Brink the game is real!

(Vaporman) #81

That’s a pity.

(tokamak) #82

Global warming doesn’t rest on just the temperature record. We know the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide and we know how much we’ve emitted into the atmosphere. From there on we can model how much we will warm and how much we should’ve warmed. The model on how much we shoul’dve warmed fits reality and on that we can base our confidence in that they’ll be right about the future as well.

As for the sun, the Sun warms the planet in very predictable cycles solar however, doesn’t even correlate let alone cause the current warming:

In the 70’s they believed that the Ice Age was nearing and global cooling was a threat.

An imminent ice age has never been taken seriously be the scientific community and was nothing but popularised pseudo science in the same way quantum-neurology is now.

What if the things we do to counter “global warming” makes it worse?

There’s no chance of that. We add greenhouse gasses>planet warms, we limit greenhouse gasses> planet warms less.

The only thing we could do to truly make things worse is attempt geo-engineering and fail at it. What makes this entire thing exceptionally tricky is that almost every country can pull of this trick (it’s that cheap) and cool down the planet by several degrees. The chances that this risky feat will be done only increases by the amount we warm the planet and make it’s inhabitants desperate. China won’t give a rat’s ass about the global community if Shanghai is about to flood.

Human stupidity is the only infinite value in the universe.
The same way how some math function approximations look equal or nearing equality, but lose precision after some point.
Heck, i rather believe people who give out their opinions once or twice in their lifetime, not people who give them every day. “Intelligence is like a river, the deeper it is, the quieter it flows”

Yes, let’s by all means base the way we’re going to experience the rest of this century on zen phrases.

(Vaporman) #83

I appreciate the goal of science. The religion of it, not so much.

“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes.”

(tokamak) #84

Right that’s exactly what I mean. It means that there’s no use in discussing specific theories when the fundamentals are so different, time would be better spent aligning that first.

(Vaporman) #85

The fundamentals are identical. The interpretations are not.

(tokamak) #86

Not at all. If you’re truly equating religion with science, we both have very different perspectives.

(Vaporman) #87

My mistake. I thought you meant the fundamentals of the practice of science. Not our personal fundamental beliefs. I suppose these types of conversations don’t always lend themselves well to forum chat. lol

(murka) #88

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Other planets in our solar system warming at the same time. Lets not call it a coincidence and say it is true the same way CO2 and global temp has been made into direct correlation.

What is a factual knowledge? Popular interpretation of some facts? Billions of people also believe God exists.

(Nail) #89

I keep hearing this little voice in my head saying

“There’s three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”

“Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself”
Mark Twain

(BioSnark) #90

That’s why repeated tests including independently reproducible results are so important.

[quote=murka;249521]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
[/quote]
Note that there is a page 2 in that article.

(Vaporman) #91

Including me.

Typical use of an “Oort Cloud” like rescuing device on the second page.

(BioSnark) #92

Yes, hence the regard for ID. The problem with the ID attempt to reconcile with science is that, as nail noted, there is a propensity to draw conclusions from some sources and exclude others in order to reach a pre-specified result. That is why scientific process stresses independent verification. There needs to be some independent agreement that a gap in fossil record is insurmountable via natural processes before a supernatural or otherwise external (alien/human interference) element should gain serious consideration.

Typical use of an “Oort Cloud” like rescuing device on the second page.

What do you mean? The quotes I’ve read attributed to the author, Abdusamatov, would have me believe that he also argues that greenhouse gasses have a reverse impact on temperature from what mainstream atmospheric science would have us believe. In that case, should not Venus be a good deal cooler? The vast majority of it’s atmosphere is CO2. It should certainly be cooler than Mercury.

(tokamak) #93

I love this argument. Whenever data about Earth is released people are all sceptical about it but whenever something is released that fits their worldview, like data on planets we know far less about than our own planet, they all yell ‘eureka’. Is the bias not apparent already?

I can start with saying that the evidence we have for other planets is lousy but i’ll get back to you on that.

First of all, looking at other planets is already fishy because the other planets have completely different orbits than ours. Their years and seasons happen at different times and places. We haven’t even observed pluto doing a full orbit yet.

There’s no warming observed on Jupiter either

“The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.

The sun’s raddiance has been decreasing lately so this guy is talking out of his ass.

It’s pretty rich to accuse everyone of jumping to conclusions too fast while you lap it all up whenever someone comes along with a convenient viewpoint.

(Vaporman) #94

[QUOTE=BioSnark;249528]Yes, hence the regard for ID. The problem with the ID attempt to reconcile with science is that, as nail noted, there is a propensity to draw conclusions from some sources and exclude others in order to reach a pre-specified result. That is why scientific process stresses independent verification. There needs to be some independent agreement that a gap in fossil record is insurmountable via natural processes before a supernatural or otherwise external “alien/human interference” element should gain serious consideration.

[/QUOTE]

You won’t find any disagreement coming from me on the majority of this. I don’t agree that only someone that approaches science with underlying religious beliefs is guilty of having tendencies that may cause them to exclude inconvenient conclusions. Neo-Darwinists are equally guilty of such things.

The Oort Cloud reference was me calling out the quoted researcher for relying on an unproven rescue device to explain the findings on the prior page.

(BioSnark) #95

Certainly, I would suspect most everyone comes to the table with some sort of bias. The Earth looks pretty damn flat from where I’m standing.

(Vaporman) #96

That it does. :slight_smile:

(Senethro) #97

[QUOTE=Nail;249522]I keep hearing this little voice in my head saying

“There’s three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics”
[/QUOTE]
This person who said this was a mathematical illiterate. Statistics is the best way for finding meaning in large quantities of data. Anyone who can do a bit of maths can do some stats, when they’re made public (as they should be) then anyone can check anyone elses working for errors, they produce reliable results when used correctly.

However, people don’t like being told that stuff contrary to their beliefs is true so they treat the statistician like hes an astrologist doing incomprehensible magic when the opposite is true. That statistics is reliable and repeatable in its procedures is the difference.

(Dormamu) #98

(LyndonL) #99

Bah. Just climb a tower and watch the horizon extend :tongue:

(Apples) #100

Yeah, I tend do do statistics and modeling everyday, and trust me, the hardest stuff in it is to quantify the degree of uncertainty you have while making statistics. Once again, if you do bad math the other scientists usually find out very quick and your article isnt accepted (for the most case).

Any theories have flaws anyway, but I rather a flaw than a false proof.

Peace