Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo

eggtimer rocketry
Advertise with us
Onebadhawk
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Zebedee said:
Science - "The data don't match my theory, I might have to make a new theory"

Anti-science - "The data don't match my belief therefore the data must be wrong or faked by <insert flavor of the month conspiracy>"
Click to expand...



It is the responsibility of the scientists to provide proof that their "theory" is correct...

It is not incumbent upon the skeptics to disprove it...
 
KidRockET said:
It is the responsibility of the scientists to provide proof that their "theory" is correct...

It is not incumbent upon the skeptics to disprove it...
Click to expand...

I think you are jumbling up what these terms mean. First, there are empirical facts --- measurements, observations, things that can be independently and objectively verified. A theory is the idea that ties the empirical facts together, describes a cause and effect relationship between facts, or describes why we think the empirical facts are what they are. So a scientific theory should be well supported by empirical facts (data), and the more empirical evidence, the stronger the theory is. If there is empirical evidence that contradicts the theory, then the theory needs to be changed.

A skeptic is not someone who just says "I don't believe it" --- that's a denier, not a skeptic. A scientific skeptic is a person who scrutinizes empirical evidence, and rejects conclusions that are not supported by the evidence, or cannot be tested or falsified. Almost all scientists are skeptics. They are the ones looking for empirical evidence, testing it, examining it. You can't call yourself a skeptic if you haven't even looked at the evidence yourself and tried to understand it. You need to really dig into the facts to be a skeptic.

In the case of global warming there is strong empirical evidence that CO2 from burning fossil fuels is building up in the atmosphere and that the heat content of the oceans, atmosphere and surface are rising. The theory that ties it together is that the added CO2 is responsible for trapping more heat energy and storing it in Earth's systems. And on top of that theory are predictions that the added heat content and trapped heat energy will drive changes to the climate --- sea level rise, altered weather patterns, etc.

If you want to be a skeptic on climate change, then you need to basically do what climate scientists do. Check the facts carefully. Are CO2 levels rising? Are the oceans, atmosphere and earth's surface retaining more heat than in the past? Does the theory that ties those facts together make sense?

But if you don't want to actually look at the evidence, then you are not a skeptic, you're a denier.

People like to call themselves skeptics, because it sounds more respectable. But in order to be a skeptic, you need to do what a skeptic does. You need to earn it.
 
Last edited:
ThirstyBarbarian said:
I think you are jumbling up what these terms mean. First, there are empirical facts --- measurements, observations, things that can be independently and objectively verified. A theory is the idea that ties the empirical facts together, describes a cause and effect relationship between facts, or describes why we think the empirical facts are what they are. So a scientific theory should be well supported by empirical facts (data), and the more empirical evidence, the stronger the theory is. If there is empirical evidence that contradicts the theory, then the theory needs to be changed.

A skeptic is not someone who just says "I don't believe it" --- that's a denier, not a skeptic. A scientific skeptic is a person who scrutinizes empirical evidence, and rejects conclusions that are not supported by the evidence, or cannot be tested or falsified. Almost all scientists are skeptics. They are the ones looking for empirical evidence, testing it, examining it. You can't call yourself a skeptic if you haven't even looked at the evidence yourself and tried to understand it. You need to really dig into the facts to be a skeptic.

In the case of global warming there is strong empirical evidence that CO2 from burning fossil fuels is building up in the atmosphere and that the heat content of the oceans, atmosphere and surface are rising. The theory that ties it together is that the added CO2 is responsible for trapping more heat energy and storing it in Earth's systems. And on top of that theory are predictions that the added heat content and trapped heat energy will drive changes to the climate --- sea level rise, altered weather patterns, etc.

If you want to be a skeptic on climate change, then you need to basically do what climate scientists do. Check the facts carefully. Are CO2 levels rising? Are the oceans, atmosphere and earth's surface retaining more heat than in the past? Does the theory that ties those facts together make sense?

But if you don't want to actually look at the evidence, then you are not a skeptic, you're a denier.

People like to call themselves skeptics, because it sounds more respectable. But in order to be a skeptic, you need to do what a skeptic does. You need to earn it.
Click to expand...

Thank you Thirsty, I am really enjoying reading your replies. You come across as objective, and not focused on being "right" loosely supported by unsubstantiated opinions, regurgitated media or "internet facts".
 
mpitfield said:
Thank you Thirsty, I am really enjoying reading your replies. You come across as objective, and not focused on being "right" loosely supported by unsubstantiated opinions, regurgitated media or "internet facts".
Click to expand...

Here here...

Objective is a term I would use to describe Thirsty's replies as well...

Where is the nearest re-education camp...

Think I'll check myself in...
 
mpitfield said:
Thank you Thirsty, I am really enjoying reading your replies. You come across as objective, and not focused on being "right" loosely supported by unsubstantiated opinions, regurgitated media or "internet facts".
Click to expand...

Thanks. I've had a lot of practice with this...
 
For all the "skeptics" out there, here is a great website about climate change skepticism: https://skepticalscience.com

From the homepage:

"Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"

If you have your doubts about the science of global warming, then instead of just posting whatever you happen run across online that you think might bolster your belief, try checking the website above first. There are a lot of myths and bogus info that resurface and are recycled over and over again. So a quick check to see if your new fact, or study, or article has already been examined on this website will save everyone a lot of time.

The top 10 myths on the left are a good place to start.
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
For all the "skeptics" out there, here is a great website about climate change skepticism: https://skepticalscience.com

From the homepage:

"Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"

If you have your doubts about the science of global warming, then instead of just posting whatever you happen run across online that you think might bolster your belief, try checking the website above first. There are a lot of myths and bogus info that resurface and are recycled over and over again. So a quick check to see if your new fact, or study, or article has already been examined on this website will save everyone a lot of time.

The top 10 myths on the left are a good place to start.
Click to expand...

Great, a website to prove...

That all of the other...

Websites are wrong...

Makes sense to me...

If it's on the web, it must be true...
 
"People like to call themselves skeptics, because it sounds more respectable. But in order to be a skeptic, you need to do what a skeptic does. You need to earn it." TB

People like to call themselves environmentalists, because it sounds more respectable. But in order to be an environmentalist, you need to do what an environmentalist does. You need to spread the BS.
 
KidRockET said:
Great, a website to prove...

That all of the other...

Websites are wrong...

Makes sense to me...

If it's on the web, it must be true...
Click to expand...

So, let me guess... You're "skeptical" of the website...

You should check it out. It is not about "proving all the other websites are wrong." It is about examining the claims made and checking the evidence to see if evidence supports those claims. That's what a skeptic does.

Why not just read one article and apply your skeptical mind to it and see if it stands up to your scrutiny. Does the author provide evidence and support, or not?

Try this one. It's relevant to the original topic of sunspots and the sun's influence on climate change. There are options for a basic, intermediate or advanced answer. All answers provide evidence and link to sources if you really want to drill into it.

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Or there is always the other option --- I don't care, I'm not gonna read it, cuz I don't believe it.
 
tmacklin said:
"People like to call themselves skeptics, because it sounds more respectable. But in order to be a skeptic, you need to do what a skeptic does. You need to earn it." TB

People like to call themselves environmentalists, because it sounds more respectable. But in order to be an environmentalist, you need to do what an environmentalist does. You need to spread the BS.
Click to expand...

BS is an excellent organic fertilizer that can take the place of chemical fertilizers. Spread the BS on your lawn and garden.
 
I've always preferred equestrian feces to the bovine as it is much easier to scoop and does not have that deceptively hard crust concealing a foul interior. But, to each his own. :lol:
 
tmacklin said:
I've always preferred equestrian feces to the bovine as it is much easier to scoop and does not have that deceptively hard crust concealing a foul interior. But, to each his own. :lol:
Click to expand...

Horse is nice. REAL nice!

But mostly what I find on the forums is chickensh!t.
 
Getting off the subject of animal poop, and back to the idea of skepticism, the idea of skepticism is that you look at the evidence and decide if the conclusions are supported by the evidence. Obviously, if the facts are wrong, then any conclusion based on those facts is false too. But even if you agree with the facts, you might not agree that certain conclusions follow from those facts --- you think the facts do not support the conclusion. And then predictions you make based on the conclusions may be even further removed from the facts. And then policy and politics based on those conclusions and predictions are even further removed.

Because we have skeptics among us, I was wondering to what degree do people disagree with the facts, theory, and predictions of global warming and climate change. At what point do you part ways? Do you reject the facts? Do you accept the facts, but not the theory? Or accept theory, but not the predictions?

Here is a very oversimplified list of facts, theories, and predictions related to climate change, starting from the most basic facts and moving though to the conclusions and predictions. What do agree with and disagree with?


  • Fact: Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
  • Fact: The CO2 levels in Earth’s atmosphere are rising.
  • Fact: CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere.
  • Fact: The global heat content of Earth’s oceans, atmosphere, and land surface are rising.
  • Theory: The reason CO2 levels are rising is that CO2 from fossil fuels is not fully removed from the atmosphere.
  • Theory: The reason Earth’s systems are gaining heat energy is that added CO2 is trapping more heat.
  • Prediction: Higher heat content in Earth’s systems will result in changes to Earth’s ocean levels, weather patterns, and climate.
 
tmacklin said:
I've always preferred equestrian feces to the bovine as it is much easier to scoop and does not have that deceptively hard crust concealing a foul interior. But, to each his own. :lol:
Click to expand...
We have that and a whole lot more here on the farm. It all gets pile together
and carefully aged then placed in the veggie garden, with great results!
 
Here's what I think:


  • Fact: Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Agree
  • Fact: The CO2 levels in Earth&#8217;s atmosphere are rising. Agree
  • Fact: CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat in Earth&#8217;s atmosphere. Agree
  • Fact: The global heat content of Earth&#8217;s oceans, atmosphere, and land surface are rising. Agree
  • Theory: The reason CO2 levels are rising is that CO2 from fossil fuels is not fully removed from the atmosphere. Agree
  • Theory: The reason Earth&#8217;s systems are gaining heat energy is that added CO2 is trapping more heat. Agree
  • Prediction: Higher heat content in Earth&#8217;s systems will result in changes to Earth&#8217;s ocean levels, weather patterns, and climate. Agree

Basically, I agree with all of it.

The first three facts are absolutely rock solid, in my opinion.

Some people take issue with the fourth fact, but I think it is mostly due to cherry-picking local temperature records, or incomplete measurements. But when you look at the total global heat content of earth's systems, especially when you consider ocean temperatures, where 90% of the excess heat is going, and look at the heat content already absorbed by melting ice, then I think is absolutely clear that the planet is absorbing more heat.

Item number 4, is such a well-suppoprted theory, that I think it really counts as a fact. We know that the vast majority of added CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from fossil fuels due to the composition of the radioactive isotopes in the CO2. Some is coming from positive feedbacks like thawing permafrost and other sources triggered by warming that has already occurred, but most of it is from fossil fuels.

Item number 5 is also something I agree with. Other factors are probably also contributing to the heating, but mostly it is the added CO2 in the atmosphere.

The final item, the predictions, are probably the most controversial. But I think that added heat in earth's systems will change how they work. That added energy will result in a new and different equilibrium at some point, and the transition will be a big change. The only way to know for sure if predictions are correct is to search for new facts supporting or refuting them, but I actually think there are many facts to support that those changes are already underway and happening right now.
 
I predict that there will be more predictions in the future based upon the predictions of the past and present. Whether these predictions have merit is difficult to predict so I'm not making any. What ever happened with that Y2K thing? :confused2:
 
This is the site I recommend people read for info on climate change.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

As far as the prediction goes in Thirsty's post above - you can attribute changes in the ocean levels, weather patterns and climate (which is simply weather on a longer time frame) to just about anything you want.
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
Here's what I think:


  • Fact: Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Agree
  • Fact: The CO2 levels in Earth’s atmosphere are rising. Agree
  • Fact: CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere. Agree
  • Fact: The global heat content of Earth’s oceans, atmosphere, and land surface are rising. Agree
  • Theory: The reason CO2 levels are rising is that CO2 from fossil fuels is not fully removed from the atmosphere. Agree
  • Theory: The reason Earth’s systems are gaining heat energy is that added CO2 is trapping more heat. Agree
  • Prediction: Higher heat content in Earth’s systems will result in changes to Earth’s ocean levels, weather patterns, and climate. Agree

Basically, I agree with all of it.
Click to expand...

The science is settled...
 
mpitfield said:
This is almost like watching myself try to reason with my 5 year old twins. The difference being that my kids eventually get it.
Click to expand...

Kids haven't developed identity politics yet, so even if they don't get something, their minds are open enough to listen. Unless it involves ice cream. Then their minds are pretty much made up.

Global warming is one of those identity politics issues where I think people wear their beliefs like some kind of identity badge to show what "tribe" they are in. It's part of their identity group. There's an internal calculation, and it actually makes a lot of sense from a certain point of view to stick with the tribe even if you KNOW it's wrong. They figure, what does it really matter what I personally think about global warming? In a practical sense, it makes no real difference what one person thinks. But if I say I agree with the theory, I pay a big price with my identity group. Same for most of the hot-button topics we are supposed to steer clear of on the forum. What does it matter what I really think about evolution, but if I say I believe in it, I pay a price at my church. Same sex marriage. GMO foods. Vaccinations. If you don't believe the "right" thing, or at least say you do, then your group might reject you. Whenever I see someone willfully ignoring facts, that's what I think about. I know I've headed down that road on at least one or two issues myself, but usually evidence wins me over. I'm a natural skeptic. Scientific skeptic.
 
Maybe it is not so much the fact that we are creating too my CO2 maybe it
is because we are destroying the part of the ecosystem that removes it...
 
Do you have some data to support that hypothesis? If not you might as well blame it on aliens - it would be equally useful to the discussion.
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
Kids haven't developed identity politics yet, so even if they don't get something, their minds are open enough to listen. Unless it involves ice cream. Then their minds are pretty much made up.

Global warming is one of those identity politics issues where I think people wear their beliefs like some kind of identity badge to show what "tribe" they are in. It's part of their identity group. There's an internal calculation, and it actually makes a lot of sense from a certain point of view to stick with the tribe even if you KNOW it's wrong. They figure, what does it really matter what I personally think about global warming? In a practical sense, it makes no real difference what one person thinks. But if I say I agree with the theory, I pay a big price with my identity group. Same for most of the hot-button topics we are supposed to steer clear of on the forum. What does it matter what I really think about evolution, but if I say I believe in it, I pay a price at my church. Same sex marriage. GMO foods. Vaccinations. If you don't believe the "right" thing, or at least say you do, then your group might reject you. Whenever I see someone willfully ignoring facts, that's what I think about. I know I've headed down that road on at least one or two issues myself, but usually evidence wins me over. I'm a natural skeptic. Scientific skeptic.
Click to expand...

It reminds me when my kids put their hands over their ears and repeat "I can't hear you", "I can't hear you", "I can't hear you" View attachment 268834
 
Zebedee said:
Do you have some data to support that hypothesis? If not you might as well blame it on aliens - it would be equally useful to the discussion.
Click to expand...
https://www.tropical-rainforest-fac...s/Amazon-Rainforest-Deforestation-Facts.shtml

Tropical rainforests (aka jungle) consumes CO2 and produces O2 all year.
Where as the temperate forests of North America and Europe only do that
for less than 50% of the year to any appreciable effect. The tropical rain
forests of South America and Africa are being leveled at alarming rates for
lumber, pasture land and farming.

Not meant so much as a hypothesis but as an idea...

By the way logging practices in NA and EU are sustainable processes where
many more trees are planted than harvested, I hunt in area where selective
logging is done, it has little impact on the environment.

Just sayin'
 
Shade said:
https://www.tropical-rainforest-fac...s/Amazon-Rainforest-Deforestation-Facts.shtml

Tropical rainforests (aka jungle) consumes CO2 and produces O2 all year.
Where as the temperate forests of North America and Europe only do that
for less than 50% of the year to any appreciable effect. The tropical rain
forests of South America and Africa are being leveled at alarming rates for
lumber, pasture land and farming.

Not meant so much as a hypothesis but as an idea...

By the way logging practices in NA and EU are sustainable processes where
many more trees are planted than harvested, I hunt in area where selective
logging is done, it has little impact on the environment.

Just sayin'
Click to expand...

I recall watching a documentary on the deforestation of the rain forest and one concern, among many, was a trend in favour for farming corn. I believe it was a concern due to a higher demand on biofuel. I am not sure if this is still a concern but it is astonishing that they would consider this an option when you consider all of the negatives, corn is a very thirsty crop to grow, the production process for corn ethanol is also a very water intensive, run off of pesticides in the ground water, the loss of that part of the rain forest, the carbon emissions when the biofuel is used...a nasty cycle!
 
mpitfield said:
I'm dying up here :D
Click to expand...

You two should get a room...

Why is it that when one does not agree, or expresses...

A different opinion than that of the alarmists...

Dispersions get cast against character and intelligence...

It is automatically assumed that the "denier"...

Is either too stooopid to understand or hasn't done their due diligence...

Seems with this group that there is always a crisis...

One that should not be wasted...
 

Similar threads

Winston
1000 light year radius planet killer ASASSN-15lh
Replies
0
Views
862
Winston
Winston
Winston
INCREDIBLE fossil find from the day the dinosaurs died
Replies
5
Views
2K
Marc_G
Marc_G
Winston
NASA Sets a Grim Deadline for Saving a Beloved Mars Rover
Replies
1
Views
728
Winston
Winston
krypton21
Email from an Astronaut
Replies
7
Views
1K
krypton21
krypton21
jetra2
  • Locked
2005 Record Hurricane Season
Replies
17
Views
1K
Fred
Fred

Latest posts

Back
Top