|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Jun 9, 2011 18:57:42 GMT 1
O god, the tedious old 'philosophy of science' arguments again................... That's right. If you knew the first thing about it, you wouldn't have galloped off on such a ludicrous irrelevant tangent, or come out with yet more of your sophomoric descriptions of what "science does". An absurd and comically arrogant position. I repeat - there is no one who has ever lived, however elevated their genius or knowledge, who has not expressed themselves loosely, or even got "their facts wrong" a dozen times a day. It's entirely irrelevant to any other coherent argument they might make. You for example have just shown you completely misunderstand the nature, genesis, and history of Bohr's atomic model. Does that mean everything you might say from henceforth is worthless, inevitably tainted by the fact that you once got your facts wrong? Or do you accept that not even you can know everything, or be 100% right all the time, and your past mistakes have no necessary bearing on anything else you might do or say? Why is having a debate with you so reminiscent of trying to reason with a petulant six year old having a tantrum because other children have been invited to her party? It's very wearisome. No, you've entirely misunderstood. Why don't you try reading - some books about the matter, if you're too antsy to read anyone else's posts? You demanded some "evidence" suggesting an alternative hypothesis to AGW, if you review your previous rant. They're not now, agreed. It was the standard establishment line before the early 90s (and quite a while longer) and the now classic Lassen paper referred to above. , But it does. And it's a current cooling trend, according to the measurements. Unless - how far do your "trends" last? Baclk to the 50s and 60s? But there was an ever more marked cooling trend then - when CO2 emissions were rocketing. How does that inconvenient fact fit the hypothesis? As I explained, my link did not work. You're in a very weak position trying to lecture anyone else on manners. What utter ridiculous nonsense. You really are getting desperate, aren't you? Do you read any posts before you start pontificating? I have yet to see the slightest scrap of either from you, to be frank. Your reasoning abilities on the evidence so far appear to consist of irrelevant self-important wanderings off the point of your own, and insulting people with irrelevant and absurdly pompous criticisms. Where's your evidence then? No cut-and-paste plagiarism, now. , Must you be so childish? And vice versa. Physics isn't philosophy, philosophy isn't physics. And neither is climate science. It's far too complicated for physicists to have much to say about it.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 9, 2011 19:23:59 GMT 1
Because you never actually manage a debate?
Let's face it, from your tone, you don't actually seem that INTERESTED in having a reasonable discussion about it. Okay, as a working scientist, I'm just not at all convinced that this segue into philsophy of science is necessary. Go read some stuff, you keep telling me, you know nothing etc etc. Except it isn't just me, it's frankly practically every scientist (from various disciplines) that I've ever had a conversation with.
So, I may be dim, but I'm not uniquely dim!
Pkay, so given that, WHY don't instead try and actually explain to us dimwits why such considerations are necessary?
I think you're missing the points about 'the old quantum theory', but heck, at the moment I frankly don't give a tinkers cuss about your opinion of my knowledge of quantum theory and the development thereof.
But as regards your approach, could you at least TRY to write something more useful than just repeat ' you don't understand' at nauseam. If you have some useful evidence to illuminate the depth of my ignorance, then please provide them, I'm always eager to learn and if I've got it wrong about Bohr, I'll be willing to admit it. But not just because you keep throwing at me your opinion of my ignorance.
Nope, I'm prepared to defend this point to the end -- when judging an article (or whatever) pasted on here, we have first to establish the veracity of the writer. If I find someone who makes gross errors as regards Darwin (he chose to use Darwin as a significant example after all, no one forced him to!), then, as I keep saying, why should I believe his knowledge is any better when it comes to other issues?
If you really think that is irrelevant, then I think you're sorely misguided, but that's your pigeon.
Chidish? I don't think so, just frankly BORED with someone who is making no effort to actually discuss where they're coming from.
I guess that's the main thing here, come to think of it, I'm just plain bored by all this philosophy stuff you keep spouting, fail to see the relevance, and you can't seem to see fit to explain it NICELY, so why should I bother. I don't mind people being insulting so much, I can usually deal with that, but I'm afraid that's it, I find your stuff just plain boring................................
TTFN
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 9, 2011 19:34:57 GMT 1
Mind you, perhaps I should compile a glossary of the terms cosmo uses, rather interesting:
Maybe I should reach for the thesaurus! Except I find numpty does quite well for many occassions (not that I was meaning cosmo was one, don't misunderstand me). But such verbal gymnastics can offen obscure meaning, I find, and although this keep me interested for a few minutes, I find yet again I'm still totally bored and unimpressed by this whole philosophy line.
Come on cosmo, TRY to convince me, i'm willing to listen if you have a go. But keep to baby-talk, if you can, my daily vocabulary is a ittle limited and less baroque than yours.....................
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Jun 9, 2011 21:08:11 GMT 1
Because you never actually manage a debate? ;D My experience of you is you simply let a thread drop rather than engage in debate with me for long. I fully understand why. On a matter that requires genuine reasoning ability rather than an ability to crib mathematic formulae, you're totally out of your depth, as this thread clearly demonstrates. My tone, is it? I recommend you take a deep breath and read this thread over again. You come charging in like a testosterone-overdosed football hooligan from the start. Irrelevant nitpicking over a mere matter of words, a blatant and pointless peacock display of your "discoveries" of purported "factual errors" which are plainly nothing of the sort; gratuitous scattering of random sneering insults at any other poster without addressing their points in the slightest, but demanding with much stamping of your booted Bottian little foot that everyone responds to your, entirely diversionary quibbles; sneering schoolgirl abuse of the whole subject of the philosophy of science, displaying your complete and painfully acute ignorance of the subject, when that's precisely what this thread is about; utterly pompous Pecksniffian demands that everyone else obeys your strictures on how to post properly, even after you've been given a full scientific paper detailing in irrefutable empirical fact the very evidence you so aggressively demanded; absurdly arrogant demands that the subject of the whole thread is derailed onto another subject altogether, because of childishly basic logical errors in your whole manner of thinking. I'm very happy to have a reasonable discussion about "it". But the "it" of the thread, not whether you know Darwin better than anyone else, or the reasons you should bother yourself paying attention to the matter under debate, or how superior you are in "discovering" that in a general discussion someone said "erosion" instead of "subsidence". In short - discuss the subject of the thread; or, if as you say you see no reason you should pay it the slightest attention because "the facts" aren't stated to your anally retentive standards of exactitude, go and cockwalk somewhere else. So? You know nothing about philosophy of science, and care less about it, as you've proudly boasted. Most physicists share this view. That's mainly because for the vast majority of them philosophy is far too difficult for them. They're physicists because that's the easy stuff to study and try to understand about the world - mathematical formulae, insensate inanimate particles of matter, stuff that's simple and able to be measured. Anything of the slightest complexity and you're completely stumped, the lot of you. Yes, I know. This is very largely the problem. There have been very few scientists with the intelligence and humility and sense of curiosity to attempt to broaden their minds in this way. Newton, Pascal, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Faraday, Clerk Maxwell, Poincare, Russell, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, Schroedinger, de Broglie, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Feynman, Bohm, Josephson, Gell-Mann - pretty much all the outstanding ones, in fact. The rest share the juvenile views about philosophy as Brian Cox, and it's no coincidence that their understanding and accomplishments in science are equally as jejune. No, you're quite evidently not dim. That's why it's so exasperating when you're so wilfully stupid. Okay, perhaps, when I've got the time and the patience. In the meantime, addressing the topic of this thread would be a good introduction, and if you give the matter a little thought you might actually see the point. I respect your knowledge of quantum theory. It's just in this particular instance you got the facts wrong. It's no big deal whatsoever - I'm simply pointing out it doesn't reflect on anything else you might say. I think you're indulging in a little psychological projection there. This is your standard refrain, from the posts I've read. Oh, Bohr. I'll dig out Bohr's own remarks about the sheer remarkable "fluke" that his theory correlated with the hydrogen atom, if you want. It's not a contentious point. If there was an error, it was a very minor one, judging by your analysis. As I've said, he's not making an empirical argument about history or fact. It's a very basic point about logic and epistemology. Basic, but something that apparently leading climate scientists simply do not understand. I took quite a deal of effort to furnish you with what you demanded last night, as a matter of fact. Uploaded and pasted 11 diagrams, typeset the article so it was easily readable. You asked for evidence for an alternative hypothesis - there it is, in its fundamental basics, though there's now known to be a great deal more to it. A hypothesis that fits the temperature data of the past 500 years with astonishing accuracy, including the cooling periods of the last century, which the AGW hypothesis not only says absolutely nothing about, but actually predicts should not have occurred. So, if you really want a decent polite rational discussion - take it away. Cheerio then. I guess thinking about the nature of science just isn't your bag. Let's hope you actually do enough of it to keep you satisfied instead.
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Jun 9, 2011 21:15:12 GMT 1
Mind you, perhaps I should compile a glossary of the terms cosmo uses, rather interesting: We can all play that game, miss. I'd do it with your posts, but you know very well the result is a foregone conclusion. The point is, are my comments appropriate in response to yours? But I do not wish to antagonise you, as that serves no purpose at all: and I take your point, and apologise. I shall try to restrain myself in future. Perhaps you could think about doing the same.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 9, 2011 21:28:57 GMT 1
You miss my point, I found it AMUSING.
I'm not a miss (then wife would object to that), but Dr is a little too formal for these boards...................
I made it quite clear I WASN'T being clever, I just looked up Darwin online (every word he published is there, and searchable), and CHECKED THE FACTS. He'd got them wrong.
Based on that, I made a judgement about how much weight I should place as regards that chaps opinion of whatever the hell else it was he was banging on about. Not a great score.
Solar activity and climate -- sorry, but it DOESN'T fit the current situation, despite the fact that it fits BEFORE we frigged about with the carbon cycle. no one said that solar activity didn't have AN effect, just not THIS effect. a hypothesis that failed the test.
Nope, it was a great big glaring one as regards Darwin (who is actually famous for his explanation of coral atolls), and even more revealaing in terms of whether or not the author checked his sources, or just relied on a book written by someone else. It's vitally important in science, and NOT getting your facts straight is a no-no.
It is, just seemingly not in YOUR terms.
And even if I was interested, I don't see that it matters a great deal to the current results from climate science, given that other hypotheses have been tried and discarded.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jun 10, 2011 10:58:16 GMT 1
nickc I for one appreciated your efforts Nick and found the post very informative. I am at a loss to understand STA's position regarding it. She asked for evidence, which you supplied through "cut and paste". If you had provided unreferenced material I suspect she would have complained about the lack of a reference. Hmmm I can be but an spectator in your debate with STA , so keep the posts and arguments flowing, they're actually quite educational! P
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 10, 2011 12:06:31 GMT 1
Except solar variability was a considered and DISCARDED hypothesis!
I ASKED for evidence that natural variation was a BETTER explanation than AGW, and what I got was solar variation stuff, which has already been shown to NOT explain current trends, even though it explains data in the past.
THAT is why I pooh-poohed the article. There is till no evidence been given to support the claim that:
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 13:37:36 GMT 1
"Discarded" by the IPCC "climatologists", perhaps, but they are no recommendation for scientific integrity or even common sense. The solar physicists and others grounded in the hard sciences are much more sympathetic to the solar influence of climate.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 10, 2011 14:15:32 GMT 1
No one is claiming that solar variability CAN'T influence climate, just that it isn't the cause in the present case. We have the stanford Solar centre link I provided before. The very 'solar physicists' you claim are more open to solar variation possibly 'explaining' effects. They quite plainly state: This paper has people from a whole range of insitutions and departments:
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jun 10, 2011 17:31:52 GMT 1
STA So, we have a reasonable correlation between solar sunspot activity going back from 1960 for a 100 or more years (much more if one accepts the info in Nickc's post). This held true even during the growth on CO2 levels caused by the industrialisation of the world and, more importantly, during periods of rapid industrial growth as during WW2. Personally, with inefficient industry, total reliance on coal fired energy etc I doubt very much that the CO2 growth during this period happened to follow the smooth upward trend of the previous 80 years. This leads me to ask the question about how and where the CO2 readings were taking from the period 1800 to 1960. For example, there was a temperature spike around the time of WW2, which appears not to correlate with either the CO2 rise or solar activity. Now, if my conjecture were correct and CO2 did rise significantly during that period then I would grant you that the correlation would be convincing. But that is NOT what is shown.
Then we have the temperatures since 2000. Although most were higher than the average of 1960/90, they are still not in line with the expectations if the solo causation of the temperature rise were CO2.
In resumen, I have concerns about the measurement of CO2 prior to 1960. I have concerns about the fact that models indicated a continuous temperature rise and this has not occurred as expected since 2000. Now there may be reasons for this, but if one accepts that, then one must accept that there may be other influences which also added to temperature rises as well as anthropogeic CO2. Remember, unknown doesn't mean non-existent.
P
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 10, 2011 19:45:58 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jun 10, 2011 22:09:57 GMT 1
Thanks for the link Stu. makes my last post seem a little too simplistic! But then again, I don't work at CERN! However, the video does highlight the fact that scientists themselves are far from clear about the effects of some of the systems that are known about, so are there others that are not known? P
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 10, 2011 22:15:26 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 22:23:05 GMT 1
And are you quite sure of that, STA? Watch this video by Jasper Kirkby if you really want to know how a physicist presents the correlations between the sun's behaviour and the earth's climate. vimeo.com/24241007When the CERN "cloud" paper is published soon we will know even more but in the meantime the video should give pause for thought for those with a degree of intellectual curiosity. I am surprised that you think the thrashing about by orthodox climatologists comes anywhere near the quality of the work being done at CERN and Arhus.
|
|