217 replies to this topic

[FurthurBB]

BFB, on 05 March 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

I agree, we dont know how Earth's climate really works. People who study weather would all agree.
There is still so many unknowns in weather, so what would make us think we know everything about climate.

Its because scientists dont like to admit we dont really know.

If scientists didn't like to admit me don't really know things then they wouldn't have a job.  Talk about flawed logic.

[BFB]

FurthurBB, on 05 March 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

If scientists didn't like to admit me don't really know things then they wouldn't have a job.  Talk about flawed logic.

You do understand i am referring to climate scientists right?

[questionmark]

BFB, on 05 March 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

You do understand i am referring to climate scientists right?

Ah well, how about then not using climate scientists but biologists?

http://news.stanford...eaf-010709.html

[BFB]

questionmark, on 05 March 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

Ah, why would I not be surprised you are using the Law dome measurements that start just after the year 1000.... because it does not show the levels it came from before the first plague outbreak (around 900)

Well, how about Vostock that has data for the last 2000 years?



Ooops...big change from the warm medieval to the cold little ice age...innit?

The little ice age didn't start until the 14th century. So whats the point going further back? Never mind.

Where is the significant decrease in CO2? 16........ ?

Questionmark seriously do you see a correlation between temperatures and CO2 in the period of the little ice age?

Try agian.

[BFB]

questionmark, on 05 March 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Ah well, how about then not using climate scientists but biologists?

http://news.stanford...eaf-010709.html

Questionmark does help mean the same as cause?

Is methane the cause our current warming. No but it helps. Understand?

Btw your asnwer had nothing to do with my point.

[questionmark]

BFB, on 05 March 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

The little ice age didn't start until the 14th century. So whats the point going further back? Never mind.

Where is the significant decrease in CO2? 16........ ?

Questionmark seriously do you see a correlation between temperatures and CO2 in the period of the little ice age?

Try agian.

Sure will, see above.

And there are two little ice ages, the first started after the medieval optimum (950-1250) and  later there was a period of lower temperatures from the 16th to the 19th century. That it is restricted to the 16th to the 19th century is a pretty recent thingy coined by NASA in 1964 (see Mathess 1939) . None of these were actually ice ages but cold periods.

But if you just want to discuss 16th to 19th century see the article I have pasted on the top. I am not the only one who sees a correlation (even though Katla did its part in Europe at the end of that period).


.

[JGirl]

Little Fish, on 27 February 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

By Dr David M.W. Evans

"We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message – here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention....."

http://wattsupwithth...-skeptics-case/

quite honestly i don't care all that much about it at this point.
there's years of this to go yet before anyone gets close to agreeing, if they ever do.

[liteness]

questionmark, on 05 March 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

And so you say that this is happening since 1850? Or what ESA and NASA say that this could be an additional peril we are facing?

We are not talking about anything that is happening in the last ten years, we are talking about something that is happening since the beginning of the 19th century.

Distracting from the real theme is about as useful as discussing my Greekness and all it does is shift the theme to the irrelevant to it.

I understand. Perhaps my wording mislead you, I merely wished to present data. These data sources were not available in the beginning of the 19th century. We haven't been sending out that much advanced satellites for very long really.
So we can't use any time frames here. But merely the raw data we see now, from satellites.
I would say the past 10 years has be HUGE for solar science. Even the past 5 years. Mankind has observed several things that has surprised and awed us about space science the past 5-10 years.

It wasn't meant to be a distraction at all. You misunderstood me or I wasn't clear enough =)
I'm just simply saying, perhaps it would be a joy for you to study what we have learned about solar science newly.
Because what I learned at school (I'm 29) is old, old and old.
For me I understood your statement that *no correlation* means that, you drop and are in the belief that solar science has basicly nothing to do with Earth climate.
Maybe you can take time to help me understand what you mean(and ninjadude perhaps?) about no correlation and debunked solar science and earth climate.

I would really appreciate it.

Thanks.

[questionmark]

liteness, on 05 March 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

I understand. Perhaps my wording mislead you, I merely wished to present data. These data sources were not available in the beginning of the 19th century. We haven't been sending out that much advanced satellites for very long really.
So we can't use any time frames here. But merely the raw data we see now, from satellites.
I would say the past 10 years has be HUGE for solar science. Even the past 5 years. Mankind has observed several things that has surprised and awed us about space science the past 5-10 years.

It wasn't meant to be a distraction at all. You misunderstood me or I wasn't clear enough =)
I'm just simply saying, perhaps it would be a joy for you to study what we have learned about solar science newly.
Because what I learned at school (I'm 29) is old, old and old.
For me I understood your statement that *no correlation* means that, you drop and are in the belief that solar science has basicly nothing to do with Earth climate.
Maybe you can take time to help me understand what you mean(and ninjadude perhaps?) about no correlation and debunked solar science and earth climate.

I would really appreciate it.

Thanks.

Correlation means that if you have two sets of data (lets say the average temperature of the moon and the average temperature of the earth -- to stay with the theme at hand) and both raise and fall in an equivalent way (not necessary the same absolute amounts) consistently. Then that indicates that the raise and fall of those values could be (but don't have to be) caused by something common. In that case we say that the sets correlate.

Single events are not very significant in this (you could probably put the amount of salmon going up a river in relation to sunspots) as they could be caused by chance. But if you see the same pattern twice in a row then it is time to get suspicious. If you see the patter a dozen times in a row you are pretty near to certainty. If the pattern is always the same it is pretty unlikely likely that they are unrelated (but there still is a possibility).

A good example is this image of a tree that is correlated to the size of its annual rings:



And it is pretty easy to see that rainfall and growth correlate (lots of rain big ring, little rain little ring)

Edited by questionmark, 05 March 2012 - 08:55 PM.

[liteness]

questionmark, on 05 March 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Correlation means that if you have two sets of data (lets say the average temperature of the moon and the average temperature of the earth -- to stay with the theme at hand) and both raise and fall in an equivalent way (not necessary the same absolute amounts) consistently. Then that indicates that the raise and fall of those values could be (but don't have to be) caused by something common. In that case we say that the sets correlate.

Single events are not very significant in this (you could probably put the amount of salmon going up a river in relation to sunspots) as they could be caused by chance. But if you see the same pattern twice in a row then it is time to get suspicious. If you see the patter a dozen times in a row you are pretty near to certainty. If the pattern is always the same it is pretty ulittle likely that they are unrelated (but there still is a possibility).

A good example is this image of a tree that is correlated to the size of its annual rings:



And it is pretty easy to see that rainfall and growth correlate (lots of rain big ring, little rain little ring)

Ok, thanks.

Though, Sun-spots are merely one variable for many different theories.

If you have time, would you look at this research?

http://www.biocab.or....html#anchor_32
http://www.biocab.or....html#anchor_77

I understand that in the media Sun-spots have gotten a long 15mins of fame around climate change.
Those, in a bigger picture, the Sun is not the only variable in the result of climate change(in theory of course).

I would really enjoy it if you read this research. I think you would too.
What better to have a good look at another theory besides co2 and methane as the cause of gw.

I'm not trying to change your opinion. That is yours no matter what. And actually, if you still hold your opinion, it will be stronger as you have more insight in the theories of gw.

If you find anything that is seriously far fetched and wrong, please let me know. I would appreciate that. =)

[liteness]

liteness, on 05 March 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

Ok, thanks.

Though, Sun-spots are merely one variable for many different theories.

If you have time, would you look at this research?

http://www.biocab.or....html#anchor_32
http://www.biocab.or....html#anchor_77

I understand that in the media Sun-spots have gotten a long 15mins of fame around climate change.
Those, in a bigger picture, the Sun is not the only variable in the result of climate change(in theory of course).

I would really enjoy it if you read this research. I think you would too.
What better to have a good look at another theory besides co2 and methane as the cause of gw.

I'm not trying to change your opinion. That is yours no matter what. And actually, if you still hold your opinion, it will be stronger as you have more insight in the theories of gw.

If you find anything that is seriously far fetched and wrong, please let me know. I would appreciate that. =)

Nevertheless, I do think I have succeeded in presenting correlations with gw and solar science. Sun-spots, my friend is merely a very very small variable in a huge picture.

If you still find no correlations, I would still appreciate your opinion and hope that it will strengthen and/or change mine =)

[questionmark]

liteness, on 05 March 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

Ok, thanks.

Though, Sun-spots are merely one variable for many different theories.

If you have time, would you look at this research?

http://www.biocab.or....html#anchor_32
http://www.biocab.or....html#anchor_77

I understand that in the media Sun-spots have gotten a long 15mins of fame around climate change.
Those, in a bigger picture, the Sun is not the only variable in the result of climate change(in theory of course).

I would really enjoy it if you read this research. I think you would too.
What better to have a good look at another theory besides co2 and methane as the cause of gw.

I'm not trying to change your opinion. That is yours no matter what. And actually, if you still hold your opinion, it will be stronger as you have more insight in the theories of gw.

If you find anything that is seriously far fetched and wrong, please let me know. I would appreciate that. =)

They are on the "it happens but not so fast" trip. All I can say about it is that we don't really know how fast it was happening then. How much glaciation was there during the middle ages? We know for certain that Greenland was mostly ice free when the Vikings settled there (around 900 AD) so we can assume that the de-glaciation period was already terminated by then. The highest temperatures were not yet reached and would not be for another 100 years. We are already past those temperatures. So ask me again 100 years after Greenland is ice free if the temperatures raised more then or now.

The comparison stinks. But as far as statistic goes they are making a valid point. The problem is that paper is patient. So are statistics.

[liteness]

questionmark, on 05 March 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

They are on the "it happens but not so fast" trip. All I can say about it is that we don't really know how fast it was happening then. How much glaciation was there during the middle ages? We know for certain that Greenland was mostly ice free when the Vikings settled there (around 900 AD) so we can assume that the de-glaciation period was already terminated by then. The highest temperatures were not yet reached and would not be for another 100 years. We are already past those temperatures. So ask me again 100 years after Greenland is ice free if the temperatures raised more then or now.

The comparison stinks. But as far as statistic goes they are making a valid point. The problem is that paper is patient. So are statistics.

Ok.
But I must say, there is absolutely no way you read those two papers fully, and understood them in 16 minutes. From my post to your reply.
I used actually around 5 days to go through them, check every source, read every source and visited my science books+wiki to understand it the science. And I really enjoyed it.
Perhaps I'm just a slow reader.  

There is actually enough data and enough information, that I completely forgot they even spoke of Greenland. I'm tempted to even look at the research again to see if Greenland was a major topic or not.

My enlightenment had nothing to do with Greenland really. It had to do with the data that speaks loudly about cosmic clouds, intensity of cosmic rays and their interaction with the solar system, some physics, some particle physics and the science of a star's magnetic fields and planets.
I remember nothing about Greenland actually. Honestly.

=)

If you do not wish to have an open mind in science(sorry if I'm preaching, I do that), you should stay away from it. Politics might be better for you. Science is for the curious, the open minded and the philosophers. True knowledge is the gift of science, if you can not embrace knowledge in all aspects, you are not receiving anything positive from science.
Perhaps, one must first realize to some degree that righteousness, just and wisdom are the key ingredients to soaking in the fullness of knowledge. And true wisdom is held within the ability to understand that no one man can know all, and there is always something new to learn, and mistakes are plenty.

[questionmark]

liteness, on 05 March 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Ok.
But I must say, there is absolutely no way you read those two papers fully, and understood them in 16 minutes. From my post to your reply.
I used actually around 5 days to go through them, check every source, read every source and visited my science books+wiki to understand it the science. And I really enjoyed it.
Perhaps I'm just a slow reader.  

There is actually enough data and enough information, that I completely forgot they even spoke of Greenland. I'm tempted to even look at the research again to see if Greenland was a major topic or not.

My enlightenment had nothing to do with Greenland really. It had to do with the data that speaks loudly about cosmic clouds, intensity of cosmic rays and their interaction with the solar system, some physics, some particle physics and the science of a star's magnetic fields and planets.
I remember nothing about Greenland actually. Honestly.

=)

If you do not wish to have an open mind in science(sorry if I'm preaching, I do that), you should stay away from it. Politics might be better for you. Science is for the curious, the open minded and the philosophers. True knowledge is the gift of science, if you can not embrace knowledge in all aspects, you are not receiving anything positive from science.
Perhaps, one must first realize to some degree that righteousness, just and wisdom are the key ingredients to soaking in the fullness of knowledge. And true wisdom is held within the ability to understand that no one man can know all, and there is always something new to learn, and mistakes are plenty.

The reason why I talk about glaciers is because they are part of the "cold reserve" as long as they mostly exist the cool down the air temperature melting. In the middle ages most did not exist anymore (at least the big ones like Greenland). And that is the point they disregard. Their problem is that historically we can show that those glaciers did not exist thereby the temperatures could rise more quickly.

In our case we did not have a deglaciation period in between the cold and hot periods but went straight from the little ice age to a rampant temperature climb, that is why the situation is not comparable. If it would have happened right after the Roman cold period (which it did not by 200 years) they would have a case.

Edit, and those papers are not new to me, I go through the "climate skeptic's" sites every day... just in case they found something tangible and that is why I can quote them.

Edited by questionmark, 05 March 2012 - 09:53 PM.

[liteness]

questionmark, on 05 March 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

The reason why I talk about glaciers is because they are part of the "cold reserve" as long as they mostly exist the cool down the air temperature melting. In the middle ages most did not exist anymore (at least the big ones like Greenland). And that is the point they disregard. Their problem is that historically we can show that those glaciers did not exist thereby the temperatures could rise more quickly.

In our case we did not have a deglaciation period in between the cold and hot periods but went straight from the little ice age to a rampant temperature climb, that is why the situation is not comparable. If it would have happened right after the Roman cold period (which it did not by 200 years) they would have a case.

Edit, and those papers are not new to me, I go through the "climate skeptic's" sites every day... just in case they found something tangible and that is why I can quote them.

Good enough for me. I'll go through it when I have time and see if this argument can falsify the theory.

Much appreciated.