The Junk Science of Climate Change


Recommended Posts

At this point mathematical abstraction comes to the rescue.

Unconstrained by reality or any particular number of physical dimensions - once you introduce the artibrary it grows without end - which leads to multi-dimensional manifolds having as many variables as it takes to create anything you can imagine - or appear to put numbers to anything you can observe whether there is any real relationship or not. All the while 3-D plus variables continues to provide alternative explanations not involving the fantastic which cannot be visualized or understood except in the abstract.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hurrah! Seriously, and more pointedly, a question for Ellen. I appreciate what she may be trying to do -- that each of us is trying to do -- ID particular points of contention and give them a workover

After we have digested the basic experimental evidence and can agree on what it includes and does not include we will be in a position to discuss the validity of various conclusions. Again we cannot

I will be blogging my findings during my week away. Beyond blathering about meta-argument and blowing off the burden of proof, you are just not very interesting to discuss with at times, rather bluntl

At this point mathematical abstraction comes to the rescue.

Unconstrained by reality or any particular number of physical dimensions - once you introduce the artibrary it grows without end - which leads to multi-dimensional manifolds having as many variables as it takes to create anything you can imagine - or appear to put numbers to anything you can observe whether there is any real relationship or not. All the while 3-D plus variables continues to provide alternative explanations not involving the fantastic which cannot be visualized or understood except in the abstract.

Dennis

Nonsense. No scientific theory passes muster until there are experimental corroborations of the theory and even then it has to be backed up by secondary experiments to check the first. Physics is still an empirical science regardless of the fancy mathematics.

And without mathematics even Newton would have been stymied. He had to invent calculus and differential equations to get as far as he did. Which depended on infinitesimals, the which were refuted by Bishop Berkeley and only recently rehabilitated since the 1960s. Mathematical abstraction is absolutely necessary to do good physics. Aristotle tried to do with out it and you see what a train wreck he produced. Mathematical abstraction and idealization is necessary, but not sufficient. One needs experimental corroboration, complete with reproduced independent results.

And where would we be without Noether's Theorem? The conservation laws would just be another heuristic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point mathematical abstraction comes to the rescue.

Unconstrained by reality or any particular number of physical dimensions - once you introduce the artibrary it grows without end - which leads to multi-dimensional manifolds having as many variables as it takes to create anything you can imagine - or appear to put numbers to anything you can observe whether there is any real relationship or not. All the while 3-D plus variables continues to provide alternative explanations not involving the fantastic which cannot be visualized or understood except in the abstract.

Dennis

Nonsense. No scientific theory passes muster until there are experimental corroborations of the theory and even then it has to be backed up by secondary experiments to check the first. Physics is still an empirical science regardless of the fancy mathematics.

And without mathematics even Newton would have been stymied. He had to invent calculus and differential equations to get as far as he did. Which depended on infinitesimals, the which were refuted by Bishop Berkeley and only recently rehabilitated since the 1960s. Mathematical abstraction is absolutely necessary to do good physics. Aristotle tried to do with out it and you see what a train wreck he produced. Mathematical abstraction and idealization is necessary, but not sufficient. One needs experimental corroboration, complete with reproduced independent results.

And where would we be without Noether's Theorem? The conservation laws would just be another heuristic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I have no problem visualizing or understanding mathematics when it has actual real world application. I know many do not take that approach and use mathematics almost stand alone, many more do not think visually so they are only left with the mathematics. I always feel the need to do both. Abstraction and idealization are fine but when they lose all connection to reality and become endlessly arbitrary they no longer serve a purpose in science but instead become an impediment. They become an ever increasing hurdle removing the subject matter further and further away from reality - building unproven hypothesis upon conjecture getting further and further from anything like emperical science but rather a kind of curve fitting exercise making epicycles seem wise by comparison.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem visualizing or understanding mathematics when it has actual real world application. I know many do not take that approach and use mathematics almost stand alone, many more do not think visually so they are only left with the mathematics. I always feel the need to do both. Abstraction and idealization are fine but when they lose all connection to reality and become endlessly arbitrary they no longer serve a purpose in science but instead become an impediment. They become an ever increasing hurdle removing the subject matter further and further away from reality - building unproven hypothesis upon conjecture getting further and further from anything like emperical science but rather a kind of curve fitting exercise making epicycles seem wise by comparison.

Dennis

Which is precisely why I said abstraction and idealization are -necessary- but NOT sufficient. Science demands reality, not mere logical consistency or mathematical beauty. That is why I toss my sneaker at the T.V. screen every time Michao Kaku smilingly tells us that string theory is too beautiful not to be true. Hogwash! Beauty is not Truth nor is Truth necessarily Beauty. Never was, and never will be.

However math does have its uses. Two examples: Maxwell's displacement current was a mathematical necessity to prevent the conclusion that currents arise out of nothing. Also Dirac's mathematics told him there had to be anti-matter. He was right.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is precisely why I said abstraction and idealization are -necessary- but NOT sufficient. Science demands reality, not mere logical consistency or mathematical beauty. That is why I toss my sneaker at the T.V. screen every time Michao Kaku smilingly tells us that string theory is too beautiful not to be true. Hogwash! Beauty is not Truth nor is Truth necessarily Beauty. Never was, and never will be.

We are in complete agreement there - though I don't throw things at my TV. The beauty argument is one of the dumbest and most harmful things to ever come along. I used to hear it all the time - anyone using that argument automatically achieves [FAIL] in big red letters.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are in complete agreement there - though I don't throw things at my TV. The beauty argument is one of the dumbest and most harmful things to ever come along. I used to hear it all the time - anyone using that argument automatically achieves [FAIL] in big red letters.

Dennis

That incorrectness was the basic flaw of the ancient Greek approach. They figured anything that held together logically must necessarily be the case. The mistook consistency for truth. Nature does not give one hoot and a damn what we humans find plausible and convincing.

Ba'al CHatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are in complete agreement there - though I don't throw things at my TV. The beauty argument is one of the dumbest and most harmful things to ever come along. I used to hear it all the time - anyone using that argument automatically achieves [FAIL] in big red letters.

Dennis

That incorrectness was the basic flaw of the ancient Greek approach. They figured anything that held together logically must necessarily be the case. The mistook consistency for truth. Nature does not give one hoot and a damn what we humans find plausible and convincing.

Ba'al CHatzaf

The problem being there are an arbitrarily large number of logically consistent possible arguments. The assumption being only one is the entirely correct description of reality - though it may also be couched in many logically equivalent arguments.

Approaches like String Theory crash a truck load of undercooked pasta into a brick wall and hope something will stick. So what if it does?

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

Approaches like String Theory crash a truck load of undercooked pasta into a brick wall and hope something will stick. So what if it does?

If it does, then String Theory is al dente?

J

Just add minnows and it's a OneMinute Meal for thinkers on the go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Approaches like String Theory crash a truck load of undercooked pasta into a brick wall and hope something will stick. So what if it does?

If it does, then String Theory is al dente?

J

Just add minnows and it's a OneMinute Meal for thinkers on the go.

And like Epicycles it may rule until the end of the next Dark Ages - minnows not included.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

Unconstrained by reality or any particular number of physical dimensions - once you introduce the arbitrary it grows without end - which leads to multi-dimensional manifolds having as many variables as it takes to create anything you can imagine - or appear to put numbers to anything you can observe whether there is any real relationship or not. All the while 3-D plus variables continues to provide alternative explanations not involving the fantastic which cannot be visualized or understood except in the abstract.

end quote

Merging Science Fiction with Science: I remember a book or short story about the “true” multidimensional universe. One scientist/tinker-er had solved the problem. He had a vehicle which I seem to remember was a Winnebago Travel Trailer. From the outside it looked like it might have a living space, two bedrooms and a bathroom. But when you entered, around every “corner” there was another room or space that could not be seen until you had turned the corner. While not huge or infinite, it easily quadrupled the visible outward size, without increasing the mass or weight. Is that too weird to be fact? I seem to remember the technology was later utilized in spacecraft and space stations.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw something from a climatologist on the internet yesterday about the snow cap in Siberia as a predictor of weather for the North American continent. It is counter intuitive but historically an early snow pack there signals a warmer winter for Alaska, western Canada, and the west coast past the Rockies. The cold radiates to the upper layers of the atmosphere and bounce over Alaska I guess. However this year, though Siberia is covered with an early snow, Alaska is also experiencing a bitterly cold winter though it is still fall. And the East coast which should be cold has been quite warm. Here in Maryland we are about five degrees warmer or more, than we should be. The highs for the next few days are predicted to be 52, 55, 57, 49, 48 and the lows are all above freezing.

I hear people pontificating about Climate change but is chaos the only crystal ball to depend upon? No. The weather is still the place to rely on if a major weather event is predicted. But as to climate change? I prefer the hundred thousands of years, historical temperature chart as a predictor. Perhaps someone could supply a link to one online.

The newest predictions from good climatologists consider sun activity and our place in the galaxy as we spin around, exposing ourselves to radiation from far off stars.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

Unconstrained by reality or any particular number of physical dimensions - once you introduce the arbitrary it grows without end - which leads to multi-dimensional manifolds having as many variables as it takes to create anything you can imagine - or appear to put numbers to anything you can observe whether there is any real relationship or not. All the while 3-D plus variables continues to provide alternative explanations not involving the fantastic which cannot be visualized or understood except in the abstract.

end quote

Merging Science Fiction with Science: I remember a book or short story about the “true” multidimensional universe. One scientist/tinker-er had solved the problem. He had a vehicle which I seem to remember was a Winnebago Travel Trailer. From the outside it looked like it might have a living space, two bedrooms and a bathroom. But when you entered, around every “corner” there was another room or space that could not be seen until you had turned the corner. While not huge or infinite, it easily quadrupled the visible outward size, without increasing the mass or weight. Is that too weird to be fact? I seem to remember the technology was later utilized in spacecraft and space stations.

Peter

The premise of the TARDIS in Dr. Who - bigger on the inside than the outside.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw something from a climatologist on the internet yesterday about the snow cap in Siberia as a predictor of weather for the North American continent. It is counter intuitive but historically an early snow pack there signals a warmer winter for Alaska, western Canada, and the west coast past the Rockies. The cold radiates to the upper layers of the atmosphere and bounce over Alaska I guess. However this year, though Siberia is covered with an early snow, Alaska is also experiencing a bitterly cold winter though it is still fall. And the East coast which should be cold has been quite warm. Here in Maryland we are about five degrees warmer or more, than we should be. The highs for the next few days are predicted to be 52, 55, 57, 49, 48 and the lows are all above freezing.

I hear people pontificating about Climate change but is chaos the only crystal ball to depend upon? No. The weather is still the place to rely on if a major weather event is predicted. But as to climate change? I prefer the hundred thousands of years, historical temperature chart as a predictor. Perhaps someone could supply a link to one online.

The newest predictions from good climatologists consider sun activity and our place in the galaxy as we spin around, exposing ourselves to radiation from far off stars.

Peter

There are a number of short term weather patterns which are somewhat predictable - just because a process is a chaotic does not mean there is not some short predictability still left. Longer term patterns show we are due for an ice age - timing is chaotic but history says we are due. It has been warmer and colder than now since the last ice age so the tiny variations in climate today predict no trend whatsoever. There is no science in the claims of doom and gloom global warming because their modeling has absolutely no experimental backup as all such modeling requires [they have done zero experiments in the field and have resisted doing so because the house of cards will implode]. Regardless of having no valid modeling, Science 101 throws the joke out before it starts because of the chaotic nature of what they are attempting to model.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now