Hawking's Life's Work About to be Falsified

[idb]

By my count there are 8 - 10 threads on the first 2 pages of the environment section which focus on "it is snowing in Russia - so no global warming" type nonsense.

There is 1 highlighting weather as proof of climate change.

It is alao interesting that none of our so well-informed sceptics here can bring themselves to call Skooks, Westwall, Gslack or any other of other Deniers on their shit.

Team loyalty outranks scientific truth.

Pretty much...

 

[SSDD]

SSDD thinks Hawking is "ignorant". You heard it here first.

I think he is right. I also think that if you asked Hawking he would tell you the same thing because he is smart enough to know that treading a book does not make one an expert in a field, nor does it impart omniscience. There are plenty of fields Hawking doesn't have knowledge about. Being ignorant is not a character flaw, it is a fact of life fore everyone in the world.

If we were talking about Hawking's flan recipes, I might agree - but I am going to stick my neck out and say that Hawking knows more about physics than anyone on this board.

Still waiting for you to answer the question. Will you dodge forever hiding behind your fallacious appeal to authority? Of course you will...its what you do.

Knowing the temperature history of the earth and the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, exactly how do you suppose hawking justifies claiming that warming may become self sustaining in the modern world with a global mean temperature of barely over 14C and atmospheric CO2 at around 499ppm? We know that warming didn't become self sustaining when atmospheric CO2 was above 7000ppm and it didn't become self sustaining when the global mean temperature was nearly 22C.

Answer the question. Upon what information do you believe hawking made his claim when history clearly tells us that his claim is foolishness?

 

[westwall]

You've made up your mind but you're wrong.
Which is exactly why I like to jump on idiots like skookzz...hxz..sn.ei..whatever.
Weather events in isolation prove nothing.

Don't try and tell me that self-proclaimed 'sceptics' don't point to every unusual snowfall as evidence that there is no such thing as GW...you know that would be false.

Just as I know that there's a difference between a sceptic and a denier...surely you know that there's a difference between a researched proponent and an unquestioning acolyte.

Sceptics have ALWAYS said that the "weather events" were nothing more than random variability. It is the warmists who have claimed every "weather event" is evidence of global warming.

Better get your targets correct.

Then you're clearly blinkered.
Did you not notice (forone example) the glee with which the Manitoba ice buildup was quoted in this forum as evidence against GW?

Sorry, but your partisanship is exposed.

I believe that is called "satire".. But as they always say...satire requires that the audience be intelligent.

 

[westwall]

By my count there are 8 - 10 threads on the first 2 pages of the environment section which focus on "it is snowing in Russia - so no global warming" type nonsense.

There is 1 highlighting weather as proof of climate change.

It is alao interesting that none of our so well-informed sceptics here can bring themselves to call Skooks, Westwall, Gslack or any other of other Deniers on their shit.

Team loyalty outranks scientific truth.

It's called satire. We are using your own BS against you and as usual you are either too stupid or too intellectually dishonest to realize it. Either way, ALL the major warmist groups have agreed with us that the temps have been flat for the last 10 years at minimum.


Your whole meme has been "see the CO2 is rising and so is the temperature" The CO2 is still going up but the temps aren't.

That means your "theory" is WRONG.

I congratulate you on a 30 year run for your fraud..........just go's to show how gullible people are...

 

[RKMBrown]

Burp...

Oh no, now you guys have to recalculate global warming and expansion of the universe... sorry guys!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This isn't really about climate science but there is a small group (and you know who you are) who regularly hold up Hawking's belief in AGW as evidence of AGW. The paper "On the Invalidity of the Hawking-Penrose Singularity ‘Theorems’ and Acceleration of the Universe from Negative Cosmological Constant" is about to demonstrate conclusively that for all of his "star appeal" Stephen Hawking really isn't, and never was, all that.

Stephen Crothers, probably one of the most brilliant scholars in Einsteinian type general relativity has written a new paper challenging Hawking's life's work...the Hawking - Penrose Singularity Theorem. Crothers argues that "“To disprove the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorem requires only disproof of one of the conditions the Theorem must satisfy. Nonetheless, all of the required conditions are proven invalid herein.”

In previous papers Crothers has demonstrated convincingly that a rather large chunk of what amounts to consensus in regard to subjects like the "Big Bang" has little, if any valid scientific basis because much of their position is based on general relativity which he has proven violates conservation of energy and momentum...which does have ramifications that spill over into the belief that cool objects can in some magical sense further warmer objects.

HEREis a link to the abstract page.

HERE is a link to the entire paper.

Stephen J Crothers is who?

How does he show that GR violates conservation? Does he disprove Noethers theorem or does he prove there isn't symmetry? What about the Landau Lifshitz pseudo-tensor?

Why doesn't he publish on http://arxiv.org/ instead?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well, since few of us have the background to make competant judgements as to the accuracy of Crothers paper, we will just have to see how the general physics community accepts it.

The general physics community doesn't read viXra.org open e-Print archive and unless Mr. Crothers sends them an email about it, its doubtful they will ever know of its existence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By my count there are 8 - 10 threads on the first 2 pages of the environment section which focus on "it is snowing in Russia - so no global warming" type nonsense.

There is 1 highlighting weather as proof of climate change.

It is alao interesting that none of our so well-informed sceptics here can bring themselves to call Skooks, Westwall, Gslack or any other of other Deniers on their shit.

Team loyalty outranks scientific truth.

How many threads are there claiming that the increase in tornadoes proves that global warming is real?

By the way, did you know that there are fewer tornadoes than average this year?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, since few of us have the background to make competant judgements as to the accuracy of Crothers paper, we will just have to see how the general physics community accepts it.

The general physics community doesn't read viXra.org open e-Print archive and unless Mr. Crothers sends them an email about it, its doubtful they will ever know of its existence.

Which is why I told the idiot he should read the paper before he tried to tell me I wasn't smart enough to judge its merits.

 

[Saigon]

By my count there are 8 - 10 threads on the first 2 pages of the environment section which focus on "it is snowing in Russia - so no global warming" type nonsense.

There is 1 highlighting weather as proof of climate change.

It is alao interesting that none of our so well-informed sceptics here can bring themselves to call Skooks, Westwall, Gslack or any other of other Deniers on their shit.

Team loyalty outranks scientific truth.

How many threads are there claiming that the increase in tornadoes proves that global warming is real?

By the way, did you know that there are fewer tornadoes than average this year?

The IIPC does not link the frequency of tornaodes with climate change.

 

[idb]

Sceptics have ALWAYS said that the "weather events" were nothing more than random variability. It is the warmists who have claimed every "weather event" is evidence of global warming.

Better get your targets correct.

Then you're clearly blinkered.
Did you not notice (forone example) the glee with which the Manitoba ice buildup was quoted in this forum as evidence against GW?

Sorry, but your partisanship is exposed.

I believe that is called "satire".. But as they always say...satire requires that the audience be intelligent.

Oh, so you've been joking all along!!!??
That makes a lot more sense if I think about it.

 

[Saigon]

I think he is right. I also think that if you asked Hawking he would tell you the same thing because he is smart enough to know that treading a book does not make one an expert in a field, nor does it impart omniscience. There are plenty of fields Hawking doesn't have knowledge about. Being ignorant is not a character flaw, it is a fact of life fore everyone in the world.

If we were talking about Hawking's flan recipes, I might agree - but I am going to stick my neck out and say that Hawking knows more about physics than anyone on this board.

Still waiting for you to answer the question. Will you dodge forever hiding behind your fallacious appeal to authority? Of course you will...its what you do.

Knowing the temperature history of the earth and the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, exactly how do you suppose hawking justifies claiming that warming may become self sustaining in the modern world with a global mean temperature of barely over 14C and atmospheric CO2 at around 499ppm? We know that warming didn't become self sustaining when atmospheric CO2 was above 7000ppm and it didn't become self sustaining when the global mean temperature was nearly 22C.

Answer the question. Upon what information do you believe hawking made his claim when history clearly tells us that his claim is foolishness?

History does not claim that - your poor literacy claims that.

It is very difficult for you to rebut Hawking's position when you are unable to adquately understand it. Go back and read it again, and pay attention to words like "may become".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By my count there are 8 - 10 threads on the first 2 pages of the environment section which focus on "it is snowing in Russia - so no global warming" type nonsense.

There is 1 highlighting weather as proof of climate change.

It is alao interesting that none of our so well-informed sceptics here can bring themselves to call Skooks, Westwall, Gslack or any other of other Deniers on their shit.

Team loyalty outranks scientific truth.

How many threads are there claiming that the increase in tornadoes proves that global warming is real?

By the way, did you know that there are fewer tornadoes than average this year?

The IIPC does not link the frequency of tornaodes with climate change.

Does the IIPC post here on a regular basis? If not, what the **** is your point?

 

[westwall]

Then you're clearly blinkered.
Did you not notice (forone example) the glee with which the Manitoba ice buildup was quoted in this forum as evidence against GW?

Sorry, but your partisanship is exposed.

I believe that is called "satire".. But as they always say...satire requires that the audience be intelligent.

Oh, so you've been joking all along!!!??
That makes a lot more sense if I think about it.

Oh, I doubt it. I've not seen you think too much to be honest. You tow the collectivist line without too much thought at all.

 

[westwall]

By my count there are 8 - 10 threads on the first 2 pages of the environment section which focus on "it is snowing in Russia - so no global warming" type nonsense.

There is 1 highlighting weather as proof of climate change.

It is alao interesting that none of our so well-informed sceptics here can bring themselves to call Skooks, Westwall, Gslack or any other of other Deniers on their shit.

Team loyalty outranks scientific truth.

How many threads are there claiming that the increase in tornadoes proves that global warming is real?

By the way, did you know that there are fewer tornadoes than average this year?

The IIPC does not link the frequency of tornaodes with climate change.

It's the IPCC for one, and for all but the last couple of years they in fact did predict more hurricanes and tornado's because of AGW.

The internet is a wonderful thing..... Allows to expose your lies...

IPCC scientists are such predictable little boys...



After April 2011 saw records set for most tornadoes in a month and in 24 hours — “The Katrina of tornado outbreaks“ — I examined the climate/tornado link in great detail here, looking at the data, the literature, and expert analysis. That piece concluded:
1.When discussing extreme weather and climate, tornadoes should not be conflated with the other extreme weather events for which the connection is considerably more straightforward and better documented, including deluges, droughts, and heat waves.
2.Just because the tornado-warming link is more tenuous doesn’t mean that the subject of global warming should be avoided entirely when talking about tornadoes.

Early March 2012 saw what was likely “the most prolific five-day period of tornado activity on record for so early in the year,” as meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters put it.

Then we had an unusually long “tornado drought” from May 2012 to April 2013, which has now come to a stunning end, punctuated by the devastating Moore, Oklahoma tornado yesterday:


A massive, mile-wide supercell tornado ripped through the suburbs of Oklahoma City, destroying homes, schools and other buildings. The tornado was on the ground for some 40 minutes, according to the National Weather Service (NWS), and police reported that an occupied elementary school was in the path of the cyclone. Early estimates had winds on the ground near 200 mph, which would have made the cyclone an F4 or higher. Witnesses said the damage was like something out of an atomic bomb strike, and there are at least 24 people dead, including many young children, with a toll that could eventually be far higher.






Tornadoes, Extreme Weather And Climate Change, Revisited | ThinkProgress

 

[Politico]

So a guy who specializes in theoretical ideas is arguing with another guy who specializes in theoretical ideas. Alrighty then.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So a guy who specializes in theoretical ideas is arguing with another guy who specializes in theoretical ideas. Alrighty then.

Nope.

A guy who failed out of his PhD program self-published a paper on a pre-preprint website designed for physics papers that can't even pass muster on the main pre-preint website and now a bunch of idiot message board posters think that's a important.

 

[idb]

I believe that is called "satire".. But as they always say...satire requires that the audience be intelligent.

Oh, so you've been joking all along!!!??
That makes a lot more sense if I think about it.

Oh, I doubt it. I've not seen you think too much to be honest. You tow the collectivist line without too much thought at all.

If that's true, then so do you.
You claim that there are a significant number of well-credentialled folk agree with you - you're towing a collectivist line as well.
You run with your herd and I'll run with mine.

 

[SSDD]

History does not claim that - your poor literacy claims that.

Lets try this again since you seem to be slow on the uptake. History doesn't "claim" anything. History just is. Here is, to the best of our knowledge, what the temperature history and the atmospheric CO2 concentration history of the earth looks like.

Now look closely at the temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations across history. We know that warming never became self sustainging during any of those periods because ice ages inevetably came around.

Now that you have looked at history, compare that to the present and tell me under what conditiond do you think anyone other than a blithering idiot, or a deliberate fraudster could claim even a remote possibility of warming becoming self sustaining under anything like modern conditions.

It is very difficult for you to rebut Hawking's position when you are unable to adquately understand it. Go back and read it again, and pay attention to words like "may become".

Your feigned superiority rather than actual answers to the questions put to you grows ever more boring. Hawking said "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already." That is a clear statement that he believes that it is possible that under modern conditions (completely ignoring the past) that warming may have become self sustaining already.

He goes on to say "The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. " Does he think that the ice caps didn't melt back when the global mean temperature was approaching 22 degrees C as opposed to the global mean today of slightly above 14C? We know that for most of the history of earth, there has been no ice at one, or both of the poles...we also know that even without ice, and CO2 in the thousands of parts per million in the atmosphere, that warming never became self sustaining.

The very claim is idiotic. Do you know what self sustaining means? The term literally means that it can continue without any outside aid. Turn off the sun and tell me any warming might be self sustaining.

The rest of his statement goes on to describe things that have already happened in the history of the earth that didn't lead to self sustained warming.

So again, answer the question....under what modern conditions do you think he could possibly believe that GW might have even possibly become self sustaining or might become self sustaining? Since the present isn't anything close to the conditions of the past that we know didn't result in self sustained warming, the man is either an idiot or deliberate fraud in making the claim and you are an idiot for trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[Old Rocks]

Very simply, as the Arctic Ocean warms, the CH4 clathrates outgas. Then the CH4 clathrates that are present on all the continental margins outgas. It has happened before. Problem is, we don't have a firm grip on a timeline for this. Maybe next year, maybe two centuries from now.

Given how quickly the Artic Ice has melted, far faster than the 'Alarmist' estimates, I would bet sooner rather than later.

Some numbers. It takes 334 Joules of energy to convert one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water. 90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. 90% of the sunlight striking water is absorbed. Since it takes 4.81 Joules of energy to raise one gram of water one degree, the energy that was melting one gram of ice is now raising 69 grams of water one degree in temperature.

And, since the water is obsorbing 90% of the energy in the sunlight, the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice, no increase in temperature, is now heating 625 grams of water one degree.

As for the rest of your silly diatribe, it is the rate of change that is creating the problems. And with 7 billion humans on this planet, anything that affects agriculture in a negative manner is a danger to that population.