7 of 8
7
Science isn’t truth
Posted: 08 August 2017 12:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24
JohnH - 20 July 2017 11:09 AM

It seems common to equate science and truth in many discussions and to regard science as a search for truth. There are widespread challenges to “prove” that something is “true”.

What is common is for those wanting to attack well supported science is to compare it with their artificial absolute truth, this is entirely what climate change denial is based on and the tobacco lobby denial of serious negative health effects of their products that was used as a template for climate change denial.

Both use the jargon of science and pretend to use the scientific method to provide their evidence, but in the end it is in fact an intentional and highly programmed intellectual fraud that is almost entirely devoid of any real scientific confidence in its results.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

For years, a network of fake citizens’ groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon’s involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story.

Prominent scientists are often hired to carry out this fraud, Fred Seitz who did some excellent work in his younger years went on to take a position with the RJ Reynolds “medical” research program. He spent large amounts of money looking at links between cancer and a host of different products, none of them produced by his employer. Remember how in the 1980s it seemed like everything caused cancer. That was in part the result of Seitz and his team spending $45 million dollars on studies intended to create that smokescreen for the tobacco industry to hide behind.

https://www.desmogblog.com/frederick-seitz

Seitz was the former principal scientific advisor to the RJ Reynolds medical research program.

A May 2006 Vanity Fair article by Mark Hertsgaard outlines the central role Seitz in a $45 million “medical research” program in the 1970s and ‘80s for tobacco-giant RJ Reynolds: [2]

“‘They didn’t want us looking at the health effects of cigarette smoking,’ says Seitz, who is now 94— but it nevertheless served the tobacco industry’s purposes. throughout those years, the industry frequently ran ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program as proof of its commitment to science—and arguing that the evidence on the health effects of smoking was mixed.”

He helped set up some of the same “foundations” that are now engaged in climate change denial and still receive massive funding from the fossil fuel sector, much of it now hidden to avoid any chance of accountability.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called “dark money,” or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

What Fred Seitz did was intellectual fraud that helped kill millions who used products that were inherently dangerous and now billions of lives are being placed in serious risk as the same techniques are being applied to not just cast doubt on the science backing human forced climate change and its clear links to fossil fuels use, but as we now see with this subject, the validity of science itself.

And it is all now being done using money that is effectively being laundered the same way a Columbian drug lord would do to hide his activities.

Fraud is a polite term for what is being attempted here, it is far more disgusting than that.

[ Edited: 08 August 2017 02:40 PM by DougC ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2017 05:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
Mriana - 08 August 2017 08:59 AM

I’m not sure what the dispute is or why anyone is arguing or would argue what you just said.

Same here, other than the suspicion held by certain posters that I am not what I represent myself to be, leading to a campaign to discredit anything I say or question. This post suggests as much.

Lausten - 08 August 2017 10:32 AM

What I see you doing JohnH is not EXACTLY this, but it’s close enough and it’s what regular forum skeptics everywhere are constantly watching out for. If you let a conversation go on for a long time with one person saying they aren’t sure or don’t think something is proven, we often find out the person is not interested in truth. They don’t want a 99% certainty, they want total knowing that only exists in the fantasies of someone who climbs mountains looking for gurus. They don’t exist. So, yeah, I chase them away. Bring something to party, be open to accepting new ideas, or go away.

Unfortunately, what I brought to the party was not what some self-appointed “protectors” of the forum wanted to hear so I am invited to leave. Perhaps they also should be open to accepting new ideas. Respectful dissent is good. It can lead to productive discussion and a better understanding for all participants. Preface it with suspicion or rely on an emotive “gut” response and no-one really gains.

Few things in this world are black or white. Even if you admit to shades of grey, you may miss the colors. The problem is that for some subjects, some here see only black and insist that everyone else be black. Any deviation from absolute blackness is seen as non-black and therefore heretical, which triggers an automatic negative sentiment against the “deviant”.

Apparently others recognize this but then seem to ignore it.

Lausten - 08 August 2017 10:32 AM

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that “right” and “wrong” are absolute; that everything that isn’t perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

How much of this thread has been useful and informative? How much has been confused by off-thread rambling and invective. Is the thread of any benefit to CFI? Could the thread have been more valuable and productive if conducted differently?
 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2017 07:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4061
Joined  2009-10-21
JohnH - 08 August 2017 05:55 PM

Unfortunately, what I brought to the party was not what some self-appointed “protectors” of the forum wanted to hear so I am invited to leave. Perhaps they also should be open to accepting new ideas. Respectful dissent is good. It can lead to productive discussion and a better understanding for all participants. Preface it with suspicion or rely on an emotive “gut” response and no-one really gains.

Few things in this world are black or white. Even if you admit to shades of grey, you may miss the colors. The problem is that for some subjects, some here see only black and insist that everyone else be black. Any deviation from absolute blackness is seen as non-black and therefore heretical, which triggers an automatic negative sentiment against the “deviant”.

Apparently others recognize this but then seem to ignore it.

All of this has been responded to, just today, not to mention other times. Three people have spoken to this idea of absolute truth and pointed out your exact words where you are doing that as an argument against scientific truth. And you just keep repeating yourself as if that never happened.

Accusing someone of not being “open” is a double fallacy. First, you say something is wrong with their brain, that they can’t accept new data, it’s an ad hominem, then you are saying your words are somehow special and deserving of attention, that’s special pleading.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2017 09:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1451
Joined  2016-12-24

JohnH at #92 - Here again it’s interesting how you totally deny key ingredients that have been presented specifically for your benefit.  You attack us for treating you so unfairly, but you are using the language of contrarians, and we know this because of the extensive paper trail:

At #91 you were introduced to:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

https://www.desmogblog.com/frederick-seitz

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

At another discussion you were introduced to the historical documentation that has been collected in the “Merchants of Doubt” by two historians.  The evidence is there - ignoring it, denying it hasn’t made any of that solid evidence go away.  http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org

You want truth?  You want models that work?

Here: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/08/antti-lipponen-visualize-globalwarming.html

Eye popping Global Temperature visualization by Antti Lipponen (1900 - 2016), plus supporting info.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yIHxOui9nQ

1959
Carbon Dioxide and Climate By Gilbert N. Plass
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?”

... So long as the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere-ocean system does not change, such a cycle of temperature oscillation will tend to repeat itself. The period of the complete cycle would be determined primarily by the time required for an ice sheet to form, grow to maximum size and melt away. Estimates indicate that this should take about 50,000 years, in agreement with the observed time for the cycle.  ...

During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth [see graphs on page 43]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. ...

1967
‘The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly’
Ethan Siegel, March 15, 2017, Forbes.com
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#1001b776614d

Modeling the Earth’s climate is one of the most daunting, complicated tasks out there. ... In fact, if you google “climate models wrong”, eight of the first ten results showcase failure. But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right.

The big advance of Manabe and Wetherald’s work was to model not just the feedbacks but the interrelationships between the different components that contribute to the Earth’s temperature. As the atmospheric contents change, so do both the absolute and relative humidity, which impacts cloud cover, water vapor content and cycling/convection of the atmosphere. What they found is that if you start with a stable initial state—roughly what Earth experienced for thousands of years prior to the start of the industrial revolution—you can tinker with one component (like CO2) and model how everything else evolves. ...

1972
A remarkably accurate global warming prediction, made in 1972
Dana Nuccitelli, March 19, 2014, UK Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972

A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000.

“The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6°C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries.”

Remarkably, between the years 1850 and 2000, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels did increase by very close to 25 percent, and global average surface temperatures also increased by just about 0.6°C during that time.

Sawyer also discussed several other important aspects of the Earth’s climate in his paper. For example, he addressed the myth and misunderstanding that as a trace gas in the atmosphere, it may seem natural to assume that rising levels of carbon dioxide don’t have much impact on the climate. Sawyer wrote,

“Nevertheless, there are certain minor constituents of the atmosphere which have a particularly significant effect in determining the world climate. They do this by their influence on the transmission of heat through the atmosphere by radiation. Carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone all play such a role, and the quantities of these substances are not so much greater than the products of human endeavour that the possibilities of man-made influences may be dismissed out of hand.” ...

1975
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/broecker_science_1975.pdf
https://thinkprogress.org/wallace-broeckers-remarkable-1975-global-warming-prediction-1976337267b8/

Wallace Broecker was among the first climate scientists to use simple climate models to predict future global temperature changes.

Broecker anticipated the actual increase in CO2 very closely, predicting 373 ppm in 2000 and 403 ppm in 2010 (actual values were 369 and 390 ppm, respectively). Broecker also used an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2; however, his model’s transient climate sensitivity worked out to be 2.4°C for doubled CO2. Current climate models put equilibrium sensitivty at 1.5 times transient sensitivty, so Broecker effectively underestimated the thermal lag of the climate system, and the equilibrium sensitivity in his calculations was approximately equivalent to 3.6°C for doubled CO2 — a bit higher than today’s best estimates of 2°C transient sensitivity, 3°C equilibrium sensitivity. ...

1981
http://www.c02.gr/pdf/6.pdf

https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html

A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’  projections have proven to be rather accurate — and their future is now our present. ...

The paper, written by a team of atmospheric physicists led by James Hansen at NASA’s Institute for Space Studies at Goddard Space Flight Center ...

Even though the paper was given 10 pages in Science, it covers a lot of advanced topics related to climate — indicating the level of knowledge known about climate science even at that time.
“The concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much,” van Oldenborgh and Haarsma note. “Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.”
Within the paper, several graphs note the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide, both naturally occurring and manmade, and projected a future rise based on the continued use of fossil fuels by humans. Van Oldenborgh and Haarsma overlaid data gathered by NASA and KNMI in recent years and found that the projections made by Hansen et al. were pretty much spot-on. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#bib_1)

I was born in 1955, by the time I reached high school we (that is every serious scientist and everyone who could follow along with the simply physics and current events - consumption and such.) KNEW what was coming our way and why.  Since the 70s the understanding has been doing nothing but getting refined to ever sharper detail, but nothing, not a damned f’n thing of substance has changed about the fundamental understanding, minor details that frauds and intellectual criminals inflate and morph into show stopping questions that have done nothing but harm our ability to get prepared for what’s coming our way.  I better stop . . .

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2017 09:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1451
Joined  2016-12-24
JohnH - 08 August 2017 05:55 PM

Unfortunately, what I brought to the party was not what some self-appointed “protectors” of the forum wanted to hear so I am invited to leave. Perhaps they also should be open to accepting new ideas.

Get this game.
What new idea’s have you offered?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2017 09:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1451
Joined  2016-12-24
Lausten - 08 August 2017 10:40 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 07 August 2017 09:19 PM

JohnH, ps. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19424/P60/#235101

Guess I’ve joined the cabal that sites references, understands data, and doesn’t ask questions that are answered in a million places on the internet, like “what about the little ice age”? Do I get a cool hat? Or maybe at least a pin so other members can recognize me?

I’m for the secret hand shake!  cool smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2017 11:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1451
Joined  2016-12-24
JohnH - 08 August 2017 08:30 AM

I introduced this thread because a post in another thread reminded me of a constant theme I hear in the theist/atheist debate over “universal truth” where science is often held up as failing in its relationship to such truths. Unfortunately, what could have been a useful debate was turned into an attack on me apparently based upon the false assumption that I was using the premise to attack climate change (I do NOT deny climate change or AGW - and no-one has provided any indication of a post that leads them to believe as they do. I wish they would, so that I can clarify any misunderstanding).

Okay you asked.  JohnH, I hope this helps.

I’ve spend a fair amount of time this morning and now putting this together, and have the feeling I’m gonna have to post it at WUWTW after investing so much time, when I have so little available.  But since closely studying the ways of the climate science contrarian has been my passion for a couple decades now and this one makes for another interesting study worth confronting in detail.

Thus I have gone through the thread “What caused global temperatures to fall in the past?” and tried finding specific examples of how misrepresent the science.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19424/
What caused global temperatures to fall in the past?

#1 JohnH - Posted: 18 July 2017 07:24 AM
Every 120,000 years global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels fall quite dramatically. About a half million years ago it happened every 40,000 years. What caused it?

#3 Adamski

Here you go. Rebuttals in comments section are priceless
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

#3 citizenschallenge - Posted: 19 July 2017 02:32 PM

No way to answer that in a couple easy reading paragraphs.
You have to put in some effort and do some serious studying if you really want to understand what’s going on. {What’s hostile about that?}

http://forecast.uchicago.edu
Professor David Archer, PhD
Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast is a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of global warming. Written in an accessible way, and assuming no specialist prior knowledge, this book examines the processes that control climate change and climate stability, from the distant past to the distant future. …

Although SkepticalScience does do a great job of breaking it down for the busy lay-person.

Adamski - 19 July 2017 02:08 AM
Here you go. Rebuttals in comments section are priceless
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
{also see
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php}
They do a wonderful job of explaining
{I added the second link because it included topics that touched on your specific question. }

~~~~~~~

#4 JohnH Posted: 20 July 2017 11:17 AM

The little ice age occurred only 400 years ago accompanied by a temperature fall of less than 1 degree. I’m talking about events that happened more than 100,000 years ago and involved temperatures dropping 5 degrees. There doesn’t seem to be solid explanations why that happened.

That is not true!
http://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-was-it-four-degrees-hotter-110-000-years-ago-73045

This last interglacial period was one of the warmest periods of the past 650,000 years. But it wasn’t 4℃ hotter globally.
Extensive scientific evidence from across the globe shows that the global average temperature during this interglacial period was 1-2℃ warmer than pre-industrial times (or about as warm as it was in 2016).

The last time Earth’s average temperature was 4℃ warmer than pre-industrial levels was around 5-10 million years ago. To put that in context, modern humans have existed for the last 200,000 years and civilised societies only began to form around 6,000 years ago.

~~~~~~~

#5 citizenschallenge

I offer up another few sources to make my point
IPCC - 5th assessment - Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
Information from Paleoclimate Archives
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
The Discovery of Global Warming          
A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly)(that’s science speak for there’s always more to learn) understand what people are doing to cause climate change.
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
~~~~~~~

#6 citizenschallenge

Then come the many circulation patterns that move the heat around our global and store some of it in our oceans

Ocean Currents and Climate Change

Thermohaline Ocean Circulation - Stefan Rahmstorf
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/rahmstorf_eqs_2006.pdf

Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade (1999)
Chapter: 6 Paleoclimate Overview
https://www.nap.edu/read/5992/chapter/7
Paleoclimate Overview ….
~~~~~~~

#7 citizenschallenge - Posted: 21 July 2017 10:27 PM

Thought I’d add something about the link between the reforestation of the Americas due to European diseasing whipping out populations em mass across North and South American.  So much CO2 was sucked out of the atmosphere that shifted the delicate balance enough to initiate the LIA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics

Stanford Report, December 17, 2008
Reforestation helped trigger Little Ice Age, researchers say
BY LOUIS BERGERON
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/manvleaf-010709.html


Columbus’ arrival linked to carbon dioxide drop
Depopulation of Americas may have cooled climate
BY DEVIN POWELL 10:43AM, OCTOBER 13, 2011
Magazine issue: Vol. 180 #10, November 5, 2011, p. 12
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/columbus-arrival-linked-carbon-dioxide-drop

Hearing nothing from JohnH, MikeYoke enters the fray with the Milankovirtch cycles and makes a profoundly childish statement.

~~~~~~~

#10 MikeYohe Posted: 24 July 2017 06:37 PM
“… Most weather comes from the sun. …”

~~~~~~~

#11 citizenschallenge Posted: 26 July 2017 10:20 MikeYohe writes - 24 July 2017 06:37 PM
“Most weather comes from the sun.”

citizenschallenge responds:
“Here’s yet another example of why no one should listen to you when it comes to manmade global warming driven climate change.

The Sun provides the heat, the energy.
The Earth provides the global heat and moisture distribution engine, which causes our weather.

The two in intimate embrace, that’s where the weather comes from.” 

~~~~~~~

John shows up

#13 JohnH Posted: 26 July 2017 11:49 AM

Yes MikeYohe, but efforts to reliably relate climate change to Milankovitch cycles haven’t been particularly successful. {nonsense - You’re injecting a certitude of doubt about a scientific topic that is in fact surprisingly well understood.} How are they linked to fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide? {Because the atmospheric insulation of greenhouse gases dictates how much heat is being retained within our planet. }

The worrisome issue to me isn’t the accuracy of the simulated carbon dioxide effect but the recognition that past climate cycles resulted in global mean temperatures higher than current temperatures. {Here’s another deliberately and dishonestly contrived sentence, “CO2’s simulated effect”? Past climate cycles warmer, sure some were cooler.}


That means maximum temperatures were even higher, though I haven’t encountered estimates for maximum temperatures. Essentially, that means current concerns are over potential global temperatures that have been found to occur in the natural climate changes of the past. {Here again this is criminal bullshit A) that we need to perfectly understand paleoclimate before we can know what the future holds - B) that scientist haven’t already answered this question with surprising detail - actually not surprising considering how hard and long they’ve been working on it.

The criminal lie here is denying that scientific concerns about current and projected temperature rises are based on physics!

JohnH could have learned about that had he honest curiosity to understand these things - instead he dismisses this link as worthless.}

http://forecast.uchicago.edu
Professor David Archer, PhD
Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast is a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of global warming. Written in an accessible way, and assuming no specialist prior knowledge, this book examines the processes that control climate change and climate stability, from the distant past to the distant future.

That history suggests that our efforts to “normalize” atmospheric carbon dioxide levels may not hold global temperatures below that which is currently considered to be problematic. {Oh so you agree, we have a problem?}

That isn’t to deny that current levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions may {may, “MAY?? How the hell can they do anything but?  Answer that if you want to be taken serious}add an additional, perilous variable to climate dynamics and that it should be reversed but I worry that the challenge will turn out to be more complex than just greenhouse gases alone.
{ No shit.  Centuries of utter contempt for our biosphere and the various people inhabiting it’s many corners.  You bet our problems go beyond manmade global warming - but it’s the global warming driven climate and biosphere change that’s going to be the ultimate and final show stopper.  There’s no other way for this hideous experiment to run - that is within the realm of real physics and true life on Earth.}

{ The challenge is to understand our planet as it is.  Then to honestly face what’s heading our way.}

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 12:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1451
Joined  2016-12-24

#15 citizenschallenge Posted: 27 July 2017 09:26 AM

First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect
February 25, 2015
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
... The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the
calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.

More hand waving about the Milanlovitch cycle with this tidbit:

#16 MikeYohe Posted: 27 July 2017 10:35 AM

“That is where we are at now, building the system to collect reliable data. Just this week the news is that the energy coming from the sun to the earth was wrong. And new figures are now available for use. Basically, all past reports using the sun’s energy is now considered wrong.”
{That is so obnoxious, dropping an astounding assert: “all past (solar insolation?) reports are wrong!”  No reference offered, simply an assertion implying we can’t trust …  No link offered, contemptible.  I spent a good 15 minutes trying to find something nothing.  Not a clue what the hell you are talking about, but the message is clear, “all past reports using sun’s energy are wrong.”  How wrong??}

~~~~~~~

#17 JohnH Posted: 27 July 2017 10:24 PM

CC, the reason I ignore you is that you approach debate in a hostile, obnoxious manner, responding more to your perceptions of disagreement {Why am I supposed to accept your wanton misrepresentation of the scientific understanding with diplomatic grace?  Why do you refuse to absorb any of the information I’ve tried sharing?} rather than issues raised, {I’ve been very specific.} presumably triggered by prejudices you cannot control. {The superior dismissal, contrarians do so well.}  As a consequence, you have disrupted rather than contributed to substantive debate. {Why do you disregard the learning opportunities I’ve pointed to.} Your debating style is contrary to forum rules (for example, personal attacks, {What about your trash talk.  Implying I’m driven my prejudice, rather than a deep understanding of the topic at hand, and a willing to share my sources in the interest of communal education.} suggesting I’ve joined the fools bandwagon or describing my comments as “bullshit” without any convincing explanation why. {I’ve striven very hard to be specific and clinical, it’s for the audience to decide.} Even starting new threads in an effort to bait me.) {Why not?  You’re the one who refused to defend your claim that CO2 Theory was tentative and not well understood.  Something of critical importance}.


So, yes, I choose for the most part to ignore you. {Why can’t you focus on specific assertions and challenges.  Why always with the superior self-puttying complaints and arm waving - why not stay focused on that issues at hand and the evidence introduced?
What I was doing was sharing important must learn information if you want to understand this global warming thing.}

For anyone with a more level-headed interest here is an image relating several climate variables. GRAPH

JohnH offers a graph sans background information or citation, then:

You may note that insolation is not well correlated with other changes. {Actually it’s not that bad -what are you expecting a one to one correlation, remember other factors are involved} As far as I understand, attempts to incorporate Milankovitch cycles into climate simulations (climate models) have not provided a good fit with real data. {nonsense, study more.} If I am mistaken, references to reports of the success of such simulations will be much more convincing than simply characterizing my comments (possibly based on ignorance) as “bullshit” without any real evidence to back up the accusation. {http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19424/P15/#234885}  That is a violation of forum rules.

You may note that recent temperatures (the red line at the left side of the graph) have fluctuated within a 2 degree range for the last 10,000 years. About 20,000 years ago temperatures were 8 degrees cooler than those recent temperatures. {NOT GLOBAL AVERAGE!  Your graph is not global data, why are you pretending it is?  Another example of dishonesty.} The Little Ice Age occurred a few hundred years ago and isn’t even noticeable in the recent temperature fluctuations, so no, my focus isn’t the little ice age.
{Incidentally another gross dishonesty you are guilty of is imply that we need a better understanding of paleoclimate to understanding where we are going. Nope!  Scientist know what is happening to Earth and where it’s heading based on physics!!!}

At least one of the temperature spikes at 125,000 240,000 and 320,000 years ago is higher that the IPCC projection for 2050. {So what?  Why does that matter to current events?} Other graphs show it more clearly, for example the Wikipedia paleoclimate entry. This is the source of my concern that natural climate changes may have the apparently unrecognized potential to add even more to our global warming problem.
{No kinding, probably will.  So what’s your point anyways?}

This isn’t denying or minimizing anthropogenic warming {Bullshit, of course it is minimizing the need to realistically learn about what’s going on. 
I provided real information, some from leading experts, and you simply dismiss it pretending we should be worried about fluctuation in our deep past. 

We live in today’s world and scientists have achieved an amazingly complete understanding - there will always be shrinking gaps and refinements, particular in our rapidly changing biosphere} - it is a concern that we could be facing a double-whammy that we don’t seem to be prepared for. {damned straight on that call.}

You may also note the similarities between carbon dioxide and temperature changes in the last 4 temperature cycles. This means that carbon dioxide levels fell (naturally?) In previous climate cycles. The simple question in the OP to this thread was if anyone can point to what triggered this reversal. {http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19424/P15/#234885} A further question may be what sources existing to support any explanations. By that I mean hard evidence along the lines of GCMs, not arm-waving generalities or opinion pieces by, for example a cognitive science graduate in a Department of Communication as is John Cook who runs the skeptical science website.

{Wow.  You label SlepticalScience.com articles as
“arm-waving generalities or opinion pieces”?
Right here you show your passionate partisan blinders.  Denegrate SkepticalScience.com, for what?  On what basis?

It is a layperson’s guide to real scientific studies.  A repository of years worth of published papers, with insightful narrative explaining what the science is about, and then links to the actual studies and other references for further learning. 

There is also a dynamic disciplined forum that can be as interesting and informative about both sides of said issue. 
I’ve always wondered how a serious student could off handedly dismiss them like you do. 

Can you offer any specific examples to support your very unscientific emotionalism regarding SkS?  Also I notice you’ve used them when you want to make a point - what’s up with that?}

. . .

~~~~~~~

Posted: 27 July 2017 10:35 AM

#21 citizenschallenge Posted: 28 July 2017 10:48 AM

JohnH - 27 July 2017 10:24 PM writes:
As far as I understand, attempts to incorporate Milankovitch cycles into climate simulations (climate models) have not provided a good fit with real data. If I am mistaken, references to reports of the success of such simulations will be much more convincing than simply characterizing my comments (possibly based on ignorance) as “bullshit” without any real evidence to back up the accusation.
citizenschallenge responds : But wait a minute - you (and others) haven’t presented any references to support your claim to begin with! 
Cough it up.

Also one reason I come off as so hostile is {I simply can’t imagine you to be that clueless and naive. } because all it takes is a quick google search, I typed in
“incorporate Milankovitch cycles into climate simulations”

Glacial Cycles and Milankovitch Forcing - Minnesota Journal of ...
https://mjum.math.umn.edu/index.php/mjum/article/download/13/22/
We incorporate Milankovitch cycles into a recent conceptual climate model of ... The resulting simulations exhibited glacial cycles and also exhibited the skipped ...
Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation
ossfoundation.us › Projects & Resources › Environment › Global Warming
Our current climate forcing shows we are outside of that natural cycle forcing range. ... Oeschger Events · Earth’s Radiation Budget · Empirical: Modeling v. ... The Milankovich cycles are caused by changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around ... factors can help push the climate system into ice ages, when the this cycle is ...
Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of ... The first of the three Milankovitch Cycles is the Earth’s eccentricity.
Missing: incorporate simulations
Milankovitch Tutorial - sciencecourseware.org
http://www.sciencecourseware.org/eec/GlobalWarming/Tutorials/Milankovitch/
These Milankovitch Cycles. are named ... Milankovitch, who used them to explain the advance ... believe these cycles play a role in the Earth’s climate. In this ...
Temperature response of Mars to Milankovitch cycles - Schorghofer ...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034954/full
by N Schorghofer - 2008 - Cited by 18 - Related articles
Sep 23, 2008 - The orbital elements of Mars are known to about 20 Ma into the ... almost quasi-periodic manner analogous to the Milankovitch cycles of Earth ... forms a seasonal CO2 cover; this is also incorporated in the model. .... Lebofsky, L. A., and J. R. Spencer (1990), Radiometry and thermal modeling of asteroids ...
Chapter 12 Cyclostratigraphy and Milankovitch Cycles - ScienceDirect
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0070457108704278
197 Chapter 12 CYCLOSTRATIGRAPW AND MILANKOVITCH CYCLES But to ..... MILANKOVITCH THEORY orbital control, from estuarine into anti-estuarine circulation. ... The climatic simulations show that the change between the two states is ... of sedimentation to climate and because they can integrate climatic variables ...
[PPT]Simulating Milankovitch Cycles
antipasto.union.edu/engineering/Archives/.../2005/CS…/Fox_Derek_Presentation.ppt
Milankovitch Cycles – How Does it Affect Climate? ... Implement Milankovitch mathematics to visually simulate how solar insolation varies as the three cycles change ... Easier to color by breaking the polygon into smaller, 4-sided polygons. ... I accomplished what I set out to do and incorporated the features requested.
Generalized Milankovitch Cycles and Longterm Climatic Habitability
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.4877
by DS Spiegel - 2010 - Cited by 66 - Related articles

and more…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 12:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1451
Joined  2016-12-24

#22 citizenschallenge Posted: 28 July 2017 11:27 AM
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf (2013)
5.3.2 Glacial–Interglacial Dynamics
5.3.2.1 Role of Carbon Dioxide in Glacial Cycles …

~~~~~~~

#24 DougC Posted: 29 July 2017 08:53 PM
… Actually there is a well established explanation for the changes of climate from glacial and inter-glacial periods.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

~~~~~~~

#32 citizenschallenge Posted: 01 August 2017 08:53 AM

I came across an interesting recent paper today that underscores the level at which scientists are actually working to understanding distant climate changes, the details and what they can add to our understanding of current dynamics.

This also has implications for helping understand the dynamics that dictated past climate fluctuations and the factors that went into specific fluctuations.

“Glacial weathering, sulfide oxidation, and global carbon cycle feedbacks,” PNAS (2017).
Mark A. Torres el al.,
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/25/1702953114
Carbon Dioxide and Climate
An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?”
By Gilbert N. Plass Reprinted in Scientific American on December 4, 2008
Fascinating article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

~~~~~~~


MikeYohe is keeping up the conversation with diversions, JohnH has been a no show.

In response to one of his bones.

#48 citizenschallenge 04 August 2017 12:01 PM

What pray tell do you imagine will turn that around???  
Some misunderstanding about some climate event in some past eon? 

A time when Earth’s physical dynamics have almost nothing in common with today’s situation?

Where did you fish such a notion out of the IPCC report? 
Can you share the section # ?

FYI

Pumphandle 2012: History of atmospheric carbon dioxide
CarbonTracker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7tfz3k_9A&t=70s

TimeLapse: Watch 27 Years of ‘Old’ Arctic Ice Melt
Our World - News about the Environment, Religion & Society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZovcCxftAY

NASA: Greenland Ice loss 2002-2016
Climate State
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT7Oj-r9Hko

Trouble at Totten Glacier - Antarctica
YaleClimateConnections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pDB_C-jwkU&t=190s

~~~~~~~

I wound up doing a little more research into the Milankovitch cycles and have more cool stuff to share

#59 citizenschallenge Posted: 07 August 2017 06:18 PM
\ Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation
Indian University Bloomington
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

Equatorial insolation: from precession harmonics to eccentricity frequencies
Berger, M. F. Loutre, and J. L. Melice
Clim. Past, 2, 131–136, 2006
http://www.clim-past.net/2/131/2006/
© Author(s) 2006. This work is licensed of the Past under a Creative Commons License.
https://www.clim-past.net/2/131/2006/cp-2-131-2006.pdf

How much extra energy are we adding to the earth system?
Professor Steve Easterbrook
11. January 2012 · Update (Aug 15, 2013):
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2012/01/how-much-extra-energy-are-we-adding-to-the-earth-system/

JohnH is still a no show
~~~~~~~

#61 citizenschallenge Posted: 07 August 2017 09:18 PM

JohnH, I have striven to respond to your challenge “What caused global temperatures to fall in the past?” using explanations in my own words, supported by an assortment of links to bona fide sources of valid scientific information.  That I don’t like you, and visa versa, shouldn’t be any issue, let’s keep to the main question and answering it.

I’ve done it with care, not just for you personally, but also for the onlookers who glance at these posts, and become I’m always striving to improve my writing.

In light of your rant about me and others, why not show that you are more than you appear by doing the stand-up thing
and offer your considered critique of how I (and perhaps others) have offended your sensibilities and why I should be ashamed of how I’ve attempted engaging you?
Can you do that John?

~~~~~~~
John got around to posting, but decided to ignore all challenges:

#64 JohnH Posted: 08 August 2017 07:10 PM

… Yes, but I’d like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn’t be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.
{Wow, the art of the con is amazing. 
Suggesting we shouldn’t be more complacent about climate science.  Amazing. 
How much more complacent can one get than ignoring and misrepresenting the state of the understanding.
Oh and who is it that’s trying to shut down the science as much as possible?}

~~~~~~~

#65 citizenschallenge Posted: 08 August 2017 07:56 PM
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/235139/
Speaks for itself

#65 citizenschallenge Posted: 08 August 2017 08:14 PM

Scientists Fear Trump Will Dismiss Blunt Climate Report
New York Times shares the NAS’s quadrennial National Climate Assessment
By LISA FRIEDMAN - AUG. 7, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html
For the text of the document: 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html

JohnH, can you explain why you think we need more study and more debate before the reality (er the truth) of our situation is allowed to soak in?

What specifically is missing?  The ability to exactly explain every fluctuation in the deep past - although all the fundamental fluctuations are understood and well studied?

Is it that perfect Crystal Ball that no one in any field of study or politics or love has every achieved?  What is intellectually honest about impossible expectations? 

What level of certainty are you demanding anyways?

Oh and I notice you have no critiques to offer regarding my various links and references - guess they must all pass muster now that you’ve actually been tasked with reviewing them. 

Good to know. 
~~~~~~~

#69 citizenschallenge Posted: 08 August 2017 08:23 PM

JohnH - 08 August 2017 07:10 PM writes:
Yes, but I’d like to see vigorous research continue on the topics that Hansen and others need to improve our understanding of climate - and a more accepting audience for those people who suggest we shouldn’t be complacent or satisfied with our current understanding of climate change.

citizenschallenge responds:
Why?

When that audience demands to use deception, misrepresentation and refuses to accept bona fide information to then absorb and process ?!

Why is misrepresenting the science seen as okay to your team?

good night

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 06:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1307
Joined  2005-01-14
JohnH - 20 July 2017 11:09 AM

It seems common to equate science and truth in many discussions and to regard science as a search for truth. There are widespread challenges to “prove” that something is “true”.
Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery points out that in scientific terms it is impossible to confirm anything as an absolute truth. He preferred to use the expression “xxx corresponds to the facts” rather than xxx is true. The objections to Popper are more to his recommendations on how to conduct science (using falsifiability) to the exclusion of all other methods than his underlying objection to “truth”.
It would be acceptable to Popper to say that scientific knowledge corresponds to the facts but not that scientific knowledge is true. Scientific knowledge can thus be challenged by discovering more facts to see if it still corresponds to the new facts. A key scientific method is to use current knowledge to identify the unknown or untested and make predictions. Verifying predictions, especially if they differ between different theories help create new facts and reinforce our confidence in our knowledge (as pointed out by Popper in chapter 3 of The Logic of Scientific Discovery).
Science, thus is not about absolute truths as much as it is about predictability.

Well no, not “absolute truth” because there is probably no such animal.  I have to tell you, the reason I didn’t originally weigh in on this is that what you’re saying is obvious to me and I didn’t think there’d be any dissent.  I don’t know what all the fuss is about with climate change.  I know that some people get very annoyed about that topic, so you have to cut them a little slack.

Science is supposed to be about finding the truth, as near as possible.  Unfortunately science has a weakness—there’s just so darn MUCH of it.  Science has become so specialized that no one body, no one science journal, can keep track of it all.  That makes it relatively easy to devise an experimental set-up that lets you fudge the data and make the experiment come out any way you want it to.  You can publish that result in a journal someplace and call it “science”.  And there are lots of enthusiastic people with college degrees behind their names who don’t have the faintest idea how to conduct a proper experiment.  I can foresee a time in the not to distant future when “science” will have no more meaning because whatever you think the truth is, you’ll always be able to find a “scientist” somewhere who will insist that the exact opposite is true.  It seems like with the Internet we will soon reach a “post-truth” era, if we haven’t done so already.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 06:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4061
Joined  2009-10-21
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 08 August 2017 11:47 PM

I’ve spend a fair amount of time this morning and now putting this together, and have the feeling I’m gonna have to post it at WUWTW after investing so much time, when I have so little available.  But since closely studying the ways of the climate science contrarian has been my passion for a couple decades now and this one makes for another interesting study worth confronting in detail.

Nice work CC. I’m going to gather all the links off this page and keep them for future reference.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

I think we should also look at why science isn’t truth.

Science is based entirely on consensus. Information is gathered in an agreed upon fashion that produces consistent results. Theories are formed to explain the context of the information gathered and this is distributed for close review by other scientists. Only after thorough examination of results and widespread acceptance by the scientific community does something become part of the body of scientific knowledge.

The incredible advances of the last two centuries alone speak clearly of the real world applicability of science.

Truth on the other hand is something that is imposed from above and doesn’t require any supporting evidence or review, it is intended to establish and secure positions of power for those creating the truth.

Truth is, “there is only one God and Muhammad is his prophet” or “Christ is the son of God and the only way to salvation”. Truth is not to be questioned and there are often severe penalties for doing so.

In the context of human forced climate change, the official truth that is being imposed from above is that burning billions of tons of fossil fuels has no negative impacts and is something we can keep doing indefinitely. This authoritarian “truth” clearly overrides and denies almost all the evidence that is to the contrary of this imposed version of reality or humanity as a whole would have addressed this issues decades ago. We aren’t even though the science behind climate change goes back centuries and the evidence is far beyond a reasonable doubt that human forced climate change through the burning of fossil fuels is very real and profoundly dangerous.

So all the intent of this thread and climate change in general is to continue to impose an authoritarian position that is already having negative impacts at critical levels in terms of global ecological integrity and human survival. It is devoid of any real justification other than people in positions of power are enforcing that power on everyone else no matter the consequences. And they have consistently been doing this by attacking by any means possible that most democratic of institutions, the scientific method that requires reliable data presented in a objective format extensively reviewed and tested.

And all this stringent research and review clearly states that human forced climate change is real and highly dangerous.

All the “truth” of the authoritarian deniers tells us is that some people place the possession of power above all other considerations even human life or the existence of the biosphere itself.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 04:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 08 August 2017 09:22 PM
JohnH - 08 August 2017 05:55 PM

Unfortunately, what I brought to the party was not what some self-appointed “protectors” of the forum wanted to hear so I am invited to leave. Perhaps they also should be open to accepting new ideas.

Get this game.
What new idea’s have you offered?

Under present circumstances I have no interest in searching for the post in which you expressed approval of my posts in other threads. At this point it is clear that anything of a thought-provoking nature that I have to say will be attacked under the assumption that I am a malicious presence here. Clearly moderators feel that the forum is operating as they want it to operate but it is not the way in which I wish to operate. I’m sure you will all celebrate my departure. Have at it!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 August 2017 05:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7745
Joined  2009-02-26
JohnH - 09 August 2017 04:23 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 08 August 2017 09:22 PM
JohnH - 08 August 2017 05:55 PM

Unfortunately, what I brought to the party was not what some self-appointed “protectors” of the forum wanted to hear so I am invited to leave. Perhaps they also should be open to accepting new ideas.

Get this game.
What new idea’s have you offered?

Under present circumstances I have no interest in searching for the post in which you expressed approval of my posts in other threads. At this point it is clear that anything of a thought-provoking nature that I have to say will be attacked under the assumption that I am a malicious presence here. Clearly moderators feel that the forum is operating as they want it to operate but it is not the way in which I wish to operate. I’m sure you will all celebrate my departure. Have at it!

What I get from all this that you are not trying to make the point that science is not (and does not claim) to be truth.

You are trying to say that all science is false…....difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!  290.gif

You are just trying to subvert Science as a valuable source of information..290.gif

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 August 2017 11:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

If he actually doesn’t think that science works not only should he stop posting here he should stop using all modern devices that are entirely made possible by scientific experimentation and theoretical work.

Transistors that make most modern technology work didn’t happen by accident, they were made possible only by the scientific breakthroughs that also underlie the science of climate change.

You don’t get to pick and choose, if climate change deniers are denying science of climate change they are also denying the science that allows them to communicate through the extensive use of transistors.

http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/qmsemi.html

In the 1920s, Louis de Broglie in France was studying the new science theories of quantum mechanics.  He knew that physicists now believed light waves—usually thought of as a constantly fluctuating electromagnetic wave—could sometimes behave like particles as hard and precise as billiard balls.  He realized that perhaps the reverse was true too.  Perhaps particles such as electrons could sometimes behave like waves. 

Another scientist, Swiss theorist Erwin Schroedinger incorporated this mathematically into a set of equations. These—known, not surprisingly, as Schroedinger equations—could descibe with utmost precision all the behavior of electrons and other atomic particles. 

In the 1930s, these equations became fully accepted as the scientific community tried to apply them to complicated systems of atoms like those found in crystals and metals.  Physicists—usually professors and students in universities—threw themselves into the task of analyzing these basic structures. Key steps were taken in Germany, Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union among other places. 

When scientists began to think of the electrons in crystals as waves, they discovered fascinating, and often surprising, new patterns of movement. This was behavior unlike anything that simple particles might do. For instance, if the usually perfectly-ordered atoms in a crystal had even a single atom out of place, the electron waves’ movement as it traveled through would be seriously changed. 

One of the applications for these new rules about electrons was in semiconductors—mysterious crystals that sometimes conducted electricity and sometimes didn’t. Eugene Wigner and his student Frederick Seitz worked long and hard on this issue at Princeton University in the 1930s.  They were the first to figure out just how these waves could make different kinds of materials conduct or not conduct electricity.  (Answer: Some atoms are set up so that electron waves can easily move to the right place where they can then move through the material as a current.  In others atoms the waves simply can’t make the jump to the necessary location.) 

Work like this laid down the ground work for the research Bell Labs would do a decade later turning a semiconductor crystal into a transistor.

The science that has allowed us to understand the behavior of the natural world at a very small scale is also directly applicable to what is going on in the Earth’s atmosphere as we add billions of tons a year of a molecule quantum mechanically tuned to absorb and re-release electromagnetic radiation in the spectrum emitted by the Earth’s surface.

If you decide to stop believing in the incredibly well supported science that supports entirely the existence of human forced climate change then stop being such hypocrites and stop using all electronics that rely on exactly the same science.

That includes cell phones, computers, television, sat radio and more. See how well you get by trying to sell your nonsense on tube powered short wave, it’s where climate change denial really belongs… fading off into lunatic fringe groups with virtually no relevance in the real world.

Almost all of the rest of us will miss you not at all.

[ Edited: 10 August 2017 11:59 PM by DougC ]
Profile
 
 
   
7 of 8
7