If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 24, 1:17*pm, T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 2:16*am, gander wrote: The only people who are aware of the data and are not yet convinced of the truth of the slow-disaster that is global warming and the consequent eco-system collapse and extinctions are intellectually dishonest, genuinely mentally impaired, or sociopaths. Can you refute my earlier posts, or the articles I've linked to, or He doesn't have to, any more than you have to disprove the climatologists' claims. The fundamental principle is: - the person that makes a claim has to prove it, with the corollary - the more extreme the claim, the more extreme the required proof Proof traditionally requires: 1 state the theory 2 make prediction based on the theory 3 do a test that can disprove the prediction 4 repeat 1-3, if necessary In general, many cranks forget the "... that can disprove the prediction" requirement. The problem that the climatologists have is that the only test that will satisfy some people is that the climate has irrecoverably changed. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
Indeed, I am outraged by the emails showing massive climate fraud!
And Barak Obama's Kenyan birth certificate! And Chappaquidick! And whatever else the angry little man on the teevee was yelling about today. Really, it's a wonder some of you can tie your own shoes let alone fly a glider. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 24, 8:05*am, Liam wrote:
Indeed, I am outraged by the emails showing massive climate fraud! And Barak Obama's Kenyan birth certificate! *And Chappaquidick! *And whatever else the angry little man on the teevee was yelling about today. Really, it's a wonder some of you can tie your own shoes let alone fly a glider. Ah Liam, we've missed you. Welcome back! Brad |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
Bravo, Tom Gardner!
You've listed the essence of the scientif method, which is of course what needs to be followed if we are to arrive at the true explanation. All other approaches are simply "belief", which even though passionately held can be wrong (cf, flat earth, earth centered universe, no moon landings, etc.) I think cranks forget the "... that can disprove the prediction" requirement is because it means work - which they don't want to do simply to make a political point. -John Tom Gardner wrote: On Dec 24, 1:17 pm, T8 wrote: On Dec 24, 2:16 am, gander wrote: The only people who are aware of the data and are not yet convinced of the truth of the slow-disaster that is global warming and the consequent eco-system collapse and extinctions are intellectually dishonest, genuinely mentally impaired, or sociopaths. Can you refute my earlier posts, or the articles I've linked to, or He doesn't have to, any more than you have to disprove the climatologists' claims. The fundamental principle is: - the person that makes a claim has to prove it, with the corollary - the more extreme the claim, the more extreme the required proof Proof traditionally requires: 1 state the theory 2 make prediction based on the theory 3 do a test that can disprove the prediction 4 repeat 1-3, if necessary In general, many cranks forget the "... that can disprove the prediction" requirement. The problem that the climatologists have is that the only test that will satisfy some people is that the climate has irrecoverably changed. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 23, 6:44*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:13:54 -0800, Newill wrote: On Dec 23, 10:38*am, Martin Gregorie wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:21:46 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote: Note my comments to the article about soaring near Oxford when the persistent contrails filled the southern sky. Yes, and I remember the discussion on r.a.s about contrails and their spread-out to form cirrus just after the post-9/11 three day warm period was reported. IIRC the discussion then was about the effect of contrails in the soaring areas beneath flight paths out of large US West Coast airports. -- In the USA there was a rather well done program on NOVA or Frontline (PBS) that investigated the impact of the contrails and concluded that contrails actually contribute to global cooling - not warming! So, how did they explain the 1 degree C rise in ground temperature during the three days when all civil aviation was grounded? -- martin@ * | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org * * * | The daily maximum temperature did rise the 3-day hiatus which any meteorologist would have expected. The size of that rise was much larger than anyone expected. The reason is that high altitude jets leave contrails that are sometimes nearly invisible but still reflect substantial solar energy back into space. At night, the same contrails reflect heat back to the earth resulting in warmer daily minimum temperatures. The days got hotter and the nights got colder. Contrails tend to dissipate during the day so the net effect is warming. This complexity is typical of the climate debate. Climate change 'skeptics' are throwing the word "temperature" around without really knowing what it means. For example, just what temperature are we talking about? Minimums, maximums or just the average. For that matter, exactly how is temperature measured? Just walking outside with a thermometer won't do it. Finally, what are you actually measuring? The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) publishes an extensive manual on how to measure surface temperature. It specifies standard equipment and methods. It's not easy to do. The effects of global warming are also different from what most people expect. Currently, the largest effects are on minimum temperatures in northern latitudes. Even if daily maximums don't increase noticeably, warmer daily minimums are having substantial effects - particularly on ice. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 24, 11:38*am, jcarlyle wrote:
Bravo, Tom Gardner! You've listed the essence of the scientif method, No, he hasn't. The essence involves publishing, or otherwise making available enough information that others can reproduce your results and check your reasoning, end to end. This, the CRU and others have been unwilling to do. -Evan Ludeman / T8 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 24, 5:17*am, T8 wrote:
Btw, wasn't the climate disaster foretold in the 70's just a bit different? Do a little research and you'll find that "disaster" was choreographed by the confused media, not climatologists. I would think that, having read some newspaper stories about soaring, you would realize the media tend to miss the big picture and grab onto some unrelated subtlety presented then run with it. And today, with 25 hour news and everything having to be LIVE! and BREAKING NEWS! that mundane things like needing to provide several hours (days, weeks) of background material to make the viewer understand is just not going to happen. -Tom |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
On Dec 24, 4:58*pm, T8 wrote:
On Dec 24, 11:38*am, jcarlyle wrote: Bravo, Tom Gardner! You've listed the essence of the scientif method, No, he hasn't. The essence involves publishing, or otherwise making available enough information that others can reproduce your results and check your reasoning, end to end. It isn't quite as simple as that, of course. The most interesting/revolutionary predictions are made in advance of it being possible to prove them. A classic example is that general relativity was stated in 1915 and only experimentally proven in 1919. This, the CRU and others have been unwilling to do. Not true: they do publish and they do release information. Is there *any* evidence/argument that would convince you that climate change is an *imminent* problem? I emphasis *imminent* to avoid the possibility that you'll only be convinced after it is too late to mitigate the effects. *If* there is no such evidence/argument, then there is no point in having a discussion with someone with a closed mind. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
Wrong, T8 - as Tom G stated, you just need to:
1 state the theory 2 make prediction based on the theory 3 do a test that can disprove the prediction 4 repeat 1-3, if necessary Of course it makes it easier if you publish and provide your data, but it's not strictly necessary, as a quick perusal of history shows. If you have problems with the theory, it's incumbent upon you to do the work to disprove it. -John T8 wrote: On Dec 24, 11:38 am, jcarlyle wrote: Bravo, Tom Gardner! You've listed the essence of the scientif method, No, he hasn't. The essence involves publishing, or otherwise making available enough information that others can reproduce your results and check your reasoning, end to end. This, the CRU and others have been unwilling to do. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
contrails
5Z wrote:
I would think that, having read some newspaper stories about soaring, you would realize the media tend to miss the big picture and grab onto some unrelated subtlety presented then run with it. It's always fascinating that usually the same people who think the journalists are ignorants rely on those same journalists when their writing is convenient. It's also fascinating when people who use such really difficult and esotheric and counter-intuitive stuff like the relativity theory (used by GPS) or quantum mechanics (used in computers or more generally in every transistor) and bet their lives on thermodynamic theories (by flying airplanes) don't believe those same scientists when their findings are less convenient. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
contrails | No Name | Aviation Photos | 3 | June 22nd 07 01:47 PM |
Contrails | Darkwing | Piloting | 21 | March 23rd 07 05:58 PM |
Contrails | Kevin Dunlevy | Piloting | 4 | December 13th 06 08:31 PM |
Contrails | Steven P. McNicoll | Piloting | 17 | December 10th 03 10:23 PM |