Links
Portal |  Forum | Core Values | 
MindRomp Forum  

FAQ Janitors Arcade
Go Back   MindRomp Forum > General Discussion > Science and Information Technology

Science and Information Technology "Hello World"

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 4th November 2013, 11:21 PM   #125504  /  #51
Jerome
Life is just a bowl of cherries
 
Jerome's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Pleasant Living
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicziggy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
MZ, what length of time do you consider a trend, 10 years, 40 years, 150 years, 100,000 years?
the concern is human influence on climate overlaid on background changes.
Unfortunately for those that want to use scare-mongering to manipulate behavior, the science does not support that concern.

What length of time do you consider a trend? I ask because I have been discussing this subject for well over a decade, and the supporters of AGW always change the accepted trend time amount to whichever data sets fits the theory.

I consider you an honest person that thinks, that is why I would like you to nail down this answer, so that you can be shown how the cherry-picking of data is done.
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 4th November 2013, 11:46 PM   #125510  /  #52
Dionysus
absinthe minded
 
Dionysus's Avatar
 

Is there a name for an internet invite to agree with an interlocutor following being labelled as honest and rational by the interlocutor? If not, there should be.
Dionysus is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 4th November 2013, 11:59 PM   #125513  /  #53
Jerome
Life is just a bowl of cherries
 
Jerome's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Pleasant Living
The trouble with this subject is the political structure has created an environment in which there are two opposing sides, you are either one or the other.

You are either a science hating bastard wanting the poor to suffer or you are a hippy freak that wants all of society to live in the woods under the starlight caveman style.

This forced dichotomy prevents most from thinking, no one wants to be called names, people like to be a part of a tribe. The political discourse gives easy choices.
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 12:31 AM   #125527  /  #54
Magicziggy
vandal
 
Magicziggy's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Loadsamoney
A planet that has warmed by a degree is not a stable situation.
But yes, the number 1, in the context of the vastness universe does seem rather insignificant. Only it's not.
Magicziggy is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 12:36 AM   #125529  /  #55
charlou
arseist
 
charlou's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
Is there a name for an internet invite to agree with an interlocutor following being labelled as honest and rational by the interlocutor? If not, there should be.
Grooming? Depending on how the interaction proceeds, could be initiating passive aggressive manipulation?

But I'm a cynic so I would think that.

Last edited by charlou; 5th November 2013 at 12:40 AM.
charlou is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 12:46 AM   #125530  /  #56
Jerome
Life is just a bowl of cherries
 
Jerome's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Pleasant Living
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicziggy View Post
A planet that has warmed by a degree is not a stable situation.
You have to be pulling my chain now.
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 01:01 AM   #125537  /  #57
charlou
arseist
 
charlou's Avatar
 

From NASA Earth Observatory

Quote:
... why should we care about one degree of warming? After all, the temperature fluctuates by many degrees every day where we live.
The global temperature record represents an average over the entire surface of the planet. The temperatures we experience locally and in short periods can fluctuate significantly due to predictable cyclical events (night and day, summer and winter) and hard-to-predict wind and precipitation patterns. But the global temperature mainly depends on how much energy the planet receives from the Sun and how much it radiates back into space—quantities that change very little. The amount of energy radiated by the Earth depends significantly on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, particularly the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.
charlou is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 01:05 AM   #125540  /  #58
Anonymous
Senior Member
 

I think everyone is forgetting that this is Jerome you're trying to debate with. Now, if it's still kicks and giggles for everyone, carry one. Just wanted to insert a reminder in case anybody had forgotten.
Anonymous is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 01:10 AM   #125541  /  #59
Jerome
Life is just a bowl of cherries
 
Jerome's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Pleasant Living
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlou View Post
From NASA Earth Observatory

Quote:
energy the planet receives from the sun - that change very little. .
The amount of energy the planet receives from the sun changes very little
...

The argument is that there is no difference in energy received by earth during solar maximums compared to solar minimums.

Do you think that is true?
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 01:21 AM   #125547  /  #60
charlou
arseist
 
charlou's Avatar
 

The argument isn't that there's "no difference".


How strongly does the sun influence climate?

Quote:
The Sun affects the climate through several physical processes: For one thing, the total radiation, particularly that in the ultraviolet range, varies with solar activity. When many sunspots are visible, the Sun is somewhat brighter than in “quiet” times and radiates considerably more in the ultraviolet. On the other hand, the cosmic ray intensity entering the Earth’s atmosphere varies opposite to the solar activity, since the cosmic ray particles are deflected by the Sun’s magnetic field to a greater or lesser degree. According to a much discussed model proposed by Danish researchers, the ions produced by cosmic rays act as condensation nuclei for larger suspension particles and thus contribute to cloud formation. With increased solar activity (and stronger magnetic fields), the cosmic ray intensity decreases, and with it the amount of cloud coverage, resulting in a rise of temperatures on the Earth. Conversely, a reduction in solar activity produces lower temperatures.
Two scientists from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sun’s main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun’s magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.
These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. “Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide,” says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.
charlou is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 01:35 AM   #125549  /  #61
gib
concerned third party
 
gib's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Sham 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
The trouble with this subject is the political structure has created an environment in which there are two opposing sides, you are either one or the other.

You are either a science hating bastard wanting the poor to suffer or you are a hippy freak that wants all of society to live in the woods under the starlight caveman style.

This forced dichotomy prevents most from thinking, no one wants to be called names, people like to be a part of a tribe. The political discourse gives easy choices.
don't let it trouble you. i like that you're indie
__________________
communicating my inner something since 2017
gib is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
charlou (5th November 2013)
Old 5th November 2013, 01:37 AM   #125550  /  #62
gib
concerned third party
 
gib's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Sham 69
the sun is fucking terrifying, i originally thought it ran on solar but bizarrely it's actually nuclear powered
__________________
communicating my inner something since 2017
gib is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
borealis (5th November 2013), Magicziggy (5th November 2013)
Old 5th November 2013, 01:49 AM   #125555  /  #63
MSG
Ol' Zipperlaig
 
MSG's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: N?yfb
thermonuclear; it runs on hot fusion
__________________
Over 19,000 more posts than Prince Humperdinck
MSG is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Yay from
borealis (5th November 2013)
Old 5th November 2013, 01:54 AM   #125556  /  #64
Jerome
Life is just a bowl of cherries
 
Jerome's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Pleasant Living
Quote:
Originally Posted by gib View Post
it's actually nuclear powered
That is just the current theory based upon our limited understanding.

Hannes Alfvén, Nobel Prize winning physicist, has a different theory on how the universe works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfv%C3%A9n
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 01:59 AM   #125562  /  #65
Jerome
Life is just a bowl of cherries
 
Jerome's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Pleasant Living
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlou View Post
How strongly does the sun influence climate?

Quote:
The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. “Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide,” says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.
That says the sun is little understood as to its effect on climate, and the trouble is the current theory says carbon dioxide is the cause.

Do you really not see the problem here? It is an admittance that so very little is understood, but the current theory is something.
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 02:08 AM   #125566  /  #66
charlou
arseist
 
charlou's Avatar
 

I see the problem.

What's your theory for why scientists would be concerned about human activity wrt global warming?
charlou is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 02:10 AM   #125568  /  #67
borealis
poikilothermic
 
borealis's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Canada
Lizards.
borealis is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 02:15 AM   #125569  /  #68
Jerome
Life is just a bowl of cherries
 
Jerome's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Pleasant Living
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlou View Post
What's your theory for why scientists would be concerned about human activity wrt global warming?
They are not as a whole, there are just some that climb the ladder of prestige via political favor.
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 02:16 AM   #125572  /  #69
borealis
poikilothermic
 
borealis's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Canada
Lol!!!
borealis is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 02:39 AM   #125576  /  #70
borealis
poikilothermic
 
borealis's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Canada
borealis is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 03:01 AM   #125580  /  #71
Magicziggy
vandal
 
Magicziggy's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Loadsamoney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlou View Post
What's your theory for why scientists would be concerned about human activity wrt global warming?
They are not as a whole, there are just some that climb the ladder of prestige via political favor.
Just some is 97% of scientists who have published in the field and expressed an opinion on the cause.

Quote:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research
Of the around 12000 papers checked, around 4000 expressed an opinion on the cause of global warming, and 97% of those attributed it to human activity.
Magicziggy is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 03:21 AM   #125582  /  #72
Jerome
Life is just a bowl of cherries
 
Jerome's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Pleasant Living
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicziggy View Post
Just some is 97% of scientists

Weird, because your link says 32.6% endorsed AGW.

Why did you highlight a sub-sect of the whole?
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 03:23 AM   #125583  /  #73
Jerome
Life is just a bowl of cherries
 
Jerome's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Pleasant Living
That is like me implying there are billions of baltimore orioles fans because billions haven't expressed an opinion.
Jerome is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 04:49 AM   #125589  /  #74
Magicziggy
vandal
 
Magicziggy's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Loadsamoney
Because 66.4% expressed no opinion..

Because the sample was generated by searching for peer reveiwed papers using the search terms 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

And because not all [hint only 35%] papers that were found were actually expressing a position on AGW.

ie the research in 65% of the papers containing the search terms 'global climate change' or 'global warming' were not about cause.

That you need this spelled out indicates your dishonesty or stupidity. Shall I start a poll?
Magicziggy is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Old 5th November 2013, 04:52 AM   #125590  /  #75
Magicziggy
vandal
 
Magicziggy's Avatar
 

Read my posts with the following stupid accent: Loadsamoney
Here.

Have a news outlet interpret the abstract for you and flesh out the study.

Quote:
Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made

Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it
Magicziggy is offline   Reply With Quote topbottom
Reply

  MindRomp Forum > General Discussion > Science and Information Technology

Tags
penis penis penis

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2011-2018 MindRomp.org