Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2014, 06:21:44 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83028 Posts in 2258 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 23, 2012, 03:51:50 PM
Woof Guro C.,

I can't say I was blown away by any of those articles.  So there could be (and probably are) factors that limit the potential catastrophic effects of AGW.  This seems like a rather uncontroversial hypothesis to me.  I'm surprised they devoted so much space and supposedly erudite mathematical equations to the topic.  It could have been a line or two.  Temp goes up a bit, more water vapor, more clouds, more IR reflectance.  Next.

Quote
"the effect of solar activity on climate cannot be neglected in any period of the millennium."

I guess the law of conservation of energy wasn't repealed after all.  Of course this is a true statement and again is about as uncontroversial as anything I have ever read.  As I have indicated previously the Max Planck institute has indicated that solar power output has not changed in the last 50 years.  Do you have anything that indicates that solar output has increased because I don't.  I'm still struggling with how solar flares are supposed to have some effect on this.

Chuck
2  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 23, 2012, 03:38:33 PM
Woof Doug,

Quote
Complete straw argument or false observation IMO that the people pressing for the policies that grow revenues most during these times of paralyzing deficits want to minimize revenues

Well, Guro C. would be one of those people who are not interested in maximizing the revenue that the government receives so I'm thinking that my argument can't be totally false.  

Chuck
3  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 23, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
Woof BBG,

Quote
By excising a sentence fragment, ignoring the pieces, facts, and quotes I have provided, and then taking a high moral tone? Let me know how that works out.

What have you provided?  Articles ad infinitum indicating that it is difficult to measure changes in the temperature of the planet.  yawn.  tell me something I don't already know full well.  Show me where one single scientist indicated that carbon dioxide is the sole variable that changes the temperature of the planet or affects the weather.  That is what you are claiming they are saying.  I'm saying Bull.

Quote
What a silly comparison.

Unfortunately it went over your head.

Quote
I'm a lay cave scientist, hence my fascination with carbonic acid infiltration of sandstone microlineaments in Karst formations.


And I have spent 20+ years addressing issues associated with calcite and aragonite precipitation in water treatment systems.  This is a topic I understand quite well.

Quote
That does not mean, however, that I have to accept the premise that rising CO2 levels are causing warming many vocal folks consider catastrophic,


Am I supposedly one of those folks?

Quote
Physics theory gets raised and replied to with snap kicks marching the other way.

I have yet to see any physics discussion.  The only thing we have been discussing so far has been BBG, G.M., and Guro C IMO.  I have been itching for that physics discussion for a while hence my wonderment at you saying that I am slippery.  

Quote
I do have strong suspicions, however, that scientists with political ends and politicians in need of scientific means have found a window amid the current interglacial interlude during which they can present a non-falsifiable scenario meant to stampede the unwashed masses toward their authoritarian ends.

Now this just sounds like conspiracy theory.  Instead look at the underlying science which is not political in nature last time I checked.  You have yet to do it.

Quote
Yeah, "settled science" as they just get the tools to study the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. All roads lead to the carbon dioxide fetish, I guess.


Hmm, like a cloud chamber ionizing radiation detector?  A rather old tool last time I checked.  But sure, maybe the sky fairy will send us more ionization radiation to save us from the effects of global warming.  What exactly that has to do with the underlying theory I have no idea.  I thought people quit talking about the health effects of ionizing radiation back in the early 1900s but perhaps it will make a comeback.

I remember when you said that the global warming effects of water were more pronounced and less studied than CO2.  A rather silly comment when you consider that the greenhouse gas effects of water vapor have been studied from the mid 1800s and is considered to be the only reason that life is possible on the planet Earth.  If you would quit trying to prove that we can't accurately measure the temperature of the planet, and actually look at the rest of science, you might have known this.

Quote
As that may be, don't ask the question if you don't want it answered, particularly as you'd have to be living under a rock not to have been bombarded by "global warming is gonna doom us all" foolishness.


Still looking for my quote.  i guess I'm not going to get it.  Scientists say that the temperature of the earth will change by, last time I checked, 4 degrees celcius.  I would hardly say that is a doom and gloom forecast.  That is your language, not theirs.  

Quote
And your non-responsivness knows few bounds. Don't change the terms of debate and I won't call you on it.

No clue what you are talking about here.  Can you elaborate?

Quote
I did indeed misremember the ocean acidification factor: it was 1.4 molars.

er, 1.4 pH units which is not the same as molarity by any stretch.  Just put it on your list.

Chuck
4  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 16, 2012, 06:41:10 AM
Woof Guro C.,

It would be of some interest to me to track down the relevant semilog graphs and do a little graphical analysis of the periods that you mention, but I haven't done it yet.  Let's assume for now that what you said is demonstrated by the data.  There are still some interesting points.

1.  Although the precise shape of the Laffer Curve isn't known, it clearly suggests that the amount of change in revenue and I would hazard in GDP becomes incrementally lower as you approach a deminimus average tax rate.  The fact that we have had multiple reductions in tax rate in this country which has pushed us toward whatever that deminimus rate might be has in no way diminished how vocal the proponents of the Laffer Curve are. 

2.  Although the Laffer curve is posited as a way to increase government revenue or at least hold it nearly constant while reducing tax rates, it is nearly always held up as a model by people that don't want to maximize government revenue but would rather minimize it.

If I were only to analyze those two points, I would surely come to the conclusion that the Laffer Curve was junk.

chuck

5  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 16, 2012, 06:34:41 AM
Woof G.M.,

I have already told you that there is underlying science that says that there is something there.  Science that you either refuse to look at or are incapable of understanding.  Of course you don't believe that AGW is possible.  You haven't remotely looked at it.  Again, I find this to be an outstanding topic for the Pathological Science thread, so thanks for that.

Chuck
6  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 13, 2012, 10:58:17 AM
Woof,

Quote
The point as I understand it is that whatever fluctuations we may or may not be seeing are well within the range of variability that we have seen before human industrialization.

This may be true, but there could be an effect from the CO2 which is additive or subtractive with other effects.  Thus if there is something to the AGW theory, then at some point in the future there could be a problem which is not fully mitigated by whatever cooling effects might exist.  It would be nice to scientifically analyze the AGW prior to that date which I would contend isn't precisely happening right now.

I will paraphrase an example that you will completely understand.  I'll use only initials to protect the identities of those involved:

GC:  Higher taxes are a drag on the economy reducing GDP and therefore government revenue.

CB:  But I can point to numerous periods in our past and other countries where there were higher taxation rates than now which also had comparatively higher standards of living, prosperity, and the government was solvent.

GC:  Well there are other factors that effect economies which can swamp the effects of the higher tax rates.

CB:  Well if the effect that you are describing is so easily swamped by other factors, why do we spend so much time discussing it and why are we trying to set taxation rates based on this principle:

GC:  Because higher taxation rates are a burden on the economy even if it is buoyed by other factors.  

CB:  Well can I see some sort of proof?  Underlying mathematics?  Etc?  

And on it goes.

Quote
Umm , , , not really.  The answer, as I understand it is that we are well within the range of variability that we have seen before human industrialization.

Probably so, but this does not argue against CO2 increases due to industrialization.  If there is another hypothesis for the 20th century CO2 increase, I have not seen it.  It seems to me that most people accept that industrialization is the cause of the recent increase in CO2 and simply are not worrying about it.

Code:
But it does seem satisfactory to me.  We have ALWAYS seen change and do so now, within previous parameters.

No one argues this but this seems to me to fall into "What me worry?" land.  If a doctor told you that you had six months to live, you probably would tell him that you feel fine, assuming that you did.  Then you would immediately ask him for his reasoning.  What you wouldn't do, I think, is point out all the times in the past that you felt fine and lived, and then point out all the times in the past where you felt crappy and lived.  I don't see many people trying to understand the AGW reasoning but are rather focused on temperatures right now and temperatures in the past.  

I'm not excusing any shenanigans by scientists who study AGW who may have fudged things or prepared what should have obviously been a bad model, but...  I do feel for people that have no way to explain to the common man in a language that they typically use the work that they are doing which I would say in part encourages BS.

Quote
If you are referring to my posts concerning sun spots, the assertion was not that the sun had gotten brighter, it was that sun spots/solar flares seem to have an empirical coorelation that provides an alternative hypothesis-- something for which you have been asking.

There have been some people that have hypothesized that the sun has put out more energy but the info from the Max Planck institute seems to contradict that.  I will try to look at the sunspot hypothesis a little more but since sunspots are not generally that I know of linked to greater energy flux to the planet, the connection seems tenuous to me right now.

Chuck
7  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 13, 2012, 08:09:09 AM
Woof BBG,

I calculated the maximum concentration of carbon dioxide in water and it is 6 millimolar so your memory isn't quite right on this.  You can dissolve more if you have an excess of carbonate in the water resulting in removal by chemical reaction.  I'm interested in the study if you can lay your hands on it.

Chuck
8  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 13, 2012, 07:47:51 AM
Woof Guro C.,

I understand what you are saying.  If you take my word for it that there might be something to AGW and we do have measured changes in CO2, and it certainly appears that there has been a small increase in the temperature of the planet over the last 50 or so years, when someone says that CO2 is not responsible where I come from you expect them to provide an alternate hypothesis.  Just saying that there are many factors that affect the climate but not putting forth a hypothesis which could be responsible for the change doesn't seem to satisfactory to me.  And from what I have seen the sun does not seem to have gotten brighter and that is a fairly easy thing for us to measure so that does not seem to be the likely cause.

On another topic, I'm hanging here in south texas at a refinery.  Believe it or not I get along fine with the collection of right wingers that works there.  The controls engineer owns a house near San Antonio that overlies some shale deposits.  A well has been installed which recovers from an area that underlies his farm so he got a nice chunk of change for the mineral rights plus royalties.  Since this is a shale it needs to be fracked before it can produce.  He has apparently lived in the area for his entire life and just felt his first earthquake.  Apparently they also run a gas sweetening operation close to his house and are venting noticeable quantities of some nasty gas like sulfur dioxide or hydrogen sulfide.  He doesn't care about either the earthquakes or the gas but then he is a right winger and $120,000 for the mineral rights plus royalties might have a little something to do with it too.

Chuck
9  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 12, 2012, 09:30:52 PM
Woof BBG,

Quote
slippery method of debate

Slippery?  I am asking you to provide facts and quotes.  I am striving for the opposite of slippery.

Quote
I was hoping that would suggest that the high degree of confidence embraced by most on the AGW side of things might therefore be misplaced. My guess is that you are capable of grasping these sort of nuances, though it is not the ground on which you want to fight

That is exactly the ground I want to fight.  I want to go back and talk about the actual underlying science and work from there.  You seem to want to prove ad infinitum that it is difficult to quantify temperature changes on the earth and other large physical systems.  Why don't you go prove that boxers punch people in the face while you are at it?

Quote
And then when it rains the H2O bonds with carbon on the way down, forming a mild form of carbonic acid that have others on your side of the argument lamenting ocean acidification.


Ocean acidification is a separate and worthy discussion.  Let me know if you want to have it.  I'm currently working on a nitrification water treatment plant and the relevant bacteria do not shrug off minor pH changes.  They go dormant.  Not all organisms behave the same way.  I personally don't take a cavalier attitude towards poorly understood systems.

And what precisely is this mild form of carbonic acid that you are referring to?  CO2 is known to dissolve in water.  Not exactly a great mystery.  But if I want to know the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere I don't go grab the Encyclopedia Brittanica and start researching photosynthesis.  I just grab an oxygen meter and and take a measurement.  So again, I fail to understand why you are talking about KNOWN CO2 sinks when I can simply look at the old number and then look at the current number.  Do you want to talk about predicting future CO2 concentrations?  If so, what you are talking about is of relevance.  I didn't realize we were trying to figure that out.

Quote
Despite the fact that water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 it is much less studied than CO2 the AGW folks fixate on

And this is the discussion that we WOULD have had if you had bothered to look at the underlying science.  BTW water vapor is already fully accounted for and is the reason why this planet is livable.  Thanks water.  CO2 seems to be changing hence the interest.

Quote
Well there's this fellow named Al Gore who made a move about it; perhaps you can look it up on IMDB

I want you to provide a quotation indicating that someone thinks that CO2 is the only reason why the climate is changing.  That is the quote, or something close to it, that I want.  You seem to think that these scientists completely discount all other reasons why the climate could be changing.  Well if one of them truly said it, then you should be able to provide that quotation.  And way to pick a movie made by a non-scientist to prove a point and then not even provide a relevant quote.  BTW I have never seen the movie in question so you will have to get me a quote from it to make your point.

Quote
Variable has a very specific meaning in a scientific context and in the context we are discussing

Well I guess my education never ceases tongue

Quote
Variable has a very specific meaning in a scientific context and in the context we are discussing I am quite comfortable saying that CO2 atmospheric concentrations are the variable AGW proponents have seized on while evangelizing about how we must end our wicked ways lest we are smote by global warming, climate change, or whatever the flavor of this week Scary Thing is.

CO2 seems to be of particular interest to me and others because it is the variable that we have some control over.  Last time I checked we didn't much control over the amount of water vapor in the air, the wavelengths and intensity of sunlight, or the ability of various molecules to transmit or absorb various wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.

Chuck
10  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 08, 2012, 11:02:26 AM
Woof CCP,

Plates shift all the time.  I'm sure there is an active fault in the Youngstown, OH area.  I'm not saying that fracking caused the shift but rather that it could have led to the release of stored energy in the observed manner.  

The "expert" made the claim that the epicenter of the earthquake was not at a level that is observed in the Youngstown area.  This would be an easily verified point considering that we closely track the epicenters of earthquakes.  In my opinion, this man made a point that could easily be proved or disproved through research yet you indicted his opinion based on the supposed politics of the university that he is from.  Rather unscientific IMO.

Chuck
11  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 07, 2012, 01:53:21 PM
Woof CCP,

The actual scientist in the article is a little more circumspect about the earthquake than you are giving him credit for.  It is KNOWN that fracking can cause minor earthquakes to occur.  Whether it can cause one that is 4.0 on the richter scale is not proven at this time to my knowledge but it doesn't mean it can't happen.  You realize of course that fracking actually doesn't cause earthquakes, but tectonic motion does, right?  Are you saying it is IMPOSSIBLE that fracking could be the trigger for an earthquake once the stored energy was already present?

Chuck
12  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 06, 2012, 10:31:28 AM
Woof BBG,

You seem fixated on these gravitons.  I'm not even convinced that they exist.  We currently believe that gravity is instantaneous which makes it faster than light.  If we have to postulate the existence of a particle that moves at instantaneous speeds, then I have a problem with that postulate.  If we assume that these particles don't actually move terribly much but exist as a sort of ether that can propagate a gravity wave, then we are still saying that they can propagate this wave at near instantaneous speeds which is something that we don't have the ability to account for.  I'm definitely allowing for the possibility that there is some completely different means by which gravity is propagated than a particle.  

Quote
If we are going to hold a single variable accountable for some sort of coming conflagration

I still know of no one that is doing this.

Quote
3/4s of the planet is covered by water which warehouses huge quantities CO2, yet we do not understand how CO2 exchanges between the two media, particularly over time.

I have already said that the concentration of CO2 in water which exists as one of the carbonates has a significant effect on the concentration of CO2 in the atmopshere.  But that is largely irrelevant when I can simply go measure the atmospheric concentration of CO2.  It used to be off the top of my head 280 ppm in the early 1900s.  It is now again off the top of my head around 400.  The ocean did whatever it did during that time and the concentration came up.  These are facts.  The increase in concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere changed the manner in which the atmosphere absorbed infrared light.  This is also fact.  Perhaps it didn't change it much but it did change.  This is all independent of where the CO2 goes.

Quote
You want me to post that silly hockey stick graph with the temps and CO2 levels correlated over time, save for the Medieval Warming Period?

Instead of posting someone's bad prediction, perhaps you could post a quotation by that person indicating that CO2 is the only factor governing the temperature of the planet.  Considering that water vapor is obviously the more significant greenhouse gas and that aerasol particulates have a large effect (which is also well known), I'm guessing you cannot find this quote.  If you can point me to a person that actually said that, then I will show you a fool.

Chuck
13  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 05, 2012, 01:48:38 PM
Woof Guro C.,

I can provide you with a wide variety of experiments that could prove or deny the existence of AGW but unfortunately they require that I construct new planets to my specifications and then carefully control the atmospheres of them.  Obviously I can't do that so I look closely at the mathematics and science instead.  There seems to be this idea that somehow scientific ideas are better if they can be experimentally verified.  It could simply be that we can construct the experiments to test some ideas due to scale and that other ideas should be rigorously tested mathematically and theoretically because we can't do the experiments.  That doesn't mean that tested hypotheses are necessarily better, but simply that they have been tested.

Quote
IF AGW is swamped by other factors and thus is not a big deal, then why put our government, or worse yet, the UN in charge of the weather-- financed by the US taxpayer?!?

Note that I never recommended that we do anything different wink  I said that I looked at the underlying data.  I didn't precisely say what I found.  I do however find that this discussion of how people come by very heartfelt opinionis on complex topics that they have not delved deeply into to be outstanding material for the Pathological Science thread.   smiley  I do believe that we should have an honest discussion about the risks and there has been a marked failure on both sides IMO.  If God giveth, God can take away.  If some other factor is swamping the effects of AGW, there is nothing that says it is eternal.

@BBG

Quote
Do we have experimentally verified gravitons that I missed?

Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which is not a theory of gravitation) predicted bending of light which was later experimentally verified and also predicted the existence of black holes.  The LAWS of gravitation are experimentally verified probably many times every day.  There are a rather wide variety of experiments on gravitation that can be performed.  I also specifically said why they don't answer the questions required to become a Theory of Gravitation although there are many aspects of the theories that are out there that can be verified.  Perhaps I should use the word hypotheses but I was using the word that the authors of the "theories" used.

Quote
Easily measure the concentrations of CO2 in all bodies of water on the planet? I guess Alvin has been busy. Just when did this occur?


You are going to have to remind me what this has to do with changing the absorption of infrared light by the ATMOSPHERE.  I already said this governs some removal mechanisms in accordance with Henry's Law.  It also has bearing on the analysis of potential damage to ecological systems.

Quote
Well thank goodness then that whole "hockey stick" thing was some sort of grievous misunderstanding. Has Dr. Mann been informed?

You are going to have to remind me where one of them said that CO2 concentrations were the only factor that affected atmospheric temperatures.

Chuck
14  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 04, 2012, 04:55:06 PM
Woof Guro C.,

I believe I looked at the correct articles which were talking about cosmic rays increasing cloud formation and also solar activity.  I couldn't get the vid to run, but a cloud chamber radiation detector uses the same principle so I don't doubt what they are saying.  Sure.  Clouds will likely reflect incoming light so increasing the number of them should decrease surface temperatures.  So would increasing the amount of aerasol particulates.  These are the things that may keep AGW from being a big deal, but it doesn't address AGW itself.

The other article talks about solar output driving temperature changes.  The chart that I have looked at shows solar output constant or decreasing over the period of the last 50 or so years as indicated by the Max Planck institute.  At any rate, all discussions of AGW in my mind are overly concerned with actual temperature changes and not sufficiently concerned with the underlying science as I have indicated before.  We all know that measuring temperature changes on the planet earth is difficult but the underlying science isn't.  I haven't seen a good rebuttal of the underlying sciences because everyone has been too focused on temperatures themselves.

Chuck
15  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 04, 2012, 04:14:11 PM
Woof G.M.,

Quote
No proof. No evidence.

We simply don't use these words in the same manner.  Not much more I can say than that.

I'm curious.  What do you think that my take on AGW is?  I'm guessing that you would be wrong.

@BBG,

Quote
Chuck is right that there are many theories that explain gravitation, though none that are experimentally verifiable.

Actually many of them are experimentally verifiable but they fail to account for all instances and they fail to tell us what gravity is although they can tell us what it does.  Accordingly many people do not consider them to be theories but rather are laws.

Quote
Do we understand the CO2 absorption cycle of the water that covers three quarters of the planet?

But we can easily measure atmospheric concentrations of CO2 so this unit is only related to removal mechanisms but not instantaneous estimates of the heat trapping ability of the planet's atmosphere.

Quote
Do we have geologically significant data sets that correlate the sun's cycles to climate fluctuations?

But we can measure solar energy striking the planet, we can determine the spectrum of light that strikes the planet and we can determine the spectrum of light that leaves the planet which puts us well on the way toward calculating energy accumulation.

Quote
Bottom line there are a huge number of variables that we've barely begun to catalog

Anyone that ever claimed otherwise was a fool and I have met few people that would make such claims.

Quote
To claim a settled science comprised of a single variable is the iron clad truth is silly

Perhaps it is a single variable, but the only way that energy enters or leaves this planet is as electromagnetic radiation so it seems rather important.

Reviewing Guro C's articles.

Chuck
16  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 08:46:03 PM
Woof G.M.,

Well let's see.  This looks like the pathological science thread and not the burger king thread where you get everything your way.  I know this because I asked you to tell me what you thought was incorrect about the global warming theory and you have yet to respond.  I think that was 24 posts ago by my count.

Now I already indicated that the underlying science indicated that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming and where I come from that puts you a pretty long way toward having proof.  The author of the article that was cited by Guro C. indicated that he firmly believed that AGW was occurring but that it wasn't going to change the temperature of the planet enough to worrry about.  Obviously that man thought that the evidence was there that the planet was warming but wasn't concerned about the magnitude of the effects.

I posted a graph earlier today that indicated that by several measures the temperature of the planet has increased by approximately one degree Fahrenheit while the output of the sun dropped slightly which indicates to me that AGW is at least a decent hypothesis for the increase in temperature.  AGW has a background in science.  The evidence indicates that temp increased while solar output fell.  That puts the ball squarely in your court to provide me with an alternate hypothesis for the temperature increase.  

Chuck  
17  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 04:16:07 PM
Woof,

ROFL.  Imagine if I came to you with 47 different theories of AGW some of which required imaginary particles.  You would laugh in my face.  This might help you out.



When we reach this point we will have a Theory of Gravity.  Until that time, THERE IS NO THEORY OF GRAVITY in spite of the fact that some people and Wikipedia seem to use that nomenlature.

Chuck
18  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 03:15:21 PM
Woof G.M.,

Thanks for CONTINUING to make my case.  How many competing theories are there?  You keep providing me with more ammo.  If there was a theory of gravity that we accepted, then you would provide me with that theory.  Instead you provide me with a whole smorgasbord of theories to describe the SAME phenomenon.  Again thank you for your hard work.  I couldn't have pulled together this exhaustive list of all the competing theories of gravitation without your help.  Read this again as needed.  THERE IS NO THEORY OF GRAVITY.

Chuck
19  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 03:08:17 PM
Woof,

Yah.  And maybe a little science too.  Again, at least it doesn't require the postulate of an imaginary particle.  That's right up there with "God just willed it" which is probably just as accurate.  Funny that you now support theories that require the existence of an imaginary particle but can't support a theory that is based on measurable physical properties of various common compounds.  The worm has turned methinks.

Hehe.  And I have a theory for you.  Some government at some point attempted to teach you math and science and didn't get a lot of bang for their buck.

Chuck
20  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 02:57:09 PM
Woof G.M.,

You mean those theories that rely on the existence of an imaginary particle?  Those theories?  Again.  LOL.  It sure sounds like AGW rests on solid bedrock to me by comparison.  At least it doesn't require the existing of an imaginary particle.  Distraction?  Hardly.  This is rich.  I just love watching you hunt down things on the internet that you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about.  LOLOLOLOL

Chuck
21  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 02:43:54 PM
Woof G.M.,

Actually I am.  Try to learn something.  If you have to postulate the existence of hypothetical particles that can't be detected, then perhaps your theory might need some work.  Yes?

From Wikipedia, your favorite source it seems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Quote
In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton must be massless (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2. This is because the source of gravitation is the stress-energy tensor, a second-rank tensor, compared to electromagnetism, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor. Additionally, it can be shown that any massless spin-2 field would be indistinguishable from gravitation, because a massless spin-2 field must couple to (interact with) the stress-energy tensor in the same way that the gravitational field does.[4] This result suggests that if a massless spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton, so that the only experimental verification needed for the graviton may simply be the discovery of a massless spin-2 particle.[5]

Chuck
22  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 02:34:55 PM
Woof G.M.,

I'm sorry but those are not theories of gravitation despite what Wikipedia says.  They are mathematical relationships that tell you what gravity does.  They tell you nothing about why it exists and are simply more precise ways of dealing with gravity as defined by Newton's Law of Gravitation.  I'm not really interested in explaining the difference to you.

Chuck
23  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 02:01:09 PM
Woof G.M,

So provide me with that theory that explains why you don't fall off the planet.  I want the ONE accepted theory that tells me what transpires between you and the planet earth which keeps you from falling off.  Gravity is a force.  Tell me why that force exists.  I was unable to Google-Fu that piece of information.  You are suggesting that you will have better luck so go for it.

Chuck
24  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 01:51:21 PM
Woof G.M.,

I think we can safely say at this point that you don't know the scientific meaning of the word theory.  When you have a theory of gravitation, there are no "different theories".  You have a theory.  Accordingly THERE IS NO THEORY OF GRAVITATION.  They are at best at the hypothesis point on your handy dandy chart. 

Quote
We can measure it and make reliable predictions around it.

Yes.  We have several ways of doing this.  That's why gravity is a LAW.  When you can tell me they why of it, then you will have a THEORY.

Quote
Can we measure AGW?

Pretty sure we can.

Quote
Can we make reliable predictions around it?


They haven't been the best so far.  If you would prefer to call it the AGW hypothesis, you won't hurt my feelings any.

Chuck
25  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 01:36:38 PM
Woof G.M.,

Seriously.  There is no theory of gravity.  There is no accepted explanation for why the phenomenon that we call gravitation exists.  There are sets of equations that we use that very precisely define what gravity does.  We understand gravity.  We accept that it exists.  We do not know the why of it plain and simple.  If you think there is some theory out there then post me a link to an article that explains why you do not float off of the earth.  I want to know exactly what transpires between you and the earth that makes this happen.

Chuck
26  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 01:23:33 PM
Woof G.M.,

Did you even read what you posted?  People are discussing which theory of gravity is correct.  They are postulating an "alternative" theory.  Go back to your handy dandy little chart on the topic.  Does that make sense that based on your chart people could be discussing that people could be discussing which theory is right?

Again.  ROFL.  There is no theory of gravity.  There are laws of gravitation. Try to understand the difference.  People are trying to put together a theory of gravity.  We will know when it happens because they will get the Nobel prize.  

Chuck
27  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 12:56:46 PM
Woof G.M.,

Excuse my french, but LOFL.  You posted an article on the scientific method whose goal was to bash scientists that believe that global warming could have manmade causes that talked about a theory of gravity.  Read this as often as necessary.  THERE IS NO THEORY OF GRAVITY.  Gravity is an observed phenomenon.  We have a set of correlations called the Newton's Law of Gravitation that we can use to calculate gravitational forces.  If you need to get medieval on the calcs, you can use the General Theory of Relativity which is still not a theory of gravity.  There is no one that can explain why that mass that is YOU is attracted to the mass that is the EARTH.  We simply know that it happens and we calculate the magnitude of that force.  That is not a theory.

And thanks.  This has to be the funniest thing I have seen in something like 300 years give or take a few.  LOL.

Chuck
28  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 12:54:37 PM
Woof Guro C.,

Chart on this page titled temperature v. solar activity sure seems to suggest that the sun is not the culprit.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Chuck
29  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 11:28:46 AM
Woof G.M.,

Why would you put together a hypothesis if you didn't believe that something had promise in the first place?  You wouldn't.  I used the word "believe" in the first place.  You were the one that changed it to "belief".

And coming from someone that just posted an article that talked about a theory of gravity.  ROFL. 

Chuck
30  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 11:01:05 AM
Woof G.M.,

Actually belief is between observations and hypothesis.  They just don't write it in because most people know that it is there.

Still waiting for your analysis of the underlying theory.  Post number 10 or so now where I have asked for it.

And by the way, there is no theory of gravity despite the article that you posted showing the scientific method saying that there is one.  I figured you would have caught that  smiley

Chuck
31  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 10:45:50 AM
Woof G.M.,

Quote
It is when they start pushing a political agenda wanting money and power.


Well if you are only going to undetake the most superficial analysis of something that you don't want to believe in the first place, then I suppose you would never be convinced.

I guess they didn't change the scientific method after all in the 25 years since I was in college.  Who knew?

Paul Ehrlich wasn't making scientific predictions there.  If you can't discern that, then I think I see what the problem is here.  I want to know what YOU think is wrong with the theory itself.  Telling me that someone made a bad prediction that wasn't based on science doesn't tell me much of anything.  What don't YOU think is correct about the theory?

@Doug,

It is well established that the Earth is subject to multiple climatic influences.  I believe it has been ruled out that changes in solar output are responsible for this one.  Any other hypothesis you want to throw out there?

Quote
We make a 120 degree adjustment every year with little problem.

We also have the ability to control the temperature of our buildings plus humans are one of the more adaptable creatures.  Some species are extremely sensitive to high temperatures and changes in rainfall (something else that we have innoculated ourselves against) so multiple high temp days are hard on them.  

Quote
I saw Copper Mountain Colo ski resort warning their customers that global warming could end mountain skiing so they were buy wind credits to offset their lift energy use a few years back and then I saw Snowbird Utah open until 4th of July last summer.  It is hard to get information that is global.


You follow me that it doesn't have to be that cold to snow.  It seems like a plausible hypothesis to me that warmer temperatures would lead to greater evaporation of water leading to more snowfall and a greater snowpack.  Also, we expect lots of variation in the weather from year to year so that could completely account for it too.  

Chuck
32  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 06:57:17 AM
Woof Guro C.,

I have seen that article before and I am not that impressed.  Millions of people starved in the Soviet Union under Stalin's regime because of some wackjob's theories on genetics?  And to think that people have thought these last 80 some years that the famines in Russia were due to the complete failure of the farm system as a result of collectivization by Stalin.  You learn something new every day.

More to the point.  The author agrees that manmade global warming is occurring which apparently some people still doubt for reasons that escape me.  He then goes on about how the temperature changes probably won't be that great and will probably be on the order of 1.2 degrees C.  He then says that there is uncertainty about whether various phenomena such as clouds, etc. will amplify or lessen the effect.

First of all, I don't think that 1.2 degrees C is necessarily as harmless as he characterizes.  Anyone who has ever attempted to saute something knows that objects do not heat evenly.  If the average temperature of the planet changes in temp by only 1.2 degrees C some places could be unaffected and others could see much higher changes in temperature.  The peoples and species that live in those areas could seriously take it on the chin particularly if that falls on a stressed or already hot area.  Obviously certain species are more temperature sensitive than others and it doesn't take a huge change to affect them.  Even the small changes that have happened already are making it such that areas in California that were ideal for pinot noir grapes are now going to be better suited for grapes that can deal with higher temperatures such as Syrah or Cabernet.  People whose ability to earn a living is subject to the vagaries of the weather are not worrying about the he said, she said BS of Climategate, or waiting with bated breath for the latest utterance from Senator James Imhofe and instead are considering whether they need to replant fields with different crops based on the quality of the product that they are measuring.  California's loss is Oregon's gain on this one so mileage will vary.

Second of all, the author talks about the uncertainty of whether phenomena on the planet will damp or hype the affects of global warming as a reason for inaction.  I say it is a reason for serious analysis of the problem which I think has been lacking on both sides of the fence.  The true believers that he decries have their precise analog in the true doubters that can't imagine that humans could affect the climate one way or another.  Those people on both sides can both pound sand.  Hopefully reasoning people can then have a serious discussion about the topic.  Does anyone really think that Senator James Imhofe is providing good insight here?  Does anyone think that fair and balanced Fox News is remotely fair and balanced on this topic?  Currently if there are heavy snows, the commentators on Fox News laugh at Al Gore.  I used to live up north.  It actually doesn't need to be cold to snow.  Is this the level of scientific discussion we can expect here?

Third, the author trundles out estimated costs for implementing CO2 emissions controls and says that the cost of fuel will double to implement them.  I have always found those studies to suffer from the same sorts of shenanigans that he decries yet he has no problem putting them forward.  If nothing else, market forces and the ingenuity that is a result blunts this type of thing to an amazingly high level that is never accounted for in the study itself.  The case in point is sulfur dioxide emissions controls from power plants.  First we heard from the polluters that there was no such thing as acid rain.  Then when that point became untenable these studies were put forward showing how the average homeowner couldn't afford for us to implement the controls.  Then after they were forced to remove sulfur from offgases, the cost was actually quite low.  Wonders never cease.

Anyway.  The article is a decent read but I didn't learn anything new with the exception of how the Russian famines came about wink  There is a little too much "what me worry?" in there without enough of a push for having a serious no BS discussion on the topic which he sort of gets at but kind of mucks up IMO trying to be clever.  It is of course a transcript of a lecture so he does need to keep people entertained.

Chuck
33  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 03, 2012, 06:09:23 AM
Woof G.M.,

No, it isn't.  There are people out there that are doing work in astrophysics right now that I lack the mental and particularly mathematical capability to understand.  It is not their job to dumb their work down to a point where a layman like myself can understand it.  

I have read what you have written and I don't get in the slightest that you have even attempted to understand the science behind the theory of global warming.  I have given you ample opportunity to let me know what part of the scientific theory you have an issue with and you keep harping on Climategate.  Come on.  Throw me a bone.  What part of the theory don't you believe?  These climate scientists may be good scientists, bad scientists, crooks, whatever.  What they are not is salesmen.  Based on what you have written I don't believe that you lack the mental or mathematical capability to understand the theory.  It simply looks like you haven't bothered to look at it and are rather interested in talking about the soap opera part of this issue.  How could they possibly persuade you if you won't even look at the theory?  And by "they" I mean the scientists that have done good work on this issue and not the ones responsible for Climategate.  Do you not get that a theory can be analyzed completely independently of the empirical data or the personalities involved?

Quote
Now the fact that "scientists" needed to fake data to support their AGW claims are akin to a UFO believer that fakes a UFO photo.

So am I to believe that on the day before Climategate you were diligently researching this topic trying to determine the right or wrong of it and then Climategate convinced you that it was bunk?  

Quote
I think Climategate is ignored by those who have swallowed Al Gore's kool-aid and allowed themselves to abandon rational thought.

So do you think that I am one of those people?  Climategate is what made me go dig into the nuts and bolts of the scientific theory.

Chuck
34  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 02, 2012, 09:59:31 PM
Woof Doug,

Quote
Also true is that warmer air holds more CO2 than cooler air.

More water actually.  CO2 is a gas at the temperatures here on Earth so there really isn't a limit to the max concentration from a physical standpoint.

Quote
another is that plants accelerate growth with elevated CO2 levels and convert the CO2 back to O2.

Plants only process CO2 as fast as they can utilize light so I believe that light utilization is the key factor.  I don't think that the CO2 concentration is a big factor here but I haven't specifically researched it.

Quote
The theories and models all fail to include all aspects of all variables.  What we are left with is measurements which seem so difficult to get right.

There is no way that the models could include all aspects of all variables.  Asking them to do so is beyond our understanding and beyond our computers computational ability.  If you oversimplify then you also get junk.  That is why I say go back to the original science which doesn't require complex models if you are in doubt that CO2 could actually cause global warming.  No one should expect calculation of changes in the average temperature of a planet to be straightfoward or within small deviations, which is what we are talking about here, obvious.

Quote
True skeptics I think believe in warming as a very small amount,

I agree the number of people that have truly looked into it and think that manmade global warming is impossible either don't understand it or don't care to understand it.  The real question is whether or not we should make a big deal about it.

Quote
As GM pointed out, at that point in their career they became messagers and marketers, no longer scientists.

Just because they were trying to make the sale doesn't mean that they ceased to be scientists.  Again, I think that Climategate is rather overblown by people that don't want to do anything about global warming.

Quote
In my observation, the earth is doing just fine.

We have seen that there have been changes in the amount of glacial ice mass.  I have yet to see a good hypothesis for why this is occurring other than manmade global warming.  If you have one, I would love to see it.  It surely is possible that the changes in ice mass are a harbinger for future problems.  I suspect that there are regions of the world that will have a seriously difficult time dealing with even a 4 degree fahrenheit change in the average temperature.  Keep in mind that the concentration of CO2 right now is something like 400 ppm so fairly low, but rising.

Chuck
35  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 02, 2012, 05:42:45 PM
Woof,

Quote
"Subtle evidence" is not what the scientific mind requires as sufficient for "knowing".

Many things have been substantially proven through theory or mathematics for which we at the time lacked the instrumentation or means to check.  Many of Einstein's theories were demonstrated only much later once the ability to do so became available.  The scientific mind should be able to look for looming threats prior to getting trounced by them.

Quote
When scientists stop adhering to the scientific method, they are no longer scientists, just fearmongers in scientific drag.

You will have to remind me how those scientists stopped adhering to the scientific method.  Like I said, if they answered the question for themselves, then they did it.  If someone puts out something that is incorrect, that doesn't mean that they didn't adhere to the scientific method.  The scientific method is not there to ensure that no one ever puts out something that proves to be incorrect.  Convincing you of the correctness of something is a different issue and one that they are obviously failing at.  It has little to do with the scientific method and is more an issue of sales and marketing.  I still contend that if you tried to understand the science instead of looking at the weather you might be less skeptical.

Quote
Anyone can claim anything, but the burden of proof is on the claimant.


It actually isn't.  Some people don't want to look at the idea itself even though the information is out there.

Chuck
36  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 02, 2012, 04:38:58 PM
Woof Guro C.,

Quote
if the evidence is there, why the cheating

Perhaps the evidence is only subtle at this point in time but possibly there is still a looming threat.  Let's assume that the scientists "know" that the underlying theory is correct but simply can't get their point across.  As we have seen on other topics people have an excellent ability to convince themselves of the absolute veracity of something that may not be proven.  If these scientists were convinced they were correct but couldn't convince other people, then to them this is no longer a science issue but rather an issue of messaging and marketing.  Hopefully no one thinks that I condone what they did but in some respects it seems to me like a tempest in a teapot.

Quote
Add on to this my serious doubts as to the wisdom of putting the government in charge of the weather, particularly when Al Gore (just how did he go from being VP of the US to being worth $100 million) and others seek to finance UN giveaway programs with cap & trade, and , , , well, , , I'm gonna want to see a whole bunch of serious evidence-- not just a hypothesis that sounds plausible
.

These are important concerns but obviously don't address whether there is a looming problem.  Without looking it up, I think that people currently believe that the earth's temperature has increased only 1-2 deg. F. so you are not going to see any evidence of biblical proportions at this time.  I find it wholly unsurprising that people are having a hard time quantifying how much the temperature of the entire planet has changed considering the variability.  If people could agree that the science is sound we could get away from (to some extent) looking at the temperature data.

Quote
What is the current rate of warming and what percentage of that is directly attributable to man's use of fossil fuels?

I'm perfectly comfortable saying that I don't have the answer to this question.  We know that there are other variables here at work.  One of them may have masked the warming of the planet by CO2 giving us 10 years of flatline temps.  Maybe the whole thing is bunk but the underlying science says to me that we have the potential for a crisis of some sort.  The overlap between the absorption spectra of water vapor and carbon dioxide will limit the overall change because water vapor is already accounting for most of the infrared absorption.  Perhaps this means that the worst case scenario isn't really that bad but I am not convinced of that.

Quote
Do you prefer nuclear?

The Japanese have recently done heroic work showing us that nuclear isn't completely user friendly.  I'm not anti nuclear but I'm not the biggest fan either.  There are natural sequesteration processes for carbon dioxide such that if we cut the production rate the concentration will go down.  China and India will probably ensure that the rate doesn't go down any time soon.  I would say that biofuels (not ethanol) have a decent bit of promise right now.

I will check out Guro C.'s article later today.  

Chuck
37  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 01, 2012, 06:34:40 PM
Woof G.M.,

Quote
If it's so solid, they why the need to fake/hide data?


In spite of the possible malfeasance of these scientists the Law of Conservation of Energy is STILL on the books.  The earth STILL continues to be bombarded by ultraviolet light which heats the earth and is reradiated as infrared light.  Carbon dioxide STILL absorbs some wavelengths of infrared light converting it vibrational energy commonly measured as temperature.  Notice how none of these natural phenomena or physical laws of the universe care the slightest about what a few scientists have done or didn't do with some data. 

These scientists only claim that the temperature of the planet has increased by something like 1 degree Fahrenheit over the period in question so it isn't surprising to me that it is hard to measure and that there are competing theories as to why this is occuring.  This is why I KEEP trying to go back to underlying science.  I believe it is also why you have no desire to discuss the science itself.

Quote
Now, if there was no such evidence and Al Gore was suddenly promoting it and he was making money off the newfound threat

Again, this doesn't exactly change the physical properties of carbon dioxide, rewrite laws of the universe, etc.  Is it relevant that many of the people who argue against manmade global warming are paid by Exxon or Koch Industries?  I haven't pointed that out so far because guess what, it isn't assuming you actually want to talk about science and not PEOPLE.

Chuck
38  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 01, 2012, 02:16:02 PM
Woof,

And here I was hoping to have a scientific discussion.  Sigh.  Not to be I guess. 

So possible malfeasance by a couple of scientists is supposed to invalidate what sure looks like a solid scientific theory?  Not really.  This is like some scientist saying that there is X chance of life on the planet earth being destroyed in the next hundred years and you pulling out a telescope and saying "I don't see any asteroids, so this is bunk".  Talk about the underlying science and it cuts through this sort of BS which Climategate seems to be about based on your article.

Quote
In fact, researchers are still struggling to explain why warming has stalled in the last decade even as levels of carbon dioxide -- supposedly the most important greenhouse gas have rose.

I have already stated that there are other factors at play some of which could be additive or subtractive.  That is why it is instructive to look at the science itself and not get mired in BS.

Chuck
39  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 01, 2012, 01:55:59 PM
Woof,

What is the false evidence?  Anyway, can you address the scientific underpinnings or not?  That cannot be faked which is why it should be the starting point of all such discussions.

Chuck
40  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 01, 2012, 01:45:14 PM
Woof,

Actually what I described is absolutely that simple.  That there are other forces that affect the climate and add noise to the signal is not in doubt.  Saying that there are other forces at work does not invalidate what I just said.  To do that, you need to address my points.

Chuck
41  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: January 01, 2012, 10:31:57 AM
Woof,

In all this discussion of global warming I fail to see any real talk about the underlying science which is where I think that people should concentrate and not on a lot of extraneous noise.  The bottom line is that the law of conservation of energy hasn't changed so IN - OUT still equals ACCUMULATION.  Accordingly if you change the rate at which energy leaves the planet, then you accumulate heat which we see as a temperature rise.  Greenhouse gases do exist of which carbon dioxide is one.  The infrared absorption spectra of water vapor and carbon dioxide, while similar, do not completely overlap which means that increases in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to increased absorption of infrared light. 

If you add this all up, it surely means that this is something that bears careful study and not ridicule.  Furthermore the facts that I just related are completely independent of such things as an odd heavy snowfall in April, climategate, or what Michelle Bachman and Exxon think about the topic.

Chuck
42  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Keeping my IQ on: July 26, 2005, 08:54:14 AM
I have personally had an eardrum broken while wearing the WEKAF style masks.  The cups that are supposed to protect your ears can actually catch air on a direct hit and the shock wave is what broke the eardrum.  To compound matters, my opponent was swinging a homemade padded stick which consisted of a 7/8" stick with pipe insulation on it.  The added mass and diameter from the insulation didn't help.  I personally feel much safer in a well built fencing mask (and not using such padded weapons, Actionflex is good, though).

Dog Chuck
Pages: [1]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!