• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Polar Bears would self-ignite

Megalodon said:
I direct you to reality:



I know you have an aversion to it, but then, I really couldn't care less.
Hooo, scary... I've been called woo by an intellectually and morally bankrupt... thing. Run along hazy, go and lie in another place...
Click to expand...

Yep, you've been tagged WOO. But only after having really deserved it, and only on the subject of climate science.

As for your graphs, I would note you have a comfort zone with 1975+, but don't see much else of interest there. Are there conclusions that can be drawn from these? If so, what are they? Now, what would the point be exactly?

All I've done is note that multiple groups of scientists are scientifically predicting several cooler decades ahead; further, that predictions by Hansen et al were not scientific predictions.
 
GreyICE said:
Complexity is right about science. Engineers don't do it, and we're proud of it (no, really, we're much more practical and produce much more interesting results than scientists), though we do follow the method frequently.
Click to expand...

I've always had great respect for engineers. Brunel, Telford, Bazalgette, Brunelleschi, to name but a few greats. People that get things done.

One can take the view that thermodynamics started with the observation that some engineering schools of thought produced far more efficient steam-engines than others. Know-how preceding know-why, via ask-why :)
 
Megalodon said:
If this is your reply to that graph, I can only classify you as an idiot or a troll. or both...
Click to expand...

Last resource of loosers... Offending people. Plot a graph from AMSU2 database and see how wrong you are. Eppur si muove... Ehem! Sorry... Eppur global warming stopped in 1999... :D
 
Last edited:
Un-Real Climate is an unreliable site. It's not scientific because it is biased. They don't allow real scientists to post there in defense of their papers. As a scientist, I'll never take Un-Real Climat site seriously.
 
biocab said:
Last resource of loosers... Offending people. Plot a graph from AMSU2 database and see how wrong you are. Eppur si muove... Ehem! Sorry... Eppur global warming stopped in 1999... :D
Click to expand...
I have no idea what "loosers" might be but are you really Lucifuge Rocofale? The parallels are striking.
 
Pipirr said:
Add an exclamation mark in there, and Amy couldn't have said it better herself.

It's true!
Click to expand...

The fluctuation of temperature at the tropospheric boundary layer caused by the Nitrogen (0.16 K) by conduction-convection is 16.11 times higher than that of the carbon dioxide (0.01 K) under real conditions of P = 1 atm, Ts = 318.15 K and Ta = 300.15 K. :D
 
Complexity said:
Since the topic of what makes one a scientist has come up, I'd like to address one aspect of it without respect to biocab.

It isn't the schooling that makes one a scientist.

There are a great many people who earn Ph.D.s in a field of science from respected schools who never will be scientists. I've known many of them.

They sat through the classes, they regurgitated facts on demand, they learned the techniques, they wrote their dissertations - they jumped through the hoops, they endured.

What they didn't do was science. A passion to learn, to understand doesn't flow through these peoples' veins. They may be without the requisite spark of creativity, thirst for knowledge, the drive to persevere, or the raw intelligence - in some way they are deficient with respect to science.

They will keep a chair warm until they retire.
Click to expand...

Industry needs its scientist shelf-stackers. Those new improved flavours and properties don't just spring up out of nowhere; Marketing has to mate with something. Packaging they can do parthogenically, but for new chemicals they need scientific drones.

I was comprehensively schooled in the scientific way of thinking, but I'm pretty sure it was in my nature anyway.
 
There are not thunderstorms unconnected with clouds of water vapor or dust particles. The reason some lightning flashes seem to come from the blue sky is that lightning flashes can travel up to 80.47 kilometers away from the system which generated them.
 
Oops! I have to go to the synagogue... See you latter... :)

Stick to the topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CapelDodger said:
Industry needs its scientist shelf-stackers. Those new improved flavours and properties don't just spring up out of nowhere; Marketing has to mate with something. Packaging they can do parthogenically, but for new chemicals they need scientific drones.

I was comprehensively schooled in the scientific way of thinking, but I'm pretty sure it was in my nature anyway.
Click to expand...


I don't think I'd call them 'scientists', however. 'Lab technicians', perhaps.
 
biocab said:
There are not thunderstorms unconnected with clouds of water vapor or dust particles. The reason some lightning flashes seem to come from the blue sky is that lightning flashes can travel up to 80.47 kilometers away from the system which generated them.
Click to expand...
This looks like common spam.

Or a Turing experiment?
 
TrueSceptic said:
I have no idea what "loosers" might be but are you really Lucifuge Rocofale? The parallels are striking.
Click to expand...

Spurious coincidence, IMO. To me there are striking differences. Lucifage Rocifale is a cut-and-paste "What about this, eh?" merchant; biocab is all about himself. The age difference alone is glaring.

I'm quite sure biocab is genuine. We've met the type before, after all; when I was biocab's age I met quite a few. Just another pimply youth.
 
Megalodon said:
Galileo, you forgot Galileo...

Other than that, your post is the usual mindless drivel...
Click to expand...

No, Mega Woo.

We don't know enough about the personality and behavior of Galileo to include or exclude him. But thanks for trying to blur the distinctions , albeit sloppily.
 
mhaze said:
As for your graphs, I would note you have a comfort zone with 1975+, but don't see much else of interest there. Are there conclusions that can be drawn from these? If so, what are they? Now, what would the point be exactly?
Click to expand...

That would be Rahmstorf et al 07, the bane of trolls, the graph that deniers won't discuss... You know, the one I've brought up repeatedly, showing how the models fared against measurements.

All I've done is note that multiple groups of scientists are scientifically predicting several cooler decades ahead; further, that predictions by Hansen et al were not scientific predictions.
Click to expand...

All you've done was misrepresent scientific studies, make up positions for the scientists involved, lie repeatedly, and in the process make a fool of yourself for all of us to laugh at. Keep it up, clown boy.
 
CapelDodger said:
Spurious coincidence, IMO. To me there are striking differences. Lucifage Rocifale is a cut-and-paste "What about this, eh?" merchant; biocab is all about himself. The age difference alone is glaring.

I'm quite sure biocab is genuine. We've met the type before, after all; when I was biocab's age I met quite a few. Just another pimply youth.
Click to expand...

Is this his web site?

http://biocab.org/

It's hard to believe so many forumlas could amount to so little science.

http://biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html
 
biocab said:
Last resource of loosers... Offending people. Plot a graph from AMSU2 database and see how wrong you are. Eppur si muove... Ehem! Sorry... Eppur global warming stopped in 1999... :D
Click to expand...

You post it, biocab. I'm not making your legwork, lazy boy.

I made a claim and backed it up. Every decade in the last 40 years has been warmer than the previous, and the graph I made shows it.

Your move.
 
Megalodon said:
I made a claim and backed it up. Every decade in the last 40 years has been warmer than the previous, and the graph I made shows it.
Click to expand...

Eppur si riscalda, Megaladon.

And, completely unrelatedly, I hear the arctic is melting.
 
Last edited:
biocab said:
Confused, a theory is not a law. Theories change, laws don't.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum Newbie, you still don't get it, do you?

There are no laws of nature, there are approximations of the behavior of reality.

But the 'laws of nature' are just human conventions for communicating about the behavior of reality.

The law of 'gravity' or 'gravitational attraction' is just a theory that has stood the test of time.

Duh.


Welcome to the forum.
 
Dancing David said:
Welcome to the forum Newbie, you still don't get it, do you?

There are no laws of nature, there are approximations of the behavior of reality.

But the 'laws of nature' are just human conventions for communicating about the behavior of reality.

The law of 'gravity' or 'gravitational attraction' is just a theory that has stood the test of time.

Duh.

Welcome to the forum.
Click to expand...

Thank you. You have said in an elegant manner.
 
biocab said:
Yeah, it stopped in 1999... All scientists have seen the unseen, except AGW religion. :)
Click to expand...

hi biocab

so if you look back over the last 100 years, i think your argument ("it has stopped") would apply after each new local maximum, until the next local maximum, no?

no one (i know of) ever suggested year on year warming; not even the models do that (not that i suggest confusing the models with reality!)

can you explain to me why you feel it stopped in 1999 (honest question)

thx
 
biocab said:
See the "Great Global Warming Swindle" and hear what Dr. Shaviv says about his thoughts on Global Warming before he discovered AGW is pseudoscience. :D
Click to expand...

wasn't there a law suit (misrepresentation) against the makers of this programme? anyone know what happened?
 
GreyICE said:
Complexity is right about science. Engineers don't do it, and we're proud of it (no, really, we're much more practical and produce much more interesting results than scientists), though we do follow the method frequently.
Click to expand...

i think engineers have a much more robust method: the "safety factor".

when you see new things fall down, time after time again, you increase the safety factor until they stop falling down, then build away.

today, many of the new things that fall down do so in models, but here and there new things wobble too much (the millennium bridge) or a family of planes fall out of the sky (the comet). engineers are smart and learn from these events (they are not really "mistakes", more the "discovery" of metal fatigue etc).

so the enginneers have a very effective and extremely valuable method.

but it is of little value to scientists, given that we have only one planet, and that the question asked is one of extrapolation into unknown greenhouse forcings.
 
biocab said:
The fluctuation of temperature at the tropospheric boundary layer caused by the Nitrogen (0.16 K) by conduction-convection is 16.11 times higher than that of the carbon dioxide (0.01 K) under real conditions of P = 1 atm, Ts = 318.15 K and Ta = 300.15 K. :D
Click to expand...
If partial pressure of C02 goes up , does pp of N2 go down about equally?

Is the result of increasing co2 on pp of water vapor and O2 unknowable?
 
CapelDodger said:
Spurious coincidence, IMO. To me there are striking differences. Lucifage Rocifale is a cut-and-paste "What about this, eh?" merchant; biocab is all about himself. The age difference alone is glaring.

I'm quite sure biocab is genuine. We've met the type before, after all; when I was biocab's age I met quite a few. Just another pimply youth.
Click to expand...
I wasn't being serious, but the "English" seemed a common feature. :)
I have no idea how old Lucifuge is.
 
mhaze said:
Yep, you've been tagged WOO. But only after having really deserved it, and only on the subject of climate science.

As for your graphs, I would note you have a comfort zone with 1975+, but don't see much else of interest there. Are there conclusions that can be drawn from these? If so, what are they? Now, what would the point be exactly?

All I've done is note that multiple groups of scientists are scientifically predicting several cooler decades ahead;
Click to expand...
And how are they doing this scientific prediction? Using models, perhaps? You know, the tools that are rubbish, really.

further, that predictions by Hansen et al were not scientific predictions.
Click to expand...
So you claim, with zero evidence.
 
mhaze said:
No, Mega Woo.

We don't know enough about the personality and behavior of Galileo to include or exclude him. But thanks for trying to blur the distinctions , albeit sloppily.
Click to expand...
Strange that you didn't include Darwin in your fantasy list. We know quite a lot about him.
 
lenny said:
wasn't there a law suit (misrepresentation) against the makers of this programme? anyone know what happened?
Click to expand...
Carl Wunsch complained about being misrepresented and I think his contribution was removed from all versions after the original broadcast. I don't think there was a law suit.
 
biocab said:
I know of 55000 scientists in this world that are aware of the biased pseudoscience of the IPCC. Perhaps there are more, but I haven't computed them. I'll told you when I read a newer census. :p
Click to expand...


More Discovery Institute material, funny how you aren't discussing the data anymore.
 
mhaze said:
One does wonder, well, if one paid attention to these ponderous solemn pronouncements of what scientists are, if those deliniating the characteristics of "scientists" were given free reign to construct, their own little politically correct world, with the subset of humans that do fit their definitions and with whom they are comfortable, who, exactly would certainly have been excluded? Of course this would be a committee of the righteous, making such decisions....

For sure these crazy weirdos would not fit in -

  • Einstein
  • Feinman
  • von Braun
Mad rambling nutcases who taught me in school, nutcases in proportion to their brilliance. Let's see...

  • the quantum physics prof, when he really got going in class, you could see the veins pulsing through his ugly, beady eyed bald head.
  • The MIT prof teaching computer science, whose alter ego was in the barber shop quartet.
  • The prof who took his shoes off and slammed them on the desk at odd moments, left for weeks on end whenever he felt like it, came back knowing a whole new subject area or language
By all means let's continue this ponderous structuring of proper styling of behavior of sciency types, I am enjoying it and have no concern any will take it seriously.
Click to expand...

Now you look like MINISTEROFTRUTH, yet more appeals to authority, and not a discussion of data.
 
biocab said:
Deniers of nature or deniers of solar irradiance fluctuations? :D
Click to expand...

Which do fluctuate, but you just made conjectures on the graph, and it is an extrapolated guess.

What other data sources do you have to make the graph supported, things that are not just extrapolated from sunspot numbers?

The solar cycle and Milakanovic cycles are already part of the study of climate. But you are making up stuff.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom