Rediscovery of Technology

Just saying stuff, doesn't mean it is real. A single Google supplied this - http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world

From those anti US lefties over at NASA.

or this - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... his-graph/

It seems to be the tactic of many who don't believe in mankind's contribution to climate change to repeat incorrect information as often as possible in the hope that people will assume it is correct without checking.

Thucydides wrote:Since global temperatures have been level or declining for the last 15 years, I'd say we are already in another natural cooling cycle.

Since the Little Ice Age lasted about 300 years, I'd say waiting for the next natural warming period is going to take a lot of patience.

We should start learning greenhouse agriculture.

Thucydides wrote:Since global temperatures have been level or declining for the last 15 years, I'd say we are already in another natural cooling cycle.

Uh, where di you get that faerytale from?

The only way to come up with that is to specifically use 97-99 as the base year, and THAT just happened to be an extreme year because of the El Nino effect. And that´s just outright lying by statistics. Or i guess it could be mere stupidity, either way it´s wrong.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... 014_v5.png

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

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F).

...

For the ocean, the June global sea surface temperature was 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), the highest for June on record and the highest departure from average for any month.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-m ... -100-years
There are slight differences in global records between groups at NCDC, NASA, and the University of East Anglia. Each group calculates global temperature year by year, using slightly different techniques. However, analyses from all three groups point to the decade between 2000 and 2009 as the hottest since modern records began more than a century ago. Temperatures in the 2010s have been running slightly warmer still.

And if you had cared to look:
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1344
Thanks in large part to the record-setting El Niño of 1997–98, the year 1998 was the warmest year, globally, in the 20th century. Since 2001 the global trend has been relatively flat (see graph). However, temperatures continue to run warmer than in previous decades.

@Daryl

Here's a link that might interest you?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/23/australian-met-office-accused-of-manipulating-temperature-records/

Whose data do we trust when the opposition has been manipulating the facts?

I am all for being a good steward to the land. However, the truth needs be given by our own scientists around the globe. We have some scientists say we are going into a global cooling period and others claim we are creating man made global warming. The public just needs the truth to make an informed decision.

They were destroying other scientists in the supposedly unbiased scientific peer review systems.

Unfortunately there is a sub-group of climate scientists who are acting like un-hinged religious zealots rather than responsible scientists. Their tunnel vision is so intense, that they fail to realize that their own behavior is having the opposite effect that they intend and is adding to the public's disbelief in global warming instead. Misusing the peer review system to persecute heretics is one example.


In general the peer review system is a good thing. There is an absolutely enormous amount of junk that is never published because of it (Junk = poorly done experiments, hypothesizes unsupported by experimental data, etc etc) And it's a lot easier for experts in the field to detect junk than for non-experts. I see that a lot in the Honorverse forum, where military experts detect things that the non-military experts would never spot.

There are however some flaws in the system. Scientists are people too after all.

1. Sufficiently influential scientists can mis-use it to blackball others. In any given field the experts are usually a relatively small group of people. If a high status individual makes it known that person X is a "bad" scientist, that will have a significant impact on the ability of person X to get published even if scientist X write a good paper. There can be legitimate reasons for this such as a history of bad work but there can also be illegitimate reasons such as personal animosity.

2. Conversely once a scientist gets a reputation as a leader in the field, their work doesn't get scrutinized as thoroughly and people in their labs can get away with publishing all kinds of junk. Occasionally this has devolved into outright fraud. In most of the fraud cases, the head scientist is busy giving speeches etc and is basically robo-signing submitted work done by underlings.

3. It can sometimes be hard to separate genuine innovation from junk. Scientists are people too and getting people to change their minds on established dogma is not easy. So out of the box thinking and paradigm changes are often dismissed by the establishment scientists in charge of peer review.

4. Just because it is peer reviewed doesn't mean it is correct. Reviewers just read what is written for plausibility, they don't repeat the experiments. And bad experiments which produce plausible results routinely are missed by peer reviewers. Somewhere between 30-50% of biomedical research is unable to be replicated by drug companies trying to build upon it.

5. It's difficult to do for interdisciplinary work. The reviewers may only be expert in part of the paper.

Thank you BioChem for eloquently stating for a potential problems of the peer review system.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/ancient-nanostructures-found-ural-mountains-are-out-place-and-time-002046

And Just maybe the myth of Atlantis are more real than most intellectual types care to admit....then again they could just be myths.

@Daryl

Daryl, here is so more proof about global warming and climate change. Each is a totally different issue because we constantly have climate change due to the sun 25,000 year cycle. The sun outputs more energy and less energy in a solar sun cycle over 25,000 years. The Mayan calendar was based on this cycle. It's close but not exactly perfect. The more energy that the sun produces the higher the temperatures and the opposite occurs when less energy is produce resulting in cooler temperatures.

Global warming has been shown to be false due to falsification of data by scientists. Some parts are warmer and some are colder. Was the ice caps supposed to be melted or not in the North pole? The ice shelf in the Antarctica was to have broken off the continent. Update on the Sea Ice!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668

Some decades ago I found a card that changed my thinking.

One side said "The statement on the other side of this card is true."

The other side said "The statement on the other side of this card is false."

Current thinking:

A fantasy statement only connects to other words, not reality.
A true statement agrees with reality.
A false statement contradicts reality.
Therefore the card had two fantasy statement.

Once it is determined that a statement falls somewhere on the true-false spectrum, the three acceptable methods I know to find where are:

The judicial/historical method asks whether we have reliable witnesses and accurate records of their testimony.

The experimental method asks whether the evidence can be repeated, as in experiments or another observation.

The predictive method asks whether the statement makes a prediction that can be tested.

If you know another good method, please post it

Since none of us knows everything, we are not going to get everything correct. What disturbs me is how often people make important statements and don't discuss what would be needed to test them. The test methods are more important than whatever conclusions are reached.

Note that the historical method is critical - incorrect reports of experiments, observations, or possible predictions work against good results.

So I try to find killer questions:

A killer question relies on correct knowledge, then asks something that allows a good test. Especially it allows testing between the multiple paradigms that can be attached to any given set of facts.

Example 1: If cold fusion experiments do produce the extra heat claimed, possible paradigms range from actual cold fusion, through the accidental construction of an antenna that can collect cosmic energy (a la "Doc" E. E. Smith), to a fantastic one that Bahzell's multiverses exist and a magician is fooling us. Or the major fantasy that they stumbled on a hole in the conservation of energy paradigm. Are there fusion products

Example 2: from early in this thread, Noah's flood. Sedimentary rocks cover about 75% of the continents and continental shelves. Average depth estimates range from 5 miles to 8 miles, with some places baring the basement rock, others as much as 20 miles thick. Base rock covered with sediment doesn't erode until exposed. Where did the material come from
At one end of the ideas, start with mountains over 20 miles tall. In the middle assume standard erosion covering and uncovering the base rock. At the other end, assume a miracle that lifts up sediments and erodes base rock.
It should be possible to test this with a detailed examination of the sedimentary rocks. Mountains and multiple standard erosion would tend to produce gullies and canyons, while a world wide flood strong enough to product that much erosion would be expected to produce flattish strata as the dominant form. These strata could be traced over long distances.

Interestingly the Institute for Creation Research is the only one I know that is testing this. Among other things, they found reports that in the Grand Canyon Redwall shale formation, some long thin fossils are leaning the same direction across distances of several hundred miles.

Can't we suggest methods of testing when we say things?

PS. I am not in a position to discuss global warming with any evidence and haven't yet thought up a killer question.

My modification of our house to reduce our heat bill (in North Dakota, about a third less costly) was done as a paying hobby. At present, a new building that is comfortable without paying for heat or cooling can be constructed in most of the continental US for several percent less than a standard building of the same size and quality.

This was found when a search on (building and "self heating") was done. There are some really odd ideas out there, also some good ones. Hooray for insulation, thermal mass, and good glass

Oh, no, you got me started on Noah's Ark. People may not thank you for that.

Start with the story itself: God got annoyed that Man was doing Naughty Things. He made it rain for 40 days and 40 nights until all the land was submerged drowning everybody and everything except for Noah, his family, and two of every kind of bird and beast aboard a wooden ship approximately 620 feet long. They floated thus for almost a year until finally the waters had receded far enough for them to make landfall on Mount Ararat and repopulate the world.

"All the land" must include Mount Everest, right? 29,000 and a few feet above current sea level, plus at least another hundred feet to ensure it's good and submerged. It's simple to divide that by 40 and determine that it had to rain almost 730 feet a day - over 30 feet an hour, over 6 inches a minute. 6 inches an HOUR is considered a horrendous downpour, usually associated with Category 3 and above hurricanes. The storm clouds required to support a drenchpour of that magnitude would extend thousands of miles out into space, and contain about 2 1/2 times the total amount of water that exists on the entire planet.

Sediment? What about the glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica? If there really was a Great Flood, they would have floated away and melted, but they've been relatively undisturbed for at least 200,000 years.

Everything dead and rotting, including the plants - all the oxygen would be used up in a couple of months leaving a reducing atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia. Noah & Co. better have packed space suits.
---------------
It takes two to make peace. It only takes one to make war.

SMR, that data was muddled with yes, but it was not changed from a negative to a positive value, it was only increased and exaggerated. the underlying point made by the scientists in the experimetn was still true when the real data was used, only a lot closer to being within the range of uncertanity for normal. it was still valid data that showed global climate change was affected by humans, just not as much as the fake data claimed.


http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article talks about climate change, and notes that 32.6% out of 12,000 papers with the words climate change or global warming point definitively to humans being a cause. this may not seem much, but this is because they note papers which didnt endorse or reject climate change, but merely the effects count as non positional. the amount of papers against human caused climate change was 0.7% of all papers, or 1.9% of those who held a position on climate change. So of 12,000 papers, 8,000 are looking at mitigating effects, 3894 are positive that humans are a cause of climate change, and 78 reject it. and thats by papers. when you look at authors, only 124 authors out of 29,100 authors reject AGW. Those who reject human caused climate change are a rounding error in the scientific population, as the majority either explicitly believe, or dont care and are looking at more productive ways to spend their time, such as working out ways to mitigate the effects.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... l_standing

Note the vast list of repuable scientific institutions, including national science societies in the agree column, and the only thing in the disagrees column is a note about a revised statement from the AAPG, which when read states that they believe that humanity is a driving force for global warming, but they are not sure as to how much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourt ... the_planet THe 4th report by IPCC shows that the solar change is 7.5% the size of the human effect on global radiative forcing. This cahnge in solar intensity has already been factored into the equations, and found to be insufficient to account for the global warming.


As much as I would love to pretend that humans aren't screwing up the planet, the evidence overwhelmingly points to humans being either A, or THE, MAJOR FORCE in climate change. When the best your doubters can say is that they agree on the principle, just not the order of climate drivers, you know the info is correct.


Global warming has not been shown to be false, only that some scientists are desperate enough for funding to fake data to make results more impressive.

smr wrote:@Daryl

Daryl, here is so more proof about global warming and climate change. Each is a totally different issue because we constantly have climate change due to the sun 25,000 year cycle. The sun outputs more energy and less energy in a solar sun cycle over 25,000 years. The Mayan calendar was based on this cycle. It's close but not exactly perfect. The more energy that the sun produces the higher the temperatures and the opposite occurs when less energy is produce resulting in cooler temperatures.

Global warming has been shown to be false due to falsification of data by scientists. Some parts are warmer and some are colder. Was the ice caps supposed to be melted or not in the North pole? The ice shelf in the Antarctica was to have broken off the continent. Update on the Sea Ice!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668