For Ian [modified]
-
OK, so in fact at extremes Newtons laws fail, but in other cases they still hold valid. Ie two cars travelling towrds each other at 40 mph are approaching at 80 mph.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
fat_boy wrote:
Ie two cars travelling towrds each other at 40 mph are approaching at 80 mph.
Approximately. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Oh, I kind of thought knowledge of photosynthesis was fairly common.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
Knowledge of photosynthesis is not really what you were talking about. You were claiming that every scientist knows that CO2 is used in agriculture to boost crops. Now even though I might know about photosynthesis that does not allow me to draw the conclusion that increasing CO2 will boost plant growth. There is clearly a relation between CO2 levels and plant growth. But I don't know what the shape of that relation is. It could be linear (in which case you could boost crops by increasing CO2); it could logistic; it could be that it rises then falls. It could be that curves relating CO2 and growth are species specific. I don't know which is the case so I don't know that increasing CO2 will boost crops. It might do up to to some point for some species. On the other hand it might not. So I can know about photosynthesis and I can know that CO2 is required and yet still not know that increasing CO2 boosts crops. So your claims that (a) it's a known fact that CO2 is used to boost crop yields and (b) every scientist supports it is false.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
OK, so in fact at extremes Newtons laws fail, but in other cases they still hold valid. Ie two cars travelling towrds each other at 40 mph are approaching at 80 mph.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
Here's a PS - spot the conflict. :-D
fat_boy wrote:
OK, so in fact at extremes Newtons laws fail, but in other cases they still hold valid.
fat_boy wrote:
if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period.Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations [^]
"Model projections suggest ..." Er, models? You serious?
Fisticuffs wrote:
Super-optimal CO2 reduces wheat yield in growth chamber and greenhouse environments.[^]
"Super-optimal CO2 reduces..." Super optimal anything is going to have a negative effect. Super optimal water is called drowning, super optimal oxygen is called hypoxia. So, as stated in my link, CO2 at 1000 PPM is the optimal level for plant growth. And what are we talking about with AGW? 700PPM. So its well within even the optimal level, let alone any crazy ass figure used to poison plants.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Photosynthesis, Productivity, and Yield of Maize Are Not Affected by Open-Air Elevation of CO2 Concentration in the Absence of Drought[^]
Yeah, some plants dont. So what? This doesnt detract from the fact that most do, and at levels far higher than we are suposed to be worrying about. So, Fisticuffs, what have you shown us? That you cant follow basic instructions about using non AGW propagandist links? That you are so wrapped up in your beliefs about how bad CO2 is that you cant even recognise the fact it has been used for decades to boost crop production? What a feeble lame ass attempt at a refutation! :laugh:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
modified on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 7:58 AM
fat_boy wrote:
"Model projections suggest ..." Er, models? You serious?
Come on - even by your relatively low standards that is misleading. Or did you just read the first line of the abstract? Here's the full abstract - note the bit in bold. Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses. The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago. Free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology has now facilitated large-scale trials of the major grain crops at elevated [CO2] under fully open-air field conditions. In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by ∼50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Knowledge of photosynthesis is not really what you were talking about. You were claiming that every scientist knows that CO2 is used in agriculture to boost crops. Now even though I might know about photosynthesis that does not allow me to draw the conclusion that increasing CO2 will boost plant growth. There is clearly a relation between CO2 levels and plant growth. But I don't know what the shape of that relation is. It could be linear (in which case you could boost crops by increasing CO2); it could logistic; it could be that it rises then falls. It could be that curves relating CO2 and growth are species specific. I don't know which is the case so I don't know that increasing CO2 will boost crops. It might do up to to some point for some species. On the other hand it might not. So I can know about photosynthesis and I can know that CO2 is required and yet still not know that increasing CO2 boosts crops. So your claims that (a) it's a known fact that CO2 is used to boost crop yields and (b) every scientist supports it is false.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
I am not a scientist and I have known this for about 25 years, but yes, I accept your point. However now you do know. :)
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
Here's a PS - spot the conflict. :-D
fat_boy wrote:
OK, so in fact at extremes Newtons laws fail, but in other cases they still hold valid.
fat_boy wrote:
if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period.Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
If the predicitons of the GCMs were as close as Newtons laws (which after all carried man to the moon and back) I would be convinced! :)
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
fat_boy wrote:
"Model projections suggest ..." Er, models? You serious?
Come on - even by your relatively low standards that is misleading. Or did you just read the first line of the abstract? Here's the full abstract - note the bit in bold. Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses. The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago. Free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology has now facilitated large-scale trials of the major grain crops at elevated [CO2] under fully open-air field conditions. In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by ∼50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
I read the full abstract, but I have serious issues with it. 1) "Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050" together, in isolation, how much of each? This is a braod, sweeping, imprecise statement. And in cases inaccurate. For example, reducing moisture by 0.0000001% and increasing temperature by 2 degrees will increase crop yields in temperate zones. Reducing soil moisture by 99% and increasing temperatures by 50`C will pretty much sterilise the earth of any plant growth. Its an intentionally misleading statement, a half truth, typical of AGW and very obviously flawed. 2) "the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses" So, again, it is known and understood that increasing CO2 within reason increases crop yields. (Up to 1000PPM seems to be optimal) Do you know what free air enrichment is? Its where they stick some pipes in a field and pump some CO2 through. Tell me, given the wind, how accurate a test is it? I am not surprised they found free air experiments only produced 50% the increase found in greenhouses. Clearly then free air tests are not representetive of the state of the earth when the ENTIRE atmosphere has CO2 at 600 PPM. Then we wil see the same results a greenhouse at 600 PPM. And of course I am sure you can guess WHY these free air experiments were carried out. It is in order to weaken the percieved benefits of CO2 to crop yield. Given that you fell for it, I can see their tactics worked. In any case, I had a a lot of answering ot do, so only quoted the first few words of the summary.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
If the predicitons of the GCMs were as close as Newtons laws (which after all carried man to the moon and back) I would be convinced! :)
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
You miss the point. According to the Feynman quote, Newton's hypotheses are wrong. Period. BTW Your quote from Lindzen shows why you ought to take what he says with a pinch of salt. It's a wonderful example of the illogical soundbite. It manages to commit two obvious fallacies in one sentence.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
You miss the point. According to the Feynman quote, Newton's hypotheses are wrong. Period. BTW Your quote from Lindzen shows why you ought to take what he says with a pinch of salt. It's a wonderful example of the illogical soundbite. It manages to commit two obvious fallacies in one sentence.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
You miss the point
I thought I got it quite well since you responded with "approximately". (Which in actual fact is what? What is the closing velocity of two cars doing 40mph towards each other according to you?) Approximations are used all the time. But the GCMs are so full of them, and even ignore vast chunks of the climate system that theor product cant even be considered.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
I read the full abstract, but I have serious issues with it. 1) "Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050" together, in isolation, how much of each? This is a braod, sweeping, imprecise statement. And in cases inaccurate. For example, reducing moisture by 0.0000001% and increasing temperature by 2 degrees will increase crop yields in temperate zones. Reducing soil moisture by 99% and increasing temperatures by 50`C will pretty much sterilise the earth of any plant growth. Its an intentionally misleading statement, a half truth, typical of AGW and very obviously flawed. 2) "the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses" So, again, it is known and understood that increasing CO2 within reason increases crop yields. (Up to 1000PPM seems to be optimal) Do you know what free air enrichment is? Its where they stick some pipes in a field and pump some CO2 through. Tell me, given the wind, how accurate a test is it? I am not surprised they found free air experiments only produced 50% the increase found in greenhouses. Clearly then free air tests are not representetive of the state of the earth when the ENTIRE atmosphere has CO2 at 600 PPM. Then we wil see the same results a greenhouse at 600 PPM. And of course I am sure you can guess WHY these free air experiments were carried out. It is in order to weaken the percieved benefits of CO2 to crop yield. Given that you fell for it, I can see their tactics worked. In any case, I had a a lot of answering ot do, so only quoted the first few words of the summary.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
I'm not sure we are reading the same thing. The words might be the same but the interpretation is different. As far as I can see they are saying that models use the effects of CO2 on crop yield based on laboratory tests. They seem to be pointing out that down on the farm they don't see the same effect. You did not only quote the words of the abstract. You used them to dismiss the poster as someone who relied on 'models'. To quote: "Model projections suggest ..." Er, models? You serious? Now you seem to be taking a different tack - you dismiss this piece of research which actually is critical of models that predict no effect on plant growth because of offsetting factors. Your splitting of the first sentence is an example of misquotation to support a point. You need to read the sentence as a whole. You cannot draw the conclusion that it is known that increasing CO2 will increase crop yields. It is an assumption of the models. It is talking about what the models suggest. Again to quote: Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses.
fat_boy wrote:
Then we wil see the same results a greenhouse at 600 PPM.
And the evidence for this assertion is? Unless of course you are relying on a model that predicts this will be the case. But that would be 'unscientific'. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
I'm not sure we are reading the same thing. The words might be the same but the interpretation is different. As far as I can see they are saying that models use the effects of CO2 on crop yield based on laboratory tests. They seem to be pointing out that down on the farm they don't see the same effect. You did not only quote the words of the abstract. You used them to dismiss the poster as someone who relied on 'models'. To quote: "Model projections suggest ..." Er, models? You serious? Now you seem to be taking a different tack - you dismiss this piece of research which actually is critical of models that predict no effect on plant growth because of offsetting factors. Your splitting of the first sentence is an example of misquotation to support a point. You need to read the sentence as a whole. You cannot draw the conclusion that it is known that increasing CO2 will increase crop yields. It is an assumption of the models. It is talking about what the models suggest. Again to quote: Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses.
fat_boy wrote:
Then we wil see the same results a greenhouse at 600 PPM.
And the evidence for this assertion is? Unless of course you are relying on a model that predicts this will be the case. But that would be 'unscientific'. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
I dont want to descend into semantics, so I will only say that if you dont think FACE experiements are inaccurate because thelevel of CO2 cant be maintained at a stable level then you need to think again.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
riced wrote:
You miss the point
I thought I got it quite well since you responded with "approximately". (Which in actual fact is what? What is the closing velocity of two cars doing 40mph towards each other according to you?) Approximations are used all the time. But the GCMs are so full of them, and even ignore vast chunks of the climate system that theor product cant even be considered.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
No you did not get the point. According to the Feynman quote Newton's hypotheses are wrong i.e. his theories have been refuted. According to you, theories that have been refuted should be dismissed. Logic requires that you dismiss Newton's theories. The fact that Newton's theories are extremely good approximations (in fact so good as to be virtually indistinguishable from Einstein's at the everyday scale) is irrelevant. They have been refuted - consign them to the flames. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
No you did not get the point. According to the Feynman quote Newton's hypotheses are wrong i.e. his theories have been refuted. According to you, theories that have been refuted should be dismissed. Logic requires that you dismiss Newton's theories. The fact that Newton's theories are extremely good approximations (in fact so good as to be virtually indistinguishable from Einstein's at the everyday scale) is irrelevant. They have been refuted - consign them to the flames. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
So, exactly as I thought, only at extremes do Newtons theories fail to describe events accurately. However, sicne GCMs have utterly failed to predict events in non extreme conditions their falacies are quite evident.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
I dont want to descend into semantics, so I will only say that if you dont think FACE experiements are inaccurate because thelevel of CO2 cant be maintained at a stable level then you need to think again.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
It's not semantics. You make an assertion, possibly a very plausible one, but you do not have evidence to support it. Can you provide evidence that the CO2 levels cannot be maintained at stable levels? I could think of a number of mechanisms were steps to do so could be taken. You also attribute motives to the experimenters: And of course I am sure you can guess WHY these free air experiments were carried out. It is in order to weaken the percieved benefits of CO2 to crop yield. Given that you fell for it, I can see their tactics worked. Now I don't know why they carried out the experiments and I certainly won't guess. I assume you have some evidence for your claim that you know why they did. (Well actually I don't because you never provide evidence when taken to task. :laugh: )
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
So, exactly as I thought, only at extremes do Newtons theories fail to describe events accurately. However, sicne GCMs have utterly failed to predict events in non extreme conditions their falacies are quite evident.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
Still missing it - you must reject Newton's theories since they have been refuted and, according to you, any theory that has been refuted must be dismissed. PS I notice you still have the Lindzen quote even though it must offend your deeply held scientific sense. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
It's not semantics. You make an assertion, possibly a very plausible one, but you do not have evidence to support it. Can you provide evidence that the CO2 levels cannot be maintained at stable levels? I could think of a number of mechanisms were steps to do so could be taken. You also attribute motives to the experimenters: And of course I am sure you can guess WHY these free air experiments were carried out. It is in order to weaken the percieved benefits of CO2 to crop yield. Given that you fell for it, I can see their tactics worked. Now I don't know why they carried out the experiments and I certainly won't guess. I assume you have some evidence for your claim that you know why they did. (Well actually I don't because you never provide evidence when taken to task. :laugh: )
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
I could think of a number of mechanisms were steps to do so could be taken.
Like stick it all in a big glass enclosure? :) Come on, FACE experiemnts are flawed. For months, CO2 is pumped out of pipes in an open air field, aorund a collection of plants. I imagine some distance away is a controll group. Now, over those months, the wind blows as usual. Smetimes strongly carrying the OC2 away before it has any effect and over the controll group. Sometimes not, and you have perfect localised mixing giving exactly the 600PPM or whatever the target concentration is. Sometimes it doesnt blow and the CO2 is languidly flopping about on the ground, a long way from the leaves that need it. (You know CO2 is heavy yeah?). Science? This is so full of holes its a joke. No one would ever allow this through publiching in any other field of science because of its inherent unrepeatability and lack of control of conditions which affect the outcome to the point that the results are total junk. If you cant see this then I have serious doubts about your secientific credentials!
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
Still missing it - you must reject Newton's theories since they have been refuted and, according to you, any theory that has been refuted must be dismissed. PS I notice you still have the Lindzen quote even though it must offend your deeply held scientific sense. :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
You call it refuted then say under non extreme conditions its results are indistinguishable from einsteins. As for Lindzens saying, I havet gota problem with it.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
You call it refuted then say under non extreme conditions its results are indistinguishable from einsteins. As for Lindzens saying, I havet gota problem with it.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
Yup - Newton's theory has been refuted and it's everyday predictions are indistinguishable from Einstein's. No contradiction there. If you don't have a problem with the Lindzen quote I'd suggest a course in elementary logic (it does have two major blunders). :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Yup - Newton's theory has been refuted and it's everyday predictions are indistinguishable from Einstein's. No contradiction there. If you don't have a problem with the Lindzen quote I'd suggest a course in elementary logic (it does have two major blunders). :laugh:
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
tell me about them
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
tell me about them
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
First it commits the inductive fallacy. Because something has not happened in a long period does not mean it cannot happen. Second there is a non sequitur in the implication. It does not follow that, even if the climate has not "tipped", then mankind cannot tip it. Unless of course he defines tipping to be something that is impossible. His claim that "tipping" has not happened presumably excludes ice ages. I do love the scare quotes - makes you wonder just what does he mean? :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.