HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
<<  <  Page 10/54  >  >>
jfs1970
User Rank
Gold
Global Warming: The Scientific Method.
jfs1970   5/10/2013 11:51:32 AM
NO RATINGS
I have yet to see any "scientist" show their results of Step #4 of the Scientific Method as applied to "global warming".  And I'm fairly certain no one will ever be able to.  Therefore it will always be an open ended theory that only long term history can give any creedence to.  And considering the last 16 years have shown a net "flat line" on global temperatures, with some major drops in global averages during that period, I'm definitely skeptical.  Whatever happened to the "global cooling" scholars of the 1970's?

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
Gold
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?

<<  <  Page 10/54  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Enabling the Future is designing prosthetic appendages modeled more like superhero arms and hands than your average static artificial limbs. And they’re doing it through a website and grassroots movement inspired by two men’s design and creation in 2012 of a metal prosthetic for a child in South Africa.
In order to keep an enterprise truly safe from hackers, cyber security has to go all the way down to the device level. Icon Labs is making the point that security has to be built into device components.
Senior Technical Editor Chuck Murray gets the skinny on Harting Inc.'s 3D MID technology, which allows users to create a three-dimensional circuit board out of molded plastic.
Three days after NASA's MAVEN probe reached Mars, India's Mangalyaan probe went into orbit around the red planet. India's first interplanetary mission, and the first successful Mars probe launched by an Asian nation, has a total project cost of nearly $600 million less than MAVEN's.
Siemens PLM Software has made an in-kind donation of software to Central Piedmont Community College in North Carolina for its science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) Division.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
9/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
9/10/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/17/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Oct 20 - 24, How to Design & Build an Embedded Web Server: An Embedded TCP/IP Tutorial
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


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: October 1 - 30
Sponsored by Gates Corporation
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service