xvxGypsyxvx (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

ow, my headphones

213twism213 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

that was boring

ted77756 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You mention Feedback and show unstable behavior. Again. Read Micheal Tabor. Add the cross product. You can solve that equation. It isn't difficult. For some reason Graduate Classes forget about the cross product from physics 101. Then we can have some actual numbers and predictions. Depending if you are on track; then beg for money. Although, I like your discussion on the issues. On track except for the mathematical physics issues. And by the way cloud physics can give you e mass.

ted77756 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You said, "Chaos. That's crazy. That's wild." Although a good discussion. Things have changed. Read: Chaos and Integratability on Nonlinear Systems by Micheal Tabor. Chapter 2 has Integration by Quadrature. Basically this is a cross product and solves both graphs discussed. Not even a big deal. Easy to solve. And it's a Graduate Physics Book. You may have hear of the word 'physics' since it is on your Tee Shirt.

wonderingmind42 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"Good references" have been given to you repeatedly. You've always ignored them and given another question. You are hereby blocked for your tar baby ways. If you want to cry "violation of my free speech rights," I'd just like to point out that society has already had that discussion, and agreed that there are all sorts of speech which are too dangerous to allow: yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, inciting a riot, libel, and advocating violent overthrow of the government, to name a few.

guffpot (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You asked for a test, and I gave you something to consider. It is *not* meant to be question for you personally. My bad - should have said: "here is a fundamental test". ANY opinion claiming a positive should be based on good basic science. Especially those from respected institutions. Anybody with knowledge of the literature can show me that the above test has been addressed. Good references are all that is required. *My method* is simple and reasonable: show me the evidence.

wonderingmind42 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

guffpot: nice try, but I won't take the bait. You again fall back on your methods: dodge the question, and distract with another question. If your answer was "Opinions of the NRC et al should be supported by good basic science. So I need to see what really lies behind those opinions," that's not sufficient, because you made the extraordinary claim that the most well-respected scientific body on the planet issued a statement based on "virtually non-existent" evidence. Do better or retract.

guffpot (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Regarding the organisations you consider to be credible. The APS is launching a members' forum on AGW. It may be a response to some disquiet amongst its membership. The editor's comments include this: "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

guffpot (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Opinions of the NRC et al should be supported by good basic science. So I need to see what really lies behind those opinions. Here is a fundamental question: Over what time scale is 0.7dC rise in temperature a statistically discernable event? Just good emprirical methods = data and proper application of statistical techniques. No GCMs or simulation. References to published work will do. A really good article could be your slam dunk.

wonderingmind42 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Crap! The posting got lost. Sorry. Here it is: "How do you justify your statement 'The evidence for catastrophic climate change is virtually non existent,' in light of the 2002 report 'Abrupt Climate Change' by the NRC (the ultimate in scientific credibility) and the findings that the temp in Greenland rose 20 degrees in 50 years in the past, accompanied by a 'climate flip?'" (see tinyurl com/479f8y) You'll need something better than "that's just incorrect science" given the sources.