"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Calculating the spectra and intensity of Helium, Lithium and Beryllium using only Rydberg-like formulas
Next: 'Plutonium' as a surname
From: Claudius Denk on 3 Aug 2010 02:33 On Aug 2, 8:51 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Continued from previous thread. > Your cell analysis is fair, though there are arguable > only two strong cells, as you've identified. If they become one then > we are really in for it. We are not only heating the planet, but we > are potentially creating more atmosphere as well; much of it in water > vapor. I don't know how strongly this dynamic will play out, but if we > burn the trees as quickly as they grow, and we are beating that growth > level now, then there is a carbon contribution that is helping to > choke our existence. Plant growth should speed up if we accept carbon > competition models, but that is not the end of the puzzle if we wind > up depleting the forests in a near future scourge for energy. This has > already happened in many places. Then too, if drought conditions > followed by serious growth conditions are occurring at the mid > latitudes this will just be more chaotic behaviors; the burning will > be beyond human control. You really gotta switch to decaf. Really. > Do you have any opinion of the possibility of superposition of the two/ > three celled flow with the single celled flow (per hemisphere)? After > all, you are the scientist, right? Come now, here is an opportunity to > apply yourself. Superposition?
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 3 Aug 2010 14:52 On Aug 3, 2:33 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Aug 2, 8:51 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > Continued from previous thread. > > > Your cell analysis is fair, though there are arguable > > only two strong cells, as you've identified. If they become one then > > we are really in for it. We are not only heating the planet, but we > > are potentially creating more atmosphere as well; much of it in water > > vapor. I don't know how strongly this dynamic will play out, but if we > > burn the trees as quickly as they grow, and we are beating that growth > > level now, then there is a carbon contribution that is helping to > > choke our existence. Plant growth should speed up if we accept carbon > > competition models, but that is not the end of the puzzle if we wind > > up depleting the forests in a near future scourge for energy. This has > > already happened in many places. Then too, if drought conditions > > followed by serious growth conditions are occurring at the mid > > latitudes this will just be more chaotic behaviors; the burning will > > be beyond human control. > > You really gotta switch to decaf. Really. > > > Do you have any opinion of the possibility of superposition of the two/ > > three celled flow with the single celled flow (per hemisphere)? After > > all, you are the scientist, right? Come now, here is an opportunity to > > apply yourself. > > Superposition? You are remaining very cryptic and have not given much expression of your position. When I ask you about rates of change you come back with a blank response, as if you cannot conceive of this concept. The six billion humans on earth burning fossil fuels daily is a spike in time unlike other spikes in time. Coal burning back in the 1800's was probably an active effect on climate, but the exponential curve that we witness will not carry on. In terms of the cell analysis you only answer with a question. So I suppose it is for me to fill out the idea a bit further to gain your critique. A simpler instance is a five fold symmetry that can occur in a water bucket when stirred to form a vortex. We must accept that the vortex is unitary, yet we will still have to admit that there is a five fold discrete symmetry emanating. These two discrete procedures are then in superposition. We can regard the ultimate atmospheric flow as one celled, so long as material in the polar region does make it to the equator. We have to admit that a two or three celled system is the prevalent one, but to what degree the proper arithmetic analysis includes this single cell flow, well, this is my question to you. I suppose that if we accept that there is more atmosphere in existence then there will be some interaction, and we can consider several outcomes: 1. More atmosphere means more vertical motion, leading to more cells rather than less, and so a diminishment of any single cell phenomena. 2. More atmosphere means more room for clean flow, leading to an increase of the single cell flow in superposition with any multicell flows. I am thinking that 2. is the stronger of these. I would think you could step in here with some Corioliss type analysis to appear smart, right? The one thing I am seeing in this moment is that when Coriolis type forces bend the path they are raising the pressure or the temperature. I presume that you, if you are advanced as you claim are more in favor of feedback prinicples leading to self corrections that stabilize the system. I am mostly just attempting to do analysis here and am not at all immersed in this field, except within the societal swing that is taking place. I see this "Over 95% of total CO2 emissions are natural." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere which does support your claim that the greenhouse effect is bunky. Still, the change in CO2 level, and this is one of those Gore graphs where he steps onto a lift in order to show where we are going, is dramatic. What happens if we run out of oil and continue our demand for fuel via biomass? There are just too many arguments for population dampers to be implemented. Every human should want high grade natural resources, which means less humans. Thus far the atheistic Chinese are the only ones to implement a serious plan. - Tim
From: Claudius Denk on 4 Aug 2010 03:24 On Aug 3, 11:52 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 2:33 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > On Aug 2, 8:51 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > Continued from previous thread. > > > > Your cell analysis is fair, though there are arguable > > > only two strong cells, as you've identified. If they become one then > > > we are really in for it. We are not only heating the planet, but we > > > are potentially creating more atmosphere as well; much of it in water > > > vapor. I don't know how strongly this dynamic will play out, but if we > > > burn the trees as quickly as they grow, and we are beating that growth > > > level now, then there is a carbon contribution that is helping to > > > choke our existence. Plant growth should speed up if we accept carbon > > > competition models, but that is not the end of the puzzle if we wind > > > up depleting the forests in a near future scourge for energy. This has > > > already happened in many places. Then too, if drought conditions > > > followed by serious growth conditions are occurring at the mid > > > latitudes this will just be more chaotic behaviors; the burning will > > > be beyond human control. > > > You really gotta switch to decaf. Really. > > > > Do you have any opinion of the possibility of superposition of the two/ > > > three celled flow with the single celled flow (per hemisphere)? After > > > all, you are the scientist, right? Come now, here is an opportunity to > > > apply yourself. > > > Superposition? > > You are remaining very cryptic and have not given much expression of > your position. Remember this: "Only fruitcakes believe in global warming. There is no credible evidence of global warming. It's adherents are just a bunch of dimwitted nose pickers." I think it's pretty expressive. > When I ask you about rates of change you come back with > a blank response, as if you cannot conceive of this concept. As I recall, I asked you for clarification and you declined. > The six > billion humans on earth burning fossil fuels daily is a spike in time > unlike other spikes in time. Coal burning back in the 1800's was > probably an active effect on climate, but the exponential curve that > we witness will not carry on. I used to think this way. > > In terms of the cell analysis you only answer with a question. So I > suppose it is for me to fill out the idea a bit further to gain your > critique. A simpler instance is a five fold symmetry that can occur in > a water bucket when stirred to form a vortex. We must accept that the > vortex is unitary, yet we will still have to admit that there is a > five fold discrete symmetry emanating. These two discrete procedures > are then in superposition. uh, okay. What's your point? > > We can regard the ultimate atmospheric flow as one celled, so long as > material in the polar region does make it to the equator. We have to > admit that a two or three celled system is the prevalent one, but to > what degree the proper arithmetic analysis includes this single cell > flow, well, this is my question to you. I suppose that if we accept > that there is more atmosphere in existence then there will be some > interaction, and we can consider several outcomes: > > 1. More atmosphere means more vertical motion, leading to more > cells rather than less, and so a diminishment of any single cell > phenomena. > > 2. More atmosphere means more room for clean flow, leading to an > increase of the single cell flow in superposition with any multicell > flows. > > I am thinking that 2. is the stronger of these. > I would think you could step in here with some Corioliss type analysis Well, it's nice to know you think so highly of me but I honestly don't see what your point is. > to appear smart, right? Appear smart? > The one thing I am seeing in this moment is > that when Coriolis type forces bend the path they are raising the > pressure or the temperature. You need to be able to see more than one thing at a time in order so correctly understand the dynamics of the causative processes therein. > I presume that you, if you are advanced as you claim are more in favor > of feedback prinicples leading to self corrections that stabilize the > system. Actually, no. But that's only because I prefer a manifold system (especially if it is a manifold system that is replete with vortex dampers) as the primary means to achieve stablilization. Self correction is, in my mind, a bit of a pipe dream. Especially after the experiments by Hollywell. > I am mostly just attempting to do analysis here and am not at > all immersed in this field, except within the societal swing that is > taking place. Given the freshness of your perspective I imagine it must seem more like a yo-yo at times than a swing. Hang in there, though. Don't worry. It gets easier. > I see this > "Over 95% of total CO2 emissions are natural." > from > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere > which does support your claim that the greenhouse effect is bunky. > Still, the change in CO2 level, and this is one of those Gore graphs > where he steps onto a lift in order to show where we are going, is > dramatic. This was the hockey sticks grandest moment. You can ignore it. > What happens if we run out of oil and continue our demand for fuel via > biomass? > There are just too many arguments for population dampers to be > implemented. Every human should want high grade natural resources, > which means less humans. Thus far the atheistic Chinese are the only > ones to implement a serious plan. I think it's embarassing that a country that big can't even field one car on the NASCAR circuit.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 4 Aug 2010 09:43 Wed 04 Aug 2010 09:29:51 AM EDT http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/be41cfeb1b8e5f75/024908c50b425e88#024908c50b425e88 On Aug 4, 3:24 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Aug 3, 11:52 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > > Actually, no. But that's only because I prefer a manifold system > (especially if it is a manifold system that is replete with vortex > dampers) as the primary means to achieve stablilization. Self > correction is, in my mind, a bit of a pipe dream. Especially after > the experiments by Hollywell. The most relevant link I can find is http://www.flintshirechronicle.co.uk/flintshire-news/local-flintshire-news/2010/06/03/new-members-wanted-for-holywell-group-set-up-to-respond-to-climate-change-51352-26572744/ which is not what you are cryptically communicating. Then too I find http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=7144057 but this is an accurate portrayal of your style of communication. I feel pretty sure that your position is flawed, otherwise you would expose more clean information. I am forced to such inference because there is no actual information in your position, other than roughly four keywords that lead me only very short distances from this thread, and in one case zero distance. Please, if you are coherent, then be coherent. - Tim
From: Andy F on 4 Aug 2010 11:26
On 17/07/2010 17:26, Marvin the Martian wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 07:27:03 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > >> When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't >> have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify for >> themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent murderers and >> not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. >> >> The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established >> institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough to >> lock the doors, etc. >> >>>> Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with >>>> the peer review process and established institutions and >>>> personalities and can draw conclusions and take action on work that >>>> is completely outside of their field. >>> >>> If the persons in question are outside the field, then they are not >>> peers. >> >> Is the peer review process different for different fields? > > Yes. In most fields, a paper comes in, the editor of the journal take a > look at the abstract, and sends it to people who are doing similar work > or in a related field. The reviewers look for errors and check citations > and make a judgment on how interesting a paper is for the journal's > target readership. > > In climatology (and apparently anthropology) the "editor" reads the > abstract, decides if the paper supports the paper's conclusion (AGW). If > it does, it is published. If it isn't, it is sent to "reviewers" who > slander it, the author, the author's mother, and the author's dog and > hand it back to the author as rejected. > > Then, peer review is claimed to be part of the scientific method, which > it most certainly is not. > And apparently this happens in every journal in every university in the world. |