Cold sun rising

In the world of real science, it usually is. As for the issue of "global cooling," this is the story:

formatting link

Far from being a consensus, it was a minority position that was quickly reversed among scientists, but which lived on in the popular press long beyond its expiration date.

Reply to
Ed Huntress
Loading thread data ...

"The most common replacements are mixtures of volatile hydrocarbons, typically propane, n-butane and isobutane."

formatting link

Reply to
Scout

You don't speak for me or know my scientific education.

When I told my physicist boss about the insulating polyester film windows I had made he suggested we calculate the radiative heat loss through them, according to Planck's Law. We did have to look up Boltzmann's Constant first since neither of us remembered it (it's

1.38 E-23 Joules per degree Kelvin).

Miskolczi's questionable but not fatal assumption is that all layers of the atmosphere are in radiative equilibrium.

Gotta go, the sun finally came out and I have to make some solar panel measurements.

-jsw

Reply to
Jim Wilkins

Yes, so you should just shut the f*ck up now, loser. You have nothing meaningful to say; you never do.

Reply to
Rüdy Canôza

Consensus is not what *makes* them truth and facts, but in fact, the way true science works, what we come to accept as the demonstrated facts and the truth about them *is* whatever the consensus is. Put another way, consensus isn't what makes something the truth; rather, the truth is what *becomes* the consensus.

Here's another truth: your pig-headed insistence that global warming isn't real, or that the consensus about it is based solely on political chicanery, is due only to *your* rigid ideology.

Reply to
Rüdy Canôza

We know that it completely disqualifies you to comment on climate science findings.

Reply to
Rüdy Canôza

Really?

So the world is flat? I mean that was the consensus.

Does the sun orbit the Earth? That was the consensus.

Is there a planet named Vulcan orbiting between Mercury and the Sun? That was the consensus.

Does life regularly spontaneously form? That was the consensus.

Is the Earth's diameter expanding? That was the consensus.

Is there an element named phlogiston which is found in all flammable items? That was the consensus.

Are there canals of water on Mars? That was the consensus.

Is Luminiferous Aether the means light is transmitted throughout the universe? That was the consensus.

Are people born as a 'blank slate' with no built-in personality traits or proclivities? That was the consensus.

Is phrenology an accepted part of creditable neuroscience? That was the consensus.

Is the size of the Universe static? That was the consensus.

Did Fleischmann and Pons?s invent a way to obtain cold fusion? That was the consensus.

Asserting something is true because there is a consensus is a basic form of logical fallacy. That other's agree with something does not in any manner establish it is inherently true.

Reply to
Scout

Troll snip restored.

||-You are correct. I don't see why you started talking about silicon ||-based life forms from space heating the planet so it's suitable for ||-their species and then turn around and pretend you never mentioned it. ||- ||-I'll just chalk it up as another symptom of your rather obvious mental ||-problems. Don't worry about it; this is a very tolerant group.

Oh, deary me, why do you keep snipping? To hide your morphing, trolling, forging ways I guess.

Ray thinks you should spell that "looser". But then, that's Ray.

Morphing, forging trolls generally want people to shut up. They especially want to hide their BS after they had a day to consider what a bad idea their post in a moment of anger was.

So, tell us all about your silicon based life-form creatures from Zenot and their Zeno-Forming earth by heating the planet to their liking. I find that a stretch but I'd like to hear your basis for your belief.

Reply to
Winston_Smith

The first rule of Zenot is that you don't talk about Zenot.

Reply to
Rick Blaine

I speak for myself, Jim. And I know that I don't know enough to argue about climatology. I go along with the vast majority of real climate scientists.

I'm reasonably sure you don't, either, especially after you've been quoting discredited theories and because of the following...

That's exactly what the physics-student/bloggers have been doing. They pull some basic theories out of the books, invoking Planck and Boltzmann, and sometimes Wien's displacement law and others, to "prove" that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong. Of course, the student-bloggers tend to reach different conclusions, being inclined to seize on one idea or another while ignoring, for example, that we knew for decades, from actual measurements, that greenhouse forcing could be measured well up into the upper atmosphere.

Go for it.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Why?

I mean it's nice you've explained what you're doing, but why are you doing that?

Do you think blindly a side somehow is the right thing to do?

Really?

Maybe you think that because there is a majority that feels one way that makes them right.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply because something is commonly held doesn't make it true or even right, it only makes it popular.

Personally, I find the lack of any sort of accurate projection by them to be clear evidence they really don't understand what is really taking place, much less the reasons for it. As such, while they have a theory, and parts of that theory seem to be supported somewhat by events, parts of that same theory is also being refuted by events.

Finally, just as a matter of common sense, I'm all in favor of global warming....after all we all know what results when this trend changes, and that result is far worse than a minor increase in temperatures.... after all how do you feel about mile thick glaciers over all of Canada and the northern parts of the USA? Humidity goes down, precipitation drops by up to 90% and deserts expand. The scary part about all this, is we are near the point in time that historically this switch occurs. Indeed, based on past records our global temperatures are well below those that science would tell us existed in previous warm ages, so if anything we should be counting our blessings.

That said, reducing emissions and population is a worthy cause in and of itself, but lets not claim it's needed because of some vague doom and gloom predictions that can't even predict what it will be like 10 years after the prediction, much less 100 years from now.

Reply to
Scout

Because, historically, scientific consensus is correct the large majority of the time.

There are always a few crackpots and outliers. This time, the political right has decided to align themselves with the outliers -- even though they know that many, if not most of them, are being paid by the coal and oil companies.

Neither you nor I, nor anyone else here, is capable of sorting out the science of global warming. Some seem to think they can. They can't.

So you use your best judgment about who is most likely to be right. There is no rational answer to that except the majority of climate scientists.

Chances are VERY strong that they are. You have NO rational basis on which to disagree with them. None. Nothing. Nada.

In this context, that's a truly stupid thing to say. You're talking about trained climate scientists talking about climate. Over 95% of them agree. You have NO reason to believe the other 5% are correct.

That's because you don't understand the subject.

,

Not really.

No one says that's likely. What you have to worry about is rising oceans and drastic changes in weather.

Nonsense.

You have no idea what the science "would tell us." None.

You don't understand the subject. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else on this newsgroup. You're a bunch of mostly ignorant poseurs pretending to know what you're talking about.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Not of scientists.

Reply to
Rüdy Canôza

No such thing.

>
Reply to
Rüdy Canôza

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

When I was in school, we learned that back then the consensus (scientists paid by government) was that the Earth was flat. Why they didn't try to reach India by way of Atlantic Ocean.

- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .

formatting link
. .

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Exactly right.

The disagreement is purely driven by politics, and in particular, a politics that is nakedly hostile to science and knowledge. You put the right qualifier in there - no *rational* basis. The basis of the deniers is wholly irrational, that is, ideological reflex.

Right, especially since he hasn't read anything directly by the other

5%, nor does he know someone knowledgeable in the relevant science who has. Everything he has read comes from extremist and unaccountable *political* sources, and no one there can read or understand the science, either.

Nor does he have even a shred of understanding of how modeling works.

Reply to
Rüdy Canôza

Martin Eastburn wrote in news:rCT1y.72242 $ snipped-for-privacy@fx15.iad:

Very good. You managed to weave 2 insane theories into one vomitus outburst.

Reply to
One Party System

That's a lot of crap. You weren't taught that, unless you were taught in a school of ignoramuses.

The ancient Greeks knew the earth was roughly spherical, back to at least the 4th century BC. That's what *we* learned.

They didn't try because many of their geographers thought (accurately, as it turns out) that Japan was so far away that no ship could carry enough food and water to make the trip. Columbus was hoping that predictions of "eastern islands," far to the east of Japan, were real.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Stormin Mormon wrote on 2015-11-15 19:02:

Only students in your Mormon madrasa were taught the Earth was flat.

Common core students are taught the Earth is spherical.

Reply to
OMPMD?? M°i°g°h°t°y ? W°a°n°n° a°b°e ??EdsVi

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.