sunsettommy Posted June 20, 2010 #101 Share Posted June 20, 2010 http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html this cycle may have something to do with climate change. by the way the 11 year cycle is an increase of sunspots, sunspots are areas of the sun where more radiation is getting to the surface, but it is also an increase in the mass ejection thing. ie more material is thrown into space and if that hits the earth then it would change our weather. which means that in the long 22 year cycle there wouldnt be much change in the output of radiation from the sun, but these mass ejections are carry a lot of radiation that wouldnt normally be leaving the sun. and we know when those hit the earth because it messes with our electronics. in fact, i think it was, in 2000 half of canada went dark because of one of these things. Actually the sunspots are still there,but the magnetic field is too weak to make them visible. Thus counting visible sunspots does not provide a reliable measurement of solar output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted June 20, 2010 #102 Share Posted June 20, 2010 No, having a scientific education does though The IPCC doesn't do science, it produces reports that use science done by a far greater number of scientists who work around scientific institutions who produce overwhelming evidence that we are the primary driving force behind current climate change. So that is either you completely not understanding this in the slightest or being dishonest. It is true that the IPCC itself does not produce actual science research. However they do not consistently use credible science research either.I find it interesting that you appear totally unaware just how many papers were NOT based on published peer reviewed science research. Here is a link Climate Bible Gets 21 'F's on Report Card that will show just many "grey" papers were used. How about this LINK and LINK and LINK. That was just a few of the links showing what a mess the IPCC is. Thus the propaganda that the IPCC produces "overwhelming evidence that we are the primary driving force behind current climate change" is is an overstatement to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted June 20, 2010 #103 Share Posted June 20, 2010 proxies are manipulated data, not real data. for instance 9 out of 10 doctors agree that asperian will get rid of headaches. now does that mean that out of the next 10 doctors that you ask they will all agree to the asperian getting rid of headaches no. and all i had to do to get that info, if i actual did the research, was talk to 10 doctors. the rest is a proxie. Come on Danielost! You will have to do better than that to show that they are "manipulated" data.It is true that they are secondary class of evidence.But still can be valuable for research. Bristlecone pine tree ring data is not reliable because there are too many factors besides temperature to influence tree growth.That is one of the reasons why Dr. Mann's "hockey stick" paper is so weak.I am amazed that so many people fail to realize how weak the underlying data is and accept the absurd conclusions it was making. Proxy data have their place in science research when they are used properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted June 20, 2010 #104 Share Posted June 20, 2010 And that is all you can see, it blinds you to the wealth of scientific research. I am not an advocate of the tax carbon out of existance solution which governments have decided upon, but it is you and I who elect our representatives and if one of them presents a superior solution then its up to us to elect them. Unfortunately the real lasting solutions are far more radical and I suspect that few would support them - so we are left with ineffectual taxes to try to solve a fundamentally systemic problem. The first step is to disentangle the science from your opinions about politics. Br Cornelius LOL, but it is ok for you that the IPCC by design mix politics with science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted June 20, 2010 #105 Share Posted June 20, 2010 The theory of anthropogenic climate change has been around for decades, it wasn't Al Gore who first brought it to light. He may have popularised it in the public's eye, but this is by no means the same. It is NOT a theory,it is a conjecture or hypothesis filled with a lot of unverified climate models,some that are PROJECTIONS (as published by the overrated IPCC) into the future (lol). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.B. Posted June 20, 2010 #106 Share Posted June 20, 2010 If you've been paying attention, Cornelius dislikes the IPCC. It's the direct science, in outside papers, that he looks at, not the reports from that institution. No good scientist is going to look at the IPCC and think of anything but damage control, mkaking sure the politicians don't **** up the data and conclusions too badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 20, 2010 #107 Share Posted June 20, 2010 (edited) Uniformitarianism, 'the past is the key to the present'. It's a major philosophy in Earth Sciences. How can we possibly model what may happen in the future if we have no evidence from the past? And where is this proof that it is wrong? Milankovitch cycles are very predictable and have been unchanged throughout history (as geological strata shows). Ironically it is 'set in stone', we get our knowledge from the geological record. Regarding the earthquakes, it is the media that say it is 'one every 200 years'. What it actually means is that there is a 1 in 200 chance of it occurring in a particular year, it may happen every year for five years or it may not ever happen again. It's merely based on the previous tectonic activity for that fault. and what are the odds for a huge iceberg, the largest ever seen, with enough Fresh water to be sold for about 600 billion dollars on the market. breaking off of the Ross shelf, i think that is what it is called. oh wait it already happened so with in what 50 years this burg will be far enough north to start to melt and dumping all of that fresh water into the sea. why is this important, because the conveyor belt works on the amount of salt in the sea. or what if we have just plain read the stones wrong. it was set in stone that we needed 8 8oz glasses of water every day. now i hear that is to much water. by the way it is the scientists who read those rocks in salt lake and came up with the 200 year numbers. the media just reports what someone tells them, unless they think a made up story will get bleeding hearts to care. Edited June 20, 2010 by danielost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2010 #108 Share Posted June 20, 2010 LOL, but it is ok for you that the IPCC by design mix politics with science. That is its specific function - to educate a scientifically illiterate policy making body. Lets be realistic - its doing its job, thats all. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted June 20, 2010 #109 Share Posted June 20, 2010 (edited) i suggest you read it again. it states only a few dozen experts agree with manmade global warming, instead of the 2500 that is claimed to back it. or in their words. same link as above. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony. “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.” Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0qrtjbyGa The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today. Here is the actual wording from page 10-11 of the PDF. Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading11 scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields. Read more above and below this quote to get a better understanding what Mike is writing about. The IPCC has been using misleading language for a long time. Edited June 20, 2010 by sunsettommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted June 20, 2010 #110 Share Posted June 20, 2010 (edited) and what are the odds for a huge iceberg, the largest ever seen, with enough Fresh water to be sold for about 600 billion dollars on the market. breaking off of the Ross shelf, i think that is what it is called. oh wait it already happened so with in what 50 years this burg will be far enough north to start to melt and dumping all of that fresh water into the sea. why is this important, because the conveyor belt works on the amount of salt in the sea. or what if we have just plain read the stones wrong. it was set in stone that we needed 8 8oz glasses of water every day. now i hear that is to much water. by the way it is the scientists who read those rocks in salt lake and came up with the 200 year numbers. the media just reports what someone tells them, unless they think a made up story will get bleeding hearts to care. I have to agree with BR Cornelius,when he is talking about Milankovitch cycles. I have the book written by John Imbrie published in the late 1970's.Where he make a credible case for the Milankovitch theory based on numerous data that produced dates that have strong agreement with his mathematical conclusions.There are specific time periods found in geologic research that supports specific timelines during an actual ice age cycle. They are 19,000 23,000 41,000 82,000 and the 100,000 year cycles.They line up quite well with the calculated orbital changes Milutin wrote about during the expanding and contracting ice epochs. Before the current 100,000 year cycle came around,there was a 41,000 year ice age cycle,that just happens to line up with one of the cycles found in the 100,000 year cycle. This interglacial we are in is the coolest of the last 3-4 interglacial's.This could mean that we still have some more warming to go or that it is a continuation of an over all cooling trend for the last few million years. You should look up that book. Edited June 20, 2010 by sunsettommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted June 20, 2010 #111 Share Posted June 20, 2010 (edited) The Milankovich cycle, which feed into paleoclimitology models shows a stable period for the next 30K yrs or so. The process is reasonably well understood and accounted for. Br Cornelius Did you just say that you will take seriously that UNVERIFIED paleoclimatology models show a stable period for the next 30,000 years or so? The next 30,000 years has not happened yet. That is not good science. Come on! PAST climate history indicate that the last few interglacial's last around 10,000 to 20,000 years.We have already gone more than 11,500 years since the present interglacial period was established. Here is a climate map from my forum: LINK While we can say the dates are not precise,the trend is unmistakable. Edited June 20, 2010 by sunsettommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted June 20, 2010 #112 Share Posted June 20, 2010 Did you just say that you will take seriously that UNVERIFIED paleoclimatology models show a stable period for the next 30,000 years or so? The next 30,000 years has not happened yet. That is not good science. Come on! PAST climate history indicate that the last few interglacial's last around 10,000 to 20,000 years.We have already gone more than 11,500 years since the present interglacial period was established. Here is a climate map from my forum: LINK While we can say the dates are not precise,the trend is unmistakable. Models are testable and predictive, what possible reason would there be to simply dismiss them? It is nice you are using your own forum for evidence, but for the purpose of science, it is worthless. Why is you medieval temp so high? It was probably a bit lower than the current average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted June 20, 2010 #113 Share Posted June 20, 2010 Models are testable and predictive, what possible reason would there be to simply dismiss them? It is nice you are using your own forum for evidence, but for the purpose of science, it is worthless. Why is you medieval temp so high? It was probably a bit lower than the current average. I was commenting on what Br Cornelius wrote.To show you what that was,I quote him again: The Milankovich cycle, which feed into paleoclimitology models shows a stable period for the next 30K yrs or so.The process is reasonably well understood and accounted for. My reply here was: Did you just say that you will take seriously that UNVERIFIED paleoclimatology models show a stable period for the next 30,000 years or so?The next 30,000 years has not happened yet. That is not good science. No where did I dismiss climate models in general.I was clearly saying that anything predictive far into the future based on some climate models are indeed UNVERIFIED.That is why I jumped on it. The 30,000 years have not happened yet,therefore it is NOT verified.Unless you have a certain nice round crystal ball that you are hiding from us? Here you complain about something I never talked about: Models are testable and predictive, what possible reason would there be to simply dismiss them? You were deflecting with a red herring. Pretty bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted June 20, 2010 #114 Share Posted June 20, 2010 I was commenting on what Br Cornelius wrote.To show you what that was,I quote him again: My reply here was: No where did I dismiss climate models in general.I was clearly saying that anything predictive far into the future based on some climate models are indeed UNVERIFIED.That is why I jumped on it. The 30,000 years have not happened yet,therefore it is NOT verified.Unless you have a certain nice round crystal ball that you are hiding from us? Here you complain about something I never talked about: You were deflecting with a red herring. Pretty bad. It is not deflection at all, it is you being dismissive with out cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted June 20, 2010 #115 Share Posted June 20, 2010 It is not deflection at all, it is you being dismissive with out cause. LOL Apparently to YOU it is good science to make any long into the future climate projections (100 to 30,000 years)and call it valid science research. By the way what global temperature is it in year 32,010? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted June 20, 2010 #116 Share Posted June 20, 2010 (edited) The science of forecasting and modeling does indeed take into account how the forecast/model performed over time. That is why these models/forecasts change at each iteration. Indeed, most of them predicting even worse consequences as time marches on and more recent actual data is applied. Surely you're not requiring that to be valid we must time travel into the future to verify a prediction? No forecast/model can be "verified" in their very nature. To claim "verification" as something to dismiss, is to completely misunderstand the nature of forecasts/models. Forecasts/models are inherently wrong. And yet we cannot survive without them. Forecasts/models about far future times are more inherently in error than ones about near future times. As more data streams are incorporated into the model/forecast, accuracy tends to increase. These are the facts. They do not mean that the layman should be dismissive of them. Edited June 20, 2010 by ninjadude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoSavant Posted June 24, 2010 Author #117 Share Posted June 24, 2010 The science of forecasting and modeling does indeed take into account how the forecast/model performed over time. That is why these models/forecasts change at each iteration. Indeed, most of them predicting even worse consequences as time marches on and more recent actual data is applied. Surely you're not requiring that to be valid we must time travel into the future to verify a prediction? No forecast/model can be "verified" in their very nature. To claim "verification" as something to dismiss, is to completely misunderstand the nature of forecasts/models. Forecasts/models are inherently wrong. And yet we cannot survive without them. Forecasts/models about far future times are more inherently in error than ones about near future times. As more data streams are incorporated into the model/forecast, accuracy tends to increase. These are the facts. They do not mean that the layman should be dismissive of them. Sounds like weatherman science to me. You know its the only job where you can get paid to be wrong 70%+ of the time, wish all fields and professions had such grey areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 24, 2010 #118 Share Posted June 24, 2010 I have to agree with BR Cornelius,when he is talking about Milankovitch cycles. I have the book written by John Imbrie published in the late 1970's.Where he make a credible case for the Milankovitch theory based on numerous data that produced dates that have strong agreement with his mathematical conclusions.There are specific time periods found in geologic research that supports specific timelines during an actual ice age cycle. They are 19,000 23,000 41,000 82,000 and the 100,000 year cycles.They line up quite well with the calculated orbital changes Milutin wrote about during the expanding and contracting ice epochs. Before the current 100,000 year cycle came around,there was a 41,000 year ice age cycle,that just happens to line up with one of the cycles found in the 100,000 year cycle. This interglacial we are in is the coolest of the last 3-4 interglacial's.This could mean that we still have some more warming to go or that it is a continuation of an over all cooling trend for the last few million years. You should look up that book. why you just said we should be hotter than we are. br cornelius, ninjadude amongst others contend that we are too hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted June 26, 2010 #119 Share Posted June 26, 2010 why you just said we should be hotter than we are. br cornelius, ninjadude amongst others contend that we are too hot. No this is what I stated: This interglacial we are in is the coolest of the last 3-4 interglacial's.This could mean that we still have some more warming to go or that it is a continuation of an over all cooling trend for the last few million years. Too hot? This is so far the COLDEST interglacial of the last 500,000 years! It would be nice if it was a degree warmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now