Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Wow,

Just How Bad Can a Thread Get?

Silly me didn't look at this thread because I thought it must have been going along happily discussing something about space and clouds.

Huh, what it is, is a really petty thread full of name calling and tit for tat posts. I'm pretty sure it has achieved nothing unless both Dan and dehammer relieve their frustrations by having this sort of argument. In amongst all this some real questions were asked that didn't get discussed. That is a shame.

Dan I sort of understand but dehammer, may I ask why you kept responding?


Suggestion for a Repeat Thread

Its all a great pity because when I looked at the topic, it really is interesting. Perhaps Erich could post both the original thread and the couple of other interesting posts again and a real discussion could occur. I wonder if we could ban Dan and dehammer from just that thread, even if it is not necessarily both of their faults.

This is just a terrible thread and it has annoyed me just how little it discussed science, despite it being a very interesting topic that deserved some discussion.

I seem to have become a real spoilsport lately on this forum, constantly complaining. But I really like this forum and most of the time the discussions are great, even with Dan participating. But this type of thread is no fun at all.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Here, here, RicS

I have this thread going in other forums, the best are:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47939

As I posted before, these two blogs really cover the topic:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/svensmark-stumbles-into-smog-chamber.html

If I weren't so embarrased by Dan & dehammer's sophmoric prattle I would post this disscusion to other forums also.


Erich J. Knight
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
I kept responding because i was hoping that dan was not just trying to derail the thread and trying to get him to discuss the point. of course he refused.

erich knight, to get back to what i was trying to say before, yes they did use things that were a good bit different that in the atmosphere, mainly because of: 1)time: it takes a long time to wait for the amount of data from the atmosphere, so they make the tank a bit faster by increasing the reactants. 2) danger: increasing the radiation to test the results in the open atmosphere would put people at risk. 3) fewer varibles: its hard to keep track of all the varibles in the open atmosphere, but most of them can be illiminated in a tank. That makes it easier to see exactly what is happening with just that one set of varibles.

I have a problem with the way they used the press release, but the data does show that there is considerable change in the radiation, what those graphs dont show is the connection between the radiation and solar flare.

it is known that solar flares do have some effect on global warming, but the people that do the climate modeling refuse to imput it, because there was no known method of the two interacting. now its known how they do.

Again i appologies for not realising sooner that dan was simply trying to derail the proper discussion.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 142


Erich J. Knight
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Interesting article Erich. But I do find one thing troubling:
"Physicists also think that such clouds would be brighter and more reflective than normal clouds. So they would cool the Earth by hanging around and by reflecting more heat from the sun back into space."

Were these clouds more reflective ... they would also be more visible. I've seen a lot of pictures of earth from space ... where are they?


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Wow, real science.

My understanding of "reflectivity" of clouds isn't that they appear nice and shiny only what they do to the spectru of light as it hits them. Visual images would be nice but this does not prevent the theory from being reasonable.

How about starting over in a new thread?


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Interesting article Erich. But I do find one thing troubling:
"Physicists also think that such clouds would be brighter and more reflective than normal clouds. So they would cool the Earth by hanging around and by reflecting more heat from the sun back into space."

Were these clouds more reflective ... they would also be more visible. I've seen a lot of pictures of earth from space ... where are they?
the theory is that they would appear more when the solar activity is lowest, which causes the cooling.

1) we are appearant in the heating part of the cycle

2) we are at a fairly high level of solar activity, and have been for several decades.

how would the pictures from space show clouds that have been lessened by solar activity for the same (longer actually) time the pictures have been being taken.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
RicS wrote:
"My understanding of "reflectivity" of clouds isn't that they appear nice and shiny"

That isn't my understanding either. But one of the first lessons in high school physics is the meaning of reflection. That which reflects a greater percentage of light is brighter.

If that is the case. That these clouds are more reflective ... where's the reflected light? That is just a question ... not a value judgement.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
1) its possible to make something highly reflective, yet be completely black to the naked eye. Its possible that the spectrums that the clouds reflect are more along the lines of infrared, or other spectrums that the human eye does not see, and still be able to reflect more of the energy of the sun.

2) we are currently in, and have been for some time, a period where these clouds would not form as often or as much.

If the theory is correct, once the solar activity dies down, they will be visible more often and much more of them. this would cause a much higher rate of cooling, than current times. If we are indeed (and i see no reason to believe were not) in a period of global warming, then this could just as easy reverse that after the high levels of solar activity passes.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
" its possible to make something highly reflective, yet be completely black to the naked eye."

That is true if and might even be a valid consideration were it not that we have satellites watching the earth that watch the entire spectrum at which light from the sun might be reflected. Can you find a single example of any one of these satellites detecting this reflected light?

Didn't think so as it doesn't exist.

"we are currently in, and have been for some time, a period where these clouds would not form as often or as much."

And you found this information where? Please provide a link.

Looks like two more statements that are all hat.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
why should i. you ignore it the last time the links were shown.

you have been given links to show several cycles of solar activity. You pretend they were never given. now that your a moderator, youll just make the links disappear.

im sure nasa is aware of the many cycles. why not look yourself. OH, i forgot, that would mean that there is a possibility that you might occasionally make a mistake and that cant ever be considered.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wants to know:
"why should i. you ignore it the last time the links were shown."

I can't imagine why you should other than perhaps:

1. to show that you can
2. to show that you didn't just make it up because it sounded good
3. so others won't think of you what I think
4. because Wiccan's are supposed to be ethical
5. because my behaviour should not be the moral guideline by which you measure yourself
6. because you always have an excuse every time you are challenged for the source of what you post

Want a few dozen more?


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Paleoclimatologists seem to have been at this debate for awhile:


In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming :

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/scienc...FSlpKXwMAB7v2DQ


Here is the blog in which I found this article, Lounge of the Lab Lemming

http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2006/11/jan-veizens-cosmic-ray-climatology.html


Erich J. Knight
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
forget it, it would not be worth wasting my time to show it to you as you would never bother reading it.

i once stated in never let your insults run me off this forum, but its not worth arguing with a closed mind. they say when you realise your arguing with a brick wall its time to leave, so ill take my leave now.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I didn't realize asking you for a link was a personal insult: Still don't.

Please reconsider.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
what is insulting, is

1) you refuse to do the same, but constantly put down others for it.

2) when they are given, you either ignore them, or refuse to discuss them because the people that own the site are of a political nature other than you and your sites.

and

3) when you do give a link, its invaribly to some political hacks opinion page, which you claim has to be considered scientific data because it happens to be on a site that agrees with you and your opinion. if it does not support your opinion, it must be a "whore" of the oil companies, or a political hacks whose's only interest is to get money from the oil company.

that is what is insulting.

what is like talking to a brick wall is that you have been given the same links before and refuse to acknowledge them, and in fact kept demanding them right after recieving them.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dehammer wrote:
"what is insulting, is

1) you refuse to do the same, but constantly put down others for it."

Have you ever reviewed the pages of SAGG to see how many links I post versus yourself? The overwhelming majority of my original posts contains a link to the work. And it is almost always a science site rather than, as with Hoover, political or some non-profit engaged in a spin-control grudge match.

I look at what you post and almost never see a link and almost never do you respond to a request for a link with one. So in what way am I asking from you something other than what I do myself?

"2) when they are given, you either ignore them, or refuse to discuss them because the people that own the site are of a political nature other than you and your sites."

When you respond to a matter of science by posting from a political site then yes I refuse to engage just as I refuse to discuss genetics when someone is posting links to Genesis. If what you posted from Hoover's site, to take that example again, had some validity then there would have been legitimate science articles supporting it. There were not: I looked. It was pure political spin.

"3) when you do give a link, its invaribly to some political hacks opinion page"

Only if you consider researchers at CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, and major universities and colleges political hacks. And if that is your opinion then why are you here at SAGG? Because at its core real science is that which is published by CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, and major universities and colleges. You may not like that. And you are certainly welcome to write your own definition of what constitutes science to you. But you will be writing something diametrically opposing the opinions of those with PhD degrees in the sciences (the equivalent of telling physicians they don't understand medicine).

I have clearly expressed in the past, perhaps harshly, the fact that I consider you lazy for never posting links supporting your "facts". Not once could I find you responding with a list of supporting links showing me to be the fool.

I would really prefer that you stay and start using google. If it is REAL SCIENCE then there MUST be links to REAL RESEARCH that supports it.

Take for example your statement about dramatic climate shifts every 300-400 years. I looked both on the net and at the UW library. I couldn't find a single supporting statement. Can you?


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
E
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
From MaryFran at Mind-X, (I fixed the Junk Science link but can't fix or find the reuters story):

Re: Clouds Come from Deep Space Too
posted on 11/10/2006 7:54 PM by maryfran^
[Top]
[Show Index]
[Reply to this post]
[Not MindX Material]

Following a link related to mainstream position claiming that global warming is caused by humans and not by celestial causes ?climate experts try to deny the sun influence in global climate

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?typ e=scienceNews&storyID=2006-09-13T184947Z_01_L13932 091_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-SUN.xml

?Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 Celsius (1.1 F) rise in temperatures over the past century.?

And following the anti-thesis of above:

Here a reduced number of climate experts take into account the sun influence in global warming
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.htm

it is not possible that global warming is caused 100% by humans ?. so this deserves a serious investigation

mf


Erich J. Knight
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Erich,
both your links were bad when I checked them. Can you post another?

Amaranth

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"what is insulting, is

1) you refuse to do the same, but constantly put down others for it."

Have you ever reviewed the pages of SAGG to see how many links I post versus yourself? The overwhelming majority of my original posts contains a link to the work. And it is almost always a science site rather than, as with Hoover, political or some non-profit engaged in a spin-control grudge match.

I look at what you post and almost never see a link and almost never do you respond to a request for a link with one. So in what way am I asking from you something other than what I do myself?

"2) when they are given, you either ignore them, or refuse to discuss them because the people that own the site are of a political nature other than you and your sites."

When you respond to a matter of science by posting from a political site then yes I refuse to engage just as I refuse to discuss genetics when someone is posting links to Genesis. If what you posted from Hoover's site, to take that example again, had some validity then there would have been legitimate science articles supporting it. There were not: I looked. It was pure political spin.

"3) when you do give a link, its invaribly to some political hacks opinion page"

Only if you consider researchers at CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, and major universities and colleges political hacks. And if that is your opinion then why are you here at SAGG? Because at its core real science is that which is published by CSIRO, NASA, NOAA, and major universities and colleges. You may not like that. And you are certainly welcome to write your own definition of what constitutes science to you. But you will be writing something diametrically opposing the opinions of those with PhD degrees in the sciences (the equivalent of telling physicians they don't understand medicine).

I have clearly expressed in the past, perhaps harshly, the fact that I consider you lazy for never posting links supporting your "facts". Not once could I find you responding with a list of supporting links showing me to be the fool.

I would really prefer that you stay and start using google. If it is REAL SCIENCE then there MUST be links to REAL RESEARCH that supports it.

Take for example your statement about dramatic climate shifts every 300-400 years. I looked both on the net and at the UW library. I couldn't find a single supporting statement. Can you?
as i said a brick wall. yes you do quote things from science, but its always the newstories. most of the time they are written by science writers, and most of the time they are not that political.

on the other hand, you frequently link to groups that are known to be highly political about global warming. you listed several, supposedly as non political science groups.

lets look at nasa. you claim they censor things about global warming, yet you have frequently come up with news stories from their sites that are very heavily politically about global warming. If its being cencored how can you find so many of them. now try to find one that goes against global warming. you see, what they claim is censorship is if a site refuses to publish one single thing that agrees with them no matter how outlandish it is. If you publish a single article that questions global warming then your a puppet of the oil companies. in real science, you accept the possiblity that there is proof against you. you dont argue that the opposite arguement has no right to be discussed. you dont claim censorship if any arguement is used against you.

in real science you dont set off to prove that something is a certain way, you look for proof, but you dont discard evidence that disagrees with your belief. nasa, CSIRO, and many universitys do that with global warming. others such as the university of illinois go against that, but you refuse to listen to their evidence because you claim its completely political. sure it might be, but just because they agree with you does not mean it free of politics. In fact how could it not be since global warming is pure political.

I dont know if there is any evidence of man caused global warming, but ive seen too much evidence to show that there is a major amount of it that is not. According to the global warming political party, that stopped happening when man showed up. As long as they dont accept the evidence, how can they be any thing save political.

at the time i gave you that one link to the hoover site, i also gave you several others. did you discuss any bit of data from any of them. no. you ignored all of them, save the one that tries to have political debate, meaning they have arguements from both sides of the problem.

according to you, since they have arguements that disagree with you, they cant be real, cant have any real information. a political debate about science requires that you use the science and either disprove it, or prove it. The science was the evidence that indicated that the weather was not the same as global warming political party wanted, but since it came from political sources (the ruling parties of china of that time period kept detailed record), the global warming political party says it cant be used.

I dont know if man has done anything to the environment, with the co2, but i can see when people are so closed mind that they refuse to see anything that disagrees with them.

why did you refuse to 7 links just because the 8th was owned by a political party. the answer is that they disagreed with you and you could not find anything to disprove them, so you nitpicked one, as a smokescreen.

why should i give you links when after they are given, you demand that they be given again.

this is not science. this is pure politics.

unfortunately, i am politically challanged. i cant understand why something that is wrong is right just because the majority of one political group states that its politically right.

i cant see something that is scientifically wrong, and accept that its right, just because it politically correct to say it is.

im tired of trying to argue science with someone that is so political, that he cant tell the difference between politically correct and right. since this is purely political and your the politician, this one is to you.

at least you have stopped with the incestant insults. I can leave knowing that you did not run me off with insults. that is what i said i would not do.

i never said that i would not let you run me off when you made it too political. This forum has become too political for me.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5