Notices
Results 1 to 52 of 52

Thread: global warming, time travel and science fiction

  1. #1  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Going to tone down the rhetoric a wee bit. (I hope)

    For example, the consensus of scientists believe the sky is blue on a sunny day. Does anyone need to declare there is a consensus on the issue? No. All one needs to do is look at the evidence: the blue sky.
    Questions are far more complex than the "sky is blue," and unfortunately most Americans would struggle to even define what "blue" is, or why it is in a meaningful scientific way. As much as I like the idea of the Renascence man, the truth is we've advanced to the point where the vast majority of people don't have the capability to learn enough to make that independent assessment because of education, time or intellectual capability, or some combination of the above. It's not elitist, it's just a cold statement of fact. For good or bad, we're increasingly dependent on groups of scientist to sort through the types of hard questions that face us, and asking them in turn to grow the professional organizations we need to provide the best advice, and teach our our population science--hence the new NOAA director's appeal to scientist.

    Selling carbon credits is big business. If you really want to understand how the world works, follow the money
    The vast majority of scientist don't make any extra money regardless of their position, in most places like the US, who's atmospheric scientist are the world's leaders, they work for the government (like I did as a scientist) where they can't take extra money. As one prominent example, Hanson's salary, other than cost of living adjustments, hasn't increased in decades.

    I can't comment on certain industry motivations, all I can tell you when it comes to climate research, business interest are very separated from the sciences because almost none on the scientist work for business either directly or indirectly. The Navy payed for my graduate education, the tenured professor I worked with worked for his salary and had no interest an much other than being left alone to do science--he was like most other atmospheric professors there (Penn State). I fully realize that's not the case in all areas of science such as medicine which I think receive proportionally more funding from private business.
    You mentioned complexity, by bringing global climate change into the possible problem of ice packs receding, seems to me to be the complication. Lets look at why the ice is melting. There could be some man made reasons for it. Like carbon deposits. Or it could just be part of a natural cycle.

    But to try to hook the big global warming climate change fish and real it in. To me is just to crazy to be called science. I know today what sells is often fantasy. I could not believe the physics forum, and how long time members of the forum talked about time travel. As if they believed it could happen. It is just a scientific impossibility. Like the blue sky, being something other then a blue sky when it is a blue sky.

    But yet time travel and global warming, sells and sold. I guess my real issue is with what we are calling science. I think global warming and time travel belong in the same category, science fiction.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I think global warming and time travel belong in the same category, science fiction.
    i perceive a difference in kind here : the physics behind global warming is fairly well understood - on the other hand, we don't have the first idea what the physics of time travel might look like


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I think global warming and time travel belong in the same category, science fiction.
    i perceive a difference in kind here : the physics behind global warming is fairly well understood - on the other hand, we don't have the first idea what the physics of time travel might look like
    I dunno, marnixR, both are wild speculations.
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    surely you can see the difference between a case where you at least know what type of physics to apply and another where you don't even know where to start
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I think global warming and time travel belong in the same category, science fiction.
    i perceive a difference in kind here : the physics behind global warming is fairly well understood - on the other hand, we don't have the first idea what the physics of time travel might look like
    Wrong. Study special and general relativity.
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    nice try - but the difference in how time proceeds is not the same as time travel
    you know, like going back to the past

    relativity only affects the speed at which you go forward into the future, there's no physics to describe going back in time
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    nice try - but the difference in how time proceeds is not the same as time travel
    you know, like going back to the past

    relativity only affects the speed at which you go forward into the future, there's no physics to describe going back in time
    Oh I see that after I scored a touchdown you have decided to move the goal post. First there was no physics to describe time travel. Then you switch to no physics to describe going back in time. You should become a climatologist or a politician if you are not already in one of those fields.
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    nice try - but the difference in how time proceeds is not the same as time travel
    you know, like going back to the past

    relativity only affects the speed at which you go forward into the future, there's no physics to describe going back in time

    Oops! Wrong again!

    "Some theories, most notably special and general relativity, suggest that suitable geometries of spacetime, or specific types of motion in space, might allow time travel into the past and future if these geometries or motions are possible.[9] In technical papers physicists generally avoid the commonplace language of "moving" or "traveling" through time ('movement' normally refers only to a change in spatial position as the time coordinate is varied), and instead discuss the possibility of closed timelike curves, which are worldlines that form closed loops in spacetime, allowing objects to return to their own past. There are known to be solutions to the equations of general relativity that describe spacetimes which contain closed timelike curves[citation needed], but the physical plausibility of these solutions is uncertain."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_tr...avel_in_theory

    It might be more accurate to say that the physical plausibility of time travel is uncertain much like the physical plausibility of some computer models. Score one for William McCormick when he compared time travel to climate modeling.
     

  10. #9  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Oh I see that after I scored a touchdown you have decided to move the goal post. First there was no physics to describe time travel. Then you switch to no physics to describe going back in time. You should become a climatologist or a politician if you are not already in one of those fields.
    the fact that you're myopic and thought the goalposts were where they're not doesn't mean i've moved them

    ask any person in the street what time travel means to them and you'll get the answer that it means going back and forth in time, not just moving in one direction at different speeds
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Oh I see that after I scored a touchdown you have decided to move the goal post. First there was no physics to describe time travel. Then you switch to no physics to describe going back in time. You should become a climatologist or a politician if you are not already in one of those fields.
    the fact that you're myopic and thought the goalposts were where they're not doesn't mean i've moved them

    ask any person in the street what time travel means to them and you'll get the answer that it means going back and forth in time, not just moving in one direction at different speeds
    Sorry it took me so long to respond. I just completed the task of asking people on the street what they think time travel is. Nevermind your erroneous claim that physics does not describe time travel by your definition. Four out of five people I surveyed think time travel includes traveling forward in time as well as backward. One in five surveyed mistakenly thought I was asking them for the time. The results of this survey are clearly irrelevant though, since physics describes both forward and backward time travel. (See link to source in my comment above.)
     

  12. #11  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Four out of five people I surveyed think time travel includes traveling forward in time as well as backward.
    exactly my point : and backward - forward alone won't do

    anyway, coming back to the main topic under discussion : you're placing minor disagreements on the application of mainstream physics on a par with fringe physics (never mind that the likes of Einstein and Hawking are involved) about something of which the very existence is still in doubt

    it doesn't make the first one science fiction just because the second one is, unless you're just doing it as an exercise in hyperbole
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Four out of five people I surveyed think time travel includes traveling forward in time as well as backward.
    exactly my point : and backward - forward alone won't do
    Unfortunately you missed the main point: physics does describe both forward and backward time travel, and no one ever argued that time travel does not include backward time travel.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    anyway, coming back to the main topic under discussion : you're placing minor disagreements on the application of mainstream physics on a par with fringe physics (never mind that the likes of Einstein and Hawking are involved) about something of which the very existence is still in doubt
    Wrong again. Empirical evidence has proven Einstein correct. We can reliably make the following prediction: a clock that is further away from the Earth's surface ticks faster than one that is closer. What reliable predictions can be made with climate models? Let me help you out here with some sources:

    "According to the IPCC, the majority of climatologists agree that important climate processes are imperfectly accounted for by the climate models. Scientists point out that there are specific flaws in the models, such as albedo errors, and external factors not taken into consideration that could change the conclusion above."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model


    "This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature."

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...global-cooling

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    it doesn't make the first one science fiction just because the second one is, unless you're just doing it as an exercise in hyperbole
    Your opinion isn't true just because you want it to be true.
     

  14. #13  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Wrong again. Empirical evidence has proven Einstein correct. We can reliably make the following prediction: a clock that is further away from the Earth's surface ticks faster than one that is closer.
    i know that Einstein's theory of relativity has been proven, but that's not time travel, since it only goes forward in time, not backwards

    the theories that talk about real time travel are very much fringe and don't have the same level of proof to shore them up, so let's not confuse the 2

    as for the basic physics behind global warming, it's merely the application of absorption, reflection and redistribution of energy and heat
    the application itself may be complex, but the principles behind it are very basic mainstream physics

    i repeat : to treat real time travel (which as an entity is not even know to exist) on a par with the mainstream physics behind global warming shows a lack of discrimination between the highly speculative and the mildly contentious
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR

    i know that Einstein's theory of relativity has been proven, but that's not time travel, since it only goes forward in time, not backwards
    Oh that's right. You don't think time travel includes moving forward in time. I am curious. Do you only count driving your car backwards as traveling?


    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    the theories that talk about real time travel are very much fringe and don't have the same level of proof to shore them up, so let's not confuse the 2
    When you say proof, I assume you mean predictable results. I agree that the lack of predictable results would put time travel in the realm of science fiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    as for the basic physics behind global warming, it's merely the application of absorption, reflection and redistribution of energy and heat
    the application itself may be complex, but the principles behind it are very basic mainstream physics
    Well, science fiction can also be based on mainsteam physics. The story only needs to sound plausible to the reader for the purpose of entertainment.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i repeat : to treat real time travel (which as an entity is not even know to exist) on a par with the mainstream physics behind global warming shows a lack of discrimination between the highly speculative and the mildly contentious
    Well, to originally state that "no physics describes time travel" puts your credibility in question. I have been watching the global warming issue for years, and labeling it science fiction is totally appropriate when you consider that reliable predictions have never been made. It is thus far a fiction since the bad stuff that was supposed to happen by now has not happened. William McCormick's comment above shows the history of predictions over the last century. None of which came true. Since none of these predictions came true, they are not fact but fiction. Since they are related to science, they are therefore science fiction. Science fiction does not have to be based on some strange theory; it only needs to be false. The falsity is what makes it fiction. (Look up fiction in if you are not clear about its meaning. Look up time travel while you're at it.)
     

  16. #15  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR

    i know that Einstein's theory of relativity has been proven, but that's not time travel, since it only goes forward in time, not backwards
    Oh that's right. You don't think time travel includes moving forward in time. I am curious. Do you only count driving your car backwards as traveling?
    does it come naturally to you distort or misread what other people write or say ? of course time travel can go forward, but it doesn't count as time travel if you only go forward - it wouldn't be much of a car if you didn't have a reverse gear

    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    the theories that talk about real time travel are very much fringe and don't have the same level of proof to shore them up, so let's not confuse the 2
    When you say proof, I assume you mean predictable results. I agree that the lack of predictable results would put time travel in the realm of science fiction.
    no - when i say proof, i mean there's at least some evidence to back up the claim that the thing under discussion actually exists
    while there may be plenty of discussion on time travel and what physics could possibly lie behind it, that's armchair thinking, with little or no evidence to back up the very existence of time travel itself

    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i repeat : to treat real time travel (which as an entity is not even know to exist) on a par with the mainstream physics behind global warming shows a lack of discrimination between the highly speculative and the mildly contentious
    I have been watching the global warming issue for years, and labeling it science fiction is totally appropriate when you consider that reliable predictions have never been made.
    as per usual you're missing the point i'm trying to make, which is that there are levels of strength when it comes to evidence, proof and doubt : my point was that the levels of evidence / proof / doubt of time travel are in a totally different league from the levels of evidence / proof / doubt of global warming

    even science fiction writers will, when pressed, admit that time travel is merely a matter of convenience for the plot and is probably not to permitted within the framework of physics as we currently understand it
    the same cannot be said about global warming in that the levels of implausability are several orders of magnitude lower than that for time travel
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR

    does it come naturally to you distort or misread what other people write or say ?
    Is this question directed at me or you? Anyone reading this thread has seen you go from "no physics supports time travel" to "physics does not support backward time travel" to "physics supports time travel but not in the same manner as it supports global warming." Care to move the goal post again or are you willing to keep it where it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    of course time travel can go forward, but it doesn't count as time travel if you only go forward - it wouldn't be much of a car if you didn't have a reverse gear
    Wrong yet again. Look up travel in the dictionary. Forward travel (even in the absense of backward travel) counts as travel. Here's a little elementary physics for your benefit: a vector that represents travel can go in an infinite number of directions and is not limited to a backwards direction. Conversely, a travel vector can go in only one direction and still be a travel vector. Thus a time travel vector need not move backwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR

    When you say proof, I assume you mean predictable results. I agree that the lack of predictable results would put time travel in the realm of science fiction.
    no - when i say proof, i mean there's at least some evidence to back up the claim that the thing under discussion actually exists
    while there may be plenty of discussion on time travel and what physics could possibly lie behind it, that's armchair thinking, with little or no evidence to back up the very existence of time travel itself
    Exactly. It sort of reminds me of anthropogenic global warming--a lack of evidence backing it up. Although forward time travel has been proven.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR

    as per usual you're missing the point i'm trying to make, which is that there are levels of strength when it comes to evidence, proof and doubt : my point was that the levels of evidence / proof / doubt of time travel are in a totally different league from the levels of evidence / proof / doubt of global warming
    Can you be specific? Your point would have more "strength" if you could give us a side-by-side comparison of global warming evidence vs. time travel evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    even science fiction writers will, when pressed, admit that time travel is merely a matter of convenience for the plot and is probably not to permitted within the framework of physics as we currently understand it
    It is sad that global-warming proponents can't do likewise. Rather than acknowledge that past predicitons have failed, they circle the wagons instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    the same cannot be said about global warming in that the levels of implausability are several orders of magnitude lower than that for time travel
    Enough hairsplitting. Show us the predictions that have been successfully made by climatologists. I haven't seen any yet. Have you? At least forward time travel is established physics, since they actually performed various physical experiments over the years. Climatologists, on the other hand, seem to prefer computer models, but computer models are a fiction--a science fiction. As I said before, science fiction can be based on established science, but it is still fiction if the science is misapplied and if the results contradict what was expected.
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    nice try - but the difference in how time proceeds is not the same as time travel
    you know, like going back to the past

    relativity only affects the speed at which you go forward into the future, there's no physics to describe going back in time
    Oh I see that after I scored a touchdown you have decided to move the goal post. First there was no physics to describe time travel. Then you switch to no physics to describe going back in time. You should become a climatologist or a politician if you are not already in one of those fields.
    Politician, Ha,Ha,Ha.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Is this question directed at me or you? Anyone reading this thread has seen you go from "no physics supports time travel" to "physics does not support backward time travel" to "physics supports time travel but not in the same manner as it supports global warming." Care to move the goal post again or are you willing to keep it where it is?
    williampinn, your middle name is distortion
    again, and this time for the final time : i did not move the goal posts
    the fact that you misunderstand and/or misinterpret my meaning makes you place fake goalposts in places where i didn't put them, and when i point out that the real goalposts are somewhere else you accuse me of moving them

    so make sure that you get someone's drift before you start charging the wrong windmills

    as for whether global warming is real or not, that's not even part of my argument : i'm merely pointing out that time travel and global warming are in totally different categories of uncertainty, and anyone pretending that they are equivalent is mistaken or wilfully out to mislead

    and that is my final word in this non-argument
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Is this question directed at me or you? Anyone reading this thread has seen you go from "no physics supports time travel" to "physics does not support backward time travel" to "physics supports time travel but not in the same manner as it supports global warming." Care to move the goal post again or are you willing to keep it where it is?
    williampinn, your middle name is distortion
    again, and this time for the final time : i did not move the goal posts
    the fact that you misunderstand and/or misinterpret my meaning makes you place fake goalposts in places where i didn't put them, and when i point out that the real goalposts are somewhere else you accuse me of moving them
    I was just being polite. The truth is you screwed up. Talk about distortion. Do you really think insulting me is going to fix your errors? It only makes you look worse. Not only are you ignorant of the subject of time travel and the physics that support it, but you don't show any class when someone politely points it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    as for whether global warming is real or not, that's not even part of my argument : i'm merely pointing out that time travel and global warming are in totally different categories of uncertainty, and anyone pretending that they are equivalent is mistaken or wilfully out to mislead
    Again you have failed to back up your..eh hem...argument with any point by point comparison of the evidence supporting time travel vs. the evidence supporting global warming. If you are not mistaken or out to misliead, then put up or shut up. Prove your point!

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    and that is my final word in this non-argument
    Non-argument? Here is what you wrote in the previous paragraph:

    "...my argument..."

    Do you see a pattern yet? You contradict yourself. If you are trying to make a point, argument or non-argument, try thinking it through first. Run it by some reasonably intelligent friend before you post it. Make sure it makes sense.
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Oh dear williampinn. You just love nitpicking and finding contrived and largely irrelevant points to throw in other's faces, don't you? I'll bet that you don't even realise that you are doing it, since it is your primary modus operandi.

    Time travel: Forward travel? Travelling at relativistic speeds would result in a discrepancy in measured time that would be equal to time travel. This has indeed been proven. BUT, this is certainly not referred to as time travel by physicists. What is generally referred to as time travel is the movie version where you jump into a machine and pop into the future or past. That is not possible by any generally accepted theory. The closest one could come to backwards travel would involve concepts totally devoid of evidence like wormholes and negative energy. It is considered to be, at best, fringe science as marnixR has been trying to get you to understand. Just because the theory allows for certain things does not mean they are true or possible.

    Climate models: These use established and thoroughly tested science in computer models to try and predict weather patterns and climate trends. The main limitations in these are computing power and raw base data. The thing, though, is that these limitations are taken account of and can be reasonably closely predicted, which makes the use of climate models viable. I'll say it again: These limitations are known and can be taken account of.

    Now the only similarity between the two I see is the absence of absolute certainty. Does that make them comparable to each other? Not in any significant sense.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  22. #21  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    I was just being polite. The truth is you screwed up. Talk about distortion. Do you really think insulting me is going to fix your errors?
    not trying to insult, merely trying to be descriptive : you filter what is written through your preconceptions and read something that hasn't been said
    hence you end up with a distortion that you're not even aware of

    as an aside, have you considered how rude you sound ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Oh dear williampinn. You just love nitpicking and finding contrived and largely irrelevant points to throw in other's faces, don't you? I'll bet that you don't even realise that you are doing it, since it is your primary modus operandi.
    It takes at least two to tango. First there were two; now there are three.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Time travel: Forward travel? Travelling at relativistic speeds would result in a discrepancy in measured time that would be equal to time travel. This has indeed been proven.
    Thank you! Your friend said there was no physics whatsoever to support time travel. Then he changed his position, and then denied he changed his position.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    BUT, this is certainly not referred to as time travel by physicists.
    Let me check. Yep! Just as I thought; you are wrong. Read and weep:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/think.html

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    What is generally referred to as time travel is the movie version where you jump into a machine and pop into the future or past.
    Oh I see. You are not a physicist; you are a movie hound. That explains everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    That is not possible by any generally accepted theory.
    Let me check. Ah, found something:

    "The B-movie image of the intrepid chrononaut climbing into his time machine and watching the clock outside spin backwards while those outside the time machine watch the him revert to callow youth is, according to current theory, impossible. In current theory, the arrow of time flows in only one direction at any particular place. If this were not true, then one could not impose a 4-dimensional co-ordinate system on space-time, and many nasty consequences would result. Nevertheless, there is a scenario which is not ruled out by present knowledge. This usually requires an unusual spacetime topology (due to wormholes or strings in general relativity) which has not yet seen, but which may be possible. In this scenario the universe is well behaved in every local region; only by exploring the global properties does one discover time travel."

    Pardon the pun, but "generally accepted theory" is relative. LOL!




    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The closest one could come to backwards travel would involve concepts totally devoid of evidence like wormholes and negative energy. It is considered to be, at best, fringe science as marnixR has been trying to get into your scull. Just because the theory allows for certain things does not mean they are true or possible.
    I agree, and you could be describing climate models here. Just because you have a pretty model does not mean its projections are true or possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Climate models: These use established and thoroughly tested science in computer models to try and predict weather patterns and climate trends.
    Yes, they try and have failed thus far. What I have been trying to get through marnixR's scull is the fact that science fiction need not be based on a strange and provocative hypothesis. It only needs to be fiction. And fiction can be based on established science. I can write a fictitious story involving the conservation of energy, for example. Or, I could write a fictitious computer model involving the conservation of energy. The established science makes the story seem more plausible, but it does not make the story a fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The main limitations in these are computing power and raw base data. The thing, though, is that these limitations are taken account of and can be reasonably closely predicted, which makes the use of climate models viable. I'll say it again: These limitations are known and can be taken account of.
    What viable use have you gotten so far? So far every gloom-and-doom prediciton has fallen flat. Is that what you mean by viability?
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Now the only similarity between the two I see is the absence of absolute certainty. Does that make them comparable to each other? Not in any significant sense.
    Try opening your eyes to the history of climate models, to the results. The predictions made in the past turned out to be false--fiction--science fiction. Science fiction only needs to be false, nothing else.

    Let me enlighten you further with an illustration:

    Consider this scenario: If the Earth becomes warm enough, the magma beneath the crust of the Earth could expand and essentially pierce the crust and wipe us all out. Now that scenario is based on the assumption that the Earth will get warm enough, and it could easily be explained by established science, but it is science fiction. I made it up. If you want, I could build a model for you. Get it?
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    I was just being polite. The truth is you screwed up. Talk about distortion. Do you really think insulting me is going to fix your errors?
    not trying to insult, merely trying to be descriptive : you filter what is written through your preconceptions and read something that hasn't been said
    hence you end up with a distortion that you're not even aware of

    as an aside, have you considered how rude you sound ?
    You probably aren't aware that you speak platitudes. There is absolutely no substance to your allegation.
     

  25. #24  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    There is absolutely no substance to your allegation.
    if i feel insulted, then you are insulting, whatever you may think you are
    a pity that as a mod i have to keep on reading your rants, otherwise i'd put you on ignore as of now

    and this is the last time i intend to reply to any of your posts - goodbye
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    There is absolutely no substance to your allegation.
    if i feel insulted, then you are insulting, whatever you may think you are
    a pity that as a mod i have to keep on reading your rants, otherwise i'd put you on ignore as of now

    and this is the last time i intend to reply to any of your posts - goodbye
    Reading my rants? When and where did I rant? This is what I'm talking about when I say you speak platitudes. Do you really think you are scoring points with the readers out there in science land? Heck, if I were in your shoes, I'd quit while I was only slightly behind.
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    BUT, this is certainly not referred to as time travel by physicists.


    Let me check. Yep! Just as I thought; you are wrong. Read and weep:
    You quote PBS to say physicists use the term "time travel" among themselves? Way to go!

    What is generally referred to as time travel is the movie version where you jump into a machine and pop into the future or past.


    Oh I see. You are not a physicist; you are a movie hound. That explains everything.
    And yet in your very next point you quote something that makes the same distinction? :? See? Contrived and irrelavent points! Poor and transparent debate tactics.



    That is not possible by any generally accepted theory
    .



    Let me check. Ah, found something:

    "The B-movie image of the intrepid chrononaut climbing into his time machine and watching the clock outside spin backwards while those outside the time machine watch the him revert to callow youth is, according to current theory, impossible. In current theory, the arrow of time flows in only one direction at any particular place. If this were not true, then one could not impose a 4-dimensional co-ordinate system on space-time, and many nasty consequences would result. Nevertheless, there is a scenario which is not ruled out by present knowledge. This usually requires an unusual spacetime topology (due to wormholes or strings in general relativity) which has not yet seen, but which may be possible. In this scenario the universe is well behaved in every local region; only by exploring the global properties does one discover time travel."

    Pardon the pun, but "generally accepted theory" is relative. LOL!
    How is your quote different from what I said? I bolded the relevant part for you.

    The closest one could come to backwards travel would involve concepts totally devoid of evidence like wormholes and negative energy. It is considered to be, at best, fringe science as marnixR has been trying to get into your scull. Just because the theory allows for certain things does not mean they are true or possible.


    I agree, and you could be describing climate models here. Just because you have a pretty model does not mean its projections are true or possible.
    The models use mountains of data. How is that the same as unsupported and unevidenced hypothesis?

    Climate models: These use established and thoroughly tested science in computer models to try and predict weather patterns and climate trends.


    Yes, they try and have failed thus far. What I have been trying to get through marnixR's scull is the fact that science fiction need not be based on a strange and provocative hypothesis. It only needs to be fiction. And fiction can be based on established science. I can write a fictitious story involving the conservation of energy, for example. Or, I could write a fictitious computer model involving the conservation of energy. The established science makes the story seem more plausible, but it does not make the story a fact.
    You are making a pretty extraordinary claim here. Are you saying that they are manufacturing the data? Are they willfully manipulating the models to show warming trends? That would be fiction. Making wrong predictions entail a huge number of variables and certainly does not imply dishonesty. Are you a conspiracist? Besides, the errors WM quoted were all by news agencies and not from the primary source. Are you naive enough to think that newspapers always publish only raw facts devoid of impassioned sales-driven sensation? Do you think that quoting singular doom-and-gloomers constitute evidence that the whole thing is contrived?

    Consider this scenario: If the Earth becomes warm enough, the magma beneath the crust of the Earth could expand and essentially pierce the crust and wipe us all out. Now that scenario is based on the assumption that the Earth will get warm enough, and it could easily be explained by established science, but it is science fiction. I made it up. If you want, I could build a model for you. Get it?
    You have got to be kidding, right? :-D
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You quote PBS to say physicists use the term "time travel" among themselves? Way to go!
    Oh, I'm sorry. You should have told me you are too good for PBS. B-movies about time travel is your preference.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    And yet in your very next point you quote something that makes the same distinction? :? See? Contrived and irrelavent points! Poor and transparent debate tactics.
    Are you some sort of expert on debate tactics? LOL!



    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER

    "The B-movie image of the intrepid chrononaut climbing into his time machine and watching the clock outside spin backwards while those outside the time machine watch the him revert to callow youth is, according to current theory, impossible. How is your quote different from what I said? I bolded the relevant part for you.
    I never said it was different from what you said. I merely pointed out that your understanding of time travel seems to be based on movies.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The models use mountains of data. How is that the same as unsupported and unevidenced hypothesis?
    Unsupported, unevidenced hypothesis? You need to dig a little deeper on the subject of time travel. Your movies don't cut it. Try Googling "evidence time travel."




    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Yes, they try and have failed thus far. What I have been trying to get through marnixR's scull is the fact that science fiction need not be based on a strange and provocative hypothesis. It only needs to be fiction. And fiction can be based on established science. I can write a fictitious story involving the conservation of energy, for example. Or, I could write a fictitious computer model involving the conservation of energy. The established science makes the story seem more plausible, but it does not make the story a fact.
    You are making a pretty extraordinary claim here. Are you saying that they are manufacturing the data? Are they willfully manipulating the models to show warming trends? That would be fiction. Making wrong predictions entail a huge number of variables and certainly does not imply dishonesty. Are you a conspiracist? Besides, the errors WM quoted were all by news agencies and not from the primary source. Are you naive enough to think that newspapers always publish only raw facts devoid of impassioned sales-driven sensation? Do you think that quoting singular doom-and-gloomers constitute evidence that the whole thing is contrived?
    Bottom line: the predictions made in the past have fallen flat. They may as well be science fiction. I do believe that was the original point made by McCormick. Then the hairsplitting began and here we are with shaved heads. Whether or not there is dishonesty involved, the poor track record is the same. And no I am not the one who is naive enough to believe the media. I am the skeptic here, remember? Maybe you are the one who is naive enough to believe the anthropogenic global warming story. By the way, who is the "primary source" and what is its track record? (A rhetorical question, since deep down we both really know the truth.)

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Consider this scenario: If the Earth becomes warm enough, the magma beneath the crust of the Earth could expand and essentially pierce the crust and wipe us all out. Now that scenario is based on the assumption that the Earth will get warm enough, and it could easily be explained by established science, but it is science fiction. I made it up. If you want, I could build a model for you. Get it?
    You have got to be kidding, right? :-D
    Not kidding. It may make you feel good to believe I am, but that is not science--that is wishful thinking.
     

  29. #28  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Oh, I'm sorry. You should have told me you are too good for PBS. B-movies about time travel is your preference.....AND....I never said it was different from what you said. I merely pointed out that your understanding of time travel seems to be based on movies.
    You are doing it again. I very clearly told you what the difference is between movie time travel and what the only vague scientific possibilities are in my first post in this thread, but you just love contriving strawmen to attack, don’t you? BAD DEBATE TACTICS.

    Unsupported, unevidenced hypothesis? You need to dig a little deeper on the subject of time travel. Your movies don't cut it. Try Googling "evidence time travel."
    I suggest you do the same. In fact, HERE is a quick rundown on the issue. The qualifying thing here is the total lack observational evidence in support of backwards travel, while employing largely conjectured methods. Climate models employ known and demonstrated physics and millions of first hand data points to make predictions with attached error margins.

    Bottom line: the predictions made in the past have fallen flat. They may as well be science fiction. I do believe that was the original point made by McCormick. Then the hairsplitting began and here we are with shaved heads. Whether or not there is dishonesty involved, the poor track record is the same. And no I am not the one who is naive enough to believe the media. I am the skeptic here, remember? Maybe you are the one who is naive enough to believe the anthropogenic global warming story. By the way, who is the "primary source" and what is its track record? (A rhetorical question, since deep down we both really know the truth.)
    Show me a definite scientific prediction, quoted from primary literature, that has fallen flat. Take care to look for the absence of qualifiers like "if this, then that" and "possibly" or projected probabilities. You watch the weather reports, right? They also make predictions using models and collected data and provide probabilities, but you still find them useful. While they predict local conditions and temperatures on the short term, climate models use millions of data points and make global predictions on averages in the long term.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    "This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature."

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...global-cooling
    From your posting this I can only assume you don't understand the context or simply chose to ignore this in the same article by the same scientist: ""Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." The purpose for his research was to explore the short term natural variability of the type we've been observing for the past 120 years. His research does not in any way refute the findings summarized in the IPCC report which spends an entire chapter about variability. The 0.3 increase is an average rise derived from a forecast of a longer period, specifically 3 C by the year 2100. It is not a forecast of the next ten years.
    The IPCC report makes no forecast shorter than, 20 years, and points out that this is shorter than the common climatologist convention of measuring over 30 year or longer periods. The models themselves include much of the variability, for example I'll show UK Hadley center's model below. Note while it also rises about 0.3C/ 10 years, there are many ten year periods from point to point where they are no increases at all--or course those periods end and the temperature peaks again enough to create a rising average. Below that I put up a figure from the last IPCC report that compares the groups of climate models outputs of the last century. Note the observed and individual models both show lots of short term variability within a long term average rise.

    For the most part the all the radiation, thermodynamic, and fluid equations included in climate models have been known for at least a half century--(some like Navier–Stokes equations go back almost 200 years). The hard part is figuring out what terms to omit based on the scale, and which terms need to be parameterized because for lack of good observation, computer power limitations, or combinations of the both. The same can't be said for physics, which is still struggling to come up with a unified theory which leads to a serious scholarship and lots of make believe like time travel (going backwards) due to symmetry in some of the equations. But I could see how they might be equally unfathomable for those lacking a science background so they assume it's sci-fi from a position of ignorance.
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    There also seems to be a lot of concern about using hindcast (matching past observations) as opposed to forecast. It reality there's little difference from a climate modelers, or most other natural system models (e.g. oceans, astronomy etc). You see natural systems have co many variables and are usually matched against so many types of observations that it would be virtually impossible to do some elaborate curve fitting for the entire period in question. For example climate models take into consideration solar radiance, volcanoes, man's and nature's emissions of co2, sulfur aerosols, methane changing and other factors. In turn they are compared to not only temperature, but also pressure pattern at the surface and at multiple level aloft, precipitation etc. In addition these are not stochastic models but rather based on the actual physical equations--that makes them very different than other types of models the public is sometimes familiar with (e.g. technical stock picks etc)

    All that being said there are a few opportunities to run very old (and largely obsolete) models such as NASA's 1988 model using a few scenarios. Below I show a plot of the 1988 model output compare to observed temperature. Of the three scenarios of green house gas (Co2, methane + others) forcing that NASA used, by the end of last year we were between B and C. Though it's been a shorter period than typically measured for climate (30 years), even this primitive model was capable of a respectable forecast--undershooting 1998 El Nino driven year and overshooting the bottom of the current solar cycle which it does not try to model (the 1988 NASA model had no solar cycles). The 1988 model was also successful at predicting high tropospheric cooling, and general distribution of warming with latitude (most warming in arctic).

    Todays models have much better resolution, better clouds, better ocean circulation changes and interaction with the atmosphere, more robust feedbacks such as changes in albedo based on changes to ice, forest etc.

     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You are doing it again. I very clearly told you what the difference is between movie time travel and what the only vague scientific possibilities are in my first post in this thread, but you just love contriving strawmen to attack, don’t you? BAD DEBATE TACTICS.
    No, this is YOUR strawman. You made a quip about PBS rather than address the evidence provided. I merely made a counter reposte to your quip. (Warning: Readers of the thread can read who said what and why.) And now YOU are accusing me of BAD debate tactics? Puh-leazzz!
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Unsupported, unevidenced hypothesis? You need to dig a little deeper on the subject of time travel. Your movies don't cut it. Try Googling "evidence time travel."
    I suggest you do the same. In fact, HERE is a quick rundown on the issue. The qualifying thing here is the total lack observational evidence in support of backwards travel, while employing largely conjectured methods.
    Yet another strawman erected by you and the other guy. The original assertion was that "no physics described time travel," then the goal post was moved to "No evidence supports time travel." When I showed there is in fact evidence supporting forward time travel, then the goal post was moved yet again to "There is no evidence of backward time travel." I am sure that if you and your friend keep moving that goal post, eventually you will find a spot where there is no evidence, but the original assertion made by your bud has been blasted into bits, and now all I can do is make the rubble bounce.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Climate models employ known and demonstrated physics and millions of first hand data points to make predictions with attached error margins.
    Still waiting for you to post that fabulous track record of successful past predicitons.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Show me a definite scientific prediction, quoted from primary literature, that has fallen flat.
    Sure. It appears you are a fan of Carl Sagan, by the looks of your signature, so let's look at one of his predicitons:

    During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Singer debated Carl Sagan on the impact of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the ABC News program Nightline. Sagan said we know from the nuclear winter investigation that the smoke would loft into the upper atmosphere and that he believed the net effects would be very similar to the explosion of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815, which resulted in the year 1816 being known as the year without a summer, in massive agricultural failures, in very serious human suffering and, in some cases, starvation. He predicted the same for south Asia, and perhaps for a significant fraction of the northern hemisphere as well as a result. Singer, on the other hand, said that calculations showed that the smoke would go to an altitude of about 3,000 feet and then be rained out after about three to five days and thus the lifetime of the smoke would be limited.[66] According to a later study,

    Smoke from the Kuwait Oil Fires dominated the synoptic weather pattern throughout the Persian Gulf and surrounding region during 1991. The lower atmospheric wind flow parameters advected smoke along the eastern half of the Arabian Peninsula, and cities like Dhahran, Riyadh and Bahrain experienced days with smoke filled skies and carbon fallout.

    [...]

    Differential smoke advection at all three sites led to significant temperature variations. Smoke from the Kuwait oil fires lowered mean maximum and mean temperatures at Dhahran and Riyadh during 1991. Cooler Persian Gulf temperatures caused by the oil spill into the gulf and oil fire smoke lowered mean maximum, mean and mean minimum at Bahrain during 1991.

    However

    Although lower temperatures were recorded in 1991, Kuwait oil fires had no lasting meteorological impacts at any of the locations examined, and there has been no change to the seasonal synoptic weather patterns throughout the Persian Gulf Region.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer




    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Take care to look for the absence of qualifiers like "if this, then that" and "possibly" or projected probabilities.
    I love the way you hedge your bet here. LOL!

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You watch the weather reports, right? They also make predictions using models and collected data and provide probabilities, but you still find them useful.
    I have noticed that short-term predictions are more reliable than long-term predictions due to the butterfly effect. The longer the term of the prediction, the less useful it becomes. Since the short-term predicitons are often contrary to the actual results, how can we be reasonably certain that long-term predictions are reliable?

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    While they predict local conditions and temperatures on the short term, climate models use millions of data points and make global predictions on averages in the long term.
    Still waiting for you or someone to post that marvelous long-term track record. You asked me for a prediction that fell flat, and I gave you one. Now it is time for you to put up or shut up.
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Kalster could probably just repeat the question, since it wasn't understood the first time that he probably wasn't talking about the opinion of a non-atmospheric scientist on a TV talk show about the weather.

    "
    Show me a definite scientific prediction, quoted from primary literature, that has fallen flat."

    --
    Two weeks ago I was a passenger on a black hawk helicopter flying over many of those same oil wells. Many were just capped and the residual oil just left to pond where the well once stood.
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    I have been watching the global warming issue for years, and labeling it science fiction is totally appropriate when you consider that reliable predictions have never been made. It is thus far a fiction since the bad stuff that was supposed to happen by now has not happened. William McCormick's comment above shows the history of predictions over the last century. None of which came true. Since none of these predictions came true, they are not fact but fiction. Since they are related to science, they are therefore science fiction. Science fiction does not have to be based on some strange theory; it only needs to be false. The falsity is what makes it fiction. (Look up fiction in if you are not clear about its meaning. Look up time travel while you're at it.)
    Here you're confusing scientific prediction, scientific forecasting and the colloquial usage of "prediction". It is not a requirement of good scientific theories that they tell the future. To give an analogy in my own field, I can't tell what a certain species will one day evolve into, but that is not what the "predictive" power of evolutionary theory is. Its predictive power is that we can judge what will appear in general gaps in our knowledge, such as fossil record gaps or genetic record gaps. What you're talking about is forecasting, which is understandably difficult given the complexity of the system.

    So, whatever else we may say about climate models, calling them science fiction is nonsense.
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    There also seems to be a lot of concern about using hindcast (matching past observations) as opposed to forecast. It reality there's little difference from a climate modelers, or most other natural system models (e.g. oceans, astronomy etc). You see natural systems have co many variables and are usually matched against so many types of observations that it would be virtually impossible to do some elaborate curve fitting for the entire period in question. For example climate models take into consideration solar radiance, volcanoes, man's and nature's emissions of co2, sulfur aerosols, methane changing and other factors. In turn they are compared to not only temperature, but also pressure pattern at the surface and at multiple level aloft, precipitation etc. In addition these are not stochastic models but rather based on the actual physical equations--that makes them very different than other types of models the public is sometimes familiar with (e.g. technical stock picks etc)

    All that being said there are a few opportunities to run very old (and largely obsolete) models such as NASA's 1988 model using a few scenarios. Below I show a plot of the 1988 model output compare to observed temperature. Of the three scenarios of green house gas (Co2, methane + others) forcing that NASA used, by the end of last year we were between B and C. Though it's been a shorter period than typically measured for climate (30 years), even this primitive model was capable of a respectable forecast--undershooting 1998 El Nino driven year and overshooting the bottom of the current solar cycle which it does not try to model (the 1988 NASA model had no solar cycles). The 1988 model was also successful at predicting high tropospheric cooling, and general distribution of warming with latitude (most warming in arctic).

    Todays models have much better resolution, better clouds, better ocean circulation changes and interaction with the atmosphere, more robust feedbacks such as changes in albedo based on changes to ice, forest etc.

    Are you really really sure this time? Cause looky here:

    http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/...-model-inputs/

    Apparently your chart is the result of guesswork.

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

    Why blame carbon dioxide when you can blame the sun?

    Yet another skeptic:
    http://stubbornfacts.us/domestic_pol...te_models_fail

    But let's assume for the sake of argument that your chart and comments are true. I note a nearly 1C increase. According to IPCC, Under section 2.4.4 there is the admission that the likelihood of future extreme events is poorly known. These extreme events include heat waves, storms and flooding.

    Under section 2.4.1:

    "...but these methods have not been defined consistently across different research communities."

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...2-chapter2.pdf


    Under section 3.2 they (IPCC) freely admit that they have a limited understanding of some important effects (they don't say what effects, so you are free to use your imagination) driving sea level rise. Sea levels could rise or fall.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf

    At best you have shown a temperature increase, but no showing of a correlation between carbon dioxide and the temperature increase, and definitely no showing of a correlation between the alleged temperature increase and any global disasters. Even if you showed such correlations, correlation does not prove causation.

    I am still waiting for you to debunk the NGIPCC report. If you want to turn my head around, that's what you have to do. Here is the link again:
    http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf

    You will see that your chart data has been debunked by this report. That is why you need to read it and do a counter-debunking.
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Kalster could probably just repeat the question, since it wasn't understood the first time that he probably wasn't talking about the opinion of a non-atmospheric scientist on a TV talk show about the weather.

    "
    Show me a definite scientific prediction, quoted from primary literature, that has fallen flat."
    Moving the goal post once again, I see. Carl Sagan is not good enough? LOL! OK then. I think we can all agree at this point that one should not believe the media and the scientists they recruit. I think that is one of the key points of the opponents of anthropogenic climate change. I want to thank you and Kalster for helping to prove it. So next time Al Gore or some news guy or gal announces there is a "consensus" on the issue, we should just take it with a grain of salt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Two weeks ago I was a passenger on a black hawk helicopter flying over many of those same oil wells. Many were just capped and the residual oil just left to pond where the well once stood.
    Link please! I am assuming Carl Sagan was a bright guy and factored any such variable into his models or the scientists he consulted included it in their models. If they did, their predition flopped. If they failed to factor it in, then they are dumb. Take your pick.
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Here you're confusing scientific prediction, scientific forecasting and the colloquial usage of "prediction".
    Not at all. I understand the difference between preditions and probability projections.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    It is not a requirement of good scientific theories that they tell the future.
    Sadly you are right, but the really good scientific theories do tell the future. I predict that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Stay tuned and see if I am right.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    To give an analogy in my own field, I can't tell what a certain species will one day evolve into, but that is not what the "predictive" power of evolutionary theory is. Its predictive power is that we can judge what will appear in general gaps in our knowledge, such as fossil record gaps or genetic record gaps. What you're talking about is forecasting, which is understandably difficult given the complexity of the system.
    Exactly! It is dangerous to extrapolate the past into the future. So it would be foolhardy for public policy to be based on such extrapolations.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    So, whatever else we may say about climate models, calling them science fiction is nonsense.
    Is a prediction that did not come true a fact or a fiction? Your answer: "It is a fiction." Does the prediction involve science? You: "Yes." So then it is not really nonsense to call it science fiction. You: "Well, I suppose you are right."
     

  38. #37  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    You just have a natural tendency to jump to the most ridiculous and contrived interpretations of your opponent's points.

    Let me quote my very first post in this thread again, shall I?
    Quote Originally Posted by I
    Time travel: Forward travel? Travelling at relativistic speeds would result in a discrepancy in measured time that would be equal to time travel. This has indeed been proven. BUT, this is certainly not referred to as time travel by physicists. What is generally referred to as time travel by laymen is the movie version where you jump into a machine and pop into the future or past. That is not possible by any generally accepted theory. The closest one could come to backwards travel would involve concepts totally devoid of evidence like wormholes and negative energy. It is considered to be, at best, fringe science as marnixR has been trying to get you to understand. Just because the theory allows for certain things does not mean they are true or possible.
    I added a bolded part to make clearer what I said. I think your misunderstanding must have begun there and spun wildly out of control.


    No, this is YOUR strawman. You made a quip about PBS rather than address the evidence provided.
    I said: "Travelling at relativistic speeds would result in a discrepancy in measured time that would be equal to time travel. This has indeed been proven. BUT, this is certainly not referred to as time travel by physicists." Clearly I was talking about forward time travel not referred to as such by physicists. PBS is not a collection of physicists. "Forward time travel" is simply a consequence of relativity.

    Yet another strawman erected by you and the other guy. The original assertion was that "no physics described time travel," then the goal post was moved to "No evidence supports time travel." When I showed there is in fact evidence supporting forward time travel, then the goal post was moved yet again to "There is no evidence of backward time travel." I am sure that if you and your friend keep moving that goal post, eventually you will find a spot where there is no evidence, but the original assertion made by your bud has been blasted into bits, and now all I can do is make the rubble bounce.
    Again, look at my original post. I have not deviated from it. That link you provided gives evidence of a possibility, not observational evidence of actual backwards time travel. Like I said, it is all based on conjecture and extrapolations of equations that does not constitute direct evidence. The point marnixR was making, which you completely skipped over and which still holds true, is that a comparison between Climate change predictions and time travel (which is most probably what WM referred to in the Movie sense, since he does not believe in relativity) is not a valid comparison. Again, climate change uses real data points and tried and tested science to make the predictions, while time travel ideas does nothing of the sort (except for forwards travel, with which WM's point would have failed with anyway since that certainly is based on solid criteria). The comparison is bunk. Why harp on about who said what when the primary point stands in any case?

    Still waiting for you to post that fabulous track record of successful past predicitons.
    Lynx_Fox has graciously provided one such example in the last post on the previous page. It shows the surprisingly accurate predictions of a 1988 NASA model using quite inferior technology and even omitting solar forcing completely. Modern models, while still not as accurate as one would like, is greatly superior.

    Sure. It appears you are a fan of Carl Sagan, by the looks of your signature, so let's look at one of his predicitons:
    Lynx_Fox has also already made this point, but Carl Sagan is one guy, a non-Climatologist and it was done on a TV show for goodness sake. I specifically said: "Show me a definite scientific prediction, quoted from primary literature that has fallen flat." Next you'll quote Al Gore or some such.

    I love the way you hedge your bet here. LOL!
    Well, I did that because you seem to completely disregard those qualifiers as if the predictions were meant to be written in stone. Show me a prediction that has fallen flat even with those qualifiers taken into consideration.

    I have noticed that short-term predictions are more reliable than long-term predictions due to the butterfly effect. The longer the term of the prediction, the less useful it becomes. Since the short-term predicitons are often contrary to the actual results, how can we be reasonably certain that long-term predictions are reliable?
    Yes, but the long term global predictions are not done in the same way as short term, local weather predictions. For one thing, weather is averaged out and overall larger scale variations are entered. The point is that probabilities are provided and it is not meant to be interpreted in the way normally represented in absolute terms by the media.

    Moving the goal post once again, I see. Carl Sagan is not good enough? LOL! OK then. I think we can all agree at this point that one should not believe the media and the scientists they recruit. I think that is one of the key points of the opponents of anthropogenic climate change. I want to thank you and Kalster for helping to prove it. So next time Al Gore or some news guy or gal announces there is a "consensus" on the issue, we should just take it with a grain of salt.
    Not moving the goalposts. I think you will find that we are all in agreement with your point about the media. :wink:

    Is a prediction that did not come true a fact or a fiction?
    "Fiction" implies wilful misleading. Whether a prediction came true depends on the nature of the prediction. That is where the qualifiers come in, which include probabilities and error margins. The real question is whether they are reasonably within those bounds.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Is a prediction that did not come true a fact or a fiction? Your answer: "It is a fiction." Does the prediction involve science? You: "Yes." So then it is not really nonsense to call it science fiction. You: "Well, I suppose you are right."
    Cheers for putting words in my mouth and once again shifting the focus to predicting the future. The focus of the climate models is less about what exactly is going to happen than it is about explaining what we have observed. Determining, for example, whether we are influencing climate change. Obviously forecasting is desirable, but we know that this is inaccurate and allows only the broadest predictions with confidence. What the climate models have allowed us to do is explain the observed and make predictions about the unobserved, be it in the past or (broadly) future. Where we're wrong, the model must be changed. The evidence shows that we're influencing climate change and that the world is warming as a result of that. There's nothing fictional about that and everything scientific about it. These things, based upon what is happening and what has happened has nothing to do with forecasts.

    Failed forecasts make science fiction (if we want to call it that) of those forecasts. Not of climate change models. For the models to become fiction requires that they be falsified with contradictory evidence. Plus, of course, fiction implies deliberate fabrication, rather than inadvertent inaccuracy. In the case of models explaining how we got where we are (be they climate models, evolutionary models or whatever), that evidence would come from the past (excepting evidence which changes our understanding of the underlying science), not from how accurate our forecasts are.
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You just have a natural tendency to jump to the most ridiculous and contrived interpretations of your opponent's points.

    Let me quote my very first post in this thread again, shall I?
    Quote Originally Posted by I
    Time travel: Forward travel? Travelling at relativistic speeds would result in a discrepancy in measured time that would be equal to time travel. This has indeed been proven. BUT, this is certainly not referred to as time travel by physicists. What is generally referred to as time travel by laymen is the movie version where you jump into a machine and pop into the future or past. That is not possible by any generally accepted theory. The closest one could come to backwards travel would involve concepts totally devoid of evidence like wormholes and negative energy. It is considered to be, at best, fringe science as marnixR has been trying to get you to understand. Just because the theory allows for certain things does not mean they are true or possible.
    I added a bolded part to make clearer what I said. I think your misunderstanding must have begun there and spun wildly out of control.
    Do we have to cover this ground again? Here is a summary of the history:
    marnixR claimed that there is no physics to support time travel. I showed that there is physics to support time travel (forward and backward). Then he switched to "there is no evidence to support time travel." Then I showed there is evidence to support forward time travel. Then he shape-shifted yet again to "There is no evidence of backward time travel." Sheesh! Then you show up and declare that forward time travel is not the time travel referred to by physicists, then I provide a link showing that you are wrong. You then scoffed at it because it is PBS. I think some people have a problem admitting their errors. LOL! The more you and your friend try to spin out of them, the more rediculous you look. My girlfriend is sitting next to me and she is laughing her ass off at your antics.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    PBS is not a collection of physicists.
    Well thanks for that update. LOL! Let me help you out here: The Nova program that appeared on PBS, featured a collection of scientists. No one claimed that PBS is a collection of scientists.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Again, look at my original post. I have not deviated from it. That link you provided gives evidence of a possibility, not observational evidence of actual backwards time travel.
    The link debunks your erroneous assertion:

    "Time travel: Forward travel? Travelling at relativistic speeds would result in a discrepancy in measured time that would be equal to time travel. This has indeed been proven. BUT, this is certainly not referred to as time travel by physicists."

    Again, readers of this thread can read what was said, who said it and why. Get used to it. If you were a little smarter, you would either admit your error or quietly fade away. Instead you keep choosing to step in the proverbial doo doo.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Like I said, it is all based on conjecture and extrapolations of equations that does not constitute direct evidence.
    No one is arguing that backward time travel has evidence to support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The point marnixR was making, which you completely skipped over and which still holds true, is that a comparison between Climate change predictions and time travel (which is most probably what WM referred to in the Movie sense, since he does not believe in relativity) is not a valid comparison.
    Uh huh.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Again, climate change uses real data points and tried and tested science to make the predictions, while time travel ideas does nothing of the sort
    And I never argued that the differences you cited don't exist. I argued that they are irrelevant to the requisites of science fiction. Science fiction can be based on established science. I even gave a couple of examples.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Still waiting for you to post that fabulous track record of successful past predicitons.
    Lynx_Fox has graciously provided one such example in the last post on the previous page. It shows the surprisingly accurate predictions of a 1988 NASA model using quite inferior technology and even omitting solar forcing completely. Modern models, while still not as accurate as one would like, is greatly superior. [/quote]

    That is assuming that what he posted isn't garbage. I debunked that post with some links to some actual science.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    ...but Carl Sagan is one guy, a non-Climatologist and it was done on a TV show for goodness sake. I specifically said: "Show me a definite scientific prediction, quoted from primary literature that has fallen flat." Next you'll quote Al Gore or some such.
    So we can agree at this point that Al Gore, the media and scientists they recruit should not be taken seriously. The next time it is announced that there is a "consensus" we should take it with a grain of salt.

    If Carl Sagan does not count, then who does? How about the IPCC? I posted some links on the "...meaningful consensus thread" that show the IPCC's past predicitons being way off. I also posted on that thread some links to scientific papers written in the 70s that predicted an ice age. Well we know that prediction flopped.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I love the way you hedge your bet here. LOL!
    Well, I did that because you seem to completely disregard those qualifiers as if the predictions were meant to be written in stone. Show me a prediction that has fallen flat even with those qualifiers taken into consideration.
    I think I already did. But your demand for the qualifiers and admission that predictions are not written in stone, make the case for the opponents of anthropogenic climate change, not the proponents'.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I have noticed that short-term predictions are more reliable than long-term predictions due to the butterfly effect. The longer the term of the prediction, the less useful it becomes. Since the short-term predicitons are often contrary to the actual results, how can we be reasonably certain that long-term predictions are reliable?
    Yes, but the long term global predictions are not done in the same way as short term, local weather predictions. For one thing, weather is averaged out and overall larger scale variations are entered. The point is that probabilities are provided and it is not meant to be interpreted in the way normally represented in absolute terms by the media.
    Once again you make a case for the opponents. We can't trust the media. Thank you! Local weather predictions are somewhat useful in that they tell me how the weather is going to be in my area. What good is it to average out the weather on a large scale? That is as useful as telling you that the long-term average of a pair of dice is 7. It is pretty hard to place a bet or plan your life on averages. Wouldn't resources be better spent improving local weather forcasting?
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Once again you make a case for the opponents. We can't trust the media. Thank you!
    The reporting of science in the mainstream media is largely inaccurate. However the consensus on climate change is not an artefact of the mainstream media but is evident in the peer-reviewed literature. That's the word of scientist themselves, as reviewed by scientists. No journalists in there.

    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Local weather predictions are somewhat useful in that they tell me how the weather is going to be in my area. What good is it to average out the weather on a large scale? That is as useful as telling you that the long-term average of a pair of dice is 7. It is pretty hard to place a bet or plan your life on averages. Wouldn't resources be better spent improving local weather forcasting?
    Weather and climate are not the same thing.
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista

    Cheers for putting words in my mouth and once again shifting the focus to predicting the future.
    I am glad you understand, and why not shift the focus to the future? You go on to explain:

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    The focus of the climate models is less about what exactly is going to happen than it is about explaining what we have observed. Determining, for example, whether we are influencing climate change. Obviously forecasting is desirable, but we know that this is inaccurate and allows only the broadest predictions with confidence.
    Forcasting is desirable? Now YOU are changing the focus to the future. So basically what you are saying here is climate models can't predict squat. I and other opponents agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista

    it is about explaining what we have observed
    It is about forming a hypothesis? OK, but how do we test a hypothesis? We conduct experiments, right? And what are experiments? Experiments show whether our hypothesis is on track or not. If it is on track, guess what? We can make predicitons about the future. If we can't then we should reject or modify the hypothesis. Isn't that what real science is about? Now the fact that climate models are poor predictors is a strong indication that the null hypothesis sucks, that our understanding of what we have observed also sucks. Hence my insistence that we focus on the future. Time tells on all BS coming from the noblest institutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    What the climate models have allowed us to do is explain the observed and make predictions about the unobserved, be it in the past or (broadly) future. Where we're wrong, the model must be changed.
    I am glad we can agree here.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    The evidence shows that we're influencing climate change and that the world is warming as a result of that.
    There seems to be some disagreement as to what the so-called evidence shows. Again what physical experiments have been done. What predicitons can be made other than "the climate might change because of Man"? I would think our influence on the climate would be a no-brainer. The question is how much of an influence do we have and why must that lead to disaster?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    There's nothing fictional about that and everything scientific about it. These things, based upon what is happening and what has happened has nothing to do with forecasts.
    If you can't make reliable forcasts, then your hypothesis is fiction to some extent. The science that seems to be missing is the physical experiments and successful forcasts of past doom and gloom.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Failed forecasts make science fiction (if we want to call it that) of those forecasts.
    OK, so McCormick's "science fiction" dig is not total nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Not of climate change models. For the models to become fiction requires that they be falsified with contradictory evidence.
    Failed forcasts are pretty strong contradictory evidence. If my previous forcast of the sun rising in the East failed to happen, I am pretty sure I would see that as falsification of my hypothesis that the sun rises in the East.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Plus, of course, fiction implies deliberate fabrication, rather than inadvertent inaccuracy.
    Every hypothesis is a deliberate fabrication, a creation of the mind. If it turns out to be false then it qualifies as fiction. No responsible person would ever confuse it with fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    In the case of models explaining how we got where we are (be they climate models, evolutionary models or whatever), that evidence would come from the past (excepting evidence which changes our understanding of the underlying science), not from how accurate our forecasts are.
    Unfortunately climate models are being used to fortell the future. I like your analogy to evolution. Only an idiot would try to predict future evolution when the data is only good for predicting the gaps of the past.
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Once again you make a case for the opponents. We can't trust the media. Thank you!
    The reporting of science in the mainstream media is largely inaccurate. However the consensus on climate change is not an artefact of the mainstream media but is evident in the peer-reviewed literature. That's the word of scientist themselves, as reviewed by scientists. No journalists in there.
    No journalists in there? I could have sworn the "consensus" was annouced on the nightly news and from other news media. Heck, I was listening to talk radio the other day and they would not shut up about the "consensus." What exactly do you think the consensus is? That humans impact the climate? If so, you can put my name on the consensus list. I seriously doubt that the majority of scientists support the idiotic gloom-and-doom scenarios that have been predicted.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Weather and climate are not the same thing.
    I agree. One can make reasonable forcasts with weather. The climate? Well that's another story--a science fiction story.
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Kalster could probably just repeat the question, since it wasn't understood the first time that he probably wasn't talking about the opinion of a non-atmospheric scientist on a TV talk show about the weather.

    "
    Show me a definite scientific prediction, quoted from primary literature, that has fallen flat."
    Moving the goal post once again, I see. Carl Sagan is not good enough? LOL! OK then. I think we can all agree at this point that one should not believe the media and the scientists they recruit. I think that is one of the key points of the opponents of anthropogenic climate change. I want to thank you and Kalster for helping to prove it. So next time Al Gore or some news guy or gal announces there is a "consensus" on the issue, we should just take it with a grain of salt.
    Actually this is the same request several of have had for a couple of threads now. You keep talking about failed predictions but can't post a single one by a scientific agency. If the best you can come up with is unsubstantiated new articles from news magazines and an astronomer's opinion talking out of his field on a talk show---well you should probably just admit you're wrong and used a hyperbolic statement that might be good in a shouting match but can't hold up under scrutiny. Also you should know Sagen to the best of my knowledge never ran a model against the Kuwait oil fires, and wasn't discussing climate change--he was talking about a change in the weather for a year or two.

    Not all media science reporting is bad, but the good ones point you towards a specific scientific report, or peer-review journal; it usually isn't that hard to figure out whether the story has a solid foundation.
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Once again you make a case for the opponents. We can't trust the media. Thank you!
    The reporting of science in the mainstream media is largely inaccurate. However the consensus on climate change is not an artefact of the mainstream media but is evident in the peer-reviewed literature. That's the word of scientist themselves, as reviewed by scientists. No journalists in there.
    No journalists in there?
    Yes Biologista has it right, there are no journalist inside the scientific peer review process.

    Once the work is published in the peer review journal than other main stream journalist, forum roamers, bloggers and the rest of world will do what they will with it.
     

  46. #45  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Do we have to cover this ground again? Here is a summary of the history:
    marnixR claimed that there is no physics to support time travel. I showed that there is physics to support time travel (forward and backward). Then he switched to "there is no evidence to support time travel." Then I showed there is evidence to support forward time travel. Then he shape-shifted yet again to "There is no evidence of backward time travel." Sheesh! Then you show up and declare that forward time travel is not the time travel referred to by physicists, then I provide a link showing that you are wrong. You then scoffed at it because it is PBS. I think some people have a problem admitting their errors. LOL! The more you and your friend try to spin out of them, the more rediculous you look. My girlfriend is sitting next to me and she is laughing her ass off at your antics.
    Look. My original post stands. I supported marnixR on his point that Time travel and Climate change models cannot be compared in a meaningful way. I said that forward travel is not referred to as time travel by physicists. Your PBS link (which I don't get down here) is a program aimed at getting the general public acquainted with relativity I gather. They use layman’s terms. Big deal. They still don't talk about it among themselves or in serious publications using terms like time travel for goodness sake. WM also most certainly did not refer to time travel in a relativistic way, but in the layman’s, Hollywood way. Moreover, marnixR's idea of time travel does not make any difference to his point.

    This thread is about climate change is it not? It is abundantly clear that you just love to argue and nitpick at insignificant nonsense, all the while thinking that you are winning. Then you put everyone that support Global warming into the same camp and think that discrediting one of them discredits all the others. Are you a politician by any chance? You'll make a good one.

    The media and people like Al Gore are of no scientific consequence. You can laugh at them all you want. Carl Sagan was an Astro Physicist, not a climatologist. If he makes a wrong prediction on a public show, it is no big deal.

    Science fiction can be based on established science. I even gave a couple of examples.
    Yes, and?

    You know what, I have had enough. You are coming across as a complete idiot to anyone that has the faintest ability to think logically. Your entire contribution is made up of smurky nitpicking and attacking the people and their perceived motivations rather than the actual science. When you do get to the actual science you think quoting anything that has a vague opposing view is incontrovertible counter evidence and "real science". You erect ridiculous strawmen and then shoot them down and then dismiss any comments that point it out. You are behaving like a bloody creationist. One can't argue with someone that is incapable of simple logic or has no idea of the scientific method. You and your girlfriend can laugh it up all you want. You clearly fit together in this regard.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Once again you make a case for the opponents. We can't trust the media. Thank you!
    The reporting of science in the mainstream media is largely inaccurate. However the consensus on climate change is not an artefact of the mainstream media but is evident in the peer-reviewed literature. That's the word of scientist themselves, as reviewed by scientists. No journalists in there.
    No journalists in there? I could have sworn the "consensus" was annouced on the nightly news and from other news media.
    I said there's no journalists in the peer-review system. I know there'r journalists in the media. The media report on many aspects of science, it doesn't mean that they're involved in it. In this case the media are certainly doing their usual hype and overdose routine, but they happen to be correct about the position of the scientific community.

    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Heck, I was listening to talk radio the other day and they would not shut up about the "consensus."
    I think they've latched on to it since they figured out where they went wrong with the whole "oh well scientists used to say that the world was cooling" cliche. That being that the majority of climatologists never held that position.

    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    What exactly do you think the consensus is? That humans impact the climate? If so, you can put my name on the consensus list. I seriously doubt that the majority of scientists support the idiotic gloom-and-doom scenarios that have been predicted.
    Specifics, perhaps not. I'm sure they do support the assertion that climate change is of significant risk to human life and that action needs to be taken to reduce this as much as is possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Weather and climate are not the same thing.
    I agree. One can make reasonable forcasts with weather. The climate? Well that's another story--a science fiction story.
    Assuming it is, what will weather forecasting tell you about how things are going to pan out on century timescale? We're talking about two completely different things so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up weather forecasting. It can't be used to inform policy because all it gives you are short term single-case predictions.
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    William, the core point here is that comparing climate models to science fiction is rubbish. The models certainly fall down on the specifics, whilst explaining much that has happened in the past and successfully making predictions for the future that are broadly in line with observations. Climate is a statistical thing. The weather is the specifics. The failure of a statistical model to predict specifics is not a failing of that model. Expecting a climate model to predict the weather represents a misunderstanding, common in the mainstream, of what climate models are actually intended for and what their output is.

    You say that you can't make policy based on statistics, but that's also rubbish. We make decisions based on the best available information. It's like betting in poker. No model in the world can tell you what cards will come on the turn or river, but you know your odds and you bet accordingly because that's the best you can do.
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    Actually this is the same request several of have had for a couple of threads now. You keep talking about failed predictions but can't post a single one by a scientific agency. If the best you can come up with is unsubstantiated new articles from news magazines and an astronomer's opinion talking out of his field on a talk show---well you should probably just admit you're wrong and used a hyperbolic statement that might be good in a shouting match but can't hold up under scrutiny.
    What is so special about agencies? They make bad predictions too. Read and weep:

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...-25717,00.html

    The British Met Office is home to the Hadley Centre, one of the top centres of the man-made global warming faith.

    In April it predicted: "The coming summer is expected to be a 'typical British summer'. . ."

    In fact, in August it admitted: "(This) summer . . . has been one of the wettest on record across the UK." In September it predicted: "The coming winter (is) likely to be milder than average."

    In fact, winter has been so cold that London had its first October snow in 74 years -- and on the day Parliament voted to fight "global warming".

    Lesson: If the Met can't predict the weather three months out, what can it know of the climate 100 years hence?


    How about universities? Do their predictions count in your bizarro universe?


    PROFESSOR Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of Queensland University, is Australia's most quoted reef expert.

    He's advised business, green and government groups, and won our rich Eureka Prize for scares about our reef. He's chaired a $20 million global warming study of the World Bank.

    In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg warned that the Great Barrier Reef was under pressure from global warming, and much of it had turned white.

    In fact, he later admitted the reef had made a "surprising" recovery.

    In 2006, he warned high temperatures meant "between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland's great Barrier Reef could die within a month".

    In fact, he later admitted this bleaching had "a minimal impact".

    In 2007, he warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were again bleaching the reef.

    In fact, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network last week said there had been no big damage to the reef caused by climate change in the four years since its last report, and veteran diver Ben Cropp said this week that in 50 years he'd seen none at all.

    Lesson: Reefs adapt, like so much of nature. Learn again that scares make big headlines and bigger careers.

    3. GOODBYE, NORTH POLE

    IN April this year, the papers were full of warnings the Arctic ice could all melt.

    "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time," claimed Dr David Barber, of Manitoba University, ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free.

    "It's hard to see how the system may bounce back (this year)," fretted Dr Ignatius Rigor, of Washington University's polar science centre.

    Tim Flannery also warned "this may be the Arctic's first ice-free year", and the ABC and Age got reporter Marian Wilkinson to go stare at the ice and wail: "Here you can see climate change happening before your eyes."

    In fact, the Arctic's ice cover this year was almost 10 per cent above last year's great low, and has refrozen rapidly since. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been increasing. Been told either cool fact?

    Yet Barber is again in the news this month, predicting an ice-free Arctic now in six years. Did anyone ask him how he got his last prediction wrong?

    Lesson: The media prefers hot scares to cool truths. And it rarely holds its pet scaremongers to account.






    SPEAKING of the Met, it has so far predicted 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007 would be the world's hottest or second-hottest year on record, but nine of the past 10 years it predicted temperatures too high.

    In fact, the Met this month conceded 2008 would be the coldest year this century.

    That makes 1998 still the hottest year on record since the Medieval Warm Period some 1000 years ago. Indeed, temperatures have slowly fallen since around 2002.

    As Roger Pielke Sr, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University's Department of Atmospheric Science, declared this month: "Global warming has stopped for the last few years."

    Lesson: Something is wrong with warming models that predict warming in a cooling world, especially when we're each year pumping out even more greenhouse gases. Be sceptical.

    Those, then, are the top 10 dud predictions of that hooting, screaming and screeching tribe of warming alarmists. Look and laugh.

    And dare to believe the world is bright and reason may yet triumph.



    Lynx, I think the point you are missing is that agencies, organizations are made up of individuals like Al Gore and Carl Sagan. People take them seriously and invite them on talk shows. But since you like agencies, here is another bad prediction made by one:


    A BAD ski season three years ago - right after a great one - had The Age and other alarmists blaming global warming. The CSIRO, once our top science body, fanned the fear by claiming resorts such as Mt Hotham and Mt Buller could lose a quarter of their snow by 2020.

    In fact, this year was another boom one for skiing, with Mt Hotham and Mt Buller covered in snow five weeks before the season started.

    What's more, a study this year in the Hydrological Sciences Journal checked six climate models, including one used by the CSIRO.

    It found they couldn't even predict the regional climate we'd had already: "Local model projections cannot be credible . . ."

    It also confirmed the finding of a study last year in the International Journal of Climatology that the 22 most cited global warming models could not "accurately explain the (global) climate from the recent past".

    As for predicting the future. . .

    Lesson: The CSIRO's scary predictions are near worthless.




    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Also you should know Sagen to the best of my knowledge never ran a model against the Kuwait oil fires, and wasn't discussing climate change--he was talking about a change in the weather for a year or two.
    Got any proof? Link? Source? No? Didn't think so. You mean to tell me that all that carbon dioxide that was released by those oil fires only has a temporary effect on the weather? Cool! So the long-term disaster predictions are a scam afterall.

    Here is the straight dope on Sagan:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

    Cornell Professor Carl Sagan of the TTAPS study warned in January 1991 that so much smoke from the fires "might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia...." Sagan later conceded in his book The Demon-Haunted World that this prediction did not turn out to be correct: "

    Note that Sagan belonged to several prestigious agencies. Why else would the media invite him on T.V., Mr. Spinmeister? He was a professor at Cornell U! The TTAPS study! NASA! Sagan was not just one man working out of his garage. Neither were the other scientists who made stupid predicitons. They were all connected to agencies. DUH!


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Not all media science reporting is bad, but the good ones point you towards a specific scientific report, or peer-review journal; it usually isn't that hard to figure out whether the story has a solid foundation.
    Can you give an example? No? Didn't think you could.
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Do we have to cover this ground again? Here is a summary of the history:
    marnixR claimed that there is no physics to support time travel. I showed that there is physics to support time travel (forward and backward). Then he switched to "there is no evidence to support time travel." Then I showed there is evidence to support forward time travel. Then he shape-shifted yet again to "There is no evidence of backward time travel." Sheesh! Then you show up and declare that forward time travel is not the time travel referred to by physicists, then I provide a link showing that you are wrong. You then scoffed at it because it is PBS. I think some people have a problem admitting their errors. LOL! The more you and your friend try to spin out of them, the more rediculous you look. My girlfriend is sitting next to me and she is laughing her ass off at your antics.
    Look. My original post stands. I supported marnixR on his point that Time travel and Climate change models cannot be compared in a meaningful way. I said that forward travel is not referred to as time travel by physicists. Your PBS link (which I don't get down here) is a program aimed at getting the general public acquainted with relativity I gather. They use layman’s terms. Big deal. They still don't talk about it among themselves or in serious publications using terms like time travel for goodness sake. WM also most certainly did not refer to time travel in a relativistic way, but in the layman’s, Hollywood way. Moreover, marnixR's idea of time travel does not make any difference to his point.
    Yawn....

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    This thread is about climate change is it not? It is abundantly clear that you just love to argue and nitpick at insignificant nonsense,
    Your friend started the nickpicking nonsense with his absurd claim that there is no physics to support time travel. I merely corrected his error. Then he made another error and so on. Then you made an error, etc. By the way, it takes at least two to make a nitpicking argument. So look in the mirror before you criticise me.
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    all the while thinking that you are winning. Then you put everyone that support Global warming into the same camp and think that discrediting one of them discredits all the others. Are you a politician by any chance? You'll make a good one.
    Yes, I am a really bad dude. I shined the light of truth on you and others. Sorry about that.
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The media and people like Al Gore are of no scientific consequence. You can laugh at them all you want. Carl Sagan was an Astro Physicist, not a climatologist. If he makes a wrong prediction on a public show, it is no big deal.
    Well I heard the head of IPCC is an economist, so if he goes on T.V. and makes a bad prediction, it should be no big deal either. Trouble is, people and governments listen to these quacks, so it is a big deal.



    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You know what, I have had enough. You are coming across as a complete idiot to anyone that has the faintest ability to think logically.
    I know next to nothing, but at least I know I know next to nothing. Real idiots, on the other hand, think they know more than they do, and if you correct their errors, they get all defensive and call you an idiot. LOL!

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Your entire contribution is made up of smurky nitpicking and attacking the people and their perceived motivations rather than the actual science. When you do get to the actual science you think quoting anything that has a vague opposing view is incontrovertible counter evidence and "real science". You erect ridiculous strawmen and then shoot them down and then dismiss any comments that point it out. You are behaving like a bloody creationist. One can't argue with someone that is incapable of simple logic or has no idea of the scientific method. You and your girlfriend can laugh it up all you want. You clearly fit together in this regard.
    LOL! Boy, you must be sensitive. Try to calm down. The points and constructive criticism I offered won't kill you.
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    The reporting of science in the mainstream media is largely inaccurate.

    I said there's no journalists in the peer-review system. I know there'r journalists in the media. The media report on many aspects of science, it doesn't mean that they're involved in it. In this case the media are certainly doing their usual hype and overdose routine, but they happen to be correct about the position of the scientific community.
    Let me see if I have this straight: The media is engaging in a hype and overdose routine, but they are correct about the position of the scientific community? Surely you can see the contradiction there. If the media is engaging in hype, what are they correct about?


    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I think they've latched on to it since they figured out where they went wrong with the whole "oh well scientists used to say that the world was cooling" cliche. That being that the majority of climatologists never held that position.
    If global warming turns out to be a flop, I am sure there will plenty of "the majority of climatologists never held that position." If you are right, the media must be really stupid. Their track record is certainly dismal, so are you really sure that they are right about the so-called "consensus" view today? What if they are wrong once again?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    What exactly do you think the consensus is? That humans impact the climate? If so, you can put my name on the consensus list. I seriously doubt that the majority of scientists support the idiotic gloom-and-doom scenarios that have been predicted.
    Specifics, perhaps not. I'm sure they do support the assertion that climate change is of significant risk to human life and that action needs to be taken to reduce this as much as is possible.
    A significant risk to human life? That sounds like gloom-and-doom that those pesky journalists come up with. I always wondered how .03%-.06% concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be a significant risk to human life. It seems like such a tiny insignificant amount. Add the fact that plants love carbon dioxide, and animals love plants and so on up the food chain to human beings. Looks like it would be beneficial to all life, including humans. So how did it get such a bad name?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Assuming it is, what will weather forecasting tell you about how things are going to pan out on century timescale?
    I will be dead in a century and my grandkids rely on the weather service. Question: Why didn't the people who lived a century ago worry about what the climate would be like today? Not enough time on their hands?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    We're talking about two completely different things so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up weather forecasting.
    Because weather forcasting is short-term climate forcasting. It involves the temperature and things of a climate nature. You think climate and weather are two completely different things? Like the difference between your right hand and your left?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    It can't be used to inform policy because all it gives you are short term single-case predictions.
    Why do we need a policy if, as you said, the media is engaging in hype? If there is no real global crisis, why should there be more taxes and government control?
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    Actually this is the same request several of have had for a couple of threads now. You keep talking about failed predictions but can't post a single one by a scientific agency. If the best you can come up with is unsubstantiated new articles from news magazines and an astronomer's opinion talking out of his field on a talk show---well you should probably just admit you're wrong and used a hyperbolic statement that might be good in a shouting match but can't hold up under scrutiny.
    What is so special about agencies? They make bad predictions too. Read and weep:

    http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...-25717,00.html


    The British Met Office is home to the Hadley Centre, one of the top centres of the man-made global warming faith.

    In April it predicted: "The coming summer is expected to be a 'typical British summer'. . ."

    In fact, in August it admitted: "(This) summer . . . has been one of the wettest on record across the UK." In September it predicted: "The coming winter (is) likely to be milder than average."

    What does you weather example have to do with climate?

    Since you seem to be confused climate is generally refers to weather averages greater than 30 years. Seasonal forecast are weather.

    Also they, much like the National weather service, give probability for seasonal weather forecast that seldom go higher than 70%.



    Lesson: If the Met can't predict the weather three months out, what can it know of the climate 100 years hence?
    Why do you assume this? Weather is by it's very nature turbulent and variable process, while climate follows completely different set of limits. When other ask me this question I sometimes ask them if I boiled bleached wheat noddle and a whole wheat noddle together--could I predict which would be higher than the other after exact 5 minutes of boiling? They always say no--and can explain about the bubbles, rolls of water etc. Than I ask them what's the temperature of the water? They usually get the difference at that point. Regardless of the great deal of turbulence in the pan there's a great deal you can tell about average conditions inside that pan--the general circulation, the temperature even the level of the water if you knew the size of the burner. The specific of where the noddles are is weather, the average conditions are analogous to climate.


    IN April this year, the papers were full of warnings the Arctic ice could all melt.

    "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time," claimed Dr David Barber, of Manitoba University, ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free.

    "It's hard to see how the system may bounce back (this year)," fretted Dr Ignatius Rigor, of Washington University's polar science centre.
    They were referring to the point of the North pole last year not the entire Arctic Ocean.


    Lesson: The media prefers hot scares to cool truths. And it rarely holds its pet scaremongers to account. [/b]
    We agree the media reporting about science sucks--no argument there. That's why folks need to review the source to see where it came from and if it's from a reputable expert of agency on the subject in question. Better yet, if they have science background and time go read the actual source.

    [b]SPEAKING of the Met, it has so far predicted 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007 would be the world's hottest or second-hottest year on record, but nine of the past 10 years it predicted temperatures too high.
    And most of them have been top ten warmest years.

    As Roger Pielke Sr, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University's Department of Atmospheric Science, declared this month: "Global warming has stopped for the last few years."
    [/quote]
    Pielke's statement does not contradict the hypothesis of global warming--a few years doesn't matter when it comes to climate.



    [quote]Lynx, I think the point you are missing is that agencies, organizations are made up of individuals like Al Gore and Carl Sagan. People take them seriously and invite them on talk shows. But since you like agencies, here is another bad prediction made by one:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Also you should know Sagen to the best of my knowledge never ran a model against the Kuwait oil fires, and wasn't discussing climate change--he was talking about a change in the weather for a year or two.
    Got any proof? Link? Source? No? Didn't think so. You mean to tell me that all that carbon dioxide that was released by those oil fires only has a temporary effect on the weather? Cool! So the long-term disaster predictions are a scam afterall.
    Considering it was a personal observation, "to my knowledge" one isn't really required. But since it was your claim in response to something asked of you to show a bad prediction in a peer-review journal the burden of proof is yours. You can hit good scholar though if you wish. No paper about models of oil fires by Sagan come up. I think you might find a few non-peer review op-ed pieces though if you dig around. But again it was a weather forecast anyhow.

    Here is the straight dope on Sagan:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

    Cornell Professor Carl Sagan of the TTAPS study warned in January 1991 that so much smoke from the fires "might get so high as to disrupt agriculture in much of South Asia...." Sagan later conceded in his book The Demon-Haunted World that this prediction did not turn out to be correct: "

    Note that Sagan belonged to several prestigious agencies. Why else would the media invite him on T.V., Mr. Spinmeister? He was a professor at Cornell U! The TTAPS study! NASA! Sagan was not just one man working out of his garage. Neither were the other scientists who made stupid predicitons. They were all connected to agencies. DUH!
    But yet none of those agencies chose to support his personal position. More than likely the media invited Sagan because he was a popular figure on his day, one of the few scientist people were familiar with around a diner table--not because he was an expert on climate.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Not all media science reporting is bad, but the good ones point you towards a specific scientific report, or peer-review journal; it usually isn't that hard to figure out whether the story has a solid foundation.
    Can you give an example? No? Didn't think you could.
    Example of what? If you mean good reporting the recent ""90 seconds from catastrophe" in "new scientist" is pretty good example. It's a bit sensational and has a catchy title but points you to a specific report done by a prominent scientific agency, the report itself replete with peer-review scientific research papers in its references.

    I suspect it's why print media is loosing it's audience as well--they often don't point you toward enough information to really to evaluate it's credibility, but instead rest on their laurels despite their dubious track record.
     

  53. #52  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    moderator mode (reluctantly, but necessary):

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    The reason why I mention this, is because I'm certain the "duelists" will migrate to this thread and start arguing a vast number of nonsensical points yet again.

    .....

    Lynx_Fox, william, and another whose name starts with W. It's a nightmare when any of them start disagreeing. It's like disagreeing with Mitch: It never goes anywhere and you feel violated afterward.
    seeing as other members are starting to object to this sterile type of ping pong debate, i'm closing this thread since it's not going anywhere and it just causes bad feeling - i would also like to add that any other thread that starts to look like this one will be pruned and/or deleted
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •