Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 208. (Read 636443 times)

I prefer him myself. David is my intellectual hero. He taught me what it meant to be truly objective and intellectually honest ever since then I've striven to live up to those standards in my own life.

David is no Milton.

I'll leave the vitamin C question aside, as it leans heavily toward Pauling having had a set belief pattern and being very persistent with that belief.  Some fraction of such beliefs turn out true, or more precisely, some particular version of the treatment series has merit in certain delineated circumstances.   Did Pauling prove it?  Nope.  Is the recent study conclusive enough to show him vindicated?  Nope.  Is the string of 'yes-men' in the church chorus helping Pauling?  Nope.

As for my comment about falsifying greenhouse effect falsifying AGW, that would falsify AGW as we know it.  As the greenies believe in it.  Ask any of them.  Take away the greenhouse effect, you'd have them bitching about what?  Soot?  Particulate emissions?   Tell ya what, their insistence on controlling your life wouldn't change one bit.  Probably go up, get even more strident.  That's why we're hearing it in the news now - temps go down or are stable, they start to panic a bit.

More precisely, I described, I believe in answer to your question, an experimental strategy that could falsify AGW.  Notice something humorous?  Yep.  All these scientists scurrying around trying to find a cause for the recent cooling.  AS LONG AS IT IGNORES SOLAR, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE LOWERING THE EXTENT OF THAT REQUIRED AGW.

Therefore, my experimental paradigm is obviously blasphemous.

So they scurry, and scurry, and come up with every even more un probable stretches of logic and reason.  And passively accept the corruption of science with government money and politics.

ALL HAIL!  THE SCIENCY METHOD!

unfair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-yJ3K9fNos&t=27m24s

Britain’s top climate scientist is being criticized for linking the recent deluge of winter storms and floods to global warming.

After the UK’s Met Office released a report on “extreme weather,” the office’s chief scientist Dame Julia Slingo said that “all the evidence” pointed to global warming playing a role in the harsh winter weather.

“In a nutshell, while there is no definitive answer for the current weather patterns that we have seen, all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play in it,” Slingo said.

Slingo’s remarks came after Prime Minister David Cameron said he “very much suspected” a connection between harsher winters and global warming. Scientists, however, have criticized Slingo, arguing that there’s not enough evidence to link extreme weather to global warming.

“What Dame Julia says goes, at least by implication, beyond what most climate scientists are willing to say,” one academic told the Times newspaper. “I find it very hard to look inside her mind as to what made her think that was a sensible thing to say.”

“I would be reluctant to go out and say any one instance is primarily attributable to climate change, but we are going to see adverse effects,” said Lord May of Oxford, a former chief scientific adviser to the government who now sits on the Committee on Climate Change.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/18/top-uk-scientist-criticized-by-peers-for-saying-floods-caused-by-global-warming/

Don't piss on my shoes and tell me its raining 

[acid rain at that FFS]

Are you sure a half-hour is sufficient inquiry? I don't have time to go research, yet that source has prided himself on being very resistant to spreading false information.

And I am not sure if I trust your opinion. Because you tried to claim that falsifying a greenhouse effect would falsify AGW. The oceans may release more carbon than man does when they warm. Let me know when you have a model of the earth that can predict all macro effects over eons. Then you need to test it for eons too. As you know curve fitting over part of the curve is cherry picking.

You apparently have more time than I do to dig into the details of these matters. Yet I am wary of trusting without also digging myself, which I don't have time to do.

But because it's totally, weird, we have something totally weird to discuss.   I say give us more weird!

thanks.  That is an excellent critical review by Eschenbach.  He does not cover but indirectly the subject I mentioned, outgoing radiant flux in the IR region.

Basically he suggests heat is transported by the atmosphere to the tropics, where it is released to space.  This is of course an essential part of the global air circulation patterns.  Pistone said "look here at area A", Eschenbach says "look at A and B", I said "look regionally and globally".

If the instrumental capability existed which I mentioned, this study would produce stunningly accurate results.  But as long as we can't measure global and regional outgoing IR flux, no worky.

It's like trying to guess the air temperature in a tea kettle and not knowing if the top was on or off.

For the gas envelope around the planet, more energy means that envelope expands, larger surface area from which it releases heat to space.  Less energy means less surface area.  IR heat release occurs 24/7, not during periods of visible light in and out.

If you want to read the actual study:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pnas-201318201-1.pdf

No.  See my prior comment about the need to directly measure IR going into space.  "Reflected visual" light measurements such as this have nothing to do with the essential question.  There is no "reflected IR" it is re emissions, visual light is absorbed then IR released.  Release is always at lower frequency spectral.

That's kind of weird coming from people who should be totally open for debate.

By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Arctic isn't nearly as bright and white as it used to be because of more ice melting in the ocean, and that's turning out to be a global problem, a new study says.

With more dark, open water in the summer, less of the sun's heat is reflected back into space. So the entire Earth is absorbing more heat than expected, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

That extra absorbed energy is so big that it measures about one-quarter of the entire heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide, said the study's lead author, Ian Eisenman, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California.

The Arctic grew 8 percent darker between 1979 and 2011, Eisenman found, measuring how much sunlight is reflected back into space.

"Basically, it means more warming," Eisenman said in an interview.

The North Pole region is an ocean that mostly is crusted at the top with ice that shrinks in the summer and grows back in the fall. At its peak melt in September, the ice has shrunk on average by nearly 35,000 square miles - about the size of Maine - per year since 1979.

Snow-covered ice reflects several times more heat than dark, open ocean, which replaces the ice when it melts, Eisenman said.

As more summer sunlight dumps into the ocean, the water gets warmer, and it takes longer for ice to form again in the fall, Jason Box of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland said in an email. He was not part of the study.

While earlier studies used computer models, Eisenman said his is the first to use satellite measurements to gauge sunlight reflection and to take into account cloud cover. The results show the darkening is as much as two to three times bigger than previous estimates, he said.

Box and University of Colorado ice scientist Waleed Abdalati, who was not part of the research, called the work important in understanding how much heat is getting trapped on Earth.



http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/24748802/study-arctic-getting-darker-making-earth-warmer

I took a half hour to review the history of research on the injected-vC-fights-cancer issue, and I am not impressed.  My impression is that no, it does not fight cancer, shrink tumors, etc.   

Science formulates hypotheses and tests them through critical analysis and examination.  It appears that Linus Pauling had a very religious fervor about the subject of Vitamin C.  This is hardly different than the religious fervor which we observe in warmies, of whom few are any sort of actual scientist, of course.

Might want to use a different issue to illustrate the problem of interference of socialism and klepto kapitalism with scientific progress (this issue we are in agreement with).

Odd how emotional people get about their faith, isn't it?

doh...i really liked bill hicks and what i have heard of him (especially the rollercoaster line), but you are probably right on this

You conflate an individual decision with one that requires us to force everyone on the planet to abandon the Carbon Life Cycle of earth. That is fucking insane but like most religious zealots you don't realize how insane you are.

I quote myself in reply:

+1 - I could weep cold and bitter tears when I read some of the comments/posts on threads such as this.

Reminds me of Bill Hicks - he had a great "fuck em" attitude, especially with regard the risks of smoking.

He died aged 32.

The difference with climate change is that the non smokers are gonna get shafted just the same - the punctual will pay the price for the tardy