The Science & Skepticism Thread

I'll be honest, I'm coming to this from a point for blind ignorance.

What caused the earlier periods to be 'worse' and would it be ridiculous to assume that the planet would return to these levels without any human activity?

eras3.jpg
 
Cobra said:
I'm saying the reverse:p

The problem with the scare mongers is they shout loudest, "the sky is falling in, the sky is falling in"
There is plenty of evidence out there to prove that it a natural phenomenon and a cyclic one at that.
Ask the dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
Ive just been drawn into another thread from late last year in which you said you were a man of science, so why do you so easily dismiss the science now?

I'm happy to have my mind changed on anthropogenic global warming, just show me the peer reviewed studies that say it isn't so :)
 
jakeblu said:
so why do you so easily dismiss the science now?
Click to expand...
I don't dismiss science, although my area of expertise is animal behaviour / genetics / medical research.

And I'm sure there are plenty of "environmentalists" that would poo poo a lot of things that I know to be fact.
All I am asking for is irrefutable proof that global warming is entirely man made, and that it won't reverse itself into another ice age as per 2.5m years ago.
One of many graphs available, from the web, as you can see peaks and troughs from 10,000 years ago.
I know the Minions Minoans goddamnit Minoans! were a pretty advanced race, but I don't remember them riding around in cars or building power stations.

GW.jpg
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
I don't dismiss science, although my area of expertise is animal behaviour / genetics / medical research.

And I'm sure there are plenty of "environmentalists" that would poo poo a lot of things that I know to be fact.
All I am asking for is irrefutable proof that global warming is entirely man made, and that it won't reverse itself into another ice age as per 2.5m years ago.
One of many graphs available, from the web, as you can see peaks and troughs from 10,000 years ago.
I know the Minions Minoan's goddamnit Minoan's were a pretty advanced race, but I don't remember them riding around in cars or building power stations.

View attachment 55308
Click to expand...


Minions? :D :p

Poo poo?

Well, the Minoans (gotta love autocorrect!) did have bogs that removed the effluent using water but the Cretan sewage system still can't cope with paper!

Long term, the climate change caused by man will fade away, although the destruction of the planet may take longer to heal... Then again, in the great scheme of things, one little planet circling one small star in a not very big galaxy won't be missed much!
 
Nod said:
(gotta love autocorrect!
Click to expand...
FFS! It'll be the death of me :(
Nod said:
Then again, in the great scheme of things, one little planet circling one small star in a not very big galaxy won't be missed much!
Click to expand...
Well it seems they have found another one, so the replacement is already in place :D
 
Phil V said:
I'm not talking about someone neither of us know manipulating figures to suit an agenda though, I'm talking about you continually repeating something you know to be untrue (that the debate is closed and discussing it is a no-no) . ;)
Click to expand...

What do I know to be untrue? o_O
 
Cobra said:
I don't dismiss science, although my area of expertise is animal behaviour / genetics / medical research.

And I'm sure there are plenty of "environmentalists" that would poo poo a lot of things that I know to be fact.
All I am asking for is irrefutable proof that global warming is entirely man made, and that it won't reverse itself into another ice age as per 2.5m years ago.
One of many graphs available, from the web, as you can see peaks and troughs from 10,000 years ago.
I know the Minions Minoans goddamnit Minoans! were a pretty advanced race, but I don't remember them riding around in cars or building power stations.

View attachment 55308
Click to expand...

Why does that graph finish in 1905?
 
Rapscallion said:
Why does that graph finish in 1905?
Click to expand...
read the text that goes with it, but once again, this is arguably pre the rise of "modern day"
I was showing that so called global warming (and cooling) has been happening for at least 10,000 years,
Without the aid of cars, power stations etc etc
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
read the text that goes with it, but once again, this is arguably pre the rise of "modern day"
I was showing that so called global warming (and cooling) has been happening for at least 10,000 years,
Without the aid of cars, power stations etc etc
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is disputing that the earth has warmed and cooled in its past.
 
Rapscallion said:
I don't think anybody is disputing that the earth has warmed and cooled in its past.
Click to expand...
Its seems to me that some are.
Just as it will warm and cool again in the future.
 
Phil V said:
Because you're surrounded by media outlets, politicians and lobby groups questioning it. ;)
Click to expand...

Ahhh right. Got to say I've not seen anything in the main-stream media for a long time, really questioning the data.
Every time I see anything mentioned on the BBC, ITV it always enforces the theory. They even mention it periodically in the weather forecasts now. Oh & they even teach it in schools these days. (so it must be true :D )
 
Cobra said:
read the text that goes with it, but once again, this is arguably pre the rise of "modern day"
I was showing that so called global warming (and cooling) has been happening for at least 10,000 years,
Without the aid of cars, power stations etc etc
Click to expand...

I have re-read the text, and can't see any note as to why the graphs finishes in 1905? Could you enlighten me?
 
Just to show the general idea of the natural cycle. Think this graph was re Antarctica ice cores.

2502sd0.jpg


Edit to add source (in case the believers think it was fabricated ;) )

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, J. Davis, G. Delaygue, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica. Nature 399:429-436.

There is data going back further than this – a few million years to when the dinosaurs roamed (when the earth was warmer, on average).
 
Last edited:
OldCarlos said:
Just to show the general idea of the natural cycle. Think this graph was re Antarctica ice cores.
Click to expand...
I just went back 10,000 years - rise of the motor cars etc, as I thought it would be easy to grasp,
Seeings there are no cars to be blamed for emissions. Seems I was wrong
 
Cobra said:
I just went back 10,000 years - rise of the motor cars etc, as I thought it would be easy to grasp,
Seeings there are no cars to be blamed for emissions. Seems I was wrong
Click to expand...

We could always blame those large herbivorous dinosaurs farting all over the place, for the odd heat spike. :D
 
OldCarlos said:
We could always blame those large herbivorous dinosaurs farting all over the place, for the odd heat spike. :D
Click to expand...
Just as large modern day herbivorous get the blame for all that methane :D

Unfortunately neither graph goes back to 65 million years though :D
 
OldCarlos said:
Just to show the general idea of the natural cycle. Think this graph was re Antarctica ice cores.

2502sd0.jpg


Edit to add source (in case the believers think it was fabricated ;) )

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, J. Davis, G. Delaygue, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica. Nature 399:429-436.

There is data going back further than this – a few million years to when the dinosaurs roamed (when the earth was warmer, on average).
Click to expand...
I don't think any sane person would disagree there are natural cycles of variation BUT just look at the time scales ! A two degree change in temperature on that graph takes thousands of years - climate scientists are talking about a two degree rise in the next fifty years or so !
 
It is often thought that science deals with irrefutable facts and proofs. There are a number of phenomena that can be demonstrated and proved. For example, it is fairly easy to show the acceleration of a released object as it falls to the Earth.


However, science also deals with areas where it is not possible to say, “Here is the proof that X causes Y”. In these areas it says , “That X causes Y is consistent with our knowledge and observation.”


That the Sun will rise tomorrow cannot be proved but it is consistent with our knowledge and observation and therefore reasonable to accept that it will happen.


The rise in global temperature over the last 150 years or so is consistent with our knowledge and observation, ie carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and the concentration of this gas in the atmosphere has increased since the Industrial Revolution.


This does not prove the rise in global temperature is due to the man made increase in carbon dioxide but given it is consistent with facts that we do know, should we dismiss it?

Dave
 
Interesting story on the BBC

Scientists get 'gene editing' go-ahead

UK scientists have been given the go-ahead by the fertility regulator to genetically modify human embryos. It is the first time a country has considered the DNA-altering technique in embryos and approved it.
The research will take place at the Francis Crick Institute in London and aims to provide a deeper understanding of the earliest moments of human life.
It will be illegal for the scientists to implant the modified embryos into a woman.

So, not a green light to create human 2.0, but bound to be a controversial move.
 
Another link for the US:

http://earth.nullschool.net/#curren...ographic=-95.10,36.99,1723/loc=-79.032,35.740

I went back to the homepage and it gives you a view of the earth centred on Greenwich which you can drag around to your desired view and zoom with your touchpad.

earth.nullschool.net

I've just been exploring the page and you can zoom and scroll on the first link. At the bottom left corner click on 'EARTH' to get a menu for various options.

Strangely beautiful.
 
Last edited:
Ricardodaforce said:
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/germanys-fusion-reactor-creates-hydrogen-plasma-world-first

A step towards the holy grail of energy provision.
Click to expand...
It's good news, but it really is a very very tiny step. 19 years to build the reactor, at a cost of €1 billion, and they've managed to sustain a hydrogen plasma got a few milliseconds.

My problem is that commercial fusion power has been "30 years away" for about 50 years now, and I can't tell whether steps like this one actually do anything towards reducing that 30 to a smaller number.
 
Ok, this confuses me.
1+2+3+4+5+6...... = -1/12

Link
Ps the numberphile channel is great.
 
StewartR said:
It's good, isn't it? It's like they pulled a rabbit out of a hat in front of your eyes, and you *knew* the hat was empty.

Here's an explanation of the slight of hand.
https://plus.maths.org/content/infinity-or-just-112
Click to expand...

Here's a link that a blog post from the video author
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~ppzap4/response.html
It provides a number of links to pages that are far too complicated for me to understand, but may be of use to some to read further on the subject. From my brief and layman reading, it seems that the opinion that the video is sleight of hand is also disputed.
Heres a longer video:-
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-d9mgo8FGk&feature=youtu.be


And heres another post critical of the video:-
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/does-123-really-equal-112/

And another post:-
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...inite_series_and_the_mind_blowing_result.html
 
Rapscallion said:
Ok, this confuses me.
1+2+3+4+5+6...... = -1/12

Link
Ps the numberphile channel is great.
Click to expand...
StewartR said:
It's good, isn't it? It's like they pulled a rabbit out of a hat in front of your eyes, and you *knew* the hat was empty.
Click to expand...
100% Farce. All they have done is manipulate the figures to their own end.
If 1-1+1-1+1................. etc. runs to infinite, there is no answer if you don't know where it ends, it certainly isn't an average of 1/2.
The bloke obviously got his qualifications off the back of a packet of Corn Flakes,
 
nilagin said:
100% Farce. All they have done is manipulate the figures to their own end.
If 1-1+1-1+1................. etc. runs to infinite, there is no answer if you don't know where it ends, it certainly isn't an average of 1/2.
The bloke obviously got his qualifications off the back of a packet of Corn Flakes,
Click to expand...

Fair play, your posts always put a smile on my face!
 
nilagin said:
100% Farce. All they have done is manipulate the figures to their own end.
If 1-1+1-1+1................. etc. runs to infinite, there is no answer if you don't know where it ends, it certainly isn't an average of 1/2.
The bloke obviously got his qualifications off the back of a packet of Corn Flakes,
Click to expand...
OK, try it this way.

Let S=1-1+1-1+1....
hence S=1-(1-1+1-1+...)
hence S=1-S
hence S=1/2

Is this still 100% farce? Where is my error?

And what qualifications do you hold in this area that entitled you to decide what is right and wrong?
 
StewartR said:
OK, try it this way.

Let S=1-1+1-1+1....
hence S=1-(1-1+1-1+...)
hence S=1-S
hence S=1/2

Is this still 100% farce? Where is my error?

And what qualifications do you hold in this area that entitled you to decide what is right and wrong?
Click to expand...
I disagree, S doesn't equal 1-(1-1+1-1+....................) 1-(1-1+1-1+........) and 1-1+1-1+1........... are not the same.
Basic maths is all the qualification you need to see that.
 
nilagin said:
1-(1-1+1-1+........) and 1-1+1-1+1........... are not the same.
Click to expand...
Really?

I'm sure we could agree that
1-(1-1) = 1-1+1
and also that
1-(1-1+1) = 1-1+1-1
and furthermore that
1-(1-1+1-1) = 1-1+1-1+1
1-(1-1+1-1+1) = 1-1+1-1+1-1
1-(1-1+1-1+1-1) = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1
1-(1-1+1-1+1-1+1) = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1

So where do you think the relationship breaks down? And why?

You might want to read about Hilbert's Hotel before you reply.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top