|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
On 29/10/2011 00:53, Peter Webb wrote:
I don't. Here is my question again: "All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that time." No mention of day, year, or any other time period. so can we ignore your question For example, was global warming occurring in 1961? ? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
"OG" wrote in message ... On 29/10/2011 00:53, Peter Webb wrote: I don't. Here is my question again: "All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that time." No mention of day, year, or any other time period. so can we ignore your question For example, was global warming occurring in 1961? ? We have pretty good temperature records since about 1850. So if you provide the definition of "global warming", such that given a temperature record we can determine if "global warming" was occurring at any particular time, I can use this myself to work out if global warming was occurring in 1961. As I said, I just picked 1961 to encourage somebody to provide a worked example. If I get a proper definition of "global warming" as I have requested then I won't need a worked example; I can plug the numbers in myself to find out if global warming was occurring in 1961 or indeed at any time for which we have a temperature record. I merely picked the year 1961 and the temperature record of the last 200 years as an example. Just in case you missed it, here is my request for the billionth plus 1 time: All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at any particular time within that temperature record." Its pretty basic. Just a definition of a term. I am happy to provide definitions of scientific terms that I use - pH, acceleration, chromosome, light year, et etc. Defining terms is one of the hallmarks of science (or, more accurately, using undefined terms is the hallmark of crank scientific theories). If you provide a definition of "global warming", I can see if the statement "major analysis confirms global warming is real" is true or not. At the moment, and in the absence of a definition of "global warming", the statement in the subject of this post is meaningless. So, how about it? Are you going to provide the definition, or are you going to tap dance some more? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
"Peter Webb" wrote:
"OG" wrote in message ... On 29/10/2011 00:53, Peter Webb wrote: I don't. Here is my question again: "All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that time." No mention of day, year, or any other time period. so can we ignore your question For example, was global warming occurring in 1961? ? We have pretty good temperature records since about 1850. So if you provide the definition of "global warming", such that given a temperature record we can determine if "global warming" was occurring at any particular time, I can use this myself to work out if global warming was occurring in 1961. As I said, I just picked 1961 to encourage somebody to provide a worked example. If I get a proper definition of "global warming" as I have requested then I won't need a worked example; I can plug the numbers in myself to find out if global warming was occurring in 1961 or indeed at any time for which we have a temperature record. I merely picked the year 1961 and the temperature record of the last 200 years as an example. Just in case you missed it, here is my request for the billionth plus 1 time: All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at any particular time within that temperature record." Its pretty basic. Just a definition of a term. I am happy to provide definitions of scientific terms that I use - pH, acceleration, chromosome, light year, et etc. Defining terms is one of the hallmarks of science (or, more accurately, using undefined terms is the hallmark of crank scientific theories). If you provide a definition of "global warming", I can see if the statement "major analysis confirms global warming is real" is true or not. At the moment, and in the absence of a definition of "global warming", the statement in the subject of this post is meaningless. So, how about it? Are you going to provide the definition, or are you going to tap dance some more? You are comparing oranges to apples. You can define pH and you can also define temperature. How would you define the change in pH in the oceans. You would look at the change in pH over time in a large number of sites around the world. You could then look at the pH measurements over any period to determine whether acidification was raking place. That's exactly what is being done with global temperature. You define a period and then you can decide whether global warming or ocean acidification took place. But don't obscure things by asking silly questions like "Was global warming occurring in 1961? The time scale is too short. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
"Mike Collins" wrote in message ... "Peter Webb" wrote: "OG" wrote in message ... On 29/10/2011 00:53, Peter Webb wrote: I don't. Here is my question again: "All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that time." No mention of day, year, or any other time period. so can we ignore your question For example, was global warming occurring in 1961? ? We have pretty good temperature records since about 1850. So if you provide the definition of "global warming", such that given a temperature record we can determine if "global warming" was occurring at any particular time, I can use this myself to work out if global warming was occurring in 1961. As I said, I just picked 1961 to encourage somebody to provide a worked example. If I get a proper definition of "global warming" as I have requested then I won't need a worked example; I can plug the numbers in myself to find out if global warming was occurring in 1961 or indeed at any time for which we have a temperature record. I merely picked the year 1961 and the temperature record of the last 200 years as an example. Just in case you missed it, here is my request for the billionth plus 1 time: All I want is the definition of this term [global warming], such that given a temperature record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at any particular time within that temperature record." Its pretty basic. Just a definition of a term. I am happy to provide definitions of scientific terms that I use - pH, acceleration, chromosome, light year, et etc. Defining terms is one of the hallmarks of science (or, more accurately, using undefined terms is the hallmark of crank scientific theories). If you provide a definition of "global warming", I can see if the statement "major analysis confirms global warming is real" is true or not. At the moment, and in the absence of a definition of "global warming", the statement in the subject of this post is meaningless. So, how about it? Are you going to provide the definition, or are you going to tap dance some more? You are comparing oranges to apples. You can define pH and you can also define temperature. How would you define the change in pH in the oceans. You would look at the change in pH over time in a large number of sites around the world. You could then look at the pH measurements over any period to determine whether acidification was raking place. That's exactly what is being done with global temperature. You define a period and then you can decide whether global warming or ocean acidification took place. How? But don't obscure things by asking silly questions like "Was global warming occurring in 1961? The time scale is too short. So you can't actually say whether Global Warming is occurring at any particular time, even with a full knowledge of the temperature records? Specifically, you can't state whether global warming is occurring now, or in 1998, or in 1860, or at any time at all? That's a bit strange, as I have heard people claim that Global Warming is occurring now. I guess you believe them to be wrong? But anyway, you have told me that you cannot provide a definition of Global Warming that states whether Global Warming is actually occurring at any time, and you cannot name a time when it was occurring. But that still leaves us without a definition of "Global Warming". You have told us what it doesn't mean, but not what it does mean. Maybe you forgot. Could you provide a definition of "global warming"? I still have no idea what the statement "Major analysis confirms global warming is real" is actually supposed to mean in terms of global temperatures. Thanks in advance Peter Webb |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
In
-sep tember.org Mike Collins wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm "Four scientific papers setting out these conclusions have been submitted for peer review and will form part of the literature for the next IPCC report on Climate Change. " Hasn't it, until now, been considered seriously bad form to make public releases of such papers before they've even been submitted for review? -- St. Paul, MN |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
On 29 Oct 2011 15:23:25 GMT, Bert wrote:
Hasn't it, until now, been considered seriously bad form to make public releases of such papers before they've even been submitted for review? Not at all. Quite the contrary, the release of preprints is completely normal and routine in the scientific community, and has been for many years. It is the standard way that results are passed around inside any particular research community. Many, if not most papers are issued as online preprints through services such as arXiv.org. What is different recently is the popular press picking up on preprints and presenting them as something other than what they are- draft results not yet subjected to peer review. This would not be a problem except for the fact that neither the popular press nor the general public is well enough educated about science to understand what this means. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
In Chris L Peterson
wrote: On 29 Oct 2011 15:23:25 GMT, Bert wrote: Hasn't it, until now, been considered seriously bad form to make public releases of such papers before they've even been submitted for review? Not at all. Quite the contrary, the release of preprints is completely normal and routine in the scientific community, and has been for many years. It is the standard way that results are passed around inside any particular research community. Many, if not most papers are issued as online preprints through services such as arXiv.org. However, the cited artcle and others read as if these "preprints" were actually news releases sent directly to the media. What is different recently is the popular press picking up on preprints and presenting them as something other than what they are- draft results not yet subjected to peer review. This would not be a problem except for the fact that neither the popular press nor the general public is well enough educated about science to understand what this means. Again, the cited article includes several direct quotes from the papers authors and others involved, so it's hardly a matter of the "popular press picking up on preprints." The comments not only state the conclusions of the studies, but what effect on the world situation these startling revelations will have. -- St. Paul, MN |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
On Oct 29, 5:36*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
This would not be a problem except for the fact that neither the popular press nor the general public is well enough educated about science to understand what this means. If they wider population understood what the Royal Society cult stood for, the issue would go to Den Haag. To get people to believe that one day with all its effects of day turning to night and temperature fluctuations is not due to the 24 hour/360 degree rotation of the Earth is a type of tyranny that comes under human rights as it challenges known human achievements at a level that is crucial and fundamental for a healthy society and the Ra/ Dec generated 1465 rotations in 1461 days is not it.Is the issue not stated clearly enough for genuine men of stature instead of the weak ?,even if they previously sought to obscure the genuine rotational markers of AM/PM for Ra,the wider population is not going to know what this means but readers here do whether they run and hide from the issue or not. I noted that great achievements have humble beginnings,often starting up in basements until their true worth becomes accepted, empiricism tries to steal the achievement and bury the innovator in the basement. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
On 29 Oct 2011 17:04:46 GMT, Bert wrote:
Again, the cited article includes several direct quotes from the papers authors and others involved, so it's hardly a matter of the "popular press picking up on preprints." The comments not only state the conclusions of the studies, but what effect on the world situation these startling revelations will have. The article cited is from the popular press (Science Daily). The story properly describes the work as being in advance of peer review, and accurately describes the results reported. I fail to see anything problematic in this reporting at all. Perhaps I'm missing your point. How science gets reported in the popular press (especially the non-scientific press, like major newspapers and websites) varies with the results being reported. This climate study produced completely unsurprising results- it simply supported the existing mainstream viewpoint. As such, it's really no big deal if the authors want to discuss it in advance of publication. What was newsworthy wasn't the results, but the fact that a noted denier changed his mind on the subject There have been several cases recently where research groups issued general press releases well in advance of publication, and the reported results- if true- would fundamentally change the way we think about some things. For instance, the NASA conference about arsenic-based DNA, or fossils in meteorites, or the CERN conference about superluminal neutrinos. In these cases, the results were very speculative (and likely to be found wrong), and IMO the scientists involved should not have been so public about their work until further in the formal review process. But that still isn't a matter of scientific ethics, just of common sense and good judgment. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Major analysis confirms global warming is real
"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL
DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ There may be presently no authority to sort out issues which are affecting the ability of individuals,communities and nations to deal with a tyranny of speculative fear hence the UN is betraying its own principles.The fundamental right to educate students that the Earth turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461 days is so enshrined as a principle and that it is challenged by the same community which uses the UN as a vehicle for global fearmongering is unconscionable. The weak are driving the arguments for no good reason other than the 'scientific method' is challenged and no amount of arguments can be brought in front of these people to alter their views as they don't have views as people understand these things,they have set goals and all facts are incidental. This is not a complaint as much as it is a warning,nothing is stronger than genuine integrity come what may. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks! | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | February 27th 10 03:27 AM |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | Policy | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | History | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
NASA Survey Confirms Climate Warming Impact on Polar Ice Sheets(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | March 9th 06 03:10 PM |
Global warming v. Solar warming | Roger Steer | UK Astronomy | 1 | October 18th 05 10:58 AM |