Climate-gate

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I gave you a link to a basic understanding of the Gravitational anomaly that the Great Attractor poses.
You refuse to even entertain the idea...
that is the definition of trolling101

you gave 9 wiki links that define something... and that is true
you gave ZERO studies that supported your ASSumptions that relativity is only local, or that the physics laws are not universal etc

articles are NOT empirical evidence, nor are they equivalent to studies
Studies contain empirical evidence and observation, etc... plus spell out methodology and more
you are saying that articles are equivalent with your post of wiki links and then your personal conjecture
that is not how science or credibility is established

IOW- as i pointed out already, you are showing the classic signs of Trolling

care to get back on topic WRT climate science or shall we continue with cosmology ... we will have to switch threads though

 

[Quantum Quack]

The reason why this is part of the topic is the issue of credibility and why Governments around the world are unable to garner public support for the changes needed to mitigate AGW.
And we have manged to show one possible contender. It is not because GR may be compromised or not, as this is yet to be resolved, it is because of the attitude of scientists that it must be correct when there is every reason to believe that it may not be.
This attitude unfortunately prevails in other realms of science such as those associated with climate.

Science has by virtue of continuous development demonstrated that all theories are subject to change...and this IS the scientific method.

 

[Quantum Quack]

you gave ZERO studies that supported your ASSumptions that relativity is only local, or that the physics laws are not universal etc

It is not up to me to support your postulate - that is up to you.
Please support your claim that the laws of physics are universal. It is after all your claim not mine.
And while you are at it provide a mechanism that allows for such a (hint) "spooky action at a distance" feat.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

The reason why this is part of the topic is the issue of credibility

the only credibility being affected or discussed at the moment is yours.
your credibility is not good, and your claims as to the "credibility of science" is nothing but personal conjecture based upon your own personal issues
it has absolutely nothing to do with science, the scientific method or reality
it is a perceived conspiracy/whatever delusion that only you are able to comprehend... or those who are willing to suspend logic and accept your assertions at face value with no evidence... that is not logic, evidence or in any way demonstrating that your ASSumptions are true

why Governments around the world are unable to garner public support for the changes needed to mitigate AGW.

gov't have problems because of ignorance, and blatant stupidity
there are far too many people ignorant of the scientific method... the fact that there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence supporting a situation and there are still people willing to ignore that for the sake of religion, politics or any other personal delusion, including conspiracy, then that is proof that they do NOT understand science... they are scientifically illiterate and not capable of critical or logical thinking

And we have manged to show why.

no, you've speculated as to why
you've offered NO evidence

It is not because GR may be compromised or not, as this is yet to be resolved, it is because of the attitude of scientists that it must be correct when there is every reason to believe that it may not be.

and i reiterate, you are speculating and offering NO evidence

It is not up to me to support your postulate that is up to you.

you made the claims, it is up to YOU to prove those claims
all i am doing is pointing out is that you are NOT proving your claims

You support your claim that the laws of physics are universal. It is after all your claim not mine.
And while you are at it provide a mechanism that allows for such a (hint) "spooky action at a distance" feat.

it is also not the main topic; it is not even secondary.

distraction from the main topic is another tool of trolling and well liked by pseudoscience acolytes, especially when they have no evidence supporting their conclusions and want to distract away from the topic of being able to prove their conclusions
This is a favorite tactic f the denier crowd as well, often used to great effect.

the topic is credibility, especially the credibility of science and the scientific method
you've provided only conjecture, not evidence
I've shown you not only the definition of the scientific method, but offered studies which support the AGW science
I can provide a lot more, should you need it, but i stuck with a couple of studies for now

what evidence do you have (other than your personal anecdote) that the science of AGW is false or not credible?

 

[Quantum Quack]

what evidence do you have (other than your personal anecdote) that the science of AGW is false or not credible?

you're funny .. you know that
The last time I had to deal with posters like you was at JREF about 10 years ago...expecting critical thinking from others but not themselves...

 

[Quantum Quack]

there are far too many people ignorant of the scientific method... the fact that there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence supporting a situation and there are still people willing to ignore that for the sake of religion, politics or any other personal delusion, including conspiracy, then that is proof that they do NOT understand science... they are scientifically illiterate and not capable of critical or logical thinking

You are asking me to prove using the scientific method the postulate that the laws of physics are universal?

and you have the nerve to accuse me of not understanding the scientific method....

 

[Quantum Quack]

Note to moderator: I am voluntarily retiring from this thread until the topic invites alternative input from sciforum members.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

The last time I had to deal with posters like you was at JREF about 10 years ago...expecting critical thinking from others but not themselves...

makes a lot more sense now... you making that JREF claim
but i guess you missed the day they taught "the dangers of accepting unproven claims"
because that is all you've made

and you are asking me to prove using the scientific method the postulate that the laws of physics are universal?

and you have the nerve to accuse me of not understanding the scientific method....

and again, this really does point out that you don't understand anything about the scientific method or science in general

Note to moderator: I am voluntarily retiring from this thread until the topic invites alternative input from sciforum members.

and because you cannot actually prove anything you've said, your choice of tactics is to run away?
do you actually think i will forget this conversation?

i will also point out that this tactic is also typically applied by the various trolls and pseudoscience acolytes who cannot validate claims.

Good bye then, Quack.
Until the next time you posit some wild, unsubstantiated claim and cannot provide evidence

 

[Quantum Quack]

do you actually think i will forget this conversation?

I truly hope you don't

 

[Trippy]

I meant to ask QQ - if GR is broken, and the great attractor is a prediction of GR, then how do you know that the phenomenom is even real?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I meant to ask QQ - if GR is broken, and the great attractor is a prediction of GR, then how do you know that the phenomenon is even real?

Sorry Trippy,

"Broken" may be a bit tough, challenged may be a better word....but either way as it stands GR is definitely in question. IMO


The great attractor according to the wiki is an observed phenomena.

"...( snip )..These galaxies are all redshifted, in accordance with the Hubble Flow, indicating that they are receding relative to us and to each other, but the variations in their redshift are sufficient to reveal the existence of the anomaly. The variations in their redshifts are known as peculiar velocities, and cover a range from about +700 km/s to −700 km/s, depending on the angular deviation from the direction to the Great Attractor."

and

"In 2005, astronomers conducting an X-ray survey of part of the sky known as the Clusters in the Zone of Avoidance (CIZA) project reported that the Great Attractor was actually only one tenth the mass that scientists had originally estimated."

src: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

label located about 4pm on the above image

And I would assume that today more research is still being undertaken.

 

[Trippy]

Sorry Trippy,

"Broken" may be a bit tough, challenged may be a better word....but either way as it stands GR is definitely in question. IMO


The great attractor according to the wiki is an observed phenomena.
...
And I would assume that today more research is still being undertaken.

Have you seen a picture of the great attractor? It's not an observed phenomenon, it's an inferred one.

See if you can follow:
The observation is the redshift of the galaxies.
The very first step we take is to invoke relativity to explain the redshift as speed and being caused by the doppler effect.
For example, according to the Electric universe/plasma cosmology folks, as I recall, red shift is explained by them as being a result of light interacting with dust.

The observation is the red-shift.
We interpret the red-shift in the framework of relativity as being a consequence of the peculiar velocity of galaxies (combined with the expansion of the universe).
In turn we infer from the distribution of the peculiar velocities of galaxies that there must exist this thing we refer to as the great attractor.

The point I was making, then, is that if relativity is, as you say broken, or wrong, then the interpretation of the redshifts as the peculiar velocities of the individual galaxies is also wrong, and so the great attractor ceases to exist.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Have you seen a picture of the great attractor? It's not an observed phenomenon, it's an inferred one.

See if you can follow:
The observation is the redshift of the galaxies.
The very first step we take is to invoke relativity to explain the redshift as speed and being caused by the doppler effect.
For example, according to the Electric universe/plasma cosmology folks, as I recall, red shift is explained by them as being a result of light interacting with dust.

The observation is the red-shift.
We interpret the red-shift in the framework of relativity as being a consequence of the peculiar velocity of galaxies (combined with the expansion of the universe).
In turn we infer from the distribution of the peculiar velocities of galaxies that there must exist this thing we refer to as the great attractor.

The point I was making, then, is that if relativity is, as you say broken, or wrong, then the interpretation of the redshifts as the peculiar velocities of the individual galaxies is also wrong, and so the great attractor ceases to exist.

Yes I understand your point. However it does exist according to currently held scientific belief but does not conform to expectations as per GR. So what are we observing?
An error in light info or a gravitational anomaly?
If a gravitational anomaly then GR is challenged. Circular for sure.
If a light info anomaly then GR (SR) is challenged, either way GR is challenged.
Do you see my point?
or have I got it totally wrong?
I prefer to see it, as reported. As a gravitational anomaly, as is (or was) the case with the near by Dark flow phenomena.
(midnight here and my game server has seen a busy night..)

A snip on Dark Flow:
"NASA's Goddard Space Center considered that this could be the effect of a sibling universe or a region of space-time fundamentally different from the observable universe. Data on more than 1,000 galaxy clusters have been measured, including some as distant as 3 billion light-years."
src: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

Further and subsequently, in 2013 (Planck satellite) no trace of dark flow was found which is in accordance with my own prediction c/o ZPT That the anomaly of Dark flow would indeed disappear.

I am waiting for data that shows that the universe has ceased accelerating in it's expansion and that will be supporting another prediction of ZPT

The above is just to provide insight into why I have been posting in the way I have, regards Climate change here, our sun and on the planets in our solar system.
Suffice to say I believe and have a certain amount of evidence in support, that there is a great deal more happening than just AGW
Which is, in part, why I do not hold to any end times scenario.

If or when this planet gets through the next couple of years whilst sustaining life more or less as we know it, I will be a very happy boy...

 

[billvon]

If or when this planet gets through the next couple of years whilst sustaining life more or less as we know it, I will be a very happy boy...

Then you'll be pretty happy. Most of the worries over AGW do not have to do with the next few years - they have to do with 100 years from now.

 

[sculptor]

Then you'll be pretty happy. Most of the worries over AGW do not have to do with the next few years - they have to do with 100 years from now.

Do you think that there is 100 years worth of oil reserves remaining?

 

[billvon]

Do you think that there is 100 years worth of oil reserves remaining?

Nope, not at our current rate of expansion.

 

[sculptor]

So,
that particular consumption will take care of it's self before we expect any real climate change?

 

[billvon]

So, that particular consumption will take care of it's self before we expect any real climate change?

No, for two reasons.

First, if we are foolish (and we often are) we will switch to coal when we run out of oil. Coal emits more carbon than oil when used, and we have hundreds of years of it available. It can also be made into liquid and gaseous fuels. This will make our problems much worse.

Second, we have 30-40 years of tight oil reserves to burn through. Even if we do that, then stop cold (i.e. just stop using fossil fuels completely) then it will still be decades before that CO2 leaves the atmosphere, and longer still before the positive feedbacks we have started (decreasing albedo, methane releases etc) stop affecting the climate - and thus 100 years from now we will still be warming.

 

[sculptor]

Thanx
That's a reassuring possibility.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, for two reasons.

First, if we are foolish (and we often are) we will switch to coal when we run out of oil. Coal emits more carbon than oil when used, and we have hundreds of years of it available. It can also be made into liquid and gaseous fuels. This will make our problems much worse.

Second, we have 30-40 years of tight oil reserves to burn through. Even if we do that, then stop cold (i.e. just stop using fossil fuels completely) then it will still be decades before that CO2 leaves the atmosphere, and longer still before the positive feedbacks we have started (decreasing albedo, methane releases etc) stop affecting the climate - and thus 100 years from now we will still be warming.

Then you'll be pretty happy. Most of the worries over AGW do not have to do with the next few years - they have to do with 100 years from now.

I think you will find that financial instability will in effect destroy most international trade in oil and other goods/services well before that. In fact one could be suspicious about the Saudi efforts to dump oil on the market as it is. Not just to diminish USA investment in alternatives to Saudi oil (conspiracy theory) but because the Saudi's like their ISIL supplicants believe the "end is near".

If the world economies collapse due to a loss of global investor confidence, what happens to oil production and sales?

My guess is that it will only take a couple more major climate change disasters to occur and the worlds financial and insurance markets will go into melt down. .... just guessing...