Is Time An Illusion?

[Doer]

Larsen, D.J., Miller, G.H., Geirsdottir, A. and Thordarson, T. 2011. A 3000-year varved record of glacier activity and climate change from the proglacial lake Hvitarvatn, Iceland. Quaternary Science Reviews 30: 2715-2731.

The research team's findings clearly suggest that (1) there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the warmth of the post-1950 Current Warm Period or CWP, and that (2) it is not surprising that at the conclusion of what was likely the coldest period of the entire Holocene (the LIA), there would be a significant warming of the globe, all of which further suggests that (3) there is no compelling reason to believe that 20th-century warming (which essentially ceased about 15 years ago) is a man-made phenomenon produced by the burning of coal, gas and oil. Quite to the contrary, the CWP is much more likely to be merely the most recent phase of the natural millennial-scale oscillation of earth's climate that has been shown to be operative throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike.

This stuff is everywhere. Do your homework.

 

[cannabineer]

...here's the closest thing I could find for now, but it goes back to '07.

"Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.

While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."

http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html

...and from National Geographic:

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.


I'm comfortable in saying it's some of both scenarios.

Interesting stuff, eye.
As for Plutonian temperature trends, I wonder ... how noisy are the data? That is a big problem with climatology ... the data are inherently noisy, and it's oh so easy for champions of both sides of the (terrestrial) warming debate to pick&choose "compelling" datasets ... until one digs.
As for the second premise ... the sun HAS ben growing steadily brighter as a result of a star's natural life cycle ... but it's a very slow process, best seen over geological timespans.
I found a Wikipedia article on solar variation ... short-term variations exist, and finding patterns in the graphs reminds me of when I used to care about stock prices (equity, not live). Picking signal from noise becomes a bit like that scene in Poltergeist ... cn

 

[eye exaggerate]

Interesting stuff, eye.
As for Plutonian temperature trends, I wonder ... how noisy are the data? That is a big problem with climatology ... the data are inherently noisy, and it's oh so easy for champions of both sides of the (terrestrial) warming debate to pick&choose "compelling" datasets ... until one digs.
As for the second premise ... the sun HAS ben growing steadily brighter as a result of a star's natural life cycle ... but it's a very slow process, best seen over geological timespans.
I found a Wikipedia article on solar variation ... short-term variations exist, and finding patterns in the graphs reminds me of when I used to care about stock prices (equity, not live). Picking signal from noise becomes a bit like that scene in Poltergeist ... cn

...thanks neer. I think I understand the 'noise' part of your post and how it would affect observation. I'd say, on an esoteric level, that there are 2 main cycles at play. A breath out, and subsequent breath in. It should be obvious what kind of 'climate' would be produced by both movements.

 

[Heisenberg]

This stuff is everywhere. Do your homework.

Why would it be my homework? Yes on the net you can find info from the scant few scientists who are unconvinced of the cause of global warming. The point of order was the consensus, 97%, which seems to counter your assertion that the 'jury is still out'. It is more likely that you would like for the jury to be undecided to give your accusations more weight.

It's been explained why your are called a denier, it's not for the sake of a cheap shot. It's because you are ignoring multiple converging lines of evidence in favor of some vague shadow government conspiracy which you call blatant but are unable to detail. The best you can do is point to marijuana policy, which has nothing to do with science. Anthropogenic global warming is the position of the academies of science from 19 countries, including China, so I suppose this conspiracy encompasses 19 different governments? You have nothing but a bag of tricks and invalid debate tactics, which is a typical song and dance around here that most of us find transparent.

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

 

[Doer]

I'm finding you quite tansparent and so the same with your base debating style.
You get research grants?

 

[Beefbisquit]

I'm finding you quite tansparent and so the same with your base debating style.
You get research grants?

It seems to me you're grasping a fringe idea in spite of the overwhelming consensus of scientists across the world. There are scientists who support creationism, it's just no one pays attention to them because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that refutes their claims.

There will always be anomalies in data that conspiracy nuts will try to exploit as proof of error, but what they often fail to do is provide reasoning for all of the evidence that does fit. Holes in a theory are one thing, but using the holes to discredit the reliable information when you have no other method of explaining the amount of information that the current theory explains is just silly.

I posted this in another thread somewhere;

[video=youtube;eUB4j0n2UDU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU[/video]

 

[Doer]

It seems to me you are both protecting a rice bowl of some kind, by shouting down the the last shreds of opposition. But, it doesn't go way. I've posted the latest findings,
those that appear to refuse to practice double-think for money. You can hand wave
about the overwhelming finding of the lemmings. But, repression is to go along
with the majority.

I'm reminded of eugenics and even back to Copernicus. Grant science is the New
Inquisition. And Mr H, is willing to say things he'd never say to me in person.
Then my style is criticized. Perfect double-think. You guys are both coming from
liberalism, apparently, and of course, man-made global warming fits your agenda.

All else is shouted down. That's the way of the gun, not intelligent discourse.
The tyranny of opinion. I say the jury is still out despite the Brown Shirt tactics.
I'm sure the studies will continue without your support.

 

[researchkitty]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-time

Its Brian Green's show about "The Illusion of Time". He's a dork, but its fun to watch. Let me know what you think!

 

[Finshaggy]

I haven't read any of this in a couple of days.

I will attempt to catch up soon probably though.

Just thought I would share this. Which includes an opinion of black holes, from somewhere in the scientific community.
[video=youtube;sTfJifUqq54]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTfJifUqq54[/video]

 

[Beefbisquit]

It seems to me you are both protecting a rice bowl of some kind, by shouting down the the last shreds of opposition. But, it doesn't go way. I've posted the latest findings,
those that appear to refuse to practice double-think for money. You can hand wave
about the overwhelming finding of the lemmings. But, repression is to go along
with the majority.

You are muddling up the distinction between following the majority of opinion, and following the majority of evidence. Although, in this case the two have a strong correlation, you are using the two indistinguishably in your argument.

Agreeing with the majority just for the sake of agreeing with the majority is a logical fallacy, and I'd like to think I've gained slightly more discipline in the field of critical thinking than that. Having an overwhelming majority of scientists in the field that find global warming conclusive, that have either performed their own experiments, studied the findings of other scientists, or done both, should be enough for reasonable people to conclude that the "debate" on global warming, isn't a debate anymore. And it is; we're left with a fringe 3% that are unconvinced by the mountain of evidence that supports the idea that the earth is warming, by a large part, due to greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[eye exaggerate]

I haven't read any of this in a couple of days.

I will attempt to catch up soon probably though.

Just thought I would share this. Which includes an opinion of black holes, from somewhere in the scientific community.

...cavitation, nice!

 

[eye exaggerate]

You are muddling up the distinction between following the majority of opinion, and following the majority of evidence. Although, in this case the two have a strong correlation, you are using the two indistinguishably in your argument.

Agreeing with the majority just for the sake of agreeing with the majority is a logical fallacy, and I'd like to think I've gained slightly more discipline in the field of critical thinking than that. Having an overwhelming majority of scientists in the field that find global warming conclusive, that have either performed their own experiments, studied the findings of other scientists, or done both, should be enough for reasonable people to conclude that the "debate" on global warming, isn't a debate anymore. And it is; we're left with a fringe 3% that are unconvinced by the mountain of evidence that supports the idea that the earth is warming, by a large part, due to greenhouse gas emissions.

...maybe the world would tip over if everyone went 100% for all ideas, you know, and fall into the sea of aether. Laughing most the way, I am sure

 

[Doer]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-timeIts Brian Green's show about "The Illusion of Time". He's a dork, but its fun to watch. Let me know what you think!

He's a dork.

Fun, for sure, good graphics, but soon he will swerve toward quantum time. It's
interesting as it involves the non-Now notion that each bit of quantum information
is Continuously Created to absorb the next bit of entropy....or something like that.

But, with split infinity still in play, at exactly what googul-second does this occur?
Or is it 10 times faster than that? See what I mean? Doesn't solve for Now.

 

[Doer]

You are muddling up the distinction between following the majority of opinion, and following the majority of evidence. Although, in this case the two have a strong correlation, you are using the two indistinguishably in your argument.

Agreeing with the majority just for the sake of agreeing with the majority is a logical fallacy, and I'd like to think I've gained slightly more discipline in the field of critical thinking than that. Having an overwhelming majority of scientists in the field that find global warming conclusive, that have either performed their own experiments, studied the findings of other scientists, or done both, should be enough for reasonable people to conclude that the "debate" on global warming, isn't a debate anymore. And it is; we're left with a fringe 3% that are unconvinced by the mountain of evidence that supports the idea that the earth is warming, by a large part, due to greenhouse gas emissions.

I don't have to buy any of it. I have no skin in the game. I question this 3% business as a bullying tactic. State your sources.

97% of his people agreed with Jim Jones.
Most "scientists" rejected Einstein's conclusions.
He even doubted himself, such is the greatness of the man.

Leftists in 19 countries are setting this up for Carbon Credit wars. Politics cloaked in science. Power mongering.

"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Abe Lincoln (or PT Barnum)

it's this shouting down that's the clue. Only if you have an agenda,
do you practice Jack Boot tactics. Ergo, there is a political agenda,
that you buy. That's drinking Koolaid in the modern parlance.

How do you vote?
Does your employment, even indirectly depend on grant money?
Can you really divorce a herd mentality on this one?

It will be disproven, perhaps, despite the mental browbeating and political corrections that come straight from Political Correctness.
( a 1984 concept)

You seem un-comfortable with opposition. That's zealotry and the way of the gun. Else why do you care what I think?

 

[Doer]

"This statement does not reflect reality. The most recent study, funded by climate change deniers, shows the same as all the other studies."

That's the wikipedia view. And scratch a leftist and find a violent person. Ends
justify the means. Check the thread in the Science forum for the minority opinion
of the BEST study. 1/3 of the stations reported cooling. Any mesureable rise
is minor, and on and on. You smug buggers.

 

[Heisenberg]

I don't have to buy any of it. I have no skin in the game. I question this 3% business as a bullying tactic. State your sources

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
It's not a bulling tactic, but simply a refute to your assertion that the jury is still out. Clearly, in any reasonable sense of the phrase, it is not.

97% of his people agreed with Jim Jones.
Most "scientists" rejected Einstein's conclusions.
He even doubted himself, such is the greatness of the man.

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

Leftists in 19 countries are setting this up for Carbon Credit wars. Politics cloaked in science. Power mongering.

Unsupported accusations of shadowy conspirators VS multiple independent lines of converging evidence.

"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Abe Lincoln (or PT Barnum)

Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint.

it's this shouting down that's the clue. Only if you have an agenda,
do you practice Jack Boot tactics. Ergo, there is a political agenda,
that you buy. That's drinking Koolaid in the modern parlance.

We are not shouting down opposition to global warming, but the practice of pseudoscience. You will see the same behavior from us about any scientific topic in which the method is not sound. The goal is not to shut you up, but to correct you in defense of science and reason. This is why we cite facts, mistakes, fallacies, ect and you can only point to some obscure ulterior motive supported by ill-informed and poorly thought out rhetoric.

How do you vote?
Does your employment, even indirectly depend on grant money?
Can you really divorce a herd mentality on this one?

An Ad Hominem attack is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Conspiracy theory 101: Any opposition to the theory can be turned into evidence for the theory, via the conspiracy. So now your position is that all of us here at RIU, who are simply making reasonable observations and corrections, are also part of this conspiracy, or are just too dumb to see it. That's a pretty weak fall back.

You seem un-comfortable with opposition. That's zealotry and the way of the gun. Else why do you care what I think?

When you make unjustified assertions in the presents of informed intellectuals these are the type of responses you get.

 

[Doer]

Love name calling H. You are leftist piece of shit. How's that? You are a snot
assed intellectual, that's for sure. Also, un-confortable with oppostion. So,
if you want debate you also want to control the debate. I see.

The lady doeth protest too much.
Quote mining is the quentisential of debate. You must be more vastly ignorant
than you let on. Only the power mongers make these low cuts. Un-familiar with
Debate and it's history? Do your homework, own your agenda, and stop talking
down on folks, you miserable slut.



Snob phrasing just shows your true colors.

 

[Doer]

Oh, and I'll add this, H. You are acting like you're running the voodoo forum here. Good luck with that. Control obsessed, snob?

 

[Heisenberg]

Love name calling H. You are leftist piece of shit. How's that? You are a snot
assed intellectual, that's for sure. Also, un-confortable with oppostion. So,
if you want debate you also want to control the debate. I see.

The lady doeth protest too much.
Quote mining is the quentisential of debate. You must be more vastly ignorant
than you let on. Only the power mongers make these low cuts. Un-familiar with
Debate and it's history? Do your homework, own your agenda, and stop talking
down on folks, you miserable slut.


Snob phrasing just shows your true colors.

Instead of addressing any points I made, you simply continue with your song and dance, although a bit more frantic than before. Demanding that you adhere to standards of debate is not a low cut, it is simply treating you as an intellectual equal. These are the types of conversations that happen at the adult table when you put forth unjustified claims and support them with nonsensical, half-baked ridicule. When we point out the absurdity of your assertions we are only thinking through the implications of the ideas you purport, not talking down to you. The way you respond to these reactions is not with substance, not with intelligent consideration, but with goto conspiracy memes and invalid debate tactics, and you are somehow surprised when rational people refuse to accept this? You are the one who answers legitimate criticism with deflection and name calling. You are the one desperate to blame acceptance of scientific consensus on political on monetary motives. I do not need to search for such measures of cognitive dissonance reduction to explain you. You are simply uninformed, sloppy in your thinking, and biased by your pride.

In review:

You dismiss multiple, independent lines of peer reviewed data in favor of of something you can not explain, but only hint at.

You talk as if this green agenda should be obvious for anyone who hasn't 'drank the koolaide', yet you are unable to provide specific details or explain any sort of mechanism of action. You actually seemed unaware of how many countries and organizations are involved, yet did not hesitate to be certain of their participation in the conspiracy after finding out. How much homework did you do there?

You pretend that we are staunchly opposed to criticism of global warming, when we are actually just trying to promote proper skepticism. Rather than listing specific errors we are making, you instead reach for ambiguous explanations such as money or power. Seems like a rather lazy way to defend a position. Science welcomes and even depends on a rigorous application of doubt, but has no use for stubborn groundless distrust, even when it's repeated over and over.

Each of your responses to reasonable criticism have utilized the basic rule of conspiracy theories, which is, turn any opposition to the theory into evidence for the theory via the conspiracy. In addition you employ the most basic of dubious debate tactics such as ad hominem attacks and red herrings. You will not see us stooping to these tricks.

 

[Beefbisquit]

I don't have to buy any of it. I have no skin in the game. I question this 3% business as a bullying tactic. State your sources.

97% of his people agreed with Jim Jones.
Most "scientists" rejected Einstein's conclusions.
He even doubted himself, such is the greatness of the man.

Leftists in 19 countries are setting this up for Carbon Credit wars. Politics cloaked in science. Power mongering.

"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Abe Lincoln (or PT Barnum)

it's this shouting down that's the clue. Only if you have an agenda,
do you practice Jack Boot tactics. Ergo, there is a political agenda,
that you buy. That's drinking Koolaid in the modern parlance.

How do you vote?
Does your employment, even indirectly depend on grant money?
Can you really divorce a herd mentality on this one?

It will be disproven, perhaps, despite the mental browbeating and political corrections that come straight from Political Correctness.
( a 1984 concept)

You seem un-comfortable with opposition. That's zealotry and the way of the gun. Else why do you care what I think?

I feel uncomfortable with unreasonable opposition. It's different if 97% of the general public believe something, or if 97% of experts in a field believe something specifically pertaining to their field of study.

I'm a libertarian, so unfortunately my vote doesn't really get counted towards my actual centralist views. I vote for which ever party holds the political views closest to mine when I vote. I refuse to belong to any party.

I care what you think because how you live your life and what you base your beliefs on affects me, whether I want it to or not. If we don't try to curb our CO2 emissions it is possible to reach a point of no return. When denialists like you try to convince other people that they don't need to be concerned, and that global warming is all a lie, it's detrimental to the entire world. That's why I care, not some lame, half concocted excuse about my job needing grants, or me being a leftist.

If you look at global warming similarly to the prisoner dilemma, it's easy to see that even if somehow the massive amount of data that's been collected was all wrong, and the world isn't getting warmer form CO2 emissions, the 2 possibilities with the best possible outcomes are the two that involve toning down CO2 emissions.