Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/04/18 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Nope. YOU have made specific claims in this thread. I don't believe them. So it is up to YOU to provide evidence for those claims. There is a high-level summary of some of the evidence here: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf Note that it is about 30 pages and only touches on some of the types of evidence. So, as I say, providing evidence in a forum post is not practical. This is a report put together by hundreds of experts (*) on the current state of the science and the potential impacts on the USA. I think it is about 1,000 pages in total. So feel free to come back with questions after you have read it: Volume 1 (the science): https://science2017.globalchange.gov Volume 2 (impact assessment): https://nca2018.globalchange.gov And then there is: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm https://climatechange.insightconferences.com/events-list/evidence-of-climate-changes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457037/html/ https://www.ipcc.ch/data/ And so on and so on But perhaps you think that all of these experts from different countries, universities, political beliefs, religions, sciences, etc are all in some massive conspiracy to trick you. If so, this might be more up your street: BBC R4 "A History of Delusions"
  2. 3 points
    Damn, busted! I guess it’s time to come clean. I suppose I always knew it would come out that I’ve spent over a decade at this site contributing nearly 20,000 posts on varied topics... and all just to bolster the master plan and ready the battleground such that one day when you ultimately registered at SFN 11 years later... when it finally all came together once you joined this community one month ago complete with your ironclad logic and inpenetrateble arguments... that I might hope to fool the flock into not taking you seriously. Well spotted, Mr Homes. Well spotted, indeed. You have clearly bested me with your awe inspiring genius. I concede.
  3. 3 points
    I had in mind things like carbon pricing that make the externalised costs part of the pricing of various transport choices, not forced vehicle confiscations. I want reasoned and reasonable responses to climate change from governments - preventing unreasonable responses as well as promoting reasonable ones is a legitimate thing ordinary people can do when they vote. Facing up to it - taking the expert advice seriously - should be the barest minimum to expect, not something an irate public has to demand from someone holding high office. Climate change is not about socialist versus capitalist, it is about accountability and responsibility. It is not anti-free enterprise to want accountability and costing of climate externalities.
  4. 2 points
    Most of the companies in that industry are actively researching and investing in alternative fuel technologies (its not like they don't know there is a crisis). Killing those companies would remove a large amount of funding for that research. It would also cause chaos with empty supermarket shelves, shortages of medicines, etc. It might be sensible to incentivise them (and other companies) to move quicker, but shutting them down is not practical.
  5. 2 points
    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperatures-2017/ Please stop equating Science and faith. Evidence is the name of the game here. We don't want you just to 'believe' something. Does us no good.
  6. 2 points
    yea? Keep on embarrassing them with your clean air, free and happy life style, good manners, good international relations, great care for your ex military, care for the mentally ill, low crime, high public safety, recycling, inclusion of minorities, open immigration policy, blindness to skin colour and homosexuality etc.. I'm sure they will need to wipe out that kind of commie socialist dystopian BS at some point before they are made to look TOO dumbass. ;-)
  7. 2 points
    Many different techniques are used to date ice cores (as with other techniques like tree rings). It is not just about counting layers. A good summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Dating
  8. 2 points
    Suzie. Why no answer to my question? I smell an agenda...
  9. 2 points
    Why not do a little research? e.g. where is your evidence that in warm periods the temperature everywhere on earth is above say -5C so that the 'top ice' everywhere melts? No. Lots of independent checks before any ice core is considered to be valid evidence of anything.
  10. 2 points
    Where have we hunted invasive species to extinction? I know we've removed invasive species from the place they've invaded, but that is hardly the same as hunting them to "extinction". Typically invasive species are removed from an ecosystem because their lack of natural predators in their new environment allows them to do undue harm to the existing and/or desirable ecosystem.
  11. 2 points
    Hey! Coffeesippin should answer this! In the end, he knows the bible is the truth, so he should know this.
  12. 2 points
    You even make the same careless spelling mistakes as Beecee!
  13. 1 point
    Whether individuals here can describe the evidence or not is irrelevant. (I could. It is my job to do things like that. But it is not worth wasting my time with someone like you.) What is important is that evidence exists and has been replicated, reproduced and reviewed. You can keep denying the evidence exists but you are either dishonest or wilfully ignorant. But none of those will be based on peer reviewed science. If you think videos by crackpots have the same weight as science then you may be in the wrong place. No. You have made multiple specific claims about climate change and about climate science. I think most of these are lies. I see no reason to take any of your arguments seriously unless you provide evidence for them. For example: "Why are million year old fossils scientifically relevant and only the last 150 years of temp matters, because the statement that climate is changing faster now is NOT scientific until the past is evaluated" - Please provide evidence that climate science only looks at the last 150 years. "If the temp dropped enough to cover all of Canada and half of America, this denotes massive climate change." - Please provide evidence that this is relevant today. "So why do scientist want the climate to stop changing" - Please provide evidence that scientists want climate to stop changing "What is gradual about glaciers covering two thirds of north America melting, or those glaciers forming due to massive temp drops?" - Please provide evidence that this was not gradual. Please provide evidence of "massive" temperature drops. "Also the rate of change now is far less then when the entire earth was ice covered, or from when this ice melted. " - Please provide evidence that the change was faster than now. Please provide evidence that the causes are the same. " In a court one must both detail not just the evidence, but how it was gathered, none of that has happened. " - Please provide evidence that scientists do not describe their methodologies. "But since all scientist agree" - Please provide evidence that "all scientists agree" "You can prove this wrong with evidence that massive climate changes did not happen before humans. " - Please provide evidence that anyone has claimed that climate change did not happen before humans. "Now explain how the single thousands of feet thick glacier that covered most of North America melted without human help?" - You are the only one claiming that it melted without human help. So it is up to you to explain that. And provide evidence "I give precise answers" - Please provide one example of a precise answer from you Are you being deliberately dishonest? Different things: Religion is not based on evidence. Science is. Religion does not work (in a practical sense). Science does. Religion demands unquestioning belief. Science always questions, tests and probes. (Both religion and science can be emotionally satisfying, so they have that in common)
  14. 1 point
    Abnormal temp rise correlates with the beginning of the industrial revolution. Carbon dioxide output with population growth since the industrial revolution: https://populationeducation.org/how-does-population-growth-impact-climate-change/
  15. 1 point
    Why would I refrain from saying there is high level of agreement amongst scientists? It is true. Experts always know more - with more accuracy - than non experts. Trust in experts is not about blindly believing them because they are experts but because of trust in the institutions and practices, the codes of conduct and professional standards within which science on climate is done. Being able to convince you or not is kind of irrelevant as well as, I expect, futile; we get similar posts with similar points quite often at this site. That there are things you don't understand, can't understand or choose not to understand about climate change does not make any difference to whether the mainstream science is correct. I would note that science based knowledge and expertise is almost always what courts of law use for deciding cases of negligence, reflecting that common sense truth that expert knowledge is not made false by refusing to accept it; if people with fiduciary duties - holding positions of trust and responsibilty - ignore expert advice they can be held negligent; "I am not an expert and I don't trust experts" will not get you any credit in court and it won't here. The kind of faith I think is most at issue here is good-faith in this discussion; I could attempt to explain, for example, why your claim that science hasn't considered past historical climate change is incorrect or why what is likely to happen over the next decades and centuries is far more significant to people of the present and near future than climate changes of the pre-civilisation, pre-human past. But - will you read and give real, thoughtful consideration and responses to arguments I or others make?
  16. 1 point
    "What is the evidence that humans are causing or speeding climate change?" I think you are asking the wrong question. We have significantly raised the concentration of CO2. The laws of physics tell us that more CO2 will increase the effectiveness of the atmosphere as a means to trap heat from the Sun. We know the temperature has risen. How can we not have an effect?
  17. 1 point
  18. 1 point
    OK -- So what is the best way to Mordor?
  19. 1 point
    I knew a guy that was very big on believing the accuser until the accused proved himself innocent. Then a girl accused him of something and he changed his position in about 2 seconds flat once he lost his job. Sounds reasonable to me. It's a great way to lose your job in every company I've worked for. Which admittedly, is only 4. Well, since we're in the business of reading deeply between the lines of what people say...... I don't really like how you brought up the Kavanaugh incident. I don't think it changes the course of this discussion, and I think it was a crude attempt by you to muddy the waters here. Clearly, those are two completely different situations, they aren't related other than by the general area of the accusations, and I generally think it's a Red Herring.
  20. 1 point
    Worth noting that the first attempts to calculate these effects go back to Arrhenius in 1896. Since then we have made much more accurate measurements and made a lot of progress in understanding the complex interactions (including positive and negative feedbacks) that take place between the Earth, its oceans and atmosphere.
  21. 1 point
    That misses the point. Modern humans weren't around a million years ago, and the concern is how climate change affects our modern habitat. The evidence? We can assess how much of an effect various factors have on the environment, and then take stock of how much we change those factors. It's not that hard to get a decent estimate of how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere owing to our industrial infrastructure, and measure how much CO2 has been changing. Yes, it's due to us.
  22. 1 point
    As I said, there are thousands of papers and vast quantities of evidence. It is not really suitable for a post on a forum. I'm sure you could find the evidence, if you wanted to. So I assume you are not interested in the science. As this is a very specific claim, I think it is reasonable to ask you for the evidence for it. Please provide a reference to published science that says this. Of course it has. Describing the methodologies used is an important part of a scientific paper. As you would know if you had any interest in the subject. Not all scientists agree. The evidence is verified. You have made a series of unsupported and/or false statements. And yet you make accusations against scientists who have spent years gathering and analysing data.
  23. 1 point
    Try to follow me on this one. It has nothing to do with narrow mindedness. It's just a desire to have meaningful definitions. It's like I have a party where I'm serving two kinds of punch, one with no alcohol, and you keep insisting the non-alcoholic punch needs some vodka, because sometimes people who don't drink alcohol want some alcohol. I want to have two separate punchbowls so the the guests have a clear choice, but you want both to be exactly the same. I think you're wrong about the difference between evidence and proof for the same reason. You're changing one different thing to be just like something else, and you're ruining the reason why they should be different and separate.
  24. 1 point
    We're seeing multiple indcators trending upwards with no end on sight. We are not trying to stop the climate from changing, but rather stop our highly damaging contribution. Presently not all the glaciers are gone. Melting not melted. Science is not about belief. You can review the evidence yourself and draw your own conclusions. Not even hard these days Oh redtide around most of the state... Huh coral reefs aren't doing so great... Hmm this house was not in fact offshore before... It's like the religious tale of the man that god sends all kinds of help to but the man refuses to accept and ends up drowning. What sign is it going to take?
  25. 1 point
    Wot are you on about? I said I was NOT a climate scientist... so why would you expect me to be able to explain it? How do YOU explain the knee in the curve? What is the cause for the 'sudden' increase in speed of warming? It isn't a religion.... I used to be far more sceptical about it than I was now. If people didn't think it would destroy the planet then I wouldn't give a shit about it. I used to be very sceptical about it... mainly because my pastor at church said it was a conspiracy... but the more I read about it the more I 'think' they are probably right. Religion...? nonsense.
  26. 1 point
    We have evaluated the past. Ice cores being a mainstay. Normally climate change is real gradual. Things bob up and down slightly or gradually move in one direction or another. We're seeing a transition from hills to Everest though. There isn't something like an asteroid or sufficient volcanic action to explain such a sudden change. Science is evidence based so it isn't a matter of faith llike the religions you mentioned. You can(and for your own well being should) review the multiple lines of evidence yourself. Locally my state is seeing land vanish and the long summer/late winter effect. Kind of past the time to debate. Trying to figure out ways to minimize the personal impact at this point.
  27. 1 point
    Lol. Apparently I’m also a sock puppet of Apple autocorrect
  28. 1 point
    OK. But water at any temperature above 0ºC does not freeze. It has to cool to freezing point before it freezes. The observation is that hot water can cool to freezing temperature faster than cold water (the Mpemba effect - see link). As far as I know, this has still not been fully explained. It may be that there are multiple factors involved. So one of the explanations does suggest that higher temperatures could create more of the types of hydrogen bonds that can act as nucleation centres: (From your link)
  29. 1 point
    Exactly, evidence can lead to a proof (to whatever standard is required in, say, a court of law). Evidence is something like "there is a fingerprint". But it is the interpretation of that evidence, and all the other evidence, that can lead to a proof. Even, "we found a fingerprint of the suspect on the murder weapon" isn't proof that the suspect is the murderer. There may be other evidence that proves the suspect was out of the country at the time. Or that explains why the fingerprint could be there.
  30. 1 point
    I skimmed back through earlier posts just to check if there was a link to fairly recent large scale cosmic evolution simulations. Here's one hit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32qqEzBG9OI Indicates just how good the match between theory prediction and observation has become. No input assuming anti-gravity anywhere. Another one that goes into technical details I cannot follow but you get the idea it's very complex with lots of factors involved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI12X2zczqI Again - the physics makes no use of anti-gravity to arrive at voids and webs structures actually observed. Recall too that growth is in part a consequence of an overall cosmic expansion - hence voids growing reflects that.
  31. 1 point
    Depends on what you’re wearing. Depends on how deep the diving point is and whether you enter head first or feet first. Even in your ridiculous example, we cannot presume to know the answer with certainty. Hey, look that! Even YOU knew enough to switch from the word proof to the word evidence in your second sentence before posting. Perhaps it’s because even you’re aware they have different meanings?
  32. 1 point
    It's too bad... At one time, the Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power in the World. They decided, in 1994, to join the NPT, and dismantle their sizeable nuclear arsenal. I don't think even V Putin would be brave enough to pull these stunts if the Ukraine was still a nuclear power. If you live beside a 'bear' ( not you Silvestru ), you'd better invest in a rifle. ( say what you will about 'evil' Americans, but Canadians haven't had to face this kind of behavior since 1812 )
  33. 1 point
    coffeesippin - you may have noticed I'm the only one to point out a basic physics reason why it's hugely unlikely anti-matter anti-gravitates. There is more. To itemize: 1: Consistent observations of deflection in magnetic fields shows that at least for charged anti-matter, matter and anti-matter inertial mass are equal. Equivalence Principle then requires equivalence of gravitational mass. Only Wheeler-Feynman notion of anti-particles being ordinary particles traveling backwards in time logiocally suggests anti-particles anti-gravitate. But since that violates EP as per above, few these days give the idea any credence (1: here already covered in earlier post). 2: When particle-anti-particle annihilation occurs e.g. electron-positron -> gamma ray pair, one doesn't have a net zero gravitational mass outcome. Which outcome should be the logical expectation if indeed the input is positive gravitational mass electron + negative gravitational mass positron. (There is also a conundrum for standard physics hidden in positron-electron annihilation btw, but I won't expand on that here). Point is, anti-gravitation of anti-particle idea fundamentally conflicts with the expectation of conserved net gravitational mass. 3: According to the vixra article you cited earlier: http://vixra.org/pdf/1001.0007v2.pdf , anti-particle anti-gravitation has a very strange character. Anti-particles repel both ordinary particles AND other anti-particles. Which is equivalent to claiming negatively charged particles repel each other and attract positively charged particles (what actually occurs), but positively charged particles attract negatively charged AND other positively charged particles (which does NOT occur). Hence there is imo no logical consistency to what that author posits. It leads to bizarre runaway scenarios. 4: The standard picture requires BSM physics to cope with the observed ~ 1 to 10^10 ratio between matter particle and photon numbers. Which outcome implies a slight asymmetry between particle and anti-particle annihilation in the very early universe. As posited by voids = anti-matter regions scenario, there is actually a perfect net balance between matter and anti-matter in current universe. But there simply was no chance for gravity to appreciably separate matter from anti-matter in the early hot BB. Either total annihilation to radiation occurred if there was no BSM annihilation asymmetry, or you have the standard picture of an entirely matter over anti-matter dominated matter content. It's ok to hypothesize a radically new model, but also important to dispassionately check for consistency with known physical principles and their implications.
  34. 1 point
    Full of water would be best - no fumes. A kid died using a plasma torch on a recycled empty drum despite it being rinsed out.
  35. 1 point
    Hot water does not freeze
  36. 1 point
    I got that. Coffeesippin, obviously didn't. There are a great many people who maybe should have got Nobel Prizes but didn't. Often for reasons that have nothing to do with the science. However, as far as I know, no one has ever received a Nobel Prize for a hypothesis that hasn't been confirmed. Which is almost certainly the reason that Jordan never got one for this idea. Whether he should have got one for his other work ...who knows. There are a limited number of prizes and an almost unlimited number of deserving recipients. But while this might be an interesting discussion, we are getting off topic and if we are not careful, the mods will tell us off! (It might be an interesting topic for another thread: who'd should have got Nobels and why didn't they...)
  37. 1 point
    He, coffee was asking why this Jordan never received the Nobel for what was.is no more then a possible hypothetical situation. I replied that Einstein missed the Nobel for the obvious work and listed some of the possible reasons why that happened in Einstein's case...One was anti semitism among other possible reasons I supplied in an article.
  38. 1 point
    Well, I don't know much more detail I'm afraid. There will be circuitry on the chip as well as the mechanical structures. They will control the vibration of the mechanism and, presumably, charge the capacitors to measure the changing capcatince value. But I don't know exactly how they do that (without trying to find a detailed data sheet of the device).
  39. 1 point
    Interpreting the hidden meaning behind a person's statements is a fool's errand. His comments could have been exactly the same whether he is innocent or guilty. No matter what he says, some will believe him, some will not. Some will think it is thoughtful, some will think he is being aggressive. Some will find him credible, some will not. Discussing whether or not we believe him or what his intentions are may be an enjoyable pastime, but we shouldn't make the mistake of believing that after a long discussion we will be any closer to knowing the truth.
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
    Proof is absolute. You can do that in math, where you can take a premise and a set of rules, and apply them. In science, the process is inductive. More than one explanation might be consistent with the evidence, but we won't know until more evidence is obtained. Such as with phlogiston — worked with preliminary data, but then evidence was uncovered that was inconsistent with the model. It is the job of scientists to try and exclude all but one explanation, but there's always the chance that the known science is incomplete, and there is more science to be revealed. Such as happened with relativity and quantum mechanics. However, there is a point at which you have to concede that it is exceedingly unlikely that a model is wrong, owing to all the evidence in support of it. It is similar to Stephen Jay Gould's description of "fact" In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
  42. 0 points
    Two electric cars ? Have you priced a Tesla model S ? Maybe the American and Canadian governments should have given money to Tesla instead of bailing out those idiots at GM. Teslas would have been cheaper and a whole lot of people wouldn't be losing their jobs.
  43. 0 points
  44. -1 points
    You are wrong. Evidence and proof used in science are not necessary 'scientific'. The meaning of evidence and proof changes depending on the context the words are used in.
  45. -1 points
    Ah well, you included the "which was almost certainly NOT written by Paul..." Escape room is important. I say is certainly was written by Paul.
  46. -1 points
    We had been talking about Jordan lacking a Nobel, not Einstein. What's the process for blocking participants? BeeCee is entirely unacceptable to me for many good reasons. Never mind .. I found the Ignore User function, and used it.
  47. -1 points
    BeeCee I've used the ignore user option. Your posts no longer show to me here.
  48. -1 points
    You neglected to provide either the evidence or how it was gathered. Also the rate of change now is far less then when the entire earth was ice covered, or from when this ice melted. In a court one must both detail not just the evidence, but how it was gathered, none of that has happened. But since all scientist agree, which they do not you accept bogus unverified evidence
  49. -1 points
    I can locate this info, but you do not have it.... This is faith not science Climate change killed 98 to 99 percent of all species long before the first human. We are just another species, in fact the only way we live is to travel off the Earth as the next mass extinction is a matter of when not if You neglected to include what it is that you understand you know the evidence. Fact, faith requires no evidence, just a need to belong to a group. The climate science group is therefore faith based. You can prove this wrong with evidence that massive climate changes did not happen before humans. You can also be serious only after you stop driving
  50. -1 points
    It might sound grand to those of you living in a world of riches where you make more than a thousand or so a month, but it's a stupid idea to the majority of people because we can't simply afford to go out and buy a $30,000 car simply because the government decided to shut down all the gas stations. But whatever. It's not like any of us could use the next two years worth of wages for anything. Like food. Or housing. Or water. Or clothes. Or electricity. But wait, I forgot, it doesn't matter that we're living pay-check to pay-check already, we can just take out a $30,000 loan for those electric cars that we can't afford. It's just an extra 20% in interest rates. Who needed that extra $6,000 to put towards paying some of our kid's college? Great! Now we can 2 $30,000 loans to the checkbooks. That $12,000 used to pay interest wouldn't have covered the cost of our kid's new cars anyways since they have to be electric. Because having a second electric car isn't an "expensive powerful accumulator". $30,000? Pocket change. It's not like we could just buy a solar battery for $2,000 to power our solar roof that cost us $30,000 more, on top of the two cars. $18,000 in interest? That's nothing. Must be nice living in a world where the idea of throwing away $100,000 is nothing, and the common sense to think before you buy isn't necessary, or the idea that there are those of us who simply can't afford to just switch over to electric cars because the government decided to just shut down all the gas stations. It's not like it employed anybody anyways. Who need's a job when you're as rich as Sensei?