swansont

No, I haven't dismissed the overall work, but this (and the third link mentioning Solanki) date from 2004, and are likely referencing the work that was published then, which is at odds with the later publication. And I seem to recall being able to only find graphs of sunspot number, rather than overall activity. The sunspot number correlation was poor, because there were times when there were anti-correleations. This is the kind of data that it would be useful to see. It seems that they have not yet made a determination — they are still testing their hypothesis. "Such a scenario is speculative and highly controversial. We cannot build such a case from just one event in geologic time, so now we are trying to learn more from the rich data trove of Cariaco Basin sediments." EMR levels change with sunspot activity, too. That's what the TSI reconstructions do, AFAIK. How do you separate the two effects? edit: and I assume that we're talking about pre-1950 effects, because cosmic ray cycles have been pretty steady as of late http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/Misc/neutron2.html

I'm hesitant to assign a motive to anyone that is other than a simple desire to see supporting evidence, and in discussions like this, that's not an unreasonable thing to do. As I recall, the most prominent evidence you have given for sunspot activity causing warming prior to the last several decades was a graph from Solanki, et. al that has two main problems: 1) it a was a total solar irradiance reconstruction, i.e. they were looking at the output energy, which you agree above is not the cause of much warming, and 2) it's been rendered moot by the author coming out with a more recent paper with different (and presumably better) results. So it's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask why you are still advancing this hypothesis, because surely you must have other evidence to support the position. Or, if I'm mistaken about this, and there was other support given, please refresh my memory.

I'll venture a guess that a press release isn't what iNow had in mind when asking for a "specific source"

Yep. The calculations for satellite/space vehicle paths are based on Newtonian gravity rather than GR, for exactly the reason that the GR corrections are so small it's not necessary — it all reduces to Newton anyway. And, as the joke goes, cows are approximated as spheres, but not always.

note: posts moved from "Objective global warming" thread to this one to try and stay on topic for the various threads. Here you can discuss sunspot mechanism hypotheses or lack thereof.

Well, labs should be designed to minimize the confounding factors. If you want to study kinematics without friction, you use an air track and not a block on an inclined plane.

OK, folks, enough of this. If you're not going to hold someone in high regard, you don't have to, but there's no reason to announce it. Post the science, criticize the science. If the science has problems, tearing it down needs to be reward enough.

Ah, of course. The packet protocol allows you to send shorter bundles of data, which don't require a high level of accuracy. OK, we still have the internet. But I think we still lose digital voice and any other high-speed communication.

No, it was an explanation that people trained in the subject do a more thorough analysis than a simple graphical comparison looking for correlations. It is because the analysis is more stringent that the conclusions will carry more weight, not simply because they are climatologists. Appeal to authority removes the "analysis" middleman from the equation, and bascule did not do that, since the comment was directly about the quality of the analysis.

The "strawman" takes on a different meaning when you selectively edit it. Try taking it in context with the sentences that follow. And here we have even more parallels with creationism arguments. Claim that there is scant evidence ( like "there's no fossil record"). Admit to some effect, because denying all is completely untenable (microevolution occurs, but not macro). Imply it's a religion, or at least not science, by using terms like "blind faith" and "political correctness." Then compare it to falsified theories (Piltdown man) in an appeal to "science has been wrong before" Excellent example.

A BEC will slow light that is near an absorption peak. It's a very specific condition, not a general one.

I think I fixed all of the links

Page not found error How can this be, though, when the planets orbit? The center of mass of the earth is the axis of rotation, when averaged over the entire orbit. As with all of the other planets. For the COM to be outside the sun, the planets would have to be distributed asymmetrically — this will be true some of the time, but not all of the time. The Sun's relation to the COM is a time-dependent variable, not a constant. http://www.surf2000.de/user/f-heeke/figure1.html

The frequency changes by a part in 10^16 per meter in elevation. So a km difference accumulates a nanosecond in a few hours. And clocks separated by longitude accumulate Sagnac delays when you send signals or move the clocks, and this is tied in to relativity as well, since it's from not being in an inertial frame. (207 ns for the circumference of the earth) And that's why you have to wonder if ad-hoc explanations would suffice for someone to base a technology on. An interesting aside in this case is that even with GR known, there were arguments about what the correction would be or even if one were needed, so the first satellite (or an early one) went up sychronized with the ground clocks, and it was seen that a time difference accumulated in accordance with the theory. Then they switched to the corrected frequency. I'm sure it would have been an interesting research project, but without a solid theory behind it, I don't see a technology arising from it. If you don't know why it works, you don't know why it would break and you can't trust it. Remember that this is a military application first and foremost (which is one reason why it's free).

It works for fusion because it's a plasma.

Exactly. It's necessary to keep things simple at first, and only look at one or two concepts at a time. Once you get comfortable with the ideas of basic kinematics, and with energy and momentum, then you can tackle more advanced situations.

No, I don't. It's a strawman to state what someone else believes when you get it wrong. Establish that the material is actually dogma, and feel free to post links to all those peer-reviewed papers that contradict AGW, in the appropriate thread. But to stay on topic, this points out another similar tactic between the two. The catastrophic predictions are a separate issue, much like abiogenesis and evolution get lumped together. The validity of the predictions of catastrophic ramifications of warming are a separate issue, and in no way impact the reality of warming.

Try sending any digital data without a good clock on either end. Packets may not have to be in order, but the data within a packet is still ones and zeroes, and you need to synchronize clocks to do that. Rubidium clocks are big business, selling to telecom companies.

It wasn't Lance who pointed that out. No, since it wasn't appeal to authority. Yes, you are correct. This is not where that should be discussed. However, Cerran brought it up in rebuttal to bascule's response to you. iNow responded to that. If you want to blame anyone, blame Cerran. Not "you all."

And another one: When you use plano-convex/concave lenses, put the parallel beam onto the curved surface to reduce aberration.

Right. Both depend on precise time measurements. Well, you have to decide what the conditions of your hypothetical situation are. On the one hand, we don't know about GR, but on the other hand, we learn all about GR because of the experiments we do. Way too much wiggle room; you can draw almost any conclusion you want. But, if you didn't have any basis for making the correction, would you put the satellites up there in the first place? You'd notice timing discrepancies from land-based clocks at different elevations. If this was an open question, there would be no reason to think that clocks in space would give you any ability to do navigation.

There are two divergent things being discussed. Real forces and fields, and ones that would allow "running of the ship" which (to me) implies some kind of protective system that keeps everything out. It's rather ill-defined. So, which is it?

Another "trick" that a beginner might not know is that you can spatially filter a beam to remove the higher-order spatial modes of light to give yourself something that looks more like a Gaussian beam. Construct a 1:1 telescope. At the focal point, the beam is a transform of the spatial quality — the Gaussian part is most tightly focused, with the higher-order modes (anything that has a spatial periodicity within the beam) being farther out. So you put a pinhole at the focal point, and only the high-quality light gets through. Important if you're relying on good beam quality.

Force fields as depicted in most movies/TV shows violate the laws of physics.

AFAIK you were citing medical research trumping medical conventional wisdom. There's a whole lot of medicine that is not based on research, it is based on what doctors have been doing for a long time. Medicine uses science, and overlaps with it quite a bit, but is not synonymous with it. But it is important to note that these are instances where there was a lack of data, and the new paradigm was developed because data was obtained where it didn't exist before. The scientists and doctors were being skeptical until there was sufficient data to convince them. How's that for irony? I wouldn't use Hollywood as proof of anything. Generally speaking, the science in movies is pretty bad. But, which decade? We're talking about the state of research now, not the state of research in the past. But cherry-picking examples to justify non-acceptance of some science is bad science. It is justifying so-called skepticism based on a criterion other than the data itself. The appeal to "science has been wrong before" is fallacious. It isn't skeptical behavior, it's denialist behavior. Because what this ignores is that scientists themselves are, in general, skeptical. What this appeal is saying is that you are better equipped to evaluate the data than someone who has spent years studying the topic. Scientists continually question the work and test the theories and models. Skepticism is already part of the system. And that's why, when e.g. creationsists come out with a list of people who reject evolution, the collective scientific reaction is a shrug of the shoulders. because they notice that the list contains precious few people who are actually trained in biology. Who cares (scientifically) if a physicist and chemist, much less a lawyer, think that evolution is wrong? They have no professional basis on which to make that assessment, and can't point to specific, valid reasons for their objections. (and besides, to counter the claim, there's Project Steve) ——————————————— Ironic to note that creationists use the same argument about evolution. ——————————————— Anyway, please note that this thread is about the tactics used in the arguments, not the arguments themselves. We have plenty of other threads for that.