Oh dear oh dear. CO2 Caused ice sheet formation?

Roger Chapman wrote:

The most telling thing about the snipped drivel, is that you completely deny the accepted definition of a scientific theory and what science actually is, by the most respected philosopher of science of the 20th century, whose definitions are used by anyone who wants to say what science is or how it works.
If its not possible to agree with you on what science is, there is little point in going further.
One just understands how far from accepted scientific realities the people who 'believe' in AGW have travelled.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/12/2011 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A bit telling that snip. The fake philosopher shown up as a stupid fool and he wipes the slate clean thinking that will wipe away what has been said in the past.

Cop-out.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gravity acts to bend light, but so what for the speed of light issue?
--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/12/2011 14:39, Tim Streater wrote:

How can you rule out the possibility that gravity also affects the speed of light as well when measuring the speed of light in a laboratory?
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Chapman wrote:

By seeing if - for example - there is a difference in observable occultation of remote sources that have passed by cosmic gravitational lenses.
Do you REALLY think that this hasn't been tested?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/12/2011 17:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What part of how would you test it in a laboratory do you not understand.
What did Einstein ignore in order to come to his conclusion that the speed of light really was an absolute constant?

I notice you did not cite any evidence.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/12/2011 18:35, Roger Chapman wrote:

The test is still done in a laboratory or observatory even if the components being observed are far far away.
Roemer's first ever measurement of the speed of light was based on Jupiters mutual satellite events (eclipses) forming a regular clock visible at a distance and noticing that when Jupiter was almost diametrically opposed to the Earth the event timings were wrong by about 22 minutes (or so he thought). See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B8mer%27s_determination_of_the_speed_of_light

Maxwell's equations first suggested that the speed of light was an absolute constant of nature - although at the time it wasn't at all obvious if it was true.
Einstein didn't really ignore anything at all. He took the known laws of physics at the time as a starting point and worked out how they could be made self consistent for any constant velocity transformation.
He took it as an axiom that the laws of physics are the same for all observers in any inertial frame and worked out all the consequences. And that included measurements of the speed of light.

He is right. Some tests of relativity are sensitive to the speed of light and tiny errors in the arrival of pulsar signals particularly from the binary pulsars were sensitive enough to detect a tiny error in one of the algebra packages FORTRAN output module used prior to VSOP87 to work out the solar system barycentre and planetary gravitational field corrections. Same for VLBI measurements near to the sun.
The experimental techniques have improved a lot since then. Gravity alters the geodesic or path of least time that light takes through spacetime but it does not alter the speed of propagation.
For a few very bright compact objects that get obligingly close to Jupiter the effect of passing near a moving relatively strong gravitational field can also be tested. Again Einstein's GR works to within the limits of experimental error. And this has allowed very clever measurement of the speed of gravity propagation as well.
See:
http://www.universetoday.com/8495/gravity-moves-at-the-speed-of-light /
(give or take 20% it is an incredibly difficult measurement)
Regards, Martin Brown
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/12/2011 22:00, Martin Brown wrote:

Many thanks for the information Martin. No doubt I will be totally baffled when I get round to following the links tomorrow.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're not measuring it in a lab. You're doing astronomical observations such as transit of Mercury (so looking towards the Sun), occultation of stars by various bodies (so looking away from the Sun). Such measurements are pretty precise and no such anomalies have been observed, AFAIK. So either there is no such effect or it's within the measurement error.
There are known examples of gravitational lensing caused by black holes - so the same galaxy is seen in two (close together) spots in the sky. I think if there was any such anomaly, it would have been spotted in the experiments and tests carried out over the last 100 years.
--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/12/2011 21:52, Tim Streater wrote:

Yes I accept that but the original question to TFP was how do you prove that the speed of light is an absolute constant in a laboratory. If I understand Martin correctly you have to look outside to do that. As a philosopher TFP should have heeded the the difference between in and out.

--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Chapman wrote:

I can't let that comment stand with making a few observations.
IIRC, the item concerned contained information in the form of a graph, showing several sources of information relating to temperature changes. All but one showed a rise. That one caused a flurry of emails, of which spoke about hiding the decline, and someone's Nature trick.
The Nature trick was to terminate that graphical line early, so it could be followed to peak, but the subsequent fall was missed off, neatly hiding the decline.
That is not science, that is theatre.
In science one gathers data. Not some of the data, but all the data that can be gathered. And that's what has to be dealt with. That the tree-ring data didn't fit with the rest, is an occurrence that has to be accounted for, not merely missed off because it didn't 'fit'. It was a disgraceful episode.
Terry Fields
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/12/2011 23:31, Terry Fields wrote:

<wikipedia>
"Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[30] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has thus focused on a small number of emails.[30] Skeptic websites picked out particular phrases, including one in which Kevin Trenberth stated, "The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[31] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[32][33]
Many commentators quoted one email referring to "Mike's Nature trick" which Jones used in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization, to deal with the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem "to hide the decline" that a particular proxy showed for modern temperatures after 1950, when measured temperatures were rising. These two phrases from the emails were also taken out of context by climate change sceptics including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin as though they referred to a decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[33] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[34] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or concealing them."
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Chapman wrote:

It is not enough to be 'aware of the issues' (surrounding anomalous data). One has to deal with the data one has found, not miss it off because one is 'aware of the issues'. That isn't science, it's theatre.
If what the Wikipedia article you quoted was correct, the scientific work in the intervening years the data should by now have been incorporated in the main set. Has it?
Terry Fields
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/12/2011 09:17, Terry Fields wrote:

No idea what you mean by that.
And likewise no idea whether the "tree ring divergence problem" has been solved but that doesn't seem to match your question.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Chapman wrote:

If the Wikipedia article you quoted was correct, the scientific work undertaken in the intervening years should by now have been incorporated in the main data set. Has it? Or are the researchers still only 'aware of the issues'?

Terry Fields
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/12/2011 10:13, Terry Fields wrote:

But which issues are you referring to? It would appear to be the tree ring data but that has no real relevance to models of the current climate as the measured temperatures make derived data redundant. As to whether the cause for the recent divergence has since been established and given the scientists a better understanding of data previously derived from eras in which no primary record is available I have no idea but if such information is available in the public record you have as much chance of tracking it down as I have.

--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Chapman wrote:

I never referred to 'issues', but the Wikipedia article you quoted did. Pop back and have a look at it.

As the trees are affected by the climate they live in, and the ring formation reflects that, then if the tree-ring data doesn't fit that of the models, I suggest that the models are inadequate. And, if they inadequate in this respect, it begs the question of what other inadequacies they contain that are not so amenable to such testing.

Terry Fields
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/12/2011 11:51, Terry Fields wrote:

Yes you did. Your reference to issues is still included above and I am still not sure what you meant by your use, coupled as it is with incorporating some work into some main data set. The modern divergent tree ring data has no place in a model of the modern climate which models climate, not tree rings.

How on earth do you come to such a conclusion? The models will use the best data available and quite clearly the best temperature data available are the direct measurements, not derived data that doesn't match the recorded temperatures even in the limited area in which the trees ring data was sourced.

--
Roger Chapman
Attempting to master a new computer
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Chapman wrote:

With respect, the first mention of 'issues' was in your quote from the Wikipedia article. As that raised the matter of 'issues', I then quoted the exact phrase used in that article so that you would know what I was referring to. I am therefore at a loss to understand why you try to pin the use of the word onto me. Did you understand what the Wikipedia article said? Do you always discuss matters in this fashion?
If you don't like the Wikipedia article, why did you quote from it extensively, including the term 'aware of these issues'?

You can not discard data, or sideline it with a reference to 'issues' (the Wikipedia article you quoted from). You cannot just use 'the best data'. Data has to be incorporated into the main data set, that's how science works, and if the model can't cope with that, the model is inadequate.
Terry Fields
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/12/2011 13:33, Terry Fields wrote:
I am answering Terry's post in two parts, the easy part first, so don't think I have just ignored part of the message because I haven't.

So if you had two rulers and one measured 12 inches to the foot and the other only 11 inches you would average the two and come up with 11.5 inches? Of course not but that is what you appear to be saying. In the subject under discussion we have a temperature series derived from tree ring data and we have the actual temperatures as directly measured. That the tree ring data are anomalous is interesting in itself but it has absolutely no relevance to the temperatures to be used in a model for the period since those temperatures have been directly measured. It is not a matter of an inadequate model. This divergent tree ring data is of no more relevant to a model of the climate than the colour of your eyes. Neither play any part in it.
What the divergence has done is cast a certain amount of doubt on the principles underlining tree ring data and/or the methodology used which isn't good news for periods where direct temperature measurements are not available.
--
Roger Chapman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.