Conquer Club

Y'all really need to be reading scientific journals if y'all want to get any deeper than a news article about this issue.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Y'all really need to be reading scientific journals if y'all want to get any deeper than a news article about this issue.

That requires understanding science, first... and it requires believing that things published in scientific journals might be a bit more credible than the latest internet article.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Y'all really need to be reading scientific journals if y'all want to get any deeper than a news article about this issue.

That requires understanding science, first... and it requires believing that things published in scientific journals might be a bit more credible than the latest internet article.

You seem to be insinuating that people make stuff up on the Internet.

How dare you.

Yes, the BBC is a conservative mouth piece that just makes stuff up and puts in on the internet

GabonX wrote:Yes, the BBC is a conservative mouth piece that just makes stuff up and puts in on the internet

The problem is not with the BBC, nor even that particular article. It is in how it is used...

Believe it or not, I believe that global warming is happening (or at least that man could contribute to warming the planet via pollution) and that it is likely caused by man. With that said, I find the attitude which most supporters of the theory seem to have, that the debate is over before it began and that any scientist who says anything to the contrary needs to be silenced, to be disgusting, and dangerous frankly.

Any thoughts on this?:

What we may find is that the Sun is putting off less energy which will result in immediate global cooling despite an increase of carbon dioxide being released to the atmosphere. If it is true that carbon dioxide does contribute to global warming, we could find that when this cooling period ends and the Sun begins putting off more energy (in something like 30 years give or take) that the planet will be warmer than ever if we continue on our current course.

GabonX wrote:Yes, the BBC is a conservative mouth piece that just makes stuff up and puts in on the internet

Yeah, use the hammer to hit the thumb.

GabonX wrote:Believe it or not, I believe that global warming is happening (or at least that man could contribute to warming the planet via pollution) and that it is likely caused by man. With that said, I find the attitude which most supporters of the theory seem to have, that the debate is over before it began and that any scientist who says anything to the contrary needs to be silenced, to be disgusting, and dangerous frankly.

Any thoughts on this?:

What we may find is that the Sun is putting off less energy which will result in immediate global cooling despite an increase of carbon dioxide being released to the atmosphere. If it is true that carbon dioxide does contribute to global warming, we could find that when this cooling period ends and the Sun begins putting off more energy (in something like 30 years give or take) that the planet will be warmer than ever if we continue on our current course.

I talked to my astronomy professor about this issue: whether or not solar activity directly affects the Earth's temperature. From what's he learned on the issue within his general community is that the sun's solar activity doesn't affect the Earth temperature. Solar activity from what I understand concerns sunspots and the energy associated with it.

When this article says that the Sun may put off less energy is a bit vague because the Sun is constantly slowly losing energy (it's burning itself out). It's not really explaining how that's possible... Or how the sun works, because I really didn't think that it's rate of burning energy changes drastically from 30 years (seems like that would be too unstable to be true).

Hmm, I want to see where the article is getting this information because it's possible for a reporter to simply misunderstand what he's reading.


If I have some free time this weekend, I think I can find some astronomy articles about this. They're not too difficult to comprehend.

I guess I should thank you if you do. Until then, have a look at this. I think you'll be able to comprehend it.

If you form an opinion on a given thing, anything really, before you've heard people argue both sides of the debate, you've made a decision prematurely.

GabonX wrote:I guess I should thank you if you do. Until then, have a look at this. I think you'll be able to comprehend it.

If you form an opinion on a given thing, anything really, before you've heard people argue both sides of the debate, you've made a decision prematurely.

When I typed comprehend, it wasn't directed at anyone, and in my opinion it was not belittling or offensive. I merely used that word because someone else was talking about how scientific journals tend to be way above layman's terms, which I completely agree with, hence:

If I have some free time this weekend, I think I can find some astronomy articles about this. They're not too difficult to comprehend.

However, you've handled this in a very immature fashion by insulting my intelligence, which is really not a great way to be taken seriously.
______________________________________________________________

Now back to your oversimplified article from that link:

It seems likely that variations in the Sun should cause changes in Earth's weather and climate. They probably do, but scientists aren't yet sure exactly how those connections work. Atypical periods in the Sun's 11-year sunspot cycle seem to correlate with severe cold snaps, though the correlations are imperfect.

You've really brought no further clarity to the issue, which is why we need scientific journal articles and less material of "mickey mouse" quality.

I thought that the presentation was handled very well.

The article is presented by an organization known as UCAR:

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) is a nonprofit consortium of more than 75 universities offering Ph.D.s in the atmospheric and related sciences. UCAR manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and provides additional services to strengthen and support research and education through its community programs. Its headquarters, in Boulder, Colorado, include NCAR's Mesa Laboratory, designed by I.M. Pei.

UCAR was established in 1959 by faculty from 14 leading universities to support and nourish the atmospheric sciences. They were motivated by a newly recognized need for pooled observational and computational facilities and a strong research staff, which together would allow the academic community to carry out complex, long-term scientific programs beyond the reach of individual universities.

This group’s first major action, in partnership with the National Science Foundation, was to establish NCAR. Since then, UCAR has managed NCAR on behalf of NSF to address pressing scientific and societal needs involving the atmosphere and its interactions with the oceans, land, and Sun—what is now called Earth system science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University ... c_Research

It was written by Randy Russel. 1 2

GabonX wrote:I thought that the presentation was handled very well.

The article is presented by an organization known as UCAR:

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) is a nonprofit consortium of more than 75 universities offering Ph.D.s in the atmospheric and related sciences. UCAR manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and provides additional services to strengthen and support research and education through its community programs. Its headquarters, in Boulder, Colorado, include NCAR's Mesa Laboratory, designed by I.M. Pei.

UCAR was established in 1959 by faculty from 14 leading universities to support and nourish the atmospheric sciences. They were motivated by a newly recognized need for pooled observational and computational facilities and a strong research staff, which together would allow the academic community to carry out complex, long-term scientific programs beyond the reach of individual universities.

This group’s first major action, in partnership with the National Science Foundation, was to establish NCAR. Since then, UCAR has managed NCAR on behalf of NSF to address pressing scientific and societal needs involving the atmosphere and its interactions with the oceans, land, and Sun—what is now called Earth system science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University ... c_Research

It was written by Randy Russel. 1 2

I'll look into this as soon as I have enough time.

The consistant problem, Gabon, is that whether you are capable of understanding the science or not, you consistantly cite completely unscientific articles. Those articles often grossly distort real issues.

Part of the problem is the old "telephone game" problem ... You know, the kid's game where you start saying a simple phrase, pass it on to the next person and see what happens at the end (usally nothing at all like the first statement). Part of it is that science is often about subtleties and complex issues that reporters just don't (perhaps cannot, due to deadlines and such) take the time to understand.

This thing of the sun cooling is a prime example. Just as an example, it might seem logical that summer is the time when we are closest to the Sun and winter when we are furthest. However, the opposite is true for the Northern hemisphere.

And, I think the biggest reasons your posts frustrate us is becuase we do know that you are intelligent... it just seems too often you choose the sensation over the thinking.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The consistant problem, Gabon, is that whether you are capable of understanding the science or not, you consistantly cite completely unscientific articles. Those articles often grossly distort real issues.

I mean, if there's an issue with the content, it should be easy to find a scientific article to refute the claims of what I post. I would very much like to see a dialogue and have articles presented which argue different positions.

I wonder if it's really the fact that I post these things that bothers you, or that I'm calling attention to things which you disagree with.

This thing of the sun cooling is a prime example. Just as an example, it might seem logical that summer is the time when we are closest to the Sun and winter when we are furthest. However, the opposite is true for the Northern hemisphere.

I thought that the last source I posted here was pretty good. It's not very complicated, but I actually see that as a good thing as it introduces people to the concept of solar weather in such a manner that almost anyone can understand. The source itself is exemplary.

Also, is it that the Northern hemisphere is closer to the sun during the winter, or just that it is in more direct alignment? I'm not really sure how that comment ties to the rest of this, but I'm curious nonetheless.

GabonX wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The consistant problem, Gabon, is that whether you are capable of understanding the science or not, you consistantly cite completely unscientific articles. Those articles often grossly distort real issues.

I mean, if there's an issue with the content, it should be easy to find a scientific article to refute the claims of what I post. I would very much like to see a dialogue and have articles presented which argue different positions.

I wonder if it's really the fact that I post these things that bothers you, or that I'm calling attention to things which you disagree with.

Circular reasoning, but I will try to break the cycle again.

Science takes up things where there is legitimate debate. To be published in a scientific journal, articles must must refute something previously held or bring up something entirely new. Occasionally, you will see "surveys" of "all that is known" on a particular topic, or simply "updates" on issues that are on-going, but those are relatively rare.


So, let's look at your article...

First of all, it was not science, it was public media. As such, it has little importance in the world of science. Scientists will not take it as credible and therefore will not try to refute it.

Second, it truly refutes nothing, it brings up what's mostly a misunderstanding of theory. Again, what a scientist will say is "go back and read the literature". That problem is why it did not appear in any scientific journal.

The exception might be in something like vaccines, where there are so many people in the general public who completely misunderstand the issue and refuse to believe the science that exists, that scientist will take it up just to hope and provide further proof.

Ultimately, though, it comes back to the same thing -- if you want to debate science with any real intelligence, if you want to be other than a laughing stock when you present things, then study the science. Study the science before you present things.

GabonX wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This thing of the sun cooling is a prime example. Just as an example, it might seem logical that summer is the time when we are closest to the Sun and winter when we are furthest. However, the opposite is true for the Northern hemisphere.

I thought that the last source I posted here was pretty good. It's not very complicated, but I actually see that as a good thing as it introduces people to the concept of solar weather in such a manner that almost anyone can understand. The source itself is exemplary.

The big thing the article you referenced says is that the correlation is not understood, but is is not something as simple as "the Sun cools, so the Earth cools". Sunspots and all that absolutely do affect the Earth's climate as do other things to do with the sun.

However, saying that the Earth responds to the sun is not at all the same as saying that the sun is cooling and will counter the greenhouse effect. Not at all. And THAT is the concept that we keep harping on, but you seem to refuse to understand.

GabonX wrote:Also, is it that the Northern hemisphere is closer to the sun during the winter, or just that it is in more direct alignment? I'm not really sure how that comment ties to the rest of this, but I'm curious nonetheless.

The northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun during winter. However, this is something I learned in about 2nd grade.... which brings us back to why several of us keep saying "you need to study science". We know you are capable, but without that background, you will continue to look the fool. Sorry, but it is true.

Discussing scientific principles in a public forum does not carry the same weight, as discussing the same principles in academic circles. The article I referenced was intended to educate the public, and that is exactly the kind of thing that it can do in this setting. This assertion you have that you can dismiss any article which references science, regardless of whether or not the content is accurate, because the source was written to educate the public, comes off as being misguided and elitist.

On top of this, I didn't see any similar criticism being directed towards Spurgistan for the OP which leads me to the conclusion that what you really take issue with, is that I am presenting ideas which challenge your views.

What's more, scientific circles are in fact susceptible to political bias and the issue of climate change has become heavily politicized.

GabonX wrote:Discussing scientific principles in a public forum does not carry the same weight, as discussing the same principles in academic circles. The article I referenced was intended to educate the public, and that is exactly the kind of thing that it can do in this setting. This assertion you have that you can dismiss any article which references science, regardless of whether or not the content is accurate, because the source was written to educate the public, comes off as being misguided and elitist.

On top of this, I didn't see any similar criticism being directed towards Spurgistan for the OP which leads me to the conclusion that what you really take issue with, is that I am presenting ideas which challenge your views.

What's more, scientific circles are in fact susceptible to political bias and the issue of climate change has become heavily politicized.

My issue is less with the article and more with your statement that, first, "we just don't understand" -- are not paying attention because it disagrees with [our] political views-- and since we cannot present any refutation, it must therefore be valid... followed by your admissiong that you "really don't understand [the science]".

A. We do understand
B. Disagreement with science results/interpretations has nothing to do with politics (science should dictate politics, politics should not dictate science)
C. Bringing up an article, arguing for it and then declaring "well, I don't understand this, but you obviously are just biased" (which, although paraphrased, is about what you said) makes you look the fool.