HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
REGISTER   |   LOGIN   |   HELP
<<  <  Page 10/54  >  >>
MWBailey
User Rank
Iron
Theory vs reality
MWBailey   5/10/2013 10:50:56 AM
The basis of the belief in global warming or global climate change is a set of computer models predicting certain changes due to an increase in greenhouse gases, principally CO2 and CH4, but also including H2O.  The validity of the belief rests in part upon the accuracy of the models.  Recently James Hansen, a NASA scientist and advocate of global climate change stated the average temperature of the earth has been essentially unchanged for the last 10 years.  This does not agree with the computer models and their predictions.  If the trend continues, the error between the prediction and the observed data will exceed the tolerance limits of the models.  This does not necessarily mean the global climate change theories are wrong or the skeptic are correct.  However, it does mean that the global climate change advocates do not understand the reality of our climate as well as they claim to and the science is not settled.

If you are a scientist and are presented with data that does not match your theory, you can refine the theory or show how the data is not applicable or show how the data is wrong.  What you can NOT do and still claim to be a scientist is to resort to ad hominem attacks on your critics.  That is not the act of a scientist but of a fanatic.

Steve Heckman
User Rank
Iron
Re: Global warming
Steve Heckman   5/10/2013 9:06:59 AM
NO RATINGS
First and formost, my main concern is who really support the idea of global warming and how the plan to deal with it. First, many of the most vocal supporters of "climate change" are the green and pink hair, body pierced "OWS" crowd (The "lady gaga" types). The individuals that were critical of the editorial probably never seen, much less solved a differential equation (ok, I havn't solved one since the 80's, but at least I once could). Most of the supporters of "climate change" have an agenda. Heck, it has recently come to light that Al Gore's net worth matches Mitt Rommneys. Folow the money and power and you will see some other their motivations for the Green Economy. The oil companies may be "greedy", but the other side is just as every bit dishonest and greedy. My concern is how they want to "solve" the problem. By transfering all economic control to the government, who with its infinite wisdom, will then dole out resources to each of us "according to our needs" (and our party affiliation).

jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
Re: Still nothing, I see
jeffbiss   5/5/2013 10:30:03 AM
NO RATINGS
TheRegnirps,

So, you still have nothing to refute global warming science I see . Instead you post absolute nonsense.

If you are a physicist, and that is becoming a rather large if, then you know that you are required to provide evidence for this "theory", not simply state it. Those that performed the research supporting anthropogenic global warming have done that. Their data aligns very well with the theory that we have caused this climate change event through our use of fossil fuels.

Your problem is that you can't refute their science. It's very sad that you continue this nonsense rather than acting like a physicist.

TheRegnirps
User Rank
Iron
Re: Still nothing, I see
TheRegnirps   5/5/2013 12:26:08 AM
NO RATINGS
My theory is that there is a race of green people who live in the core of the Earth and from the time when the surfrace humans had the technology to detect them (early siesmographs for instance) and the methods they use to live in such a harsh environemtn, they have employed advanced shielding techniques to remain mostly undetected. However, there is a telltale sign of their presence and that is the heat produced by the shielding. There is a warming trend that began at the time the shielding became necessary. The correlation is nearly optimal and far better than the green house gas correlations.

According to to you, if you disagree it is now your job to prove that my theory is not correct. You can not simply point out flaws in my methods or errors in my measurements and demand more details. You must prove the green people do not exists or at the least, do not produce heat with shielding. Please give references to your research and detailed refutations.

(Note: You will fail. This is the grue-bleen paradox of the phiolosophy of science. And the reason it is not my job to prove alarminsts are wrong. This is also why the true believers are a serious PITA).

jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
Still nothing, I see
jeffbiss   5/4/2013 11:10:52 AM
NO RATINGS
So, you claim to be a physicist and haven't provided any valid refutations to the the theory that humans via the burning of previously sequestered fossil fuels have added energy to the earth's system, due to the release of greenhouse gases that were not part of the existing carbon cycle, and so are the primary cause of this observed increase in temperature. Is this how you did physics?

That you say that you're a skeptic, it's your obligation to put your refutations in writing, to allow others to objectively evaluate your claims and thus judge previous claims and findings. It's that simple.

TheRegnirps
User Rank
Iron
Re: No, it's your job
TheRegnirps   5/3/2013 7:43:35 PM
NO RATINGS
If I say you are right, will you promise to never work on aircraft or medical equipment?

jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
No, it's your job
jeffbiss   5/3/2013 11:06:28 AM
NO RATINGS
TheRegnirps,

So, you still have nothing to refute the current research I see, which means that you've shown no flaws . That's pretty sad for a person who claims to be a physicist and who purports to understand the process.

I suggest that you stop this nonsense until you have something to offer to support your position, other than nonsensical opinions.

TheRegnirps
User Rank
Iron
Re: Still nothing?
TheRegnirps   5/3/2013 10:57:14 AM
NO RATINGS
A last comment. Your schoolbook idea of strict scientific method science can't even apply to this situation. With a time machine, a planet duplicator and 4 billion years you might be able to do it.

It is the job of the climate alarmists to prove their case. Like everyone in science, they are highly prejudiced towards their theories. If they are not, they should be in a different profession. And it is the role of every other qualified scientist to be skeptical of their claims. It is not the skeptic's job to produce a proof or research to show the alarmists wrong. This is how it works. The critics point out problems and ask for explanations. Either a satisfactory set of results is demonstrated or it is not. Besides, many of the critics are more qualified than the leading alarmists. This notion of a consensus is both a fiction and of no particilar value. Science by consensus would still have a flat world at the center of a crystal dome.

The moving target response is really boring. "Show the flaws", flaws are shown, "Where is your research", research not needed, ...........

jeffbiss
User Rank
Gold
Still nothing?
jeffbiss   5/2/2013 7:08:33 PM
NO RATINGS
TheRegnirps,

No, I'll make it simple. CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases. So, what theory are you referring to that is wrong with regard to greenhouse gases?

So, you're claiming that increasing the energy of a system will not result in a different equilibrium and an alteration of said system. On what grounds can you as a physicist make such a claim?

That humans have released greenhouse gases via the burning of fossil fuels is irrefutable. That those greenhouse gases were sequestered and thus not a component of any carbon cycle after they were deposited and prior to their release is irrefutable. So, what do you base your argument on? Where is any study that supports your contention?

TheRegnirps
User Rank
Iron
Re: Still nothing?
TheRegnirps   5/2/2013 6:30:27 PM
NO RATINGS
OK, I see it it has to be really simple. The experiment is humans adding gasses to the atmosphere and the theory predicts certain results. The results are not agreeing with the theory and the theorists now say that is because they need another 20 to 50 years for the data to average out.

As for the amount of carbon, do you know how much coal is being burned in China and India? How much natural gas in Russia and the old Soviet countries? No. Nobody does. How much methane hydrate is subliming out of the oceans? How much natural gas and oil is seeping from the ocean floor? Are you satisfied with plus or minus 50%? What does that do to a model? Have you done any numerical analysis? Is instability easy to introduce into most techniques or are they inherently robust?

I'll give you a personal example. A friend was at a Geophysical Union convention before the Moon landings. A NASA spokesman was saying that with a Moon rock they could discover the origin and makeup of the Moon. Z.F. Danes stood and asked "What if it is bassalt?". He was asked to repeat the question and after a pause, the speaker moved on. The NASA people were talking up their sleeves and had no idea what they could learn form a Moon rock. Danes did not have to go to the Moon to show that they were making wild claims. QED.

<<  <  Page 10/54  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Lumus and eyeSight have partnered to create consumer-grade devices that offer all the prime functions of smart glasses without the bulk.
VisLab joins the autonomous car effort with the DEEVA prototype.
NASA and Boeing developed a huge, carbon composite cryogenic fuel tank for deep space missions, and started testing it last month. The 18-ft cryotank will enable heavy-lift launch vehicles to send both humans and robots into deep space.
Focus on Fundamentals -- a new Design News webinar series -- kicks off April 29 with How to Select Drives for Robotics Applications. Don't miss it!
Research and other advancements in the realms of robotics, diagnostic and treatment devices, nanotechnology, and medical implants may one day make humans superior versions of their natural selves.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
3/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
2/27/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York / 7:00 p.m. London
12/18/2013 Available On Demand
11/20/2013 Available On Demand
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Apr 21 - 25, Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: April 29 - Day 1
Sponsored by maxon precision motors
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service