she accepts your excuse :lol:

[so.cal.fan]

This is fascinating!
I hope they do a special show on PBS or the Discovery Channel about it.
Someone posted on the article that it could mean something could be in two places at once???

Actor? Hcap? (our new designated scientists on board) Possible?

[bigmack]

As previously mentioned, how much stock can we put into the work of a man who would make such a horrific decision in footwear?

http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/albert-einstein-at-beach-1945-celebrities-28954jpg.jpeg

[highnote]

If the big bang is correct, I would think that the explosion would have been so great that some particles would have traveled faster than light. On the other hand, maybe the particles were just squashed together as they expanded. The particles at the outside of the expanding universe where squashed up against the limits of time and space and the particles behind them were squashed up against the outer ring of particles, and so forth.

But as the big explosion occured, what happened to all the energy? How fast does energy travel? Does energy have a speed limit?

[Actor]

If the big bang is correct, I would think that the explosion would have been so great that some particles would have traveled faster than light. On the other hand, maybe the particles were just squashed together as they expanded. The particles at the outside of the expanding universe where squashed up against the limits of time and space and the particles behind them were squashed up against the outer ring of particles, and so forth. At the instant of the big bang there were no particles, only energy. Energy can be converted to mass just as mass can be to converted to energy. All the particles came into being during the first few seconds of the big bang.

But as the big explosion occurred, what happened to all the energy? How fast does energy travel? Does energy have a speed limit?The energy is still here. The total energy plus mass in the universe is constant.

By the way, the term "big bang" was first used by a scientist who was trying to debunk the theory. By calling it "the big bang theory" he hoped to ridicule it. The strategy backfired. Proponents of the theory embraced the term.

[Actor]

As previously mentioned, how much stock can we put into the work of a man who would make such a horrific decision in footwear?

http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/albert-einstein-at-beach-1945-celebrities-28954jpg.jpegThere's a story that Einstein's first wife once criticized him for forgetting to comb his hair. Einstein reacted by swearing to never comb his hair again.

Another story says that Einstein was invited to a party a the house of the President of Princeton University. Einstein arrived at the party, dressed only in pajamas and slippers, and of course his hair was uncombed. He knocked on the door which was answered by the butler.

"Yes?" said the butler.

"I'm Dr. Einstein" said Einstein.

"You can't possibly be Dr. Einstein. Dr. Einstein is a world famous scientist. You look like you couldn't count to three."

Einstein replied, "One, two, three."


Einstein was also said to be something of a womanizer. In his youth he was rather handsome. He combed his hair back then. For a time he also had a Charlie Chaplin/Adolphe Hitler mustache, a popular style back then. He was quite successful in romancing the ladies. Some say that in his latter years many women wanted "the smarted man in the world" to father their child. Einstein was happy to oblige.

[toetoe]

As previously mentioned, how much stock can we put into the work of a man who would make such a horrific decision in footwear?

http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/albert-einstein-at-beach-1945-celebrities-28954jpg.jpeg



Ein stein. Zwei steinen ? Oy.

[hcap]

The Big Bang concept includes the idea that space-time itself expanded during the very early moments. The limitations on faster than light travel really states the anything/particles with mass cannot travel within the "fabric" of space-time faster than light. The universe itself theoretically has no such restriction.

So the example of a expanding balloon as our universe means that an ant crawling along the surface of the balloon cannot move faster than light, but the movement of the balloon itself can.

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html

6) If the universe is 14 billion years old, how could galaxies have traveled more than 14 billion light years?

It is possible that our universe is infinite and has been filled with matter everywhere since the Big Bang (see question 2). But there is also nothing stopping the universe expanding faster than the speed of light. Although at any local point within the universe, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, this is not true for the entire universe. There is no limit on how fast space itself can expand. So what OTM Al posted explains FTL "warp" drive.



I always thought the idea of warp drive was one of bending space like folding a piece of paper so going from one edge to the other was a very small physical move though the effective distance travelled in the time required would effectively be faster than the speed of light. Thus the inability to travel faster than light is not violated. Concept I believe also outlined in the famous "Wrinkle in Time" novel.

[hcap]

As previously mentioned, how much stock can we put into the work of a man who would make such a horrific decision in footwear?

http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/albert-einstein-at-beach-1945-celebrities-28954jpg.jpeg

Einstein had to wear open toed footwear when he had to count really large numbers like 20.

Besides he didn't have such an unusual fashion sense, what else would you have to complain about? (Wait, I take that back)

[mostpost]

At the instant of the big bang there were no particles, only energy. Energy can be converted to mass just as mass can be to converted to energy. All the particles came into being during the first few seconds of the big bang.

The energy is still here. The total energy plus mass in the universe is constant.

By the way, the term "big bang" was first used by a scientist who was trying to debunk the theory. By calling it "the big bang theory" he hoped to ridicule it. The strategy backfired. Proponents of the theory embraced the term.
Hoyle????

[Actor]

Hoyle????I think so.

I was too lazy to look it up. :sleeping:

[Actor]

The theory also predicts that tachyons travel backward in time. I think a space craft that could quantum leap to twice the speed of light would find itself traveling backwards in time at the same rate that we travel forward in time. A space ship leaving today would reach the nearest start, Alpha Centauri, two years ago. The return trip would also take two years, meaning the crew would return four years ago and make their report.

But if we got their report four years ago, why bother making the trip today? :confused:

[Greyfox]

Space travel will never be possible the way we know it on Star Trek.
Moving great distances via "worm holes" and "time warps" will be the science of the future and hold the greatest promise for transportation.

[Actor]

As previously mentioned, how much stock can we put into the work of a man who would make such a horrific decision in footwear?

http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/albert-einstein-at-beach-1945-celebrities-28954jpg.jpeg
Here is a man who doesn't give a damn what other people think. I like that in a person. :lol:

[hcap]

Update. Some confirmation of the original experiment



http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicates-faster-than-light-finding-1.9393

Neutrino experiment replicates faster-than-light finding

Latest data show the subatomic particles continue to break the speed limit.

18 November 2011


Physicists have replicated the finding that the subatomic particles called neutrinos seem to travel faster than light. It is a remarkable confirmation of a stunning result, yet most in the field remain sceptical that the ultimate cosmic speed limit has truly been broken.

[Robert Goren]

What does Sheldon Cooper think of this? I will wait for his opinion before making up my mind.

[DJofSD]

This confirmation says more about our understanding of the neutrino than it does about Einstein's theory.

[Tom]

What does Sheldon Cooper think of this? I will wait for his opinion before making up my mind.

I'd rather hear from Sheldon Leonard.

hcap...if this is true, why has Obama never broached this with China and India, two of the biggest polluters in the world? should we not be mounting our troops for regime changes to save the planet?

Of course you know that just some nations suffering will not fix anything. your constant postings prove that the planet has made no headway, yet you favor wasted efforts killing some economies while allowing others to kill us all while growing their economies. Is that not worth a war?

[hcap]

I'd rather hear from Sheldon Leonard.

hcap...if this is true, why has Obama never broached this with China and India, two of the biggest polluters in the world? should we not be mounting our troops for regime changes to save the planet?

Of course you know that just some nations suffering will not fix anything. your constant postings prove that the planet has made no headway, yet you favor wasted efforts killing some economies while allowing others to kill us all while growing their economies. Is that not worth a war??????

Tom, what has this to do with neutrinos and the speed of light other than Neutrino Gingrich is probably gonna go thru his 15 minutes of fame faster than the speed of light.

[Tom]

Wrong thread - damn heat stroke again!:blush:

[rastajenk]

Tom, what has this to do with neutrinos and the speed of light other than Neutrino Gingrich is probably gonna go thru his 15 minutes of fame faster than the speed of light.Now that's clever. :ThmbUp: :D

[Actor]

Wrong thread - damn heat stroke again!:blush:
Damn! Right horse! Wrong race! :lol:

[hcap]

That would be one big OOPS

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/breaking-news-error-undoes-faster.html

"It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.

According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis."

[DJofSD]

More than once in my career in IT, a problem was traced to an improper cable connection.

[hcap]

Cern probably uses Cablevision :cool:

[bigmack]

More & more honest scientists blowing the lid off this complete sham.

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion. We have offered ours. With apologies for any immodesty, we all have enjoyed distinguished careers in climate science or in key science and engineering disciplines (such as physics, aeronautics, geology, biology, forecasting) on which climate science is based.

Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that "the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible." Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.

One reason to be on guard, as we explained in our original op-ed, is that motives other than objective science are at work in much of the scientific establishment. All of us are members of major academies and scientific societies, but we urge Journal readers not to depend on pompous academy pronouncements—on what we say—but to follow the motto of the Royal Society of Great Britain, one of the oldest learned societies in the world: nullius in verba—take nobody's word for it. As we said in our op-ed, everyone should look at certain stubborn facts that don't fit the theory espoused in the Trenberth letter, for example—the graph of surface temperature above, and similar data for the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the upper oceans.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

[hcap]

More & more honest scientists blowing the lid off this complete sham.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?m od=googlenews_wsj
All along you have proclaimed ( through ignorance ), that the science of climatology is wrong. Ad Nauseun.

You just picked the wrong spot to repeat that claim. Science is not static. When evidence dictates, it changes accordingly. Generally by evolution, not revolution.

So here we have a situation where the original title of this thread,"The Science Is Settled; No Need for Any More Debate" is hinting that anthropomorphic GW, is a settled science that is really not settled, and as evidence uses the faster than light neutrinos as a case to cast doubt on the orthodoxy of nothing can go faster. But I guess you are so anxious to make your repeated ad nuseum claim in spite of this latest news, you got it backwards

NO !, ORTHODOX SCIENCE IS NOT WRONG. Now there is no substantiated proof that neutrinos can go faster than light.

Just as orthodox science is still correct about climate change, and all your erroneous counter claims are just as wrong as the faulty cable connection that led to this short lived "Star Trek" moment in physics.

My guess is that all your so-called "evidence" and attempts to disprove anthropomorphic GW is also a case of loose cables and too many loose screws

[boxcar]

So orthodoxy works just fine in science but not so swell in religion, eh?

As soon as I finish my first cup of java, I'll get busy on building an altar to the science god -- but which one? Do you have anyone in mind in particular?

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

Who knew that "Pulp Fiction" commented on the business based upon anthropomorphic global warming? Here's (http://www.hark.com/clips/wybqwqykxt-mother****ers-that-thought-their-ass-would-age-like-wine) the audio - warning, contains strong language.

[hcap]

Who knew that "Pulp Fiction" commented on the business based upon anthropomorphic global warming? Here's (http://www.hark.com/clips/wybqwqykxt-mother****ers-that-thought-their-ass-would-age-like-wine) the audio - warning, contains strong language.Isn't there a long winded discussion about the international ramifications of 1/4 pounder's with cheese in that movie? Or is that highly insightful intellectual discussion about bigmacks' full of hot air? :)
'

[hcap]

So orthodoxy works just fine in science but not so swell in religion, eh?

As soon as I finish my first cup of java, I'll get busy on building an altar to the science god -- but which one? Do you have anyone in mind in particular?

There was a famous Russian psychologist that concluded that certain overly repeated stimuli can cause unthinking mechanical responses bypassing the rational thought process.

It would seem you sit up and salivate whenever you mistakenly think anyone says anything supportive of science or derogatory about religion.

Box, does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

[bigmack]

Po' little hcap. He fell so hard for this scam he can't possibly eat crow now.

The pathetic hold-out wanting so bad for this ruse to pan out. Fat chance.

Even his dopey graphs have an expiration. Watch this.

Hey Bunsen Burner, show us a graph on the non-warming for the last 15 years. :D

[hcap]

The second Pavlovian response right on time!

Mack seriously, how many times have we beat this dead horse?

Suffice it to say, you are wrong and i am right, but you will never give up the ghost. I no longer have the time to pull the info to once again pin your ears back. Why don't we simply let it go until either you are proved right, or I am?

Unfortunately Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein. Jesus Christ and Ronald Reagen could tell you are mistaken, and you would accuse them of selling out to the Bilderbutgs and box accuse them of shilling for the international Communist Satanic society.

[bigmack]

Smoke & mirrors. We all know why you're tired of the debate. You lost.

FACT: No warming last 15 years.

No matter how much you wanted it to be true, it's just a sham.

Don't be embarrassed. Admit you were wrong and move on.

To cling to lies is pathetic.

[alytim]

Smoke & mirrors. We all know why you're tired of the debate. You lost.

FACT: No warming last 15 years.

No matter how much you wanted it to be true, it's just a sham.

Don't be embarrassed. Admit you were wrong and move on.

To cling to lies is pathetic.

BM, take a standing eight count, you're out on your feet.

[hcap]

Smoke & mirrors. We all know why you're tired of the debate. You lost.

FACT: No warming last 15 years.

No matter how much you wanted it to be true, it's just a sham.

Don't be embarrassed. Admit you were wrong and move on.

To cling to lies is pathetic.
One more time.as Michael Corleone would say:
Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.E.gif






http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A3.gif


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif

[Tom]

Not impressive at all, hcp, unless one is looking to build a picket fence.
If no one believes a little of you BS, why would they buy more of it?

How about posting a graph of China and India progress towards cleaning the environment? I would love to see that one. :lol:

[hcap]

I responded to "No Global Warming in The Last 15 years"

Now you want me to respond to China and India?

One more time.as Michael Corleone would say:
Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in


I don't think so.

[boxcar]

I don't think.. .

Got that right!

Boxcar

[bigmack]

It's not his fault. hcap has had his melon up his backside for the last 10 years.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/2_25_12_12_50_52.jpg

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/Breaking-Apeerreviewedadmissionthatglobalsurfacetemperature sdidnotrisebetween1998and2008-DrDavidWhitehouseonthePNASpaperKaufmannetal2011-Wat.png

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/GlobalTemperaturesFailToRiseAsCO2LevelsSurge-ROKDrop.png

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/Report-GlobalTemperatureHasNotRisenSince1998-IRISBlog.png

[boxcar]

Okay, I'll fuss about something else: Your story doesn't count for diddly 'cause it wasn't accompanied with a chart or graph. I love Hcap's pretty charts and graphs. It shows the artistic side to to him -- the only part of his brain that still works. :D

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

BM, take a standing eight count, you're out on your feet.How so? Nobody is debating actual temperature changes, are they? I mean, all you need is a thermometer and some graph paper for that...duh...

I think the question remains, and is certainly FAR FROM SETTLED, as to what the root CAUSE of any such temperature increase may be...

If the title of this thread is meant to convey that the CAUSE of warmer temperatures is settled (Man is to Blame), then the title of the thread would be wrong, and hcap is just silly going on and on like he is about it being a slam dunk.

However, if the title of the thread simply pertains to actual temperature measurement, then duh...not much to argue there...that's all just a matter of record keeping anyway...

So which is it hcap? Are you claiming the science on the root cause of "Global Warming" is settled?

Really?

[hcap]

Okay, I'll fuss about something else: Your story doesn't count for diddly 'cause it wasn't accompanied with a chart or graph. I love Hcap's pretty charts and graphs. It shows the artistic side to to him -- the only part of his brain that still works. :D

I guess the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is just a lyin' bag of shit unlike the assholean sources you guys use?


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

[hcap]

So which is it hcap? Are you claiming the science on the root cause of "Global Warming" is settled?

Really?Not quite as settled as evolution or the age of the universe, but it is getting there. The correlation between the Industrial Revolution and carbon emissions and climate change is pretty strong. I will agree that the earth has experienced many cycles of warming and cooling, but it is the sudden acceleration of the process now that is an important clue.

Instead of a gradual cycle geologically speaking, it is the abrupt change and upheaval that will occur before humanity can make the necessary adjustments to maintain a first wold existence. Third world, all over the worlds is the prognosis. So we have the most to lose, not the people already in third world poverty.

How so? Nobody is debating actual temperature changes, are they? I mean, all you need is a thermometer and some graph paper for that...duh...Mack is


Smoke & mirrors. We all know why you're tired of the debate. You lost.

FACT: No warming last 15 years.

[bigmack]

Not quite as settled as evolution or the age of the universe, but it is getting there. The correlation between the Industrial Revolution and carbon emissions and climate change is pretty strong. I will agree that the earth has experienced many cycles of warming and cooling, but it is the sudden acceleration of the process now that is an important clue.

Instead of a gradual cycle geologically speaking, it is the abrupt change and upheaval that will occur before humanity can make the necessary adjustments to maintain a first wold existence. :lol: :lol: Third world, all over the worlds is the prognosis. So we have the most to lose, not the people already in third world poverty.
What a laugh riot you are. I've seen Moonies far less brainwashed than you.

Data from 2003 through 2010 from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite show virtually zero net melting from the massive Himalayan ice cap, the world’s “third pole”. The UN, using an unrefereed publication from the World Wildlife Federation, :lol: erroneously forecast in its last climate compendium that it would be gone by 2035.

Settled science would know all of the important “forcings” and “feedbacks” in the climate system, such as the sensitivity of surface temperature to changes in carbon dioxide (a forcing) and the behavior of clouds, which could either enhance or counter warming (a feedback).

Now it appears that cloud tops are lowering, a totally unforeseen cooling feedback on carbon dioxide-induced warming. Writing in Geophysical Research Letters, University of Auckland’s Roger Davies and Matthew Molloy conclude this could be a “significant measure of a negative cloud feedback to global warming”.

In addition, the GRACE satellite found that total ice loss outside of Greenland and Antarctica was previously estimated 30% too high, another reinforcement of the “lukewarm” synthesis of climate change. After adding in the GRACE measurements for Greenland and Antarctica and median estimates for the “thermal expansion” of water, the current rate of sea-level rise is 8 inches per century. While that surely will rise before 2100, it’s only one inch more than what was observed last century.

[Tom]

I responded to "No Global Warming in The Last 15 years"

Now you want me to respond to China and India?

One more time.as Michael Corleone would say:
Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in


I don't think so.

You seem so hot and bothered bout our impending doom, I though you would rallying the troops here to do something about those who are literally killing us all. Yet it is only the USA you ever whine about.

[boxcar]

I guess the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is just a lyin' bag of shit unlike the assholean sources you guys use?


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Are you suggesting that Obama's Dept. of Energy got it all wrong?

Boxcar

[HUSKER55]

ahhh boxcar,...remember solyndra

[bigmack]

I guess the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is just a lyin' bag of shit unlike the assholean sources you guys use?
Gawd, I LOVE when you start using verbiage like 'assholean.' It lets me know how steamed you get.

NASA, self-confessed purveyors of flawed data.
(How many times have you been schooled on this - 15? Yet you still come back s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g out National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies as if it means anything) :lol:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/SenatorsQuestionFlawedNASAClimateData.png

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/NASAOIG--FlawedData-DataBehindSharedServicesCenterProjectedSavings-NASAWatch.png

[ArlJim78]

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.





Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating. In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.




Richard Lindzen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen)

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

[bigmack]

Do pay attention to that name:

http://netanimations.net/Moving-animated-eyes-finger-pointing-down.gif
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
MIT
Atmospheric physics


You will never find anyone more qualified than Dr.R., on this subject. He debated several of the leading dweebs in the hcap camp. He made them look like little kids. They were hauling out their graphs & models and Lindzen sliced & diced through 'em faster than a ginsu through A jello mold with carrot shavings. (AND marshmallows)

Wanna have a little fun? Ax hcap to proffer ANYONE on par with Dr.R's credentials. :D

By the way, his take is that it's much ado about nothing. Rather, MUCH.

[boxcar]

Give it up, 'cap. Global warming is a hoax designed to extort money from the masses who are gullible enough to buy into it. More and more scientists are seeing through it and leaving that dark side to bask in the light of truth. You're welcomed to join us. The light of day and the warm sun's rays will work wonders for your gray matter -- and make you feel good all over, for that matter. :cool:

Boxcar

[hcap]

http://www4.images.coolspotters.com/photos/112069/ronald-mcdonald-profile.jpg

http://netanimations.net/Moving-animated-eyes-finger-pointing-down.gif

......................VS

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif

[hcap]

Give it up, 'cap. Global warming is a hoax designed to extort money from the masses who are gullible enough to buy into it. More and more scientists are seeing through it and leaving that dark side to bask in the light of truth. You're welcomed to join us. The light of day and the warm sun's rays will work wonders for your gray matter -- and make you feel good all over, for that matter. :cool:

Global warming? Are you sure you didn't mean organized religion?

[bigmack]

http://netanimations.net/Moving-animated-eyes-finger-pointing-down.gif

You don't REALLY want me to haul out a Richard L. va-va-va-video to rub sault in your wound, does ya>?

That graph is so much like your others. Regrettably for ya, they don't sway no mo'.

Do you have ANYTHING, please, ANYTHING ELSE but graphs from 10 years ago & befere?

Just so we hold your complete nerds to a higher standard as the "have a medical weed card" scientist/doctor up the street. Or, the one selling herbal supLeeMints at your local hippie outlet.

Funny. I met one of the biggest geeks within your cause here in La Jolla.

Turns out he makes hundreds of thousands a year pushing this crap. He was, in fact, one of the twits on the panel debating Richard.

By the way, Mr. Know-it-Haul - Why doesn't your 'school of thought' ever want to debate this in an open forum :confused:

Mighty convenient for all your nerds to hide behind grant money that keeps paying for two cars.

Might even be GM pro-ducks. Like a caddie or two.

[hcap]

http://beargoggleson.com/files/2011/07/EndIsNear1.jpg

http://netanimations.net/Moving-animated-eyes-finger-pointing-down.gif

......................VS

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif

[hcap]

http://www4.images.coolspotters.com/photos/112069/ronald-mcdonald-profile.jpg

................AND

http://beargoggleson.com/files/2011/07/EndIsNear1.jpg


...............VS



/v/YIDESZWAlz8?

[bigmack]

/v/YIDESZWAlz8?
Mmm. I lika that video. He say the same thing Dr. L & I have bean sayin'.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should.

The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

Sure it causes a bit of warmin'. HOW MUCH is the question

TO2 BAD you and yo caREW ain't got a KaLUE how to PROOOVE nuthin'.

All this time and you ain't got NOTHIN' to point to any percentage of any CO2 of any man or solar, or oceanic, or...

With all due respect, what a bunch of clowns. :ThmbDown:

[hcap]

All along you said no warming in the last 15 ears, didn't you? All along you said anthropomorphic Global Warming is crap Box said it is a hoax.

Now you say maybe a "little bit"??? Whoa , sounds like a flipin' and a floppin'

Romney, a likable candidate gives another contrary view.

He believes man contributes to it and it exists. How much is in question. Reminds me of the old ditty Winston Churchill used

Churchill:

"Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "

Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"

Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

So either Romney is just haggling about the price, and you are supporting an "easy" Socialite, and you should denounce a RINO prostituting himself just like your buddy boxcar, OR agree that It exists.

[Tom]

I will defer to Ben.
You know Ben.

Ben Warmer.

[hcap]

I will defer to Ben.
You know Ben.

Ben Warmer.
We have had a discussion a number of times about "Ben Warmer"

Geologically speaking, previous cycles of warming and cooling have coincided with global changes of our earth's planetary positioning

From One of a zillion billion quadrillion previous threads re:Global Warming

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87366&page=4&highlight=Global+Warming

Post 47



So in addition to 2 of the Three Stooges, the third now has chimed in.....




http://backgroundpictures.net/middle/417625_orangutan_monkey_face_cute_primate_baby.jpg

http://netanimations.net/Moving-animated-eyes-finger-pointing-down.gif

..............VS




.

Tom, there are Orbital factors that affect warming and cooling. LONG TERM cycles do indeed show the earth has been warmer before the industrial revolution. But things like tilts in the earth's ( precession ) axis and other global epoch spanning factors occur too slowly to explain the sudden acceleration in current global warming. Glaciation expands and contracts cyclicaly. But not fast enough to explain the current anthropomorphic GW model.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Earth_precession.svg/250px-Earth_precession.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Gyroscope_precession.gif/220px-Gyroscope_precession.gif




Additionaly Planets revolving the Sun follow elliptical (oval) orbits that rotate gradually over time (apsidal precession). Orbital distances vary long term. Because of apsidal precession the Earth's argument of periapsis slowly increases. Therefore the anomalistic year is slightly longer than the sidereal year. It takes about 112,000 years for the ellipse to revolve once relative to the fixed stars.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Perihelion_precession.svg/220px-Perihelion_precession.svg.png


http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

/v/8nrvrkVBt24?version=3&

[Tom]

The other Ben agrees with me.

Ben There.

[Tom]

Hey hcap, when President Pond Scum starts burning up all the algae, won't that negatively impact the delicate balance of our fragile atmosphere?

[DJofSD]

Hey hcap, when President Pond Scum starts burning up all the algae, won't that negatively impact the delicate balance of our fragile atmosphere?
Shush. It's a different chemical process. It's a liberal cause so it's all good.

[boxcar]

Global warming? Are you sure you didn't mean organized religion?

Some organized religions are a hoax and a scam, just as the organized religion of Fundamentalist Environmentalism is. What both types of religions want is your money. It's all about the Green, Hcap. It's no wonder at all they call FE the "green movement". :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Mmm. I lika that video. He say the same thing Dr. L & I have bean sayin'.

Sure it causes a bit of warmin'. HOW MUCH is the question

TO2 BAD you and yo caREW ain't got a KaLUE how to PROOOVE nuthin'.

All this time and you ain't got NOTHIN' to point to any percentage of any CO2 of any man or solar, or oceanic, or...

With all due respect, what a bunch of clowns. :ThmbDown:

'Scuse me, Burger King, but neither have you proved anything with your assertion above! Has anyone offered any conclusive proof that Man contributes to global warming? Neither you or the the Rug qualified your fence-straddlin', moderate, sensible :rolleyes: :rolleyes: positions. Both of you buy into the Left's basic premise that man is either the root cause or a contributing factor to global warming. But where is the conclusive proof of this? Now that both you and Romney have stuck your snouts under the tent of the Fundamentalist Environmentalists, I think it behooves you to show us just how much man contributes.

This is what you moderates do: In order to appear reasonable and prudent and sensible, you want to avoid both the "right wing extremists'" position, as well as the leftists' position. So, you say to yourself, "Self, I'm smarter than anyone on either the Right or the Left; I'm going to walk the straight and narrow right down the middle of the road." Well, then...fine. But then you unwittingly put yourself right in the same position as the Hcaps of the world. He says, Man contributes much. You and the The Rug say that Man contributes little. And just because you take this more "moderate" position, you think this let's you off the hook that Hcap is on?

Meanwhile, until I have solid, convincing evidence to the contrary, I will not by into AGW at all, since we do have very convincing and solid evidence to show that Nature herself, generally, and the Sun, even more specifically, is the primary cause to Climate Change and that Nature is not merely reacting to evil man's use of fossil fuels.

Skeptically yours,
Boxcar

[rastajenk]

I for one am enjoying Global Warming this winter. Less transfer of my wealth to greedy bastards in the gas & electric biz.

It's like a government stimulus package, only without the increase in debt. I'm almost surprised someone hasn't tried to spin it this way.

[hcap]

OOPS! LOOKS LIKE A TROUBLE--IS--A-BREWING

http://www4.images.coolspotters.com/photos/112069/ronald-mcdonald-profile.jpg


..........................VS



http://beargoggleson.com/files/2011/07/EndIsNear1.jpg


Mr. Brylcreme and Burger Boy VS
Homer and Jesus the Weatherman (film at 6)

After you gave Herman your undying support Newt was your boy, oh all knowing and Sanctimonious ONE. Mr In Perfect Harmony with THE universe, and 6000 year old Earth .

Well box, it looks like you supported a ungodly devil worshiping RINO. Hopefully Santorum is not going to flip over and praise Satan on GW just like Newt


/v/VuBd1atfhQ4?

[boxcar]

Hey, 'cap, you're a fine one to depict me as one saying the "end is near" when you Fundie Environmentalists are constantly preaching doom and gloom if mankind doesn't repent of its evil carbon emissions. Fear-mongering is the left's specialty. If we don't change our wicked ways and fork over all our money to Big Gov by yesterday, we're all going to perish. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

Hey, 'cap, you're a fine one to depict me as one saying the "end is near" when you Fundie Environmentalists are constantly preaching doom and gloom if mankind doesn't repent of its evil carbon emissions. Fear-mongering is the left's specialty. If we don't change our wicked ways and fork over all our money to Big Gov by yesterday, we're all going to perish.I did not think walking around carrying a sign like that would get your panties in a knot. Or is it the fact that I depicted you as Homer walking around carrying a sign like that?


Fundie Rapture believing Wholesome Christians


http://mattstone.blogs.com/photos/rapture_art/rapture-art-family.jpg


On the other hand "Fundie Environmentalists"

My old pals Sunflower and Moondog




http://iloveweed.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/old_hippie_very_old_hippies_11238799250.jpg


Hey box, Can you buy pre-sale tickets to the rapture somewhere, I assume they will cost a lot more at the gate?

[hcap]

Oh, I almost forgot their loyal Fundie Environmentalist canine, Sillycybin



http://molliemorrissette.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/happy-hippy-hound-dog.jpg

[Tom]

Moondog my ASS.

That is HULK HOGAN!!!! brutha!

[johnhannibalsmith]

...My old pals Sunflower and Moondog

...


Sunflower looks like she's throwing up some Latin Kings gang signs.

[hcap]

Sunflower looks like she's throwing up some Latin Kings gang signs.

Either it is her fixation with WWII England

http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/42301054-churchill-v-sign-416.jpg

Or more likely rolling and holding extra large stogies for extended periods of time

Not Winston's kind

[hcap]

In addition to earth and atmospheric based measurements, the ocean is an important source of evidence supporting anthropomorphic global warming. As usual, all Al Gore's fault. Must have hypnotized Columbia University, ALL other universities along with all the world's Scientific organizations and 99% of ALL climatologists.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/oceans-acidifying-fastest-in-300-million-years-due-to-emissions.html

Oceans Acidifying Fastest in 300 Million Years

...The scientists found surging levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere forced down the pH of the ocean by 0.1 unit in the last century, 10 times faster than the closest historical comparison from 56 million years ago, New York’s Columbia University, which led the research, said yesterday in a statement. The seas absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, forming carbonic acid. The lower the pH level in the seas, the more acidic they are.

Past instances of ocean acidification have been linked with mass extinctions of marine creatures so the current one could also threaten important species, according to Baerbel Hoenisch, the paleoceanographer at Columbia who was lead author of the paper that appeared in the journal Science.

“If industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about -- coral reefs, oysters, salmon,” Hoenisch said.

[bigmack]

:lol:

Oh, man. Whewwwwwwwww.

This is some FUNNY, FUNNY SHIT!

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/OceansAcidifyingFastestin300MillionYears-Bloomberg.png

[hcap]

:lol:

Oh, man. Whewwwwwwwww.

This is some FUNNY, FUNNY SHIT!

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/OceansAcidifyingFastestin300MillionYears-Bloomberg.png

One of your more profound rebuttals.
As in Re: you are all BUTT

You seem to like to use "haul out". Well, what is stopping you from hauling out one of 1 percenters of your oil endowed climatologists usually (TV weatherman) to also do some reBUTTing

[bigmack]

One of your more profound rebuttals.
As in Re: you are all BUTT

You seem to like to use "haul out". Well, what is stopping you from hauling out one of 1 percenters of your oil endowed climatologists usually (TV weatherman) to also do some reBUTTing
I read somewhere recently that you Warm Mongers' next lunacy was ocean acidity. The reason? Losin' some traction on that GW thang. :D

How did they get levels of acidity from 269,847 years ago; tree rings ?

Here's your leading putz, Mickey Mann, with his bark. :D

http://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/mann_treering.jpg

Here's my leading genius, Dr. Richard Lindzen with the bite.

VwM_B4-5gaE

[hcap]

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/science-

Oceans at Fastest Acidifying Rate in 300M Years

The emission of the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas is apparently causing oceans to acidify at a much faster rate today that they usually did in the past 300 million years.

Researchers at Columbia University found only one period, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a period approximately 55 to 56 million years ago, that had such rapid acidic change. Signs of the PETM are still visible as brown mud layer in ocean sediment cores that are flanked by thick deposits of white plankton fossils, the researchers said. During the period, a surge in carbon concentration in the atmosphere increased the temperature of Earth and "turned the oceans corrosive"

[ArlJim78]

bad link

[hcap]

Try this

http://www.newser.com/story/140945/oceans-acidifying-at-highest-rate-in-300m-years.html

[bigmack]

Better yet, try this.

At far back as February 2009, these scare mongers organized an international symposium, the second one actually, on “The Ocean in a High-CO2 World.” It brought together “150 marine scientists from 26 countries” who allegedly are “calling for immediate action by policy-makers to sharply reduce CO2 emissions so as to avoid widespread and severe damage to marine ecosystems from ocean acidification.”

An article in Science Daily reported that “The scientists note that ocean acidification is already detectable and is accelerating.”

What these scientists are more interested in detecting is where the next wasted billions in government and foundation grants can be found.

The oceans of the world comprise some 70% of the Earth’s surface. They are like the lungs of the Earth, absorbing and releasing carbon dioxide. They have been doing this for billions of years and a rise in the amount of CO2 is essentially meaningless.

“It is well established among researchers that the uptake of increased amounts of carbon dioxide will make ocean water more acidic as the gas dissolves to create carbonic acid,” said the Science Daily article and, to scare you just a bit more, “Ocean chemistry is changing 100 times more rapidly than in the 650,000 years that preceded the modern industrial era…”

The global warming fraud was based on the assertion that, as the Earth encountered greater industrialization, the increased use of oil, natural gas, and coal as sources of energy, the CO2 released was “causing” the Earth to warm exponentially.

The only problem with that “theory” is that it was (1) based on phony computer models and other false interpretations of data, and (2) the latest, perfectly natural climate cycle, is causing havoc around the world by dumping mountains of snow everywhere along with breaking cold temperature records faster than new readings can be taken.

So, please, do not “Wear Blue for Oceans Day” on Wednesday because it will only indicate you are one of the idiots who still believe in global warming and that you are now prepared to further confirm that by thinking the oceans cannot handle a rise in CO2 in the same fashion they have for eons.
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/01/next-big-hoax-ocean-acidification.html

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/cid_image002.jpg

[ArlJim78]

Looks like the usual fear mongering.


It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are
constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units
regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s
oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as
“catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt
naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month,
and in extreme cases, in just a day.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scripps-paper-ocean-acidification-fears-overhyped/

[Assist Man]

Where do we get that the Universe is infinite? The last I heard, it is:

1) finite
2) had a beginning
3) is physical
4) since it is physical and had a beginning, it has to have a cause ...
5) big bangs don't get caused by "nothing"
6) must have been caused by an external force or being
7) surmise that God did the causing - who else?
8) God exists! Now we have a starting point for discussion.

[so.cal.fan]

How do atheists explain your argument, Assist Man?
Hmmmmmm, how do you explain how something just appeared from ????
nothing????? Seems the ultimate stopper for the atheists. :)

[PaceAdvantage]

Who created the nothing?

Ponder that... :lol:

[boxcar]

Who created the nothing?

Ponder that... :lol:

Or ponder this: if God is omnipresent, as the bible teaches, then could "nothing" have ever existed?

Boxcar

[Actor]

Where do we get that the Universe is infinite? The last I heard, it is:

1) finiteTrue.

2) had a beginningProbably.

3) is physicalTrue.

4) since it is physical and had a beginning, it has to have a cause ...Not necessarily. Causality implies a time before the beginning, but if anything existed before the beginning then the beginning was not the beginning ...

5) big bangs don't get caused by "nothing"Why not?
6) must have been caused by an external force or beingWhy?
7) surmise that God did the causing - who else?
8) God exists! Now we have a starting point for discussion.Your turn. :)

[boxcar]

Quote by AM:
5) big bangs don't get caused by "nothing"

Actor:
Why not?

Me: Can you provide an example of anything in this universe that is caused by nothing?

Quote by AM:
6) must have been caused by an external force or being

Actor:
Why?

Because if not, then the Universe is the Uncaused Cause but that doesn't jive with reality as we know it due to the Laws of Thermodynamics, the death of all life, etc. If the Universe is Eternal, then it must beget the infinite, not the finite.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Or ponder this: if God is omnipresent, as the bible teaches, then could "nothing" have ever existed?

Boxcar

If not, where did the "something" come from?

[boxcar]

If not, where did the "something" come from?

Why, from the Uncaused Cause, of course. His name is God, and He is the Primary Cause of all things.

Boxcar

[lsbets]

Why, from the Uncaused Cause, of course. His name is God, and He is the Primary Cause of all things.

Boxcar

Then where did he come from?

[johnhannibalsmith]

God, Sr., of course.

[elysiantraveller]

Nothing existed before the Universe existed.

[boxcar]

Nothing existed before the Universe existed.

Can you verify that claim? Moreover, if nothing existed how did "not anything" beget something?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Then where did he come from?

What part of Uncaused Cause, didn't you get? "Eternal" by definition is having infinite duration.

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

Can you verify that claim? Moreover, if nothing existed how did "not anything" beget something?

Boxcar

First, since the law of gravity exists the universe can essentially create itself from nothing. (That's Hawking)

Second, the universe must exist in order for all of our laws, logic, and existence to be justified. Any attempt at logical a priori reasoning is worthless since its deducted from the laws the universe gives us. Hence, as far as we are concerned, nothing existed before the Universe.

[PaceAdvantage]

First, since the law of gravity exists the universe can essentially create itself from nothing. (That's Hawking)Ih6XjO_fhrI

[Actor]

Quote by AM:
5) big bangs don't get caused by "nothing"

Actor:
Why not?

Me: Can you provide an example of anything in this universe that is caused by nothing?
By the strict rules of logic the fact that a counter-example is not known does not exclude the possibility that a counter-example exists. For example, Goldbach's Conjecture: Every even n > 2 is the sum of two primes. There is no known counterexample but until the conjecture is proven we must concede that one may exist.

Turning your argument on its head, is anything caused by anything else? Or is causality itself an illusion?

Quote by AM:
6) must have been caused by an external force or being

Actor:
Why?

Because if not, then the Universe is the Uncaused Cause but that doesn't jive with reality as we know it due to the Laws of Thermodynamics,Have you ever studied thermodynamics? The so called "Laws of Thermodynamics" are, in fact, axioms. Their validity is assumed without proof (usually in chapter one of the textbook) and the entire study proceeds on the assumption that they are true. The famous 2nd law of thermodynamics is "entropy increases." But what exactly is entropy? Can you define it? The most often quoted definition is "a measure of disorder." But what is disorder? Sooner or later you get a circular definition. the death of all life, etc. If the Universe is Eternal, then it must beget the infinite, not the finite.This seems a non-sequitur. Your "if" does not necessarily imply the "then." Must the universe "beget" anything? Define "beget."

[hcap]

By the strict rules of logic the fact that a counter-example is not known does not exclude the possibility that a counter-example exists. For example, Goldbach's Conjecture: Every even n > 2 is the sum of two primes. There is no known counterexample but until the conjecture is proven we must concede that one may exist.

Turning your argument on its head, is anything caused by anything else? Or is causality itself an illusion?
Have you ever studied thermodynamics? The so called "Laws of Thermodynamics" are, in fact, axioms. Their validity is assumed without proof (usually in chapter one of the textbook) and the entire study proceeds on the assumption that they are true. The famous 2nd law of thermodynamics is "entropy increases." But what exactly is entropy? Can you define it? The most often quoted definition is "a measure of disorder." But what is disorder? Sooner or later you get a circular definition.This seems a non-sequitur. Your "if" does not necessarily imply the "then." Must the universe "beget" anything? Define "beget."Causality, or sequential events "begetting" succeeding events is partially a product of the limitations of mind. The main problem in these type of discussions is not realizing our "instrument" is not suited to understand issues that transcend normal everyday assumed laws.

Alan Watts has a great example...

"a cat walks back and forth on the other side of a fence in which there is a board missing, meaning you never see the entire cat at one time. A person who watches the cat pacing might come to the conclusion that the Head causes the Tail. Never in the watching does the tail come first, always last, and so the hypothesis seems to prove itself over and over. The person’s statement of belief fails in one major respect – it fails to take into account that the cat is one thing"

Separating "God" and the "Universe" by causality may be this kind of problem. A priori assumptions are useful if they can be verified by observational evidence. But events that can be calculated quite well are not necessarily an explanation of why A priori assumptions exists in the first place

[boxcar]

By the strict rules of logic the fact that a counter-example is not known does not exclude the possibility that a counter-example exists. For example, Goldbach's Conjecture: Every even n > 2 is the sum of two primes. There is no known counterexample but until the conjecture is proven we must concede that one may exist.

Well, good, then. That means little tooth fairies possibly exist even though there is no evidence for same.

Turning your argument on its head, is anything caused by anything else? Or is causality itself an illusion?
Have you ever studied thermodynamics? The so called "Laws of Thermodynamics" are, in fact, axioms. Their validity is assumed without proof (usually in chapter one of the textbook) and the entire study proceeds on the assumption that they are true. The famous 2nd law of thermodynamics is "entropy increases." But what exactly is entropy? Can you define it? The most often quoted definition is "a measure of disorder." But what is disorder? Sooner or later you get a circular definition.This seems a non-sequitur. Your "if" does not necessarily imply the "then." Must the universe "beget" anything? Define "beget."

So, observations are not proof? (Of course, strictly speaking, in science there is no such thing as proof or absolute truth.) However, there are indisputable observations. A Law remains a Law until an exception can be provided to it.

Oh, you wanna an example of disorder? Go out and buy a spanking new automobile, drive it out of the showroom (be very careful, don't run into anything), then drive the car unto a vacant field, lock it up and let it sit there for 20 years or so. Then come back and report on its condition. Be sure to take pictures for us. :rolleyes:

Or don't paint your house ever. Never, never paint the inside or outside of your house. Methinks you'll see some "disorder" on the surfaces.

Anyhow...until you can show that Something could have been produced or evolved or begotten by Nothing, i.e. Not Anything, then your theory is absurd on the face it. In fact, it's so absurd that many scientists and philosophers alike run away from such foolishness as fast as they can and have come up with other theories or hypotheses to counter it, such as, "singularity", etc. But once they go there, they're still saying that the Universe is eternal. Therefore, if we're "children? of the Eternal, how come we're not as infinite as Father Universe....or is should I be saying Mother Universe? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Causality, or sequential events "begetting" succeeding events is partially a product of the limitations of mind. The main problem in these type of discussions is not realizing our "instrument" is not suited to understand issues that transcend normal everyday assumed laws.

Alan Watts has a great example...

"a cat walks back and forth on the other side of a fence in which there is a board missing, meaning you never see the entire cat at one time. A person who watches the cat pacing might come to the conclusion that the Head causes the Tail. Never in the watching does the tail come first, always last, and so the hypothesis seems to prove itself over and over. The person’s statement of belief fails in one major respect – it fails to take into account that the cat is one thing"

Separating "God" and the "Universe" by causality may be this kind of problem. A priori assumptions are useful if they can be verified by observational evidence. But events that can be calculated quite well are not necessarily an explanation of why A priori assumptions exists in the first place

Fine, so if we're ONE with the UNIverse and the UNIverse is Eternal, why aren't we?

Boxcar

[Actor]

[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=boxcar]Well, good, then. That means little tooth fairies possibly exist even though there is no evidence for same.Precisely. You've got the concept down.
So, observations are not proof? (Of course, strictly speaking, in science there is no such thing as proof or absolute truth.) However, there are indisputable observations.All observations are disputable. In fact, according to Heisenberg, all observations are uncertain.

A Law remains a Law until an exception can be provided to it.

Oh, you wanna an example of disorder? Go out and buy a spanking new automobile, drive it out of the showroom (be very careful, don't run into anything), then drive the car unto a vacant field, lock it up and let it sit there for 20 years or so. Then come back and report on its condition. Be sure to take pictures for us. :rolleyes:

Or don't paint your house ever. Never, never paint the inside or outside of your house. Methinks you'll see some "disorder" on the surfaces.I don't want an "example" of disorder. I want a metric for it. Some way to say that car A is more disordered than car B by X units of disorder.


Anyhow...until you can show that Something could have been produced or evolved or begotten by Nothing, i.e. Not Anything, then your theory is absurd on the face it.What theory? I don't recall advancing any theory. I'm merely pointing out logical flaws and asking for clarification.

[DJofSD]

So, observations are not proof? (Of course, strictly speaking, in science there is no such thing as proof or absolute truth.) However, there are indisputable observations. A Law remains a Law until an exception can be provided to it.

Science does not end with the observations. The hypothesis can be disproved by the observations but never proved when the observations appear to agree with predictions.

When the experiments are repeated and agree with the models used to described the hypothesis over a long period of time, then you can begin to talk about it becoming a law. But never, ever begin to think it is proved absolutely. the only absolute is there are no absolutes.

[Actor]

The logic behind the theory of the Big Bang is the observation that the universe is expanding, that galaxies are moving away from each other. By logically "running the clock backwards" you get the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang is supposed to have occurred 14 billion years ago. Did time start then? What if time did not begin then? What if 28 billion years ago the universe existed pretty much like it does now, with one big difference. 28 billion years ago the universe was not expanding, it was contracting.

So 28 billion years ago intelligent species would have pointed their telescopes out at the galaxies and observed a reverse Hubble effect. They would have done their math and predicted that in 14 billion years the universe will end in a Big Crunch.

If you combine their Big Crunch with our Big Bang you get a Big Bounce.

This implies that eternity exists in both directions, that time extends infinitely into the future and infinitely into the past.

14 billion years ago the universe was sucked into a singularity which then exploded into a Big Bang.

In all of time there was only one Big Bounce. We live in the time after the bounce.

[DJofSD]

Big Bang, Big Bounce, all being called into doubt due to dark matter and dark energy.

[boxcar]

Science does not end with the observations. The hypothesis can be disproved by the observations but never proved when the observations appear to agree with predictions.

Then the thing is assumed to be true up until it can be falsified. Or as you said, until is disproved.

Bottom line: No matter how you want to slice or dice it or cut it up, one's world view is a matter of FAITH -- something I have long maintained.

When the experiments are repeated and agree with the models used to described the hypothesis over a long period of time, then you can begin to talk about it becoming a law. But never, ever begin to think it is proved absolutely. the only absolute is there are no absolutes.

Oh, really...but the second absolute is that you're absolutely sure of that, right? :D

Boxcar

[elysiantraveller]

Big Bang, Big Bounce, all being called into doubt due to dark matter and dark energy.

Dark matter and energy at this point though are just mathematical constants used to explain the equation of universal expansion. Thats about all we know about them. :)

You are right though, heat death, is the new leading theory for the end of the universe.

[Ocala Mike]

I don't want an "example" of disorder. I want a metric for it.




Wouldn't the entropy theory say that the metric for disorder is time? The forward arrow of time is a constant for an expanding universe. In other words, Car A in the field since 1950 is more disordered by 25 years than Car B in the field since 1975.

Anyway, here is a link to a very thoughtful article on some of the subjects being discussed in this thread:

http://www.bestsyndication.com/Articles/2006/r/ranganathan_babu/061306-creationism_and_biology.htm


Ocala Mike

[boxcar]

Wouldn't the entropy theory say that the metric for disorder is time? The forward arrow of time is a constant for an expanding universe. In other words, Car A in the field since 1950 is more disordered by 25 years than Car B in the field since 1975.

Anyway, here is a link to a very thoughtful article on some of the subjects being discussed in this thread:

http://www.bestsyndication.com/Articles/2006/r/ranganathan_babu/061306-creationism_and_biology.htm


Ocala Mike

The problem with the "forward arrow of time" is that the future comes to us; therefore, the arrow is a "back arrow". When the Future meets us, it becomes the Present, and after it passes us by, it becomes the Past. I demonstrated how Time works several years ago.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

... I demonstrated how Time works several years ago.

Boxcar

And it was well-received by critics.



http://www.philosophymagazine.com/others/MO_Hawking_HistoTimeG_files/image010.jpg

[boxcar]

And it was well-received by critics.

Well, I'm not sure about how "well received" my post was, but no one challenged it. Everyone could have just been lost for words that day. :D But you might have piped up with something if you had been around, which I don't think you were back then.

But Time is a stream that flows only one way. It comes at us from the Future, meets us in the Present and passes us by to slip first into the immediate Past, then into the recent Past and eventually fades into the distant Past. Our noses look forward to the Future, but the Future looks back at us.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The PR and Marketing Experts had better get busy on giving that makeover to AGW and repackage it if they hope to sell this scam to an increasingly skeptical public and science community alike. Another big name scientist has seen the light and has embraced it.

Confession: Climate Scientist Says He Was ‘Extrapolating Too Far’, Outs Others as Alarmists Too

The Gaia hypothesis states essentially that “Earth’s physical and biological processes are inextricably bound to form a self-regulating system”. The Gaia theory website goes on to say this is “more relevant than ever in light of increasing concerns about global climate change.” But today, one of the first people to expound upon this theory, James Lovelock, has admitted to being a “climate alarmist” and is now reversing his stance on the extremes he once thought man-made global climate change would lead us to.

MSNBC reports the 92-year-old scientist has not only said that some of his theories as to the effects of climate change was “extrapolating too far,” but he also has named other notable proponents of man-made climate change as alarmists as well. Al Gore is one of them.

And,

Here’s more of what Lovelock told MSNBC in a phone interview:

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/confession-climate-scientist-says-he-was-extrapolating-too-far-outs-others-as-alarmists-too/

Boxcar

[hcap]

Well, I'm not sure about how "well received" my post was, but no one challenged it. Everyone could have just been lost for words that day. But you might have piped up with something if you had been around, which I don't think you were back then.

But Time is a stream that flows only one way. It comes at us from the Future, meets us in the Present and passes us by to slip first into the immediate Past, then into the recent Past and eventually fades into the distant Past. Our noses look forward to the Future, but the Future looks back at us.This is known in academic circles as the "Pissing Into a Strong Wind Thesis"
First proposed by an anonymous physicist who also was the first to formulate the famous "Hand Waving Theory of Most Phenomena ". ( Or when unable to explain, the lecturer holds both hands in the air frantically tracing circles and figure eights, while pontificating at the top of his lungs,

"Well, sort of like this.....!"

Generally employed as a last resort by many self proclaimed scholars, adept at talking down to, and to woefully underestimating their thoroughly bored audiences

Only known photo of our anonymous physicist displaying an early experiment.

http://12.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpbkg0Dgdc1qzn3qto1_500.jpg

Just in case you missed that.....

http://12.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpbkg0Dgdc1qzn3qto1_500.jpg

PS: It's me hcap

hcap

[boxcar]

This is known in academic circles as the "Pissing Into a Strong Wind Thesis"
First proposed by an anonymous physicist who also was the first to formulate the famous "Hand Waving Theory of Most Phenomena ". ( Or when unable to explain, the lecturer holds both hands in the air frantically tracing circles and figure eights, while pontificating at the top of his lungs,

"Well, sort of like this.....!"

Generally employed as a last resort by many self proclaimed scholars, adept at talking down to, and to woefully underestimating their thoroughly bored audiences

Only known photo of our anonymous physicist displaying an early experiment.

http://12.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpbkg0Dgdc1qzn3qto1_500.jpg

Just in case you missed that.....

http://12.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpbkg0Dgdc1qzn3qto1_500.jpg

PS: It's me hcap

hcap

I have a question for you, 'cap: Is that metallic looking thingy you or your clone? The photo, though, explains much about you: The rectangular head and bod crammed down into a round base. It's no wonder at all that you post so much drivel.

Boxcar

[hcap]

I have a question for you, 'cap: Is that metallic looking thingy you or your clone? The photo, though, explains much about you: The rectangular head and bod crammed down into a round base. It's no wonder at all that you post so much drivel.

Let me see if I can explain it in simple terms:

That robot is an obvious example of intelligent design (except for the vacuous expression) It proves conclusively God exists. Therefore God has already had it up to here with all of foolish and sinful mankind, and is preparing to try the whole Creation thing one more time

(Except for the vacuous expression) God nay get it right this time

PS: I meant the robot's expression

PSs: God sends his regards

PSSS: It's me hcap

hcap

[boxcar]

Let me see if I can explain it in simple terms:

That robot is an obvious example of intelligent design (except for the vacuous expression) It proves conclusively God exists. Therefore God has already had it up to here with all of foolish and sinful mankind, and is preparing to try the whole Creation thing one more time

(Except for the vacuous expression) God nay get it right this time

PS: I meant the robot's expression

PSs: God sends his regards

PSSS: It's me hcap

hcap

Cannot be an example. Even God cannot do the absurd, i.e. insert square pegs into round holes. This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you were created by an idiot. :lol:

Boxcar

[hcap]

Wrong bunky.

We ARE ALL created in God's image. God must be a robot, an idiot like me, and a God who somehow cobbled you together.

Proof that God does create the absurd. QED

[boxcar]

Wrong bunky.

We ARE ALL created in God's image.

Yeah? Who told you that? On whose authority do you believe that?

Boxcar

[hcap]

Wrong bunky.

We ARE ALL created in God's image.Yeah? Who told you that? On whose authority do you believe that?

You told me. The bible told you. God wrote the bible. Kinda late to back out now don't ya think bunky?

[boxcar]

You told me.

:lol: :lol: Since when did you, Mr. Skeptic, believe anything I have ever said?

Boxcar

[hcap]

:lol: :lol: Since when did you, Mr. Skeptic, believe anything I have ever said?

I thought repeating your own words was the only explanation that explained this

http://12.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpbkg0Dgdc1qzn3qto1_500.jpg

You use those same words to explain ALL sorts of
stuff more more preposterous then the above.

[Greyfox]

Today's news.

"LONDON (Reuters) - Large wind farms might have a warming effect on the local climate, research in the United States showed on Sunday, casting a shadow over the long-term sustainability of wind power (http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=wind-power)."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wind-farms-may-have-warming-effect

[johnhannibalsmith]

Lock up your cattle, it may be their fault, according to Fartosaurus.

This gas is enough of a factor in modern global warming that scientists have worked to figure out how much methane is emitted by cows, sheep and other plant-eating animals.

The inquiry raised questions about whether the same thing could have happened in the distant past.

Wilkinson and co-author Graeme Ruxton of the University of St. Andrews worked with methane expert Euan Nisbet at the University of London to make an educated guess about the degree to which gaseous emissions from sauropods could have warmed the atmosphere.


http://news.yahoo.com/gas-dinosaur-flatulence-may-warmed-earth-160634516.html

[hcap]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012

"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

[acorn54]

what i never understood was why people don't want to error on the side of caution when it comes to matters such as this.
the climatologists that say global warming is real and is in large part man-made may be wrong. BUT if they are right in their evaluation, and the consequences, we are dead ducks. i mean it isn't as if we have a alternative choice in which planet to inhabit.

[Tom]

And what do you think anyone is going to do about it?

You going top tell Russia, China, and India what to do?
You going to stop Africa from developing?

I guess the Solyndra plan didn't work out......:lol:

[acorn54]

well if mankind doesn't have enough sense to work together when there are global issues that threated man's existance, there is not much future for the generations that come after us.

[Tom]

When has mankind EVER worked together for anything?

[bigmack]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all
Now look what you've done. You have acorn all freaked out, worrying about our utter existence.

My, it's been a LONG drought from you and any support of your cult. Darn funny, you spring into action with a guy from Berkeley who had a change of heart after looking at data he culled in an experiment with his daughter!

At least you maintain consistent with the professionalism exhibited in your hundreds of sketchy links. Maybe his son could weigh in on the matter and you could post that as well. :rolleyes:

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show ...

[hcap]

And what do you think anyone is going to do about it?

You going top tell Russia, China, and India what to do?
You going to stop Africa from developing?

I guess the Solyndra plan didn't work out......:lol:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/CO2-by-country-thumbnail.gif

THE TOP 20 CARBON DIOXIDE EMITTERS

1. United States
2. China (mainland)
3. Russian Federation
4. India
5. Japan
6. Germany
7. Canada
8. United Kingdom
9. Republic of Korea
10. Italy (including San Marino)
11. Mexico
12. South Africa
13. Iran
14. Indonesia
15. France (including Monaco)
16. Brazil
17. Spain
18. Ukraine
19. Australia
20. Saudi Arabia

BTW, Those Who Contribute the Least Greenhouse Gases Will Be Most Impacted by Climate Change

[hcap]

Hey Mack, he was on your side until he studied the issues.......

"Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions"


Remember he was commissioned by the Repugs in congress to deflate AGW. Instead he became one of US.

"Climate skeptic Richard Muller, who started up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature in 2010 in order to get at the real truth of climate change, last year published preliminary results showing that the climate establishment was right after all. Global temperatures really have been going up dramatically over the past century."

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_best_temperature_1800_2011.jpg

[bigmack]

Hey Mack, he was on your side until he studied the issues.......

Malarkey. He questioned the nonsensical ravings of that complete & total fabricator, Mickey Mann. The kingpin of your cult.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/images/mann_treering.jpg

[Tom]

BTW, Those Who Contribute the Least Greenhouse Gases Will Be Most Impacted by Climate Change

Russia, Chin, India, #2,3,4
I asked what you are going to do about it and you post a chart?

Well, I can feel the cool breeze already!
Guess you told them Ruskies!!!

[bigmack]

Russia, Chin, India, #2,3,4
I asked what you are going to do about it and you post a chart?

Well, I can feel the cool breeze already!
Guess you told them Ruskies!!!
hcap continues to peddle dated material ESPECIALLY when he can find those that put the US in a perceived poor light.

China be #1 by far.

[fast4522]

Obama is not going to say anything to Russia, China, or India. After all he knows who his daddy is . . . . . .

[boxcar]

Obama is not going to say anything to Russia, China, or India. After all he knows who his daddy is . . . . . .

And we certainly know the commie who was his mentor, don't we?

Boxcar

[Actor]

No, not another Global Warming thread!! :D

Is there anything faster than light? (http://gizmodo.com/5843006/faster-than-light-particles-could-wreck-einsteins-relativity-theory) Of course not. But the linked article says, "not so fast, my friend."


All Hail Science! :ThmbUp:So much for this not being another Global Warming thread. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Actor]

Wouldn't the entropy theory say that the metric for disorder is time? The forward arrow of time is a constant for an expanding universe. In other words, Car A in the field since 1950 is more disordered by 25 years than Car B in the field since 1975.No. Time is the independent variable. Entropy is the dependent variable.

The two cars do not necessarily decay at the same rate. If car A has been treated with a rust inhibitor and car B has not, then by 2000 car A's entropy may well be less than car B.

The second law holds only if no work is done on the system. If someone enters the field and restores car A (does work) then its entropy will be less that car B's entropy once the restoration is done. At what point during the restoration are the entropy's of the two cars equal? I.e., how do you measure entropy? What are its units?

[ArlJim78]

Half of the temperature increase from BEST doesn't exist.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

Latest annoucement is rubbish
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/07/28/muller-is-still-rubbish/

a paper so bad it was rejected for publication



BERKELEY EARTH STUDY REFEREE REPORTS: On September 8
2011 I was asked by Journal of Geophysical Research to be a reviewer for a paper
by Charlotte Wickham et al. presenting the Berkeley Earth Surface (http://berkeleyearth.org/)
Temperature (http://berkeleyearth.org/)



(http://berkeleyearth.org/) (“BEST”) analysis of the effect of urbanization on land
surface temperatures. This work is mainly associated with Richard Muller and his
various coauthors. I submitted my review just before the end of September 2011,
outlining what I saw were serious shortcomings in their methods and arguing that
their analysis does not establish valid grounds for the conclusions they assert.
I suggested the authors be asked to undertake a major revision.
In October
2011, despite the papers not being accepted, Richard Muller launched a major
international publicity blitz announcing the results of the “BEST” project. I
wrote to him and his coauthor Judy Curry objecting to the promotional initiative
since the critical comments of people like me were locked up under
confidentiality rules, and the papers had not been accepted for publication.
Richard stated that he felt there was no alternative since the studies would be
picked up by the press anyway. Later, when the journal turned the paper down and
asked for major revisions, I sought permission from Richard to release my
review. He requested that I post it without indicating I was a reviewer for JGR.
Since that was not feasible I simply kept it confidential.
On March 8 2012 I
was asked by JGR to review a revised version of the Wickham et al. paper. I
submitted my review at the end of March. The authors had made very few changes
and had not addressed any of the methodological problems, so I recommended the
paper not be published. I do not know what the journal’s decision was, but it is
4 months later and I can find no evidence on the BEST website that this or any
other BEST project paper has been accepted for publication.
On July 29 2012
Richard Muller launched another publicity blitz (e.g. here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind) and here (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)) claiming, among other
things, that “In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially
troublesome effects [including those related to urbanization and land surface
changes] unduly biased our conclusions.” Their failure to provide a proper
demonstration of this point had led me to recommend against publishing their
paper. This places me in an awkward position since I made an undertaking to JGR
to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process, but I have reason to
believe Muller et al.’s analysis does not support the conclusions he is now
asserting in the press.

[boxcar]

Hey Mack, he was on your side until he studied the issues.......

"Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions"


Remember he was commissioned by the Repugs in congress to deflate AGW. Instead he became one of US.

"Climate skeptic Richard Muller, who started up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature in 2010 in order to get at the real truth of climate change, last year published preliminary results showing that the climate establishment was right after all. Global temperatures really have been going up dramatically over the past century."

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_best_temperature_1800_2011.jpg

Hey, Hcap, you're celebrating one guy going on to your side after he "studied the issues", yet in the past you have dismissed the significance of numerous scientists coming over to the skeptics' side after they studied the issues, as well? This is so typical of you. The double-minded always want things both ways!

Boxcar

[Tom]

I remember when we used to call global warming....summer.

[hcap]

Hey, Hcap, you're celebrating one guy going on to your side after he "studied the issues", yet in the past you have dismissed the significance of numerous scientists coming over to the skeptics' side after they studied the issues, as well? This is so typical of you. The double-minded always want things both ways!

BoxcarYou guys are the ones dismissing the overwhelming number of climatologists supporting AGW. Take your heads out of your anal cavities

BTW, The consensus for just went from 97% to 97.1%. Richard Muller is not just a TV weatherman like the dummies you gentlemen parade out to argue against, but a well respected analytical scientist initially propped up by the congressional repugs hoping against hope to verify their skeptical point of view. This is ONE GIGANTIC OOPS for the idiots in congress and on this board.

As Gilda Ratner used to say "never mind" :lol: :lol: :lol:

[bigmack]

BTW, The consensus for just went from 97% to 97.1%. Richard Muller is not just a TV weatherman like the dummies you gentlemen parade out to argue against, but a well respected analytical scientist initially propped up by the congressional repugs hoping against hope to verify their skeptical point of view. This is ONE GIGANTIC OOPS for the idiots in congress and on this board.
hcap is like a Moonie who insults you after you refuse to buy his flower.

I'd stack up your nerd with Dr. Richard Lindzen any day of the week.

http://probaway.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/richard_muller.jpg
Richard "My mother picked out this tie" Muller

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/f/fa/Richardlindzen.jpg
Dr. Richard "Big Brain" Lindzen
Atmospheric physics

[hcap]

You are entitled to "buy" any flower that rocks your boat. Just remember who exactly is the "moonie" here.

Gee, I am wondering if you "buy" evolution or you are a protégé of you know who. It's perfectly acceptable to buy a 6,000 year old earth/universe, just don't pretend it is science

[bigmack]

Gee, I am wondering if you "buy" evolution or you are a protégé of you know who. It's perfectly acceptable to buy a 6,000 year old earth/universe, just don't pretend it is science
Do me a solid & take up your cultish diatribe with Lindzen. He'll have you for lunch. Scratch that. He'll have your lunch.

[boxcar]

You guys are the ones dismissing the overwhelming number of climatologists supporting AGW. Take your heads out of your anal cavities

BTW, The consensus for just went from 97% to 97.1%. Richard Muller is not just a TV weatherman like the dummies you gentlemen parade out to argue against, but a well respected analytical scientist initially propped up by the congressional repugs hoping against hope to verify their skeptical point of view. This is ONE GIGANTIC OOPS for the idiots in congress and on this board.

As Gilda Ratner used to say "never mind" :lol: :lol: :lol:

Typical straw man reply, also. The many scientists who have seen the light are far more than mere weathermen.

Of course, the spineless scientists who don't want to lose a job due to loss of grants are going to support AGW. It's their bread and butter! And being "yes" men, also puts that roof over their heads. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/results-paper-july-8.pdf

"Many of the changes in land-surface temperature follow a simple linear combination of volcanic forcing (based on estimates of stratospheric sulfate injection) and an anthropogenic term represented here by the logarithm of the CO2 concentration....When we included solar forcing we found that the solar variability record assumed by the IPCC did not contribute significantly to the fit of historic temperature.

....After accounting for volcanic and anthropogenic effects, the residual variability in land-surface temperature is observed to closely mirror and for slower changes slightly lead variations in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index. This is consistent with both the land and North Atlantic responding [to] the same unknown process....Though non-trivial, this number is small compared to the anthropogenic changes that appear to have occurred during the last century".





This means that (a) volcanoes cause short-term spikes in the climate record, (b) changes in solar activity have virtually no effect, and (c) periodic oscillation in North Atlantic sea temperatures accounts for some of the variability we see in the temperature record. However, the primary cause of warming since 1800 is anthropogenic. That is to say: humans did it. Carbon dioxide has produced virtually all of the warming that we see around us today, at the rate of about 3.1 degrees C for every doubling of atmospheric CO2. The chart below shows the close match between CO2 levels, volcanic activity, and surface temperature.

This is pretty much the same result produced by the IPCC and the consensus of every climate scientist working today. The skeptics dived into the data, crunched it in an entirely different way, and came up with the same result: Global warming is real and human activity causes it.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_best_temperature_fit.jpg


Mack, who is that scary guy, YOU?

[bigmack]

You REALLY have to get your head out of graphs and ax yourself who these nerds are that you keep following.

Muller & his daughter came to the conclusion changes in solar activity have virtually no effect. That's right, nerd & his daughter believe solar activity doesn't effect our climate. And YOU buy it. :D
-----
Come on man, haven't you hoid? I'm pretty & youthful. That be my boy. Russian composer, Stravinsky.

Igor.

[hcap]

See your Stravinsky. Raise a Copland

Aaron

http://www.amuseum.org/jahf/nomination/copland.jpg


Funny the way Mr Muller was the darling of the congressional retugs and the way he was funded by the creepy Koch brothers before he turned big time

[Tom]

So hcap, are you boycotting ALL goods made in China and Italy?
Or are you enabling global warming by funding those who cause it?

Where did you get your carbon free computer from?

[Greyfox]

Pluto has lost it's planet status.

But Pluto is still in the outskirts of our solar system.

10 years ago, M.I.T scientists reported that for some reason, Pluto was undergoing Global Warming.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

The obvious conclusion has to be that Global Warming is caused by humans. :rolleyes:

(It has to be Earthlings who are causing that. Plutonians rely on cold fusion.)

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
-----
Come on man, haven't you hoid? I'm pretty & youthful. That be my boy. Russian composer, Stravinsky.

Igor.

Dang I thought it was this fellow...

GUfS8LyeUyM

[bigmack]

Dang I thought it was this fellow...

Yeah, I can see the resemblance. They all my fellow Jewish brethren. hcap, too. ;)

Speaka the devil, damn guy threw me a screwball with AaronC. I love AC. Not as brutal as Igor, but a nice slice of Americana.

I ended up revisiting a pile of Copeland this afternoon. Not bad, hclap. (Ooo, never used that one befere)

Now here's LennyC. I always dug that story about him going into seclusion up at Mt. Baldy for 5 years. I gave seclusion a whirl for creative reasons. Damn place I held up in had a weed problem. (Lawn, that is)

Yo, where you been? Miss your level head around this joint. You still poppin' heavy whites? :D

cr6CnG5dmvM

[hcap]

Yeah, I can see the resemblance. They all my fellow Jewish brethren. hcap, too. ;)

Speaka the devil, damn guy threw me a screwball with AaronC. I love AC. Not as brutal as Igor, but a nice slice of Americana.

I ended up revisiting a pile of Copeland this afternoon. Not bad, hclap. (Ooo, never used that one befere)

Now here's LennyC. I always dug that story about him going into seclusion up at Mt. Baldy for 5 years. I gave seclusion a whirl for creative reasons. Damn place I held up in had a weed problem. (Lawn, that is)

Yo, where you been? Miss your level head around this joint. You still poppin' heavy whites? :D

cr6CnG5dmvMWonderful piece. One of my all time favorites.

Mt Baldy is not too shabby either. Roshi is now over 100 and still active. LC was not totally in seclusion. There are usually many other monks there studying under Roshi.

[Tom]

xeNAgBFmJpM

[Ocala Mike]

I love AC.



Me too. You realize, of course, that he was allegedly known as "comrade" Copland, although he denied ever being a "card carrier."

[Actor]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/05/us/climate-change/index.html?iref=allsearch

[johnhannibalsmith]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/05/us/climate-change/index.html?iref=allsearch

Saw this yesterday and figured nobody linked to the story because Hansen put out the study.

[hcap]

Saw this yesterday and figured nobody linked to the story because Hansen put out the study.I linked to and highlighted the Muller story even though the primary source of funds was the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video

"On his Facebook page, Mann wrote: “There is a certain ironic satisfaction in seeing a study funded by the Koch Brothers — the greatest funders of climate change denial and disinformation on the planet — demonstrate what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades: that the globe is indeed warming, and that this warming can only be explained by human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them, without regard for the possible political repercussions.”

[bigmack]

I linked to and highlighted the Muller story even though the primary source of funds was the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation
After all this, you come back with Micky Mann & the Koch Bro's?

Why, after all your floundering do I feel the need to assemble the old team, secure a safe house, and start Operation Deprogram Harry?

[hcap]

Mack, your middle name is "FLOUNDER"

Speaking pf de-program. You should start with Mr James Inholfe

"Q. What do you believe is the motive of the U.N.? What is the motive of the scientists who are perpetrating the hoax? How do you think they stand to benefit?

A. Inholfe: They stand to benefit [from] government grants and private sector grants [from places] like the Heinz Foundation.

[fast4522]

Just the facts.