Starship Asterisk*

BMAONE23 wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:

gpobserver wrote:Looks like they're going to try to shove this cap-and-trade crap down our throats if we want it or not:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 42137.html

They've also decided they're not going to open the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository so my guess is they're not going to permit nuclear power development either.

Why store it in Yucca Mountain when the economic slowdown means a lot of unused warehouses, available local to the point of generation?

Given accessibility concerns by groups bent on terrorism, I might prefer to have all these eggs in one basket (so to speak). It would make the task of supervision and sequestered potection far easier than trying to protect and defend 500 nuclear dump sites spread out over 50 states.

Right. So store it in New York City.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:
PS: Hippies were for peace, love and clean air to breath. (nothing to do with ice caps)

Man .. it's clearlight you weren't there. We were saying the ice caps would melt and we knew it because we watched ice cubes melting in our smoky bongs, man. Scientists took 50 years to ramp us with us, man.

BMAONE23 wrote:

Dr. Skeptic wrote:(snip)

Hippies were for peace, and love (sex without responsibility or attachment)

Hey .. we were just following the example of our divorcing parents, man .. they set the goals we attained to .. including smoking up the air .. they did it with their V8 engines, pipe tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, etc. is the big difference. Now, where'd that submit button go, it was here a minute ago ....

During the previous AGW debate I made the point that models were estimations based on past data, I called them curve fitting, which they are. I also argued that with enough variables any curve can be fitted, but it wouldn't result in great predictive accuracy. Also that the models didn't take some important phenomena into account. Also asked when any 100 year prediction had proven to be true. Chris of course said (my favorite part) that the current models were making successful 100 year predictions! I love that. Anyway one of the phenomena I was referring to is the existence of plasma conduits from the sun to the earth. To me this points to a vast area that neads to be understood before we all say lets do cap and trade, check out the latest:http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases ... ling.shtml

bhrobards wrote:During the previous AGW debate I made the point that models were estimations based on past data, I called them curve fitting, which they are.

Factual error. Models are not based on curve fitting, but rely on solving geophysical equations using finite element analysis.

Chris of course said (my favorite part) that the current models were making successful 100 year predictions! I love that.

As you should, since that's why we have high confidence in the models. They are actually quite good at predicting several thousand years in the past, thus the confidence in future predictions over decades or a century, as required for assisting current public policy decisions.

Anyway one of the phenomena I was referring to is the existence of plasma conduits from the sun to the earth.

Well, there are no such things. The report is about how the local solar wind is funneled by the Earth's magnetic field, resulting in local current flow concentrations (not from the Sun to the Earth!) It's all very interesting in terms of space weather, but the energies involved are tiny, and it's pretty hard to see how this stuff (which, of course, has always been going on, but has only now been noticed in this detail) is really going to influence climate. I predict that, at most, it might end up as some tiny component in the future climate models.

Chris-for a very accomplished and successful man you have a hard time admitting when you are wrong. As when I quoted the model makers themselves. I think its a flaw in your character. You are a very slippery debater, not above quoting somebody's lonely study as gospel until you are called on it. So lets go your holiness, let me have it, prove me wrong. By the way I need to point out to you that it is not just wrong, but unscientific, to claim that 100 year predictions are successful when the time hasn't elapsed. You may not have realized that but everyone else in the sentient universe has.

bhrobards wrote:Chris-for a very accomplished and successful man you have a hard time admitting when you are wrong.

All I can say is that I'm happy that public policy in the U.S. is now being based on good science. That's a refreshing change, and it gives me some optimism I haven't had for a long time.

and naieve too.

Chris Peterson wrote:

"All I can say is that I'm happy that public policy in the U.S. is now being based on good science. That's a refreshing change, and it gives me some optimism I haven't had for a long time."

Is this some of that 'good science' you're talking about?

http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.c ... -wang.html

It is important to properly correct for the urban heat island (UHI) effect to quantify any climate variation record.

Roy Tucker

gpobserver wrote:Is this some of that 'good science' you're talking about?
http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.c ... -wang.html

Scientific misconduct is a fascinating subject. Social scientists study it because it has the unique property that the person who commits the fraud is always detected, and the consequences are nearly always severe, leading to interesting questions about just why it happens at all. The nature of science makes fraud intrinsically impossible to sustain.

In any case, I don't really see the point. There may be an occasional bad data point in a widely researched area because of fraud, that's all. Are you somehow suggesting that this one guy's research has contaminated all climate research and everybody is now way off the mark? Or that most scientists are frauds? There's absolutely no evidence of either.

Hey Chris, how about that Michael Mann 'Hockey Stick' graph? Was that good science?

gpobserver wrote:Hey Chris, how about that Michael Mann 'Hockey Stick' graph? Was that good science?

In what way would you consider it "bad science"?

Personally, I consider it very good science indeed- strong evidence that the system works. The accuracy of the graph may or may not ultimately be agreed upon (it has not been rejected as false, but other estimates- not radically different- have gained more support), but that doesn't mean the science is bad. Review and replication is doing its job.

Good science can come to an incorrect conclusion- that isn't uncommon. But good science ultimately corrects itself.

Chris Peterson wrote:

bhrobards wrote:Chris-for a very accomplished and successful man you have a hard time admitting when you are wrong.

All I can say is that I'm happy that public policy in the U.S. is now being based on good science. That's a refreshing change, and it gives me some optimism I haven't had for a long time.

Right .. that's why the U.S. is building 300 coal fired eletricity generating stations instead of pushing energy use reduction REAL HARD like it needs to be pushed. It's Business as Usual.

Chris Peterson wrote:
Good science can come to an incorrect conclusion- that isn't uncommon. But good science ultimately corrects itself.

Exactly! Which is why Dark Matter-Dark Energy is being called 'The New Aether". And what if Dark Matter/Dark Energy doesn't exist? Then those who say there is no Aether are correct.

The 'Hockey Stick' is one of the most discredited graphics in scientific history. Here's some other assessments of the AGW pseudo-science:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/s ... ith-notes/

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu ... ensus.html

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:All I can say is that I'm happy that public policy in the U.S. is now being based on good science. That's a refreshing change, and it gives me some optimism I haven't had for a long time.

Right .. that's why the U.S. is building 300 coal fired eletricity generating stations instead of pushing energy use reduction REAL HARD like it needs to be pushed. It's Business as Usual.

I disagree. Society and the economy have huge momentum- you don't change things overnight. But we appear to have some leadership now that actually respects science, and it is obvious that policy changes are being made. "Business as usual" need not continue forever.

Chris Peterson wrote:

"Good science can come to an incorrect conclusion- that isn't uncommon. But good science ultimately corrects itself."

Yes, good science will. Bad science refuses to do so.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:All I can say is that I'm happy that public policy in the U.S. is now being based on good science. That's a refreshing change, and it gives me some optimism I haven't had for a long time.

Right .. that's why the U.S. is building 300 coal fired eletricity generating stations instead of pushing energy use reduction REAL HARD like it needs to be pushed. It's Business as Usual.

I disagree. Society and the economy have huge momentum- you don't change things overnight. But we appear to have some leadership now that actually respects science, and it is obvious that policy changes are being made. "Business as usual" need not continue forever.

You're absolutely correct .. Just until the universe goes bang. By the way, Hawking may have 'gone over' to the other side on BB .. he's with the bunch at Perimetre Research with Turok & Moffat & gang in Waterloo.

aristarchusinexile wrote:You're absolutely correct .. Just until the universe goes bang. By the way, Hawking may have 'gone over' to the other side on BB .. he's with the bunch at Perimetre Research with Turok & Moffat & gang in Waterloo.

The people at Perimeter (including Turok and Moffat) are not anti-BB. Even Moffat doesn't deny that the evidence for the BB is strong; he is simply exploring alternatives. Most important, he's doing it scientifically- proposing testable theories and looking for corroborative observations.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:You're absolutely correct .. Just until the universe goes bang. By the way, Hawking may have 'gone over' to the other side on BB .. he's with the bunch at Perimetre Research with Turok & Moffat & gang in Waterloo.

The people at Perimeter (including Turok and Moffat) are not anti-BB. Even Moffat doesn't deny that the evidence for the BB is strong; he is simply exploring alternatives. Most important, he's doing it scientifically- proposing testable theories and looking for corroborative observations.

But they appear to be in favour of the alternative theories. They should be announcing anti-gravity bubbles any time now .. but remember, you heard it first on APOD.

Interesting article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 74630.html
Image of Mercury's Rembrandt Basin with vertical perspective : http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ecrets.htm

In support of my argument that we really have at best an incomplete picture of the workings of the solar system and the earth, see this article that reveals that during its eruption, the (plasma) plume of MT Redoubt was rotating. This is probably an electrical phenomena. We will be forced eventually to accept that the sun and the planets are connected electrically. http://news.illinois.edu/news/09/0325volcanoes.html

bhrobards wrote:In support of my argument that we really have at best an incomplete picture of the workings of the solar system and the earth, see this article that reveals that during its eruption, the (plasma) plume of MT Redoubt was rotating. This is probably an electrical phenomena. We will be forced eventually to accept that the sun and the planets are connected electrically.

I believe you are seriously misunderstanding this report. There is no plume of plasma above a volcano. There is a plume of gas and dust, which is observed to have cyclonic rotation. This results (in a poorly understood way) in lightning near the surface of the plume. While lighting itself is a plasma, the material of the plume is not. Nor is there a suggestion that the cyclonic rotation is caused by something electrical. Much more likely is something like a Coriolis force, similar to cyclonic storms.

We have lots of spacecraft around the Earth and between the planets that measure electric fields. There are certainly small electrical fields in space, mainly from the Sun, and these interact with planetary magnetic fields. But there is no steady current flow between the Sun and planets (no "electrical connection"), and the energies involved in the fields and solar wind are very small.

Chris Peterson wrote:

"I think you don't understand how science works in the real world. There are almost never incentives to take the consensus viewpoint. Science is competitive, and scientists are largely driven by their desire for prestige- not finances. There is no better way for a scientist to gain prestige in climate science than by demonstrating that some mainstream belief is incorrect. That competition is what drives research. Very, very few climate scientists are in the sort of political positions you refer to."

It would appear others share my impression of the real world:

.............................................................

Science a Slave to Expediency

By John McLean, The Australian

The notion that human activity has an alarming influence on climate is based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports and spurious claims about a scientific consensus. Independent scientists who question these claims are accused of being in the pay of the energy industry and of believing that the notion of man-made climate change is a conspiracy.

To the best of my knowledge, no climate conspiracy has ever existed. But another force has driven science into its present parlous state where the output of computer software is held in higher regard than observational data, where marketing spin is more important than fact and evidence, and where a trenchant defence of the notion of man-made global warming is seen as paramount. The single, pre-eminent force driving this distortion of science originates in the once-august UN.

For many years climate researchers have understood that their proposals will only be funded if they are pitched in line with government policy. Even worse, unless some aspect of their results appears to perpetuate government thinking, renewal of their funding is unlikely. Other climatologists are acutely aware of the potential consequences for their employers and their own employment prospects should they speak out in criticism of the dominant alarmist paradigm. Scientists who have criticised the hypothesis of human-caused climate change have had their funding curtailed or employment terminated.

Climate modellers have been very aware that their expensive and powerful computing facilities would be supported only if their research produced alarmist climate predictions. This notwithstanding, these models often produced results that were not in good agreement with historical data, perhaps because they poorly replicated or even omitted variations in climate.

These deficiencies and more have been papered over by reviving outdated and inaccurate research about the warming effect of carbon dioxide. The numbers still didn’t add up but the inclusion of some “positive feedbacks” masked the problem, and the models were declared “proof” of a significant human influence on climate.

The peer-review process was originally a sanity check for the editors of scientific journals but has always been open to abuse by reviewers who wish to support or suppress a particular line of argument. The recent narrow focus of climate research funding has caused an outburst of scientific papers that support the IPCC’s alarmist beliefs and relatively few papers that contradict it. Reviewers with vested interests suppress contradictory papers and support the “official” line.

Vested interests now dominate climate science. Whether climatologists, their employers and other people believe the government-approved line has become irrelevant, because they all wish to retain an income stream and whatever reputations they’ve established. These people advise governments, which subsequently set policy and research funding regardless of any contradiction with observational data. Climate science is no longer an impartial truth but a slave to the yoke of politics and opportunism. If this continues, society will be the inevitable loser.

John McLean is a climate data analyst and a member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition.

Chris Peterson wrote:

bhrobards wrote:In support of my argument that we really have at best an incomplete picture of the workings of the solar system and the earth, see this article that reveals that during its eruption, the (plasma) plume of MT Redoubt was rotating. This is probably an electrical phenomena. We will be forced eventually to accept that the sun and the planets are connected electrically.

I believe you are seriously misunderstanding this report. There is no plume of plasma above a volcano. There is a plume of gas and dust, which is observed to have cyclonic rotation. This results (in a poorly understood way) in lightning near the surface of the plume. While lighting itself is a plasma, the material of the plume is not. Nor is there a suggestion that the cyclonic rotation is caused by something electrical. Much more likely is something like a Coriolis force, similar to cyclonic storms.

We have lots of spacecraft around the Earth and between the planets that measure electric fields. There are certainly small electrical fields in space, mainly from the Sun, and these interact with planetary magnetic fields. But there is no steady current flow between the Sun and planets (no "electrical connection"), and the energies involved in the fields and solar wind are very small.

I can't take the time in this post to make the arguments and cite the evidence for the electrical nature of the solar system, I'll get to it. Your statement that the plume of a volcano is not a plasma is ridiculous on its face. The temperature of the plume insures that it is.

bhrobards wrote:I can't take the time in this post to make the arguments and cite the evidence for the electrical nature of the solar system, I'll get to it.

I'd advise against it. Discussion of the electric Universe, plasma cosmology, and other pseudoscience derived from the discredited work of Alfvén is grounds for being banned from this forum. At the least, it's a quick way to get a thread locked.

Your statement that the plume of a volcano is not a plasma is ridiculous on its face. The temperature of the plume insures that it is.

You might want to do a little research on the temperature in a volcano's ash plume, and compare that to the ionization temperature of various atmospheric constituents. You might also want to look at the difference between a charge structure in a volcanic plume, and what "ionization" means.