General > General Technical Chat
Was Don Lancaster really a "guru"?
tooki:
--- Quote from: rhb on February 11, 2019, 07:34:48 am ---
--- Quote from: tomato on February 11, 2019, 05:24:17 am ---
--- Quote from: rhb on February 11, 2019, 04:43:52 am ---
Would you consider the consensus of a bunch of auto mechanics about a medical problem valid?
--- End quote ---
Of course not. Likewise, geoscientists' opinion on climatology is also not very relevant. It isn't their field.
--- End quote ---
Excuse me, but geology deals with the earth in its totality. A major portion of that is 4.2 billion years of history. Climatology is just a small fraction of that. And there is also the issue that all of the climatology data constitute less than 1 ppm of the earth's climate history. "Climatology" is just a scam invented by a bunch of failed meteorologists who got their PhD because their supervisor wanted to get rid of them. I don't think the field even existed when I got my geology MS in 1982.
I have an acquaintance of many years who got his PhD in meteorology. He went to work for the British weather service. He found a major bug in their weather prediction software. He fixed it and went home thinking that the weather forecasts would dramatically improve. It had *no* effect.
The last time we chatted about the subject (there are many more interesting topics, so I'm not sure how this drudgery came up) he made the observation that the thermal dynamics of the oceans are largely unknown. The thermal capacity of water is *much* larger than air. And until recently, the climate models assumed a constant ocean temperature.
Recently there was a paper by some oceanographers who had detected the cooling effect of the little ice age in the ocean bottom currents, some of which have circulation times of a million years. I think we can reasonably expect that other workers will follow their methods and develop better models of the earth's temperature over time.
There are over 30 major changes in sea level on the order of 1000 ft. Where do you think all that water went? It's pretty simple. It turned into immense glaciers which then melted. Except for the last one or two humans did not even exist. Much less alter the CO2 and CH4 content of the atmosphere,
So would you state the voltage of a reference from a single microsecond of data? If so, I certainly don't want you doing my metrology or anything else.
I don't comment on subjects of which I am ignorant. Perhaps you should consider doing the same.
--- End quote ---
Mmmmmm, yeah, um, your entire post above pretty much proves otherwise.
EEVblog:
--- Quote from: Simon on February 10, 2019, 01:32:15 pm ---And even debunkers need to be careful to stay on the side of truth. As mad as thunderfoot can come across as (heavy dose of aspergers coupled with a high IQ I suspect) I respected his reasonings until the other day when I saw a video he did about how shit tesla batteries are when in fact it ws a comparison between battery technology and petrol/diesel energy density. Sorry thunderfoot, you have an axe to grind, so the next time i see one of his videos "debunking" pseudo science do i beleive him or do i suspect he simply has an axe to grind? fortunately i can tell the difference but why should i waste my time listening to a guy who it may turn out simply has an axe to grind.
--- End quote ---
I didn't even need to watch that video to know it really had nothing to do with Tesla (Panasonic) batteries as such, and knew that he was just using the Tesla angle to troll the people who hate his Tesla videos. I think he enjoys baiting them immensely ;D
Simon:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on February 17, 2019, 01:58:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: Simon on February 10, 2019, 01:32:15 pm ---And even debunkers need to be careful to stay on the side of truth. As mad as thunderfoot can come across as (heavy dose of aspergers coupled with a high IQ I suspect) I respected his reasonings until the other day when I saw a video he did about how shit tesla batteries are when in fact it ws a comparison between battery technology and petrol/diesel energy density. Sorry thunderfoot, you have an axe to grind, so the next time i see one of his videos "debunking" pseudo science do i beleive him or do i suspect he simply has an axe to grind? fortunately i can tell the difference but why should i waste my time listening to a guy who it may turn out simply has an axe to grind.
--- End quote ---
I didn't even need to watch that video to know it really had nothing to do with Tesla (Panasonic) batteries as such, and knew that he was just using the Tesla angle to troll the people who hate his Tesla videos. I think he enjoys baiting them immensely ;D
--- End quote ---
All well and good if you have that tight a following that they know what you are up to but I think he needs to pick which he is doing, trolling and provoking or scientific debunking. I have also noticed some rather generous rounding up of numbers in his debeunkings, a bit more generous than I'd like. If you are making an honest point make it honestly, if you are as dishonest as the dishonest person who can tell the difference. I drifted off his videos because they became wild rants about everything else with repetition of significant amounts of old material. He seems to have tried to clean things up a bit but still rants off topic.
rhb:
--- Quote from: Simon on February 16, 2019, 07:08:51 pm ---Yea, yea, conspiracy theory bullshit.
--- End quote ---
The author is *rather* hyperbolic, but the science is sound. The 15,000 year solar cycle is the main driver of climate with the occasional caldera collapse, asteroid impact, etc tossed in for novelty.
The earth's wobble is so precisely understood and measured that in the late 80's another grad student at UT Austin was modelling the effects of tropical monsoons on the wobble with an Apricot PC.
The Dane's hypothesis about the galactic radiation and rotation is quite intriguing. I was a member of the Royal Astronomical Society when it first appeared in print. It neatly accounts for a lot of geological history for which no one has found a satisfactory explanation.
As this started on the subject of critical thinking, I'd like to note that there are people, including former attorney general Loretta Lynch, who want to make it a crime to disagree on a matter of science. A stunning parallel to the persecution of Galileo and the "thought crimes" of "1984".
Simon:
We know for a fact that:
1) fossil fuel is bad, it produces poisonous gasses and those gasses are green house gasses. You may debate how much they contribute to global warming.
2) fossil fuel is not limitless and we need a new solution anyway.
And yet the dinosaurs of our society will argue forever that we should just carry on.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version