Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Consequences > Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally > Page 5

Page 5 of 5

5

10-05-2019 00:31
gfm7175★★★★★ (3324)	Wow... This is great stuff, you two! I do enjoy learning about science from you guys. I now have a much firmer grasp on it than I did when I was in school, thanks to you both.
10-05-2019 01:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (22671)	gfm7175 wrote: Wow... This is great stuff, you two! I do enjoy learning about science from you guys. I now have a much firmer grasp on it than I did when I was in school, thanks to you both. Always nice to see someone willing to learn! humble bow for my contribution. I'll let IBdaMann make his thanks known his way. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-05-2019 17:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14888)	gfm7175 wrote: Wow... This is great stuff, you two! I do enjoy learning about science from you guys. I now have a much firmer grasp on it than I did when I was in school, thanks to you both. I'm here through Tuesday! The truth is, I didn't invent any of the science I cite. I didn't hone the concept of falsifiability and I did not refine the scientific method. My contributions have been in the testing arena and trying to (try to) show various concepts don't work and that various ideas are false, i.e. applying the scientific method. Just remember, the scientist doubts and questions everything. The scientist is argumentative at times. The scientist isn't afraid of being called "stupid" or "denier" for insisting on seeing the supporting science. The scientist will not be bullied into believing a claim or assertion. The scientist does not recognize anyone's opinion as science, nor any consensus, nor any "study," nor anything "peer reviewed" and no data, imaginary, fabricated, cooked, or otherwise constitutes science. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-05-2019 04:11
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	dehammer wrote: You should check out something called snowball earth. Evidence exist that suggest that the earth has had to periods where even the oceans froze over. This happened because there was still water vapor in the air. This meant there was still snow falling. This means the "maximum extension" of the ice is the equator. That has not happen in several hundred million years minimum. I think I lost track of our conversation - Snowball Earth is only a theory that has since been just as likely explained by continental drift. It is extremely unlikely that the equatorial regions could ever freeze. This means that despite a large area of the Earth being glaciated that there is still moisture being inserted into the air column.
18-05-2019 04:48
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Wow... This is great stuff, you two! I do enjoy learning about science from you guys. I now have a much firmer grasp on it than I did when I was in school, thanks to you both. I'm here through Tuesday! The truth is, I didn't invent any of the science I cite. I didn't hone the concept of falsifiability and I did not refine the scientific method. My contributions have been in the testing arena and trying to (try to) show various concepts don't work and that various ideas are false, i.e. applying the scientific method. Just remember, the scientist doubts and questions everything. The scientist is argumentative at times. The scientist isn't afraid of being called "stupid" or "denier" for insisting on seeing the supporting science. The scientist will not be bullied into believing a claim or assertion. The scientist does not recognize anyone's opinion as science, nor any consensus, nor any "study," nor anything "peer reviewed" and no data, imaginary, fabricated, cooked, or otherwise constitutes science. Another key point in science, is that it's repeatable. You can show others what you observed, the test you did, the result you got. Anybody else can read your work, make the same observation, perform the same tests, and should get the same results. It's all very objective, no opinions, except maybe in the conclusion or summary, where a scientist gives an opinion on what was observed, and why he got the results of his test. Success or failure doesn't really matter, because something was learned, from which further testing can be designed, to get more understanding. Just reading a paper, and agreeing, means nothing. It's when others gather their own data, do the experiments, and are able to get the same results that give meaning. This is where 'Climate Science' fails most, no repeatability, and limited data sources, no global scale experiments. It's entirely faith-based, and subjective, entirely opinion.

18-05-2019 18:36
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	HarveyH55 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Wow... This is great stuff, you two! I do enjoy learning about science from you guys. I now have a much firmer grasp on it than I did when I was in school, thanks to you both. I'm here through Tuesday! The truth is, I didn't invent any of the science I cite. I didn't hone the concept of falsifiability and I did not refine the scientific method. My contributions have been in the testing arena and trying to (try to) show various concepts don't work and that various ideas are false, i.e. applying the scientific method. Just remember, the scientist doubts and questions everything. The scientist is argumentative at times. The scientist isn't afraid of being called "stupid" or "denier" for insisting on seeing the supporting science. The scientist will not be bullied into believing a claim or assertion. The scientist does not recognize anyone's opinion as science, nor any consensus, nor any "study," nor anything "peer reviewed" and no data, imaginary, fabricated, cooked, or otherwise constitutes science. Another key point in science, is that it's repeatable. You can show others what you observed, the test you did, the result you got. Anybody else can read your work, make the same observation, perform the same tests, and should get the same results. It's all very objective, no opinions, except maybe in the conclusion or summary, where a scientist gives an opinion on what was observed, and why he got the results of his test. Success or failure doesn't really matter, because something was learned, from which further testing can be designed, to get more understanding. Just reading a paper, and agreeing, means nothing. It's when others gather their own data, do the experiments, and are able to get the same results that give meaning. This is where 'Climate Science' fails most, no repeatability, and limited data sources, no global scale experiments. It's entirely faith-based, and subjective, entirely opinion. Most climate science isn't repeatable as such. It has very wide error bars and you can only assume that your math is accurate to the data you have. ' The methodology for a particular "science" may not even be science at all. Virology springs to mind where specific virus may not be identifiable because they may require the presence of both another type of virus and a particular type of DNA in the victim to do something particular. The micro-titration device I designed was used to identify HIV and HIV was identified as the source of AIDS purely by statistical analysis. HIV attacks the immune system and the failure of the immune system is AIDS. A fairly large segment of HIV victims never get AIDS and a number of those exposed to HIV are immune to the virus. So is it science that discovered the source of AIDS or guesswork?
18-05-2019 20:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (22671)	HarveyH55 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Wow... This is great stuff, you two! I do enjoy learning about science from you guys. I now have a much firmer grasp on it than I did when I was in school, thanks to you both. I'm here through Tuesday! The truth is, I didn't invent any of the science I cite. I didn't hone the concept of falsifiability and I did not refine the scientific method. My contributions have been in the testing arena and trying to (try to) show various concepts don't work and that various ideas are false, i.e. applying the scientific method. Just remember, the scientist doubts and questions everything. The scientist is argumentative at times. The scientist isn't afraid of being called "stupid" or "denier" for insisting on seeing the supporting science. The scientist will not be bullied into believing a claim or assertion. The scientist does not recognize anyone's opinion as science, nor any consensus, nor any "study," nor anything "peer reviewed" and no data, imaginary, fabricated, cooked, or otherwise constitutes science. Another key point in science, is that it's repeatable. You can show others what you observed, the test you did, the result you got. Anybody else can read your work, make the same observation, perform the same tests, and should get the same results. It's all very objective, no opinions, except maybe in the conclusion or summary, where a scientist gives an opinion on what was observed, and why he got the results of his test. Success or failure doesn't really matter, because something was learned, from which further testing can be designed, to get more understanding. Repeating an experiment in science is not required. A theory of science becomes a theory of science because it's falsifiable. That means it can be tested against it's null hypothesis. The test tries to destroy the theory. It must be available, practical to perform, it must be specific, and it must produce specific results. It the theory survives even a single such test, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will remain so until it is destroyed by falsification. HarveyH55 wrote: Just reading a paper, and agreeing, means nothing. It means consensus, which is not used in science. HarveyH55 wrote: It's when others gather their own data, do the experiments, and are able to get the same results that give meaning. No, that means consensus also, not used in science. HarveyH55 wrote: This is where 'Climate Science' fails most, no repeatability, and limited data sources, no global scale experiments. Not quite. Climate is not a science. It is simply a climate. The term is subjective and not quantifiable. Science needs things to be quantifiable. That's the only way a test can be specific and produce a specific result. Repeating such a test is pointless except as a teaching exercise. You will get the same result. There are no data sources for a global temperature at all. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. That's math, not science. Experiments are not a required part of science. Only the tests are. They need not require any experiment at all. Where the 'greenhouse gas' model fails the most is the internal and external consistency tests. No theory can exist based on a fallacy, since a theory is an argument. This is true for any theory, scientific or otherwise. The theory for 'global warming' or for 'climate change' is based on meaningless buzzwords, producing a void argument fallacy. The theory for 'greenhouse gas' is based in turn on the global warming 'theory'. 'Global warming' has to be specifically defined before you can use it in a theory. You cannot define a word with itself. The mechanisms to explain the 'greenhouse gas' model violate existing theories of science. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both theories must be falsified. This is known as the external consistency test. If a theory can't pass the internal consistency test, you are done. It is not science or even a valid nonscientific theory. If a theory can't pass the external consistency test, you are done. It is not science. It cannot conflict with any other theory of science without that theory of science being falsified, thus destroying it utterly. If a theory cannot be formalized into a closed functional system such as mathematics, you are done. In order to gain the power of prediction, you MUST be able to formalize the theory into a closed functional system. This means the theory MUST use quantifiable tests. The only other closed functional system is logic. Formalizing into logic again requires specific results from a test which are in turn quantifiable. ALL theories begin as circular arguments, otherwise known as the argument of faith. These are not themselves fallacies. Only trying to use a circular argument in a proof is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. A religion can best be described by common characteristics they all have. All religions are based on some initial circular argument that extend additional arguments from it. This is true for Christianity, atheism, Buddhism, Shintoism, any religion. A god is not required for a religion. Neither atheism nor Buddhism have a god. Shintoism has no god either, but depends instead on various demons or spirits. Global warming is a circular argument. It simply states the Earth is warming. Why? Because the Earth is warming. There is no time interval, no starting and ending time specified, and no data. Climate change is a circular argument. It simply states the climate is changing. Why? Because the climate is changing. There is no time interval, no starting or ending time specified, and no unit of measurement specified. They are religions. People that believe in these religions in any way try to prove them. That makes them fundamentalists. These particular religions themselves are by their very nature fundamentalist. HarveyH55 wrote: It's entirely faith-based, and subjective, entirely opinion. And I just explained why you are right. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-05-2019 21:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (22671)	Wake wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Wow... This is great stuff, you two! I do enjoy learning about science from you guys. I now have a much firmer grasp on it than I did when I was in school, thanks to you both. I'm here through Tuesday! The truth is, I didn't invent any of the science I cite. I didn't hone the concept of falsifiability and I did not refine the scientific method. My contributions have been in the testing arena and trying to (try to) show various concepts don't work and that various ideas are false, i.e. applying the scientific method. Just remember, the scientist doubts and questions everything. The scientist is argumentative at times. The scientist isn't afraid of being called "stupid" or "denier" for insisting on seeing the supporting science. The scientist will not be bullied into believing a claim or assertion. The scientist does not recognize anyone's opinion as science, nor any consensus, nor any "study," nor anything "peer reviewed" and no data, imaginary, fabricated, cooked, or otherwise constitutes science. Another key point in science, is that it's repeatable. You can show others what you observed, the test you did, the result you got. Anybody else can read your work, make the same observation, perform the same tests, and should get the same results. It's all very objective, no opinions, except maybe in the conclusion or summary, where a scientist gives an opinion on what was observed, and why he got the results of his test. Success or failure doesn't really matter, because something was learned, from which further testing can be designed, to get more understanding. Just reading a paper, and agreeing, means nothing. It's when others gather their own data, do the experiments, and are able to get the same results that give meaning. This is where 'Climate Science' fails most, no repeatability, and limited data sources, no global scale experiments. It's entirely faith-based, and subjective, entirely opinion. Most climate science isn't repeatable as such. It isn't repeatable at all. Climate is not science. Wake wrote: It has very wide error bars and you can only assume that your math is accurate to the data you have. There is no data to something that is undefined. There is no data for the temperature of the Earth either. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: The methodology for a particular "science" may not even be science at all. It isn't. Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It is a set of falsifiable theories. It is just the theories themselves, Wake. There is nothing else to science. Wake wrote: Virology springs to mind where specific virus may not be identifiable because they may require the presence of both another type of virus and a particular type of DNA in the victim to do something particular. A specific virus is identifiable by proof of Identity. Whether YOU observe a specific virus in action or is even present is another story. Wake wrote: The micro-titration device I designed was used to identify HIV and HIV was identified as the source of AIDS purely by statistical analysis. This theory has been falsified. AIDS can occur without the presence of the HIV virus, and the HIV virus may not cause AIDS. Statistics has nothing to do with it. Statistics does not have the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to its use of random numbers. Wake wrote: HIV attacks the immune system and the failure of the immune system is AIDS. This is a common path, true, but not true in all cases. Wake wrote: A fairly large segment of HIV victims never get AIDS and a number of those exposed to HIV are immune to the virus. Like I said. Wake wrote: So is it science that discovered the source of AIDS or guesswork? Neither. HIV is not the source of AIDS. It can certainly cause it, but it is not the only way AIDS occurs. Discovering the virus we now call HIV is instrumentation and observation, not science. The theory that this virus causes AIDS was science. It is a falsifiable theory. It has been falsified. Only one exception is necessary, and there ARE exceptions (you noted them yourself!). The theory that HIV is one cause of AIDS is a a theory, but not one of science. This theory allows for HIV being present and not causing AIDS, and also allows for other causes of AIDS where the HIV virus is not found. However, there is no specific test available. The theory remains circular in scope and is not falsifiable. Designing instrumentation is engineering, not science. Observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not part of any theory of science. Science is just the theories themselves, not any instrumentation, not any observation, just the theories themselves. Is it a good idea to flirt with exposure to HIV? No. Not because of science, but because of probability. The same reason it's not a good idea to bet your entire stake on lousy cards in poker or on a single roll of the dice. Fortunately, we know it's method of transmission requires transfer of bodily fluids. At least when syphilis transfers this way and infects you, we can treat it with antibiotics now before it damages you too far. HIV is a virus instead of a bacterium though. It's a tough little bugger too. We have no reliable ways to treat it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 5 of 5

5

Join the debate Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally:

Related content

Threads	Replies	Last post
The Lake Mead water level is still rising in August, when it is ALWAYS falling. So snow melt is not the	155	16-09-2023 13:46
Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change	52	16-06-2023 09:44
Limited Time Special Book: How To Increase Longevity, Live To 600+ Year More	9	04-04-2023 13:49
Alaskan Snow Crab Population Shrinks 90% In 3 Years	8	18-10-2022 23:07
If You Want To Fully Understand The Secret Of Life & Increase Your Longevity, You Must Evolve	2	07-09-2021 03:10

▲ Top of page

Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact