Oh and YES it IS a recent article.

Quote:


That was written in 2008. Again. It has always been acknowledged that some uncertainty remains in certain key areas - the biggest of which relate to aerosols and effects on Polar regions.

There are whole sections of the IPCC Reports in 1995, 2001 and 2007 which discuss the areas of uncertainty, however these are peripheral areas only and they don't affect the overall conclusion.

I don't think anybody is stating that Climate Research can stop now because we know absolutely everything. Of course we don't. Nobody has ever said that.

Of course most of these quotes are taken out of context as usual.

Beo, which quote do you think Muso was referring to? Do you understand how pronouns work?

Pay more attention in future.

I expect he was referring to the quote he posted immediately above, which addresses the denial stratgey, sadly still in use, two years later.

Neither of which is the point. The point is that this is wrong:

Grendel wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:


Grow up.

Grendel wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 3:11pm:

I think it was things like that I was addressing. The quote I included was from a paper published in 2008.

I was making the point that nobody is claiming total certainty is all aspects of Climate science, and nobody is saying that we should stop doing climate research because we know everything.

However in something so basic as "have anthropogenic greenhouse gases been the main cause of Global Warming in the last 50 odd years?",  there is almost complete consensus among those qualified to comment.

Now do you understand?

Lol

According to you Muso fallability lies on only one side of the argument...  that is hardly an unbiased or skeptical mindset.  Something I would have thought was important for a scientist to maintain.

Thanks for the clarification...   

But I think you will find that denial has been something your side of the debate has been cloaked in for many years and even though they understand that their theory is UNCERTAIN, that is not how they present it.  You certainly do not...

PLEASE...  i believe the Earth is an oblate spheroid...  I cant personally prove it but I don't believe there's been a huge conspiracy about it.

That is totally unlike the issue of the complex science involved in climate and climate change.

You think the issue is "settled" yet many people, many scientists...  do not.  I still have an open unbiased, skeptical  mindset about it.  You do not.

Therein lies the difference.

Personally..  I can't.

Can you?

So basically you are saying on your own without equipment etc  YOU CANT EITHER.

That's ok...  I don't think anyone can.

Oh and BTW sticks wont prove Earth is an OBLATE SPHEROID.  I'd have thought you'd have known that.

As with your faith in Global warming your faith in yourself is way overstated.

Sticks???

They must have edited the post, it clearly said ships, ships I tell you, SHIPPSSSS!

Or

lol, MY Bad.


My bet is on a variation of option one.

Of course it is no big deal, in the sense that most of us make our fair share of blunders, but I have always felt bad about the way that muso was derided at times, for trying to help all of us better understand the AGW issue.

Thanks muso, you have taught me a lot, and I am sure that in time others who now doubt, will come to appreciate the depth of understanding, and the patient explanation of the issue that you shared.

Idiots....  honestly...  the only way to prove the Earth is an Oblate Spheroid is to get a rocket and travel far enough away from the Earth to see it in it's entirety or do lots of measurements all over the planet or from satellites...  can I do any of these things?  No.

idiots.

Dont bother talking rot to me or being a disingenuous prick like Muso.

Ok lets see you prove through trigonometry that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.  On your own no satellite data or really long tape measures or assistants.  I'll be really impressed. 

The original question was how would I PROVE the Earth was an OBLATE SPHEROID.
Sorry cant do it on my own...  doubt you can either.

You are full of it.

Any waffle to try and recover from an obvious loss.    

At least I was honest enough to admit I couldn't.

The only way you or I are going to convince the average person the Earth is an OBLATE SPHEROID is to hitch a ride with NASA,

Quote:


LOl open mind LOL LOL 

Paella wrote on Apr 18^th, 2010 at 7:45pm:


Yep. Hence the Spirit level in my original post. You don't need particularly long sticks or a particularly long tape measure either. One from Bunnings will do the trick.  If you want to get technical just use a theodolite (projecting the image of the sun)


Your other methods are perfectly valid.

I brought up the Keplerian elements because if we can track a Low Earth Satellite using Keps, that provides proof of the precise shape of the Earth. I don't see why we should limit ourselves to Stone Age equipment. The allegation was that we couldn't prove that the Earth was an oblate speroid, subsequently amended to - without going into orbit. (You do know that driving in reverse gear so fast can be hazardous?)

Going back to the 15th- 16th Century, Newton's theory of gravitation predicted the Earth to be an oblate ellipsoid with a flattening of 1:230, which is pretty damn close.

Grendel, has it occurred to you that if we didn't know the exact shape of the Earth before the first space probes were launched that they would have probably had some major problems?  

I just read back through the thread beo. Looks pretty good to me. The bit about satellites came in much later.

But anyway ... how then, wiseguy, did it become known well before the 1950s, that the Earth is an ellipsoid?

here's a tip. Try at least googling a topic before you post your ... ummm ... knowledge (?) on it.

OK. Let's get back on track. Grendel has clarified the fact that he can't prove that the Earth isn't flat, because despite some of his posts, he's never been in outer space. His technical specialty is in the altogether different field of climatology - and there he knows what's right and wrong just by ....a feeling in his bones.

- After all - it's just the weather.... isn't it?  

Yes I agree Muso, let's get back on track. Beo can be right. Muso, Paella and Isaac Newton can be wrong.

Paella wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 10:00am:

Is this too complicated for you beo?

Should I put it in simpler terms? Pick one of the following:

1. You're right, I'm wrong.

2. It is impossible to prove the Earth is an Ellipsoid, sorry ... oblate spheroid. It can't be done, it's never been done.

3. Beo is right. Beo is alsways right.

Can we move on now?

"Climate Doubt Acknowledge by Alarmists".

We've been through this with soren. I think we got him to understand in the end, but this will be a bigger step up for beo.

Uncertainty is inherent in science. Moreover, there is uncertainty in our ability to observe and comprehend the physical universe. To fail to acknowledge uncertainty is not so much bad science, it is unscientific.

You will not find a scientifically stated conclusion that fails to acknowledge its inherent uncertainty. Generally, the uncertainty in the conclusion is not only stated, it will be quantified. So "Climate Doubt" isn't just acknowledged, it's quantified and published. The above headline is hardly a revelation, merely a misrepresentation.

To confuse scientific consensus with scientific certainty belies that the author either has no understanding of the scientific method, or that he does understand the scientific method and is deliberately attempting to mislead his readers (and given the publication in which the article appeared, this would not be very difficult).

Once again: science cannot absolutely and positively prove anything. It doesn't even lay claim to being able to do so. In fact, science can demonstrate that this is not possible. Science relies on inductive reasoning, so there can always be an undiscovered exception. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, so it is impossible to prove that an undiscovered exception does not exist.

A scientific consensus means that agreement on the theory is so widespread that the theory can be considered a scientific fact. A scientific fact is a theory that the scientific community is so confident in that it is willing to proceed on the assumption that it is true. It can thereafter be used as a premise. There will always be dissenters, but not enough to deny a consensus. Remember, you can still find qualified scientists who believe that nicotine is not addictive, and others that believe in intelligent design. Roughly, they are about as numerous as the ones that do not accept AGW (and unsurprisingly, there is  a big overlap in ID scientists and denialist scientists).

The level of agreement within the scientific community on global warming (that is, it is occurring and it is caused by human activity) has long had such a degree of widespread support in the scientific community that it can be considered a scientific fact. Some examples of other scientific theories that have been elevated to scientific facts are germ theory (once as controversial as AGW), heat transfer, universal gravitation, relativity, (most of) quantum theory, evolution and yes, even the theory that the earth is an ellipsoid ... sorry, oblate spheroid.

Theoretically, so to speak, if I were to drop a billiard ball on to my desk, it is only a theory that the desk will stop it from falling. It is consistent with the laws of physics that none of the electromagnetic fields in the billiard ball will interact with any of the electromagnetic fields in the desk, and the ball will just pass straight through. But this is very, very improbable. If calculated in terms of "one in x", the x would be greater than the number of atoms in the universe. But it could still happen. So there is a degree of uncertainty in stating "if I drop this ball on my desk, the desk will stop it from falling", even though it can safely be considered a scientific fact that the desk will, indeed, stop the ball.

The tobacco industry successfully exploited the inherent uncertainty of the scientific method for many years. The intelligent design lobby is now trying the same tactic, with considerably less success. The fossil fuel industry is also sending out a lot of dog whistles about "doubt", but they seem to be realising that governments, as well as the general public, are pretty well on to it. Then there are the lunatic fringe denialists, who, like some of the intelligent design crew, actually seem to believe it.

Some people believe strange things. That is a fact.

Look you idiots I studied Science, I also studied Chemistry and Physics, I understand "uncertainty" and can even quote Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (not that I'm a fan of it) or discuss Max Planck or Niels Bohr if you like.

There is no uncertainty in what you believe. Unlike skeptics or people you defame by calling them deniers.  You are a sad lot of hypocrites.

Quote:


Yes, like; the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits the Earth, Phlogiston theory, Aristotle's dynamic motion, the existence of "Ether" as a medium, classical elemental theory (earth, air, fire and water).

Quote:


Which leads us to that old chestnut that when you ASSUME...  YOU make an ASS of U and ME...

We have been trying to say to you lot quite simply that there is dissent and difference of opinion re AGW...  I note you say it is in fact a CONTROVERSIAL.... THEORY.

So then it is NOT A PROVEN FACT?  Really?  Well what do you know.
BTW the theory that EARTH is an OBLATE SPHEROID is NOT a THEORY.  It is a PROVEN FACT.

Yes some people are in denial...  it isn't the skeptics.

keeping up with the physics of things are we Muso...?  i think not.



my 10 trumps your 3.

Just explain to me what the Uncertainty Principle means for anything other than quantum mechanics.   

muso wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 12:17pm:


Not sure...

Soren wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 1:16pm:



Whatch out - joke. 
Uncertianty principle - not sure... geddit?





Treat this as an equaliser for my not getting the honey and lettuce for breakfast quip.

Quote:

^{I removed the caps, They get tiresome}.

Beo, you need to understand that the two terms are not mutually exclusive. The theory of evolution is also a "proven fact", so to speak. If you are unable to accept that scientific facts are not "known" absolutley and positively, then you really seem to be struggling with science at the conceptual level.

I very much doubt that you have undertaken any serious science study at all.

But what exactly is a "proven fact"? I suspect you are demanding that for a "fact" to be "proven" it needs to be positively proven beyond any doubt at all. I.e., that the probability that it is not absolutley and positively correct is precisely zero.

There are no such proven facts: no one knows anything with 100% certainty. Let's take the theory that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, since it seems to be a favourite:

- Do you know with 100% certainty that there isn't a subtle but mathematically real variation in some part of the surface that can be explained by another or a new scientific theory? Can you prove it?
- Do you know with 100% certainty that on each occasion that instruments have been used to survey the Earth's shape and or size, that the instruments haven't coincidentally malfunctioned? Can you prove it?
- Do you know with 100% certainty that the scientists who have published their findings on the shape of the Earth are not involved in a massive conspiracy to establish world conquest through world government? Can you prove it?
- Do you know with 100% certainty that we haven't all been hypnotised by the flying spaghetti monster to hear "oblate spheroid" whenever someone says "cube" (some of us may hear "ellipsoid, sorry")? Can you prove it?
- Do you know with 100% certainty that your entire life has not been just a dream? Can you prove it?
- Do you know with 100% certainty that the universe actually exists? Can you prove it?

If you can prove any of the above, with 100% certainty of course, I look forward to you publishing the proofs. Let us know.

Quote:


That's great to hear. Though, for the reasons stated, I doubt any of these studies were at a level beyond high school (and if they were, I don't think you were listening). But let's find out: I suggest we discuss the the absorption of infrared radiation by CO₂. What can your extensive education in the sciences tell us, I wonder?

Oh, and there's quite a difference between being able to quote the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and actually having some level of comprehension of it.

muso wrote on Apr 21^st, 2010 at 3:37pm:



Well - kinda-sorta.


There isn't any more 'real description of the world' than the human description. And since at least Kant we also realise that cause/effect and time and a few other categories are not in the world but are part of the way reason and the mind operate (this was philosophy's Copernican revolution).

While subatomic physics will not throw the rail time table into chaos, it does nod towards our serious limitations regarding knowledge of the mind of god. It shows that our formulation of principles/laws ('timetables') is limited, rather than our reading and interpreting of the said timetables, as it were.

Does that comprise your sum ability to comprehend?
How unfortunate.

Oh but since you seem so interested in the topic, how about you enlighten us all on your thoughts on this article...

http://nov55.com/ntyg.html

or this one...

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

hey check out the "uncertainty"...
Quote:


Oh almost forgot...  I know I've mentioned it several times now, but are you aware that CO2 doesn't just absorb radiation?

Now you wouldn't be changing the subject there would you, beo?

Very good beo, I see that you've googled the phrase I asked you to enlighten us on and quoted two of the sites that come up on the first page. Now I would not have thought that someone with your expansive scientific knowledge would need to google infrared absorption of CO₂, but I'm glad you did, because at least now you'll know something about the topic, even if it is from denialists.

As for me enlightening you for a change (a tall order I know, given your apparent mastery of the subject - muso must be envious), but anyway: The saturation theory enunciated on the second site first appeared in the formulation stages of the AGW hypothesis, back in the sixties - or even earlier perhaps. It was raised out of genuine enquiry, by scientists who were more interested in trying to understand absorption rather than gain insights into climatology. The theory was that as the emissions spectra of water vapour and carbon dioxide overlapped, carbon dioxide could only block IR radiation that was already blocked anyway, and would therefore not contribute to the blocking of the Earth's BBR. However, it was soon found that the degree of the overlap was misunderstood and overstated, so that theory died. It was long forgotten, until denialist pseudo-scientists stumbled on it and thought they'd try to give it a bit of a kick start.

Honestly, one of the silliest things about denialist theories is how very simplistic they are. If something as basic as this had any credibility, don't you think genuine researchers would be on to it? To believe otherwise requires one to subscribe to the global scientific conspiracy theory. The posting of those two links suggests to me that you possible do believe in the global scientific conspiracy theory.

You obviously have a penchant for those theories that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. What's your star sign?

Just let us know if you want more rope, Grendel.

Well thanks for that brainiac...  as usual...  no use for anyone.

BTW no bragging involved...  sorry if you didn't do well.

So you guys choked on your imaginary rope or just run out of empty baseless phrases?

Nope...  just waiting for that rare thing they call an on topic comment.

Oh well that would be convenient.

No just till the end of Kyoto...  the alarmists will be back in force long b4 then.