45 replies to this topic

[Wickian]

Mattshark, on 21 May 2010 - 05:32 PM, said:

You are simply tacking on an explanation here that simply suits your belief, not basing it on science. That is not science and deserves no respect in science.

So you're saying that the concept of fluctuations in the Sun causing temperature shifts across the solar system, that the Sun itself warms, deserves no respect and is not based on science?  That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

[Br Cornelius]

Wickian, on 21 May 2010 - 08:38 PM, said:

So you're saying that the concept of fluctuations in the Sun causing temperature shifts across the solar system, that the Sun itself warms, deserves no respect and is not based on science?  That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

But as far as I am aware there is no such evidence of changes in the solar constant, and if there are any significant climate changes on other planets are they all in the same direction and without any planets which have not changed.

This is the sort of evidence you would need to support your belief.

Br Cornelius

[Wickian]

Br Cornelius, on 21 May 2010 - 09:29 PM, said:

But as far as I am aware there is no such evidence of changes in the solar constant, and if there are any significant climate changes on other planets are they all in the same direction and without any planets which have not changed.

This is the sort of evidence you would need to support your belief.

Br Cornelius

The lack of evidence is due more to lack of understand and studies than the actual lack of evidence to be found.  There is way too much we don't know about our climate system, extraterrestrial climate systems, the sun and how they are all influenced by the sun to try and claim that any correlation between the two "doesn't deserve the respect of science."  

You might as say that "anything worth discovering has already been discovered."

For lack of a better word(off the top of my head anyway) "belief" is what I would use to describe my belief that the sun is the main driving force of all climates and temperature fluctuations in our solar system.  Atmospheres are secondary to it since without a sun, there would be no climate.  The atmosphere would just be in an almost constant state of being.

[Mattshark]

SlimJim22, on 21 May 2010 - 08:31 PM, said:

So dr scott has got more critics than he has fans and it does seem like the initial hypothesis is flawed but still a hypothesis it be, he just needs to make a new one.

Sorry mate, that isn't actually a hypothesis. A hypothesis has to be more than just an idea, it needs to have a basis in previous research and evidence and observation. What Scott has is just some idea's that aren't based on anything but what he considers a nice idea.

Regarding Veliskovsky, my best mate is a legal professional, that doesn't give any credibility to legal work I tried, as it wouldn't to any biology he suggested, or in Veliskovsky's case, any psychiatry that Einstein tried.

[Mattshark]

Wickian, on 21 May 2010 - 10:01 PM, said:

The lack of evidence is due more to lack of understand and studies than the actual lack of evidence to be found.  There is way too much we don't know about our climate system, extraterrestrial climate systems, the sun and how they are all influenced by the sun to try and claim that any correlation between the two "doesn't deserve the respect of science."  

You might as say that "anything worth discovering has already been discovered."

For lack of a better word(off the top of my head anyway) "belief" is what I would use to describe my belief that the sun is the main driving force of all climates and temperature fluctuations in our solar system.  Atmospheres are secondary to it since without a sun, there would be no climate.  The atmosphere would just be in an almost constant state of being.

Hang on, you are calling me ignorant when you are suggesting that conjecture is just as valid as evidence in science? Because that is what your first paragraph is suggesting.

Evidence is EVERYTHING in science, and saying we don't understand so we don't have evidence is conjecture and doesn't deserve the respect of science, whether you like it or not, that is just how it is. It is not the equivalent of saying "anything worth discovering has already been discovered."

Belief, exactly. Don't call me ignorant when your argument is so scientifically baseless.

[Remelic]

Mattshark, on 21 May 2010 - 10:43 PM, said:

Hang on, you are calling me ignorant when you are suggesting that conjecture is just as valid as evidence in science? Because that is what your first paragraph is suggesting.

Evidence is EVERYTHING in science, and saying we don't understand so we don't have evidence is conjecture and doesn't deserve the respect of science, whether you like it or not, that is just how it is. It is not the equivalent of saying "anything worth discovering has already been discovered."

Belief, exactly. Don't call me ignorant when your argument is so scientifically baseless.

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but appears correct and has not been disproven.

doesn't mean it is incorrect or not worth investigation/experimentation.

[Mattshark]

Remelic, on 21 May 2010 - 10:47 PM, said:

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but appears correct and has not been disproven.

doesn't mean it is incorrect or not worth investigation/experimentation.

It also means it is not science.

As I said, you don't prove anything in science. Science is all about EVIDENCE.

Edited by Mattshark, 21 May 2010 - 10:57 PM.

[J.B.]

so electricity and gravity really are connected? Hmm. . . lends credence to the old Searle disc legend in that case. Might try figuring out how to build one of those puppies if I find evidence backing that legend up. Also, for anyone who doesn't know about it, Searle and his disc project are actually entries in this site's encyclopedia, so you can see the basic info on them.

[Br Cornelius]

My point, which was missed I think, is that there is no credible evidence for a change in the solar constant to account for the current Climate change. This is my understanding, supported by Carbon Isotope data, and satellite's monitoring the suns output.
If anyone has got a published paper which shows that the solar constant has been on the move by a significant amount (enough to cause climate change) then present it here and the matter can be debated and laid to rest.
Otherwise its a belief which isn't worth a great deal.

Br Cornelius

[Legatus Legionis]

EVERYONE HOLD YOU HORSES! I think we strayed away from the main topic of which is "Earth could become too hot for humans." to a topic called, "Electric Universe / Plasma Universe, which is it?" interesting though the debate is, I would recommend that this argument would be continued in a proper way, which would be a proper new thread. Thank you.

On topic,
I would like to ask someone who is well versed in the topic answer my question,
Would we reach critical break point for wet-bulb limit before things will start to cool down?

-LL

[Br Cornelius]

Legatus Legionis, on 23 May 2010 - 01:11 PM, said:

On topic,
I would like to ask someone who is well versed in the topic answer my question,
Would we reach critical break point for wet-bulb limit before things will start to cool down?

-LL

According to the current models, and previous geological data, things peak out at about +8C and then everything ,carbon wise, is supersaturated and stable. Thats a bad place though.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 23 May 2010 - 06:02 PM.

[Legatus Legionis]

Br Cornelius, on 23 May 2010 - 05:46 PM, said:

According to the current models, and previous geological data, things peak out at about +8C and then everything ,carbon wise, is supersaturated and stable. Thats a bad place though.

Br Cornelius

another +8? for crying out loud! isn't it too hot for us already?

[DONTEATUS]

Looks in and Dashes out!

[THE MATRIX]

[Br Cornelius]

wolfram&hart12345, on 31 May 2010 - 07:31 PM, said:

Seen that before. Very funny.

Br Cornelius