/sci/ - Science & Math

>Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific c evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and infuential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N>1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we nd that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science. Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

Science is a fairly broad term, especially considering half of the world is religious.

Science is science, it either stands up to scrutiny and repeatable outcomes through the method or it does not.

Man made climate change is dialect, not science, more computer simulation of a ridiculous number of variables, garbage in, garbage out.

people are skeptical because the whole field is biased.

Also the role of science is to convince people that it's right. If it's unconvincing, it's not good enough.
And as it is, climatology isn't a science, nor it is good enough.

>>6431174
Awesome, now I can blatantly disregard the arguments of any and all individuals who question the glorious science of man-made global warming.

Praise be to the Model. Praise be to Gore.

>>6431174
Rubbish

"You're a conspiracy theorist," the desperate ad hominem cry of a failed pseudo-science.

And that "consensus?"

>"The Cook "consensus" study looked at about 12,000 publication abstracts. Of nearly 12,000 abstracts analyzed, there were only 64 papers in category 1 (which explicitly endorsed man-made global warming). Of those only 41 (0.3%) actually endorsed the quantitative hypothesis as defined by Cook in the introduction. A third of the 64 papers did not belong. None of the categories endorsed catastrophic” warming — a warming severe enough to warrant action — though this was assumed in the introduction, discussion and publicity material. That's right, a 0.3% "consensus."

>>6431470
Hilariously, that copypasta you're quoting comes from Christopher Monckton, a UKIP politician who thinks that Obama was born in Kenya.

>>6431201
>Gore

*DRINK*

>>6431470
>One critique of the consensus has been published in a paper in the journal Science & Education. The argument made in the paper was first published by Christopher Monckton on a climate contrarian blog. Monckton has also suggested the conspiracy theory that the journal Environmental Research Letters was created (in 2006) specifically for the purpose of publishing Cook et al. (2013).

>The Monckton paper takes the point about quantification above to the extreme. It focuses exclusively on the papers that quantified human-caused global warming, and takes these as a percentage of all 12,000 abstracts captured in the literature search, thus claiming the consensus is not 97%, but rather 0.3%. The logical flaws in this argument should be obvious, and thus should not have passed through the peer-review process.

>Approximately two-thirds of abstracts did not take a position on the causes of global warming, for various reasons (e.g. the causes were simply not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper). Thus in order to estimate the consensus on human-caused global warming, it's necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually stated a position on human-caused global warming.

>When addressing the consensus regarding humans being responsible for the majority of recent global warming, the same argument holds true for abstracts that do not quantify the human contribution. We simply can't know their position on the issue - that doesn't mean they endorse or reject the consensus position; they simply don't provide that information, and thus must first be removed before estimating the quantified consensus.

>>6431922
Cont.

>As noted above, when we perform this calculation, the consensus position that humans are the main cause of global warming is endorsed in 87% of abstracts and 96% of full papers. Monckton's argument is very similar to the myth that CO2 can't cause significant global warming because it only comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere. 99% of the atmosphere is comprised of non-greenhouse gases, but these other gases are irrelevant to the question of the CO2 greenhouse effect. The percentage of CO2 as a fraction of all gases in the atmosphere is an irrelevant figure, as is the percentage of abstracts quantifying human-caused global warming as a percentage of all abstracts captured in our literature search.

>It's also worth noting that based on Monckton's logic, only 0.08% of abstracts reject human-caused global warming.

>http://cluesforum.info/
Prepare your bodies

>>6431915
Not any more he was sacked.
Wikipedia:
> sacked by UKIP leader Nigel Farage in November 2013 following factional infighting

>>6431922

Wow ad hominem! You guys thrive on that stuff. As long as you're thriving on that stuff, pause before you do your copypasta from the pseudo-skeptical science tree house boys and think that maybe that is their stock-n-trade.

These guys love to lie, cherry pick, and grossly distort. I don't say that as an ad hominem argument, but as a reason that I don't take their statements at face value. Moreover, just because Monckton said it, doesn't render it false. Seriously, stop the ad hominem; its a sad substitute for logical argument.

And here is an example of thetreehouse boyz being deceptive and rewriting history, not to mention censoring... see here:

http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/

PS, Being as the skeptical science boyz are less than honest, if you want to give one of their arguments, state the basic arguments and then link to primary sources. Better yet actual data (graphics and such) would be wonderful.

>>6431172
>psychological science

wat?

>>6431922

>“If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.”

>>6431470

The peer-reviewed paper debunking the "consensus," no matter how the pseudo-skeptical science boyz try to rewrite things.

>Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change . David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
>Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

Man made global warming is causing an increase in snow cover in the northern hemisphere. Man made global warming is causing an increase in sea ice in the southern hemisphere. Man made global warming is even causing the moon phases to effect the global temperature on a cyclical basis. Man made global warming causes everything. How can anyone doubt it exists?

No, I'm not being serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

>>6434159
>an increase in sea ice
>sea ice EXTENT
extent ≠ volume
Lrn2volume

>>6431172
Low g predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Probably, personality has a lot to do with it too. I'd like to see a study of beliefs in all kinds of areas in a huge sample with good personality testing and a good g test.

>>6434159

Inputs into climatic systems =/= universal warming at all timepoints of subsystems

Sufficient increases in temperature could shift streams so that certain places get colder.

>>6434282
Second.

>>6431470
At least Monckton now don't have to lie about having published a peer reviewed paper anymore!

Well, it wasn't in a science journal.

>>6433956
>post rationally explains why Christopher Monckton's argument is incorrect
>AD HOMINEM

>lie, cherry pick, and grossly distort
Isn't that Christopher Monckton's specialty?

>thetreehouse boyz
is this the beginning of an epic new meme?? :^)

>>6436124
>>post rationally explains why Christopher Monckton's argument is incorrect
>>AD HOMINEM

Claims to explain, but also has plenty of ad hominem just to pile it on.
>>lie, cherry pick, and grossly distort
>Isn't that Christopher Monckton's specialty?

Specific examples please with links. I provided a link for pseudo-SkepticalScience

>>thetreehouse boyz
>is this the beginning of an epic new meme?? :^)

any and everyone in this thread is a nut and should be put in a loony bin

Case dismissed

>>6436012

Yur right. Jis the other day, I is putting a cold tv dinner in my hot ov'n. wasn't more'n twenty minutes when I is pulled out them there hot tv dinner and by golly them there ov'n was covered with ice. Ya know when ya push them heat into yur cold tv dinner, them cold goes into yur hot ov'n!

>>6436205
Yourself included?

>>6434282
I told old NOAA your criticism but he said the satellites can't see the bottom of the ice, only the top.

>>6434282

The original predictions were SEA ice EXTENT. They just moved the goal posts after their predictions FAILED. Like they always do.

Original Predictions:

Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268

Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model
G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

>>6436309

Increased antractic ice in green, decreased in red. Since about 1992

>>6436309
>>6436312
Less volume means there is less ice.
Less. Ice. Not as much ice has formed/more has melted than before. So if there is less ice, It means that it is harder for ice to form. I wonder why that would be.

>>6436324

You're mixing apples and oranges. In all likelihood you are referring to the rewriting of the history of the "science" of climate change so vigorously described by the pseudo-skeptical science treehouse boyz.

Yeah, I know in their usual disingenuous, rewrite the history game, they claim its all about LAND ice volume.

WRONG

The predictions were specifically about SEA ice extent. See
>>643309
Check the references, read the abstracts and such.

Its Apples and oranges. And frankly I find the whole "decreased land volume" story suspect. Anything to keep the faith...

Whatever.

>>6436331

The paper refs are at:
>>6436309

>>6436331
no, what im talking about is that if there is less ice, that means its harder for ice to form. Predictions about extent are equally as vindicated if there is as little ice by volume as they predicted would be the case via extent shrinkage. I dont actually know what the volume of sea ice is or how its changed, im just pointing that out. Im not that poster either Volume would the true metric for ice becoming more or less difficult to form.
This discussion should not be about who said what or x is lying and its all a secualr religion blah blah blah shitflinging. It should be about trying to figure out whats happening in the world. About looking at and analyzing the data.
It should not be 'climate scientists were wrong and now lie about and move the goal posts!', it should be 'There hasnt been a significant drop in antarctic ice volume, and its extent has grown.' and 'an experiment was conducted in this paper wherin an artifical greenhouse was set up and its temperature tested at various levels of illumination, carbon dioxide, and combinations therof. It seems to indicate X'
ETC.

>>6436360
>" . . . if there is less ice, that means its harder for ice to form."
You heard it here on /sci/ first. Freezing is not a function of temperature. Throw out those old physics books.

>>6436163
>I provided a link for pseudo-SkepticalScience

You provided a link to some whiny-assed kiddie blog that's about as useful as this: http://www.tfes.org/

>>6436371
>Freezing is not a function of temperature. Throw out those old physics books.

Strange. Here in the northeast, I've NEVER seen the ocean freeze, no matter how cold it gets.

Maybe you should try READING some of those old physics books you're talking out of your ass about.

>>6436360

>no, what i'm talking about is that if there is less ice, that means its harder for ice to form. >Predictions about extent are equally as vindicated if there is as little ice by volume as they predicted would be the case via extent shrinkage.

No they're not. Again you're mixing apples and oranges. What makes or melts sea ice is probably not the same as what makes or melts land ice, because one relates to sea weather/temps etc. whereas the other relates to the land weather/temps etc.

More to the point, you strike me as an apologist for the AGW thing. No matter how many times their predictions fail, its "we've got to understand this better."

Am I supposed to believe that if the Sea Ice has significantly diminished you'd be saying, "gosh, we need to think about this. We can't be sure what it means." Of course not.

You would be saying Climate Change is proven! And this is the fundamental problem of the "science." Any "prediction" the proves right demonstrates the correctness of the theory. Any prediction that is wrong (as are most) simple means the models are wrong. Its an unfalsifiable belief system.

What am I missing here? If you really want to take it out of the historical context, the only thing people would be saying is that the Antarctic has gotten colder and not surprisingly, the sea ice extent has grown.

BTW, the volume calculation relates to land ice and is irrelevant to sea ice. And I find it suspect...

Why? For example the general cooling trend. Why would there be more melting of land ice. See attached.

BTW, Frankly, I think you're a Climate Change shill. Prove me wrong. What you will do is pretend to be a dis-interested neutral party and then, as if by magic, always nit-pick any argument or evidence that support AGW skepticism and "what do you know!" reach the conclusion that Climate Change is true.

>>6436372

Wah, wah, wah. Give the specifics with primary references showing what a liar you think Monckton is.

>>6436386
So how cold does your ocean get and what is its salt content?

>>6436390
And compare the actual predictions of decreased SEA ICE EXTENT given here:
>>6436331

To the historical rewrite talking about land/general ice volume given by the pseudo-skeptical science treehouse boyz. A spectacular example of their dishonesty.

>>6436390
>Wah, wah, wah. Give the specifics with primary references showing what a liar you think Monckton is

Wah, wah, wah. I never said he was a liar. Didn't say he wasn't either for that matter.

Red herring much?

>>6436388
>Shill
>apologist
>youd be....
>etc.
Yeah. You're a portrait of maturity and objectivity.
And indeed I see the light, we shouldnt just be analyzing the data to say whether there is or is not climate change. Its about who I do or dont like.

>>6436394
>So how cold does your ocean get and what is its salt content?

Then you DO acknowledge that freezing isn't solely a function of temperature.

There's hope for you yet.

>>6436371
What the fuck are you talking about? How the hell did you infer that?
If its harder for ice to form, that must mean its warmer.

>>6436388
not the person you've been replying to, but I can help with some of your confusion.

climate scientists rely on their models because they are able to test them by checking how well they model past recordings. right now we don't have much data (only since the 70's on a worldwide scale), so it's difficult to get a broad picture of how our climate behaves, so its difficult to build a predictive model. what we can do is build a model which fixed parameters that endup copying the data we have, and we would call a "good" model one that can make at least some correct predictions, although that's still a majour difficulty due to the complexity of our climate.

the major thing that this whole "consensus" idea hinges on is that none of the models even come close to correctly modeling our past climate unless you take human effects as a major factor. local events on earth, solar events, and everything else, nothing has happened that would cause the current state of our climate. so, even if we don't have the understanding to build predictive models of our climate, we also lack the ability to model recent climate history without any human effects. no one has any other explanation for the current trends in the world climate.

>>6436413
Yes, in thermodynamics we take into account the concentration, pressure and temperature and heat transfer to predict changes in ice. Although it is true that in the lab you can have a supercooled solution, that is not of much significance in nature or engineering.

>>6436388
>No matter how many times their predictions fail, its "we've got to understand this better."
So.... misunderstanding is preferable to understanding? You're saying we SHOULDN'T strive to correct our mistaken predictions, but should only stop and reevaluate when they turn out correct?

Are you sure you're on the right board?

>>6436309
>The original predictions were SEA ice EXTENT. They just moved the goal posts after their predictions FAILED.

You get that this is how science works, right?
Observations don't match predictions, but are explained by other observations?

Sea ice is not 2 dimensional, it has volume and mass. More heat in the system means more ice UNDER the surface melts. Surface ice might be growing in sea level area, but without the ice underneath net sea levels are still rising.

>>6436515
If you measure the altitude of everything else in relation to sea level then in relation to what do you measure sea level? And how do you know whatever it is doesn't change altitude? I'm confused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ
I belive this documentory more then gores, its just easier to belive, gore cried about his family all the time so he would make the crowd soft and sell them the pumpkins he was talking about

>>6436401
>Claims to explain, but also has plenty of ad hominem just to pile it on.
>>>lie, cherry pick, and grossly distort
>>Isn't that Christopher Monckton's specialty?
>>6436401

Somebody sure called him a liar:
>>6436163
>Claims to explain, but also has plenty of ad hominem just to pile it on.
>>lie, cherry pick, and grossly distort
>Isn't that Christopher Monckton's specialty?

Wasn't you?

>>6436409

If you can show genuine objectivity, that would be nice. But pretending predictions have not occurred and ignoring their failures is not scientific. It suggests that the theory itself might be wrong.

>>6437875

Wrong ref # should be:
>>6436124

>>6436515

You're too being simplistic... and ignoring that fact that the antarctic has had a COOLING trend.
>>6436388

I possibility of all "after the fact" explanations never includes the possibility that there isn't significant warming due to anthropogenic CO2.

Thus, purported increase in ice thickness "proves" here temperatures which proves climate change even though the Antarctic has COOLED.

Prediction works => Global Warming/Climate Change is True!
Prediction fails => Model fails, Global Warming/Climate Change is still TRUE!

Very Convenient.

>>6436409

Prediction works => Climate Change is True!
Prediction fails => Model fails, Climate Change is still TRUE!

You're not analyzing the data in any manner close to scientific. You're tweaking a model so that it continues to reach an unfalsifiable conclusion. That is not scientific.

>>6436424

You have this unsupported assumption that scientists put everything that can explain natural climate variation into a model and have all the knowledge needed to explain the past prior to significant anthropogenic CO2. Nope, they don't even account for solar activity. In fact I went to a talk on Climate Change a few years ago at a major NASA campus and the speaker (head of the program) said there was no correspondence between solar activity and global temperatures! (FALSE!)

And there are a large number of parameters that have to be put into the computer program and they can be tweaked according to a modeler's desires. More to the point, these models are only fit back to about 1975. They DO NOT explain the tremendous natural variability of say, the maunder minimum (little ice age) medieval warming period or the Roman warming period.
That warming and cooling is strongly explained by solar activity which is all too conveniently ignored.

And at the same time these models have failed to make accurate predictions for the last 17.5 years. The vast majority of them said that there would be significant temperatures increases, but that didn't happen. In short, these models do not explain significant natural climate variability and hence cannot "prove" that things are not natural.

BTW, for what it's worth, I actually talked to a climate modeler at a major NASA campus. He quit his group and moved to a new one that had nothing to do with climate modeling. Why did he quit? He felt like he was under tremendous pressure to "fudge things" to get the desired answer.

>>6437920
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-4/

>>6436469

I'm saying the theory is unfalsifiable. What is going on is:

Prediction works => Global Warming/Climate Change is True!
Prediction fails => Model fails, Global Warming/Climate Change is still TRUE!

There is no room for "our theory failed, Climate Change is false." Instead only after-the-fact explanations that include Climate Change theory being true are considered. That is not scientific.

>>6437943

You're embarrassing yourself. I would go ahead and get out of this thread and probably out of /sci/ if I were you.

>>6437941
>http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-4/

this is exactly what you get when you have politicized "science," you have to reach a foregone conclusion. Notice how they say "no net increase in solar forcing" (paraphrase) in 30 years.

Now looks at this graph in:
>>6437920

Notice the dip in solar activity at about 1975? Roughly 30 years ago? More to the point, that isn't the only thing going on. For example the Pacific decadal oscillation and the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation (something the models love to ignore) have very strong effects.

Things fit even better when you don't fudge the data.Measured temperatures in blue. Reported temperatures in red.

Skeptical? Look at the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences" (temperature changes):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

>>6437948

>nothing can falsify my religious beliefs
Great counter-argument!

>>6437948

Provide a specific, plausible falsifiabilitly criterion, or admit that Climate Change/Global Warming theory is unfalsifiable and hence not scientific.

>>6437958

Graph of NCDC (NOAA) changes to measured temperatures. Gives a whole new meaning to "man made global warming."

>>6437969

We just had one of the warmest years on record, you idiot. You can question whether it's caused by human activity, but it's definitely happening.

>>6437958
regarding your graphs, here is what I get out of them:
the sun spot activity seems to confirm what the royal society claims, that sunspot activity has overall been steady since 1975. while clearly there are fluctuations, there haven't been in recent decades.
regarding reported and recorded temperatures, doesn't this just show we are better at predicting now than before? it looks like the only thing that's changed is how accurate our reports are. that's good for climate science, isn't it?

>>6437977

Its been warming for nearly 400 years... since the Maunder minimum -- graphed in terms of solar activity here:
>>6437904

So its been warming for about 400 years and you say its really warm is like saying "I've been walking up a hill for 400 years and now I'm the highest I've been in a long time!" So what.

BTW, the Medieval warming period was warmer.

>>6437982

Look again. There was a local minimum at about 1975. So solar activity has increased since about 30 years ago. Now sure, we're at a sort of "global maximum" for long term solar activity.

What are we better at predicting? And notice how the latest solar activity has started to dip into another local minimum? Just when there's been no global warming for 17.5 years and and small cooling trend for about 10 years? Looks like solar activity is a pretty good predictor. Essentially all the models said that temps would go up.

>>6438007
>Looks like solar activity is a pretty good predictor.
Until you actually look closely.
>Essentially all the models said that temps would go up.
The models have a credibly range not shown in that image. The temperatures did go up but those specific observations in that graph did not.

>>6437995
That's not a graph it's a cartoon, referencing it is genuinely idiotic. It is not to scale. The warming in the past is nowhere near as rapid as it is today.

>>6437978
Where did you get that from and what is it supposed to be?

>>6437958
>Notice how they say "no net increase in solar forcing" (paraphrase) in 30 years.
Notice how that's not a graph of forcing. The solar output varies only very slightly over a solar cycle. The optical iradiance varies less than the sunspot nmuber does cycle to cycle.

> Look at the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences"
Then ignore their reasoning completely and use it to fuel conspiracy nonsense.

>>6437920
>I actually talked to a climate modeler at a major NASA campus.
This is the kind of bullshit people try to hide a lame argument behind. You can't back this up and he can't back that up, it's nothing but rumor.
>they don't even account for solar activity.
[citation needed]

>>6438057
Forgot the graph.

>>6437995
>chart shows 8 maximums over 4400 years
>AT LEAST 75 MAJOR TEMPERATURE SWINGS IN THE LAST 4000 YEARS
wat

>>6438057

Trend from the sunspot number time-integral plus ocean oscillation using with superimposed available measured data.

Fit like a charm. A simple averaging especially when excluding ocean oscillations is, of course, going to get the wrong answer.

See here for more on Solar influence of climate:

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, A04109, 12 PP., 2011
Centennial changes in the heliospheric magnetic field and open solar flux: The consensus view from geomagnetic data and cosmogenic isotopes and its implications

>>6438057
>>>6438007
>>Looks like solar activity is a pretty good predictor.
>Until you actually look closely.
>>Essentially all the models said that temps would go up.
>The models have a credibly range not shown in that image. The temperatures did go up but those specific observations in that graph did not.

What is a "credibility range?" The temperatures DID NOT go up in a statistically significant manner.

There are only two explanations:
1) Models failed.
2) "Credibility range" is so wide that it includes essentially flat temps which does not distinguish from normal temperature variability, so it has no predictive power or implications.

Here is a graph from United Nations's IPCC AR4 with new temp data to compare to predicted results. Only at the lower edges do things fit (assuming error bar overlap). Those edges do not distinguish from natural climate variability.

>>6438057
>>>6437995
>That's not a graph it's a cartoon, referencing it is genuinely idiotic. It is not to scale. The warming in the past is nowhere near as rapid as it is today.

That graph illustrates the basic relationships of what got colder and what got warmer.

Here is a vast list of scientific studies showing that the Medieval warming period was warmer than now.

>>6438057
>>>6437978
>Where did you get that from and what is it supposed to be?

These are the changes that the NOAA has made to temperature readings. Here's there own graph.

All "adjustments" tilt the graph upward. Is that supposed to be a coincidence?

>>6438057
>>>6437958
>>Notice how they say "no net increase in solar forcing" (paraphrase) in 30 years.
>Notice how that's not a graph of forcing. The solar output varies only very slightly over a solar cycle. The optical iradiance varies less than the sunspot nmuber does cycle to cycle.
>> Look at the NOAA website for their "stepwise differences"
>Then ignore their reasoning completely and use it to fuel conspiracy nonsense.

That is a graph illustrated the HUGE changes made by the NOAA to the temperatures. Calling it a "conspiracy" with all the implied ad hominem does not change that fact that there is nothing random about these adjustments.

And here's a climategate email talking about changing the temperature.

Your resort to ad hominem does not change the facts that temperatures have been systematically adjusted to create a much more extreme tilt.

Erasing the 1940's warming "blip"

>>6438527

And here the decide to erase the global cooling period...

>>6438057
>>>6437920
>>I actually talked to a climate modeler at a major NASA campus.
>This is the kind of bullshit people try to hide a lame argument behind. You can't back this up and he can't back that up, it's nothing but rumor.
>>they don't even account for solar activity.

If you choose not to believe me, that's your own business.

Provide actual documentation of the climate models, not what people claim the models do to show that they instantiate all known forcings in a correct manner.

>>6438057
>>>6437958
>>Notice how they say "no net increase in solar forcing" (paraphrase) in 30 years.
>Notice how that's not a graph of forcing. The solar output varies only very slightly over a solar cycle. The optical iradiance varies less than the sunspot nmuber does cycle to cycle.

See
>>6438442

Actual climate scientist here.

The discussion in this thread is so far off that it's not even wrong, because it's not really discussing climate science.

There are so many subtleties and not-so-subtleties that you're ignoring that it's like... well, it's like trying to talk about the merits of the latest Iron Maiden album when all you have is a tangled up Raffi cassette. You're focussed on these graphs without understanding any of the context or subtext or the assumptions of the models and data sources that go into producing them.

The field itself is not that complicated. The data is mostly pretty plain, the underlying physics is not difficult to understand, and the conclusions are straightforward. It takes some considerable sophistry to get anywhere near a conclusion that there isn't wide-scale man-made climate change going on. It's real (to >5 sigma certainty). Deal with it.

There's a pretty decent documentary series I'll recommend. Go to YouTube and look up potholer54. It's a few hours of video, but that time spent will be far more fruitful than what you're doing here. (Don't be put off by the picture of Al Gore in the first few seconds of the first episode. He gets what's coming to him in short order.)

>>6438586

Nonsense. Love the cherry picking graph. And you would be the first to call the attached graph cherry picking.... Love the way you draw a diagonal line straight through 17.5 years of flat/downward temps.

Climate Change/Global Warming is an unflasifiable dogma. Observations that fit models are "proof," observations that don't fit models are just evidence that the models need tweaking. And then you liken skeptics to holocaust deniers. If that ain't the essence of a religion, "your an unbeliever, so you're evil!" then what is?

And you guys always refuse to debate the subject. Claiming that you don't want to give credence to the evil deniers; the real answer is that you'd get your ass handed to you in a sling. As happened here:

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e

>>6438586
>It takes some considerable sophistry to get anywhere near a conclusion that there isn't wide-scale man-made climate change going on. It's real (to >5 sigma certainty). Deal with it.

Stated without a shred of evidence. Let me guess, based on a climate model? A model that "proves" Climate Change/Global Warming?

A model created by people who would lose their employment and social esteem if Climate Change theory turned out to be false. What a coincidence.

>>6438442
>Trend from the sunspot number time-integral plus ocean oscillation using with superimposed available measured data.
source?

>>6438465
>credibility range
What it means in statistics. You build a model it gives you a number you then asses the precision of the model. The credibility range gives you some level of certainty 3 sigma 95 percent or else.

>The temperatures DID NOT go up in a statistically significant manner.
That graph is since only 1990 and I would disagree even since then.

>"Credibility range" is so wide that it includes essentially flat temps which does not distinguish from normal temperature variability, so it has no predictive power or implications.
There is no such thing as normal climate variability. You can count your variables and see what you get in terms of total forcing. "normal climate variability" has no definition so it cannot be falsified. You have no model of it.

...

>>6438477
>That graph illustrates the basic relationships of what got colder and what got warmer.
No it's a cartoon which exaggerates minor differences in a bullshit scale to fit a narrative and you called it a graph. Nope, it's bullshit.

>>6438507
>All "adjustments" tilt the graph upward. Is that supposed to be a coincidence?
Why don't you read the motivation and find out?

>>6438527
You ovoid the point that you are unashamedly ignoring the argument they made. You aren't interested in already you already have them.

This isn't ad hom, this is you refusing to look at the science.

>And here's a climategate email talking about changing the temperature.
Note carefully they don't say "there is no good reason for the blip". You ignore that because it sounds suspicious which is better than the truth.

>>6438531
Note they actually motivate the reasons for doing it if you read around the highlighter.

This is your problem. It's not the science you look for it's the soundbite.


>>6438539
I don't, not for a second.

>Provide actual documentation of the climate models
I'm not google.

>>6438543
Notice how that's still not a graph of forceings.

>>6438620
> Love the cherry picking graph.
And you just show one with a shorter timescale in an effort to hide trends. That's cherry picking.

What is the flasifiablity criterion for "normal climate variation"? If it doesn't have one it isn't science.

>>6438634
>>>6438442 (You)
>>Trend from the sunspot number time-integral plus ocean oscillation using with superimposed available measured data.
>source?

This, of course, is from an evil denier. But it proves that there is a strong correlation between solar activity and climate:

SPAM filter won't let me post http:.. (must be a AGW believer :-) )

So, by definition, its false. I know...

There is tons of work demonstrating the strong correspondence between solar activity and the climate. Especially when you look at instrumental temperatures instead of "always tweaked upwards" temperatures.

The rise and fall of open solar flux during
1
the current grand solar maximum
2
3
4
M. Lockwood
1,2,3
, A.P. Rouillard
1,2
, and I.D. Finch
2
5
6
1
Space Environment Physics, School of Physics and Ast
ronomy, Southampton
7
University, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
8
9
2
Space Science and Technology Department, Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory,
10
Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX, UK
11
12
3.
Now at Department of Meteorology, University of Rea
ding, Earley Gate, PO Box
13
243, Reading, RG6 6BB, UK

Deep Solar Activity Minima, Sharp Climate Changes, and Their Impact on Ancient Civilizations
Raspopov et al. 2013
It is shown that, over the past c. 10000 years (the Holocene), deep Maunder type solar minima have been accompanied by sharp climate changes. These minima occurred every 2300-2400 years. It has been established experimentally that, at ca 4.0 ka BP, there occurred a global change in the structure of atmo spheric circulation, which coincided in time with the discharge of glacial masses from Greenland to North Atlantic and a solar activity minimum. The climate changes that took place at ca 4.0 ka BP and the deep solar activity minimum that occurred at ca 2.5 ka BP affected the development of...

>>6438634
>>>6438465 (You)
>>credibility range
>What it means in statistics. You build a model it gives you a number you then asses the precision of the model. The credibility range gives you some level of certainty 3 sigma 95 percent or else.

I think you're talking about confidence intervals. Specifically the 95% confidence interval which is 1.96Xstandard deviation. (3 standard deviations is like 99.9%!)

The ranges depicted on the graphic (on the right edge) in:
>>643865
are the 95% confidence intervals as calculated by the UN IPCC AR4. You can see that the measured values are totally outside those intervals unless you assume significant error bars. But that would leave the "predictions" as no different from natural climate variability.

>>6438634
>>The temperatures DID NOT go up in a statistically significant manner.
>That graph is since only 1990 and I would disagree even since then.

Well its been tested... Remember the important range of years is the ranges where the predictions were made and there was a significant increase in CO2. See the graphic here:
>>6438620

Google "climate pause" or some such. Everyone both believer and skeptic accept that things have stopped/paused

>>6438659

I mean
>>6328465

>>6438634
>>"Credibility range" is so wide that it includes essentially flat temps which does not distinguish from normal temperature variability, so it has no predictive power or implications.
>There is no such thing as normal climate variability. You can count your variables and see what you get in terms of total forcing. "normal climate variability" has no definition so it cannot be falsified. You have no model of it.

Don't need a model. The range is the actual world. Examples: ice ages, Maunder minimum, Medieval Warming period, Roman Warming period etc.

Seriously, stop pretending that reality is a computer model. Reality is what data is actually provided by nature

>>6438664

Man, getting tired...
>>6438465

>>6438628
> without a shred of evidence
Except for the results many thousands of peer-reviewed papers. But other than those, I guess there's none.

I'm not going to be able to give you ~10 years' worth of accumulated knowledge in one or two posts. But like I said, it's not that complicated. You should be able to understand it with a little effort. Try those videos to start.

>>6438650
What are you trying to post? Just post a link or a description of the calculation, I didn't want a postal address. I'm asking how is the calculation done.

I'm aware of the solar influence but there are many papers studying it now, you ignore the ones that conclude it isn't the blame.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2040.html

An example.

>>6438675

Sorry, I'm a trained and published scientist and I can smell unfalsifiabile, Lysenkoism a mile away.
'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

- Upton Sinclair

>>6438620
No one in the climate science community ever uses the word "proof." That's a strawman.

> Observations that fit models are "proof," observations that don't fit models are just evidence that the models need tweaking.
Holy shit, you've just described every branch of science and every adaptive analysis of empirical knowledge, ever. Congratulations.

I guess it's a good thing that NYC debates determine reality. Maybe next we can all vote that I have a pot of gold coins in my living room?

>>6438685
> I'm a trained and published scientist
Bullshit.

>>6438659
>I think you're talking about confidence intervals.
I'm sure you realise words aren't the same everywhere. Confidence intervals don't have to be 95%, just stated.

>You can see that the measured values are totally outside those intervals unless you assume significant error bars.
Unless I assume the same errors as previous years. No, it's not "totally outside" at all. That's pure shit.


>>6438662
Well its been tested.
No, someone drew on a line and pretended the last 400 years of temperature records didn't exist. There are other forcings, there are reasons stagnation can occur. That does not change the fact that warming did occur. Showing a graph form 1990 is dishonest. Warming occurred as I said.

>>6438671
>Don't need a model.
Yeah you do. Stating "this is normal variation" does not indicate what is driving the climate "correlation is not causation". Just because today the variation looks normal with your eye does not establish there are no man made factors driving the temperature.
if it plunged us into an ice age that'd be "normal variation". If temperatures increased by several degrees in a year that'd be "normal variation".

Reality is data but you need theory to establish causation. That's how real science works.

Normal variation is a non-statement. It says nothing about the cause of climate. It is not a model, it is not a theory, it predicts nothing. It has a titanic confidence interval but you whine about climate models. Hypocrisy.

>>6438686

Sorry, "strong evidence." You're nit-picking.

>Holy shit, you've just described every branch of science and every adaptive analysis of empirical knowledge, ever. Congratulations.

No I haven't. Ever hear of the sun centered solar system theory replacing the geo-centric one? Ever hear of quantum mechanics replacing classical mechanics (reduced to an approx.) Ever hear of relativity also replacing classical mechanics... Seriously. You're talking as if the scientific method is nothing but fundamental truth + a little tweaking. As if there aren't major shifts and big mistakes.

>I guess it's a good thing that NYC debates determine reality. Maybe next we can all vote that I have a pot of gold coins in my living room?

Great strawman argument. STOP PUTTING words in my mouth. I never said truth came from a debate. What you fear is the possibility of logical, fact based arguments coming from evil deniers. So that must be blocked at all possible costs, right?

And funny, you mock social behavior as a source of "truth" then your colleagues constantly espouse the 97% consensus stuff, as if science were a popularity contest...

>>6438687

Wow, you hurt my feelings. I'll go cry to my mommy.

But seriously, you guys are so ingratiated into the Climate Change mantra of "settled science, settled science, settled science," that it's incomprehensible to think otherwise.

You've got to step outside the box. This is something nerds (and I include myself) have trouble with. You think "science says its true!"
Therefore its true. You never think that the label "science" might be corrupted. Well its happened before and maybe, just maybe its happening again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

>>6438706
My colleages never talk about 97% consensus, actually. That's a popsci thing. Among actual climate scientists, there's really no debate about the reality of it. It's like asking what percentage of chemists believe in electrons. Even the few respected climate scientists who are widely quoted as having dissenting opinions agree with the basic realities of it. The only major questions in the field are the relative importances of the various mechanisms involved, and some technical details about computational issues and so on.

I'll point out that QM didn't "replace" classical mechanics. It's a refinement, a slightly better model. In some domains, like tossing a ball in the air, classical mechanics works perfectly well. Same for relativity. They're just slightly more complicated models of the same thing. You could look at different climate models in the same way. Model A (classical) incorporates x,y,z. But then in certain conditions, w becomes important, so you develop Model B (quantum) to include that.

>>6438704
>>>6438659 (You)
>>I think you're talking about confidence intervals.
>I'm sure you realise words aren't the same everywhere. Confidence intervals don't have to be 95%, just stated.
>>You can see that the measured values are totally outside those intervals unless you assume significant error bars.
>Unless I assume the same errors as previous years. No, it's not "totally outside" at all. That's pure shit.

Christ, you're grasping at straws. I said totally outside, unless you include error bars. Then you say that with error bars things are inside. Yup, at the bottom edge. I think you are getting way too angry. Deep breathes, seriously.

>Reality is data but you need theory to establish causation. That's how real science works.

The theory is that what is happening in the real world is what has happened before. As stated before you use this ridiculous argument that failed models prove reality is unnatural. Models that don't predict pre-1975 climate variability, which of course, is enormous.

Until you acknowledge that failed models are not proof of reality, there's nothing more to say. Just resort to your angry insults:

>Hypocrisy

whatever. Conversation over.

This reality

>>6438717
> I'll go cry to my mommy.
Of all the things you have said in this thread, that's probably the only correct one.

>>6438732

You're nit-picking. QM isn't a "slightly better"model, its a revolution. Wave/particle duality, non-locality. Totally different from classical mechanics.

And I'm quite sure that you and your colleagues don't question Climate Change. (notice how I didn't resort to nasty ad hominem like your fellows)
>>6438687

But you're stuck inside an unfalsifiable belief system. And yes, that tends to be the case until a paradigm gets over-turned. But what really galls me is just how vicious you (or perhaps just others in your profession) are against skeptics. Relentless ad hominem, vicious insults... And almost no funding.

Seriously I have no respect for that kind of behavior. Its so fundamentally against the scientific method.

Feynman (paraphrasing) "Science is the belief that the experts are wrong."

>>6438742

Go back to hiding under your bridge.

>>6438735
>I said totally outside, unless you include error bars.
Then it's not "totally outside" at all. This is not complicated.

>The theory is that what is happening in the real world is what has happened before.
You can say the temperatures have occurred before. You cannot say the processes are the same because you have not established causation.

>As stated before you use this ridiculous argument that failed models prove reality is unnatural.
I never made a claim one way or the other. You're putting words in my mouth, you sink lower still.

Failed models tell you nothing about what they failed doing, that doesn't mean they are not useful. Newtonian gravity fails at describing Mercury but it tells you lots about other systems. That is not what we have been discussing.

>whatever. Conversation over.
#REKD

You can't admit your position is weapons grade hypocrisy.

Night, night.

I was looking at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL
NOAA's Quality Control, Homogeneity Testing, and Adjustment Procedures. It's far out. They start with the raw data, run it through each program in series (TOBS, MMTS, SHAP and FILNET) and come out with the final adjusted values. There is one more called URBAN that also adjusts the temperature up. I guess they are trying to get the same reading with the modern equipment that they would be getting if they still used the old alcohol thermometer at midnight method.

Seems odd to me that they use thermistors now. You have to run an electric current through a thermistor to read the value and that adds heat. Maybe it's not a significant amount of heat. But couldn't they use the thermal noise generation and a precision amplifier to measure temperature? Or would that blow the budget? I just dislike temperature measuring devices that generate their own heat on principal. I'm prejudiced against them.

The other think that bugs me is that adjusting the new values implies that they were not getting the most accurate reading they could back in the old days. Are we any smarter about measuring temperature now? It's not rocket science. These cumulative adjustments add up.

The last thing that bugs me is the year to year average temperature differences. The sun's thermal output is consistently even, averaging within about a tenth of a percent. The process of making many measurements and averaging is supposed to let the errors cancel out. So why does it not work better?

I was looking at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL
NOAA's Quality Control, Homogeneity Testing, and Adjustment Procedures. It's far out. They start with the raw data, run it through each program in series (TOBS, MMTS, SHAP and FILNET) and come out with the final adjusted values. There is one more called URBAN that also adjusts the temperature up. I guess they are trying to get the same reading with the modern equipment that they would be getting if they still used the old alcohol thermometer at midnight method.

Seems odd to me that they use thermistors now. You have to run an electric current through a thermistor to read the value and that adds heat. Maybe it's not a significant amount of heat. But couldn't they use the thermal noise generation and a precision amplifier to measure temperature? Or would that blow the budget? I just dislike temperature measuring devices that generate their own heat on principle. I'm prejudiced against them.

The other think that bugs me is that adjusting the new values implies that they were not getting the most accurate reading they could back in the old days. Are we any smarter about measuring temperature now? It's not rocket science. These cumulative adjustments add up.

The last thing that bugs me is the year to year average temperature differences. The sun's thermal output is consistently even, averaging within about a tenth of a percent. The process of making many measurements and averaging is supposed to let the errors cancel out. So why does it not work better, giving more consistent results?

>>6438774

Learn to understand error bars! and confidence intervals! You can't even get your percentages correct.

>What it means in statistics. You build a model it gives you a number you then asses the precision of the model. The credibility range gives you some level of certainty 3 sigma 95 percent or else.

3 sigma isn't even a confidence interval! -- unless you're being very non-standard. The point is you didn't even know to say "confidence interval." And the confidence intervals are 95%... they're on the graph, so that's what you get...

No one would take a 3 sigma confidence interval seriously because in this case it would be enormous. Sigh.

Sorry that failed models don't prove Climate Change. Maybe you'll learn some day...

>>6438934

To me what matters is the final changes. They are always upward. Always tilting the graph upward - so no matter what their explanation is, it seems way to convenient.

>>6438507

>>6438641
>>>6438507
>>All "adjustments" tilt the graph upward. Is that supposed to be a coincidence?
>Why don't you read the motivation and find out?

Why do assume that stated motivation is the actual motivation when extreme temperature increase is needed to keep the funding going?

There are never actual specific mathematical explanations... just vague descriptions.

>>6438641
>>>6438477
>>That graph illustrates the basic relationships of what got colder and what got warmer.
>No it's a cartoon which exaggerates minor differences in a bullshit scale to fit a narrative and you called it a graph. Nope, it's bullshit.

Not a cartoon... That's you talking without any evidence. Look at this proxy construction

>>6438641
>>>6438527
>You ovoid the point that you are unashamedly ignoring the argument they made. You aren't interested in already you already have them.
>This isn't ad hom, this is you refusing to look at the science.
>>And here's a climategate email talking about changing the temperature.
>Note carefully they don't say "there is no good reason for the blip". You ignore that because it sounds suspicious which is better than the truth.
>>6438641

They don't give any scientific reason for removing the blip.

Gosh when confronted with a smoking gun, you get desperate.

>>6438641
>>>6438531
>Note they actually motivate the reasons for doing it if you read around the highlighter.
>This is your problem. It's not the science you look for it's the soundbite.

They don't provide any SCIENTIFIC meaning! You're just engaged in a kneejerk reaction to another smoking gun demonstrating a deliberate desire to rewrite the temperature record. The "reason" is to hide the actual temperatures from the skeptics. Hiding data ain't science.

>>6438641
>>>6438543
>Notice how that's still not a graph of forceings.

Post a specific graph of solar "forcing" that's based on actual measurements and not some tweaked model.

Whoops, you can't do it ... so the model is tweaked to get the desired answer.

>>6438774
>Failed models tell you nothing about what they failed doing, that doesn't mean they are not useful. Newtonian gravity fails at describing Mercury but it tells you lots about other systems. That is not what we have been discussing.

Comparing a tiny precession that violates Newtonian gravity with massive predictive failures of Climate models --- models that are riddled with failed predictions... Pretty funny!

>I never made a claim one way or the other. You're putting words in my mouth, you sink lower still.

So exactly who is claiming that natural climate variability can't explain current temp changes? And exactly how do you explain this without using models?

>>6441029
>>6441033

>They don't give any scientific reason for removing the blip.
It's a personal email, there would be no reason to explain it to someone who understood it. Is basic reasoning hard?

Personal emails are always out of context because you have no idea of the rest of the discussion or the assumed level of knowledge.

>>6441035
I'm sorry. I told that person that wasn't a graph of forcings as claimed. You admit such a thing can't exist without a model. He therefore did not have a graph of forcings.

>>6441076

"out of context" Caught with a smoking gun and standing over a dead body... I suppose that if someone said that sounded like murder, that would be "out of context."

>>6441075
It's completely applicable. Newtonian gravity doesn't just slightly fail. It's spectacularly wrong with gravitational lensing. It has no shapiro delay. It's bad but we use it were we know we can.

>So exactly who is claiming that natural climate variability can't explain current temp changes? And exactly how do you explain this without using models?
How can you explain the climate without a model? You can't. You cannot establish causation without a model anywhere, basic science. This is the exact reasoning I used to show this "natural variability" stuff is not science.

>>6441076
>>>6441035 (You)
>I'm sorry. I told that person that wasn't a graph of forcings as claimed. You admit such a thing can't exist without a model. He therefore did not have a graph of forcings.

Without a model eh? A model that can be tweaked to get the desired answer for a person who's income is dependent on continually telling a "sky is falling" story.

Very convenient.

>>6431172
NASA didn't go to the moon, but the soviets did.

SLAVA CCCP. TOVARISHCH LENIN ENLIGHTENED THE WAY FOR MANKIND.

>>6441085
And now you're using a cheap dismissal. Give me an argument not an analogy.

>>6441088
>>So exactly who is claiming that natural climate variability can't explain current temp changes? And exactly how do you explain this without using models?
>How can you explain the climate without a model? You can't. You cannot establish causation without a model anywhere, basic science. This is the exact reasoning I used to show this "natural variability" stuff is not science.

Christ you keep changing your story! First it was, I never used models! Now you're defending models. Make up your mind.

And I never said that General Relativity was similar to Newtonian gravity, I said that the Mercury precession if a very small effect... compared to the huge and consistantly wrong predictions of "climate models."

>>6441090
You're actually making no sense now.

>>6441100
>I never used models!
Never said that, you're confused.

No you said:
>Comparing a tiny precession that violates Newtonian gravity
Newtonian gravity is spectacularly wrong in the observations I discussed.

>>6441088
Newtonian gravity doesn't say anything about light.

To attempt to predict gravitational lensing with it requires a whole raft of additional assumptions. You can't pin that shit on Newton.

It's not wrong about gravitational lensing, that's just a phenomenon that's outside of its scope.

>>6441101

"out of context" ain't an explanation - just an excuse.

>>6441105

Either you're incredibly naive or playing dumb.

>>6441108
If I give you an email with just the words "you're right" do you think the rest of the book probably contains some context on this? Don't you think you should maybe not just guess and assume you have all the information anyway? Of course there is missing context. You don't know why it exists. That is evidence you lack context.

Is this basic reasoning to difficult to follow? Should I attempt non-verbal communication though a series of animistic grunts?

>>6441113
>Newtonian gravity doesn't say anything about light.
Wong. It's a tool, you can calculate whatever you like. You can assume it's a massless or massive particle. If you assume massless you get no lensing, if you assume a very small mass you get a value twice that of GR. Far outside experimental precision.

>To attempt to predict gravitational lensing with it requires a whole raft of additional assumptions.
No. You need it's velocity and whether or not it has finite mass.

If you knew shit about this you'd realisze that there was controversy in the early days because some argued the first measurements were closer to the small mass Newtonian value.

>>6441114
No, I genuinely don't understand what point you are trying to make. It makes no sense as a response.

>>6441126
>Wong. It's a tool, you can calculate whatever you like. You can assume it's a massless or massive particle.
Assuming light is a particle is a pretty big assumption from the start.

Assuming that light particles are bodies which gravitation acts upon in the usual way is another one.

Assuming that light particles have equal gravitational and inertial masses is yet another assumption you'd have to make.

There was really no reason to make any of these assumptions without getting some experimental evidence first. Newton had nothing to say about how gravity might affect light, and nobody should be exhuming him to put words in his mouth to laugh at.

>>6441140
>Assuming light is a particle is a pretty big assumption from the start.
It has a velocity, a path and you can assume it's mass. That's enough.

>Assuming that light particles are bodies which gravitation acts upon in the usual way is another one.
That would be an assumption on Newtonian dynamics. People did it in the past using it to describe the planets, there was no justification for that either.

>Assuming that light particles have equal gravitational and inertial masses is yet another assumption you'd have to make.
Another assumption of all of Newtonian dynamics, not just light.

>Newton had nothing to say about how gravity might affect light
He wrote down a law of "Universal Gravitation", we are simply applying it. There is no acceptation in Newtonian dynamics for light.

We aren't the ones making the assumptions, the nature of Newtonian dynamics is.

>>6441157
>>6441140

Who the hell cares what Newtonian mechanics has to say about gravity and light? Whatever it says, it's wrong.
It's like arguing about what the geocentric model would predict for planetary orbits; it makes no sense.
Calm down, you two.

>>6431174
>climate denial

Is denying the climate really a thing