Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

‘Get Over It’: Climate Change Is Happening


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
307 replies to this topic

#106    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,238 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 20 August 2012 - 04:13 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 20 August 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

"no correlation" is not justifed even if you consider just sunspot counts.
I used monthly average daily sunspot counts from NCDC's site for 1911 to 2010.  The calculations were done by SAS.  The confidence level is 95%.  Unless you are about to accuse NCDC of putting up false data, or the SAS Institute of putting out a defective program, this is so much BS.

There are ways to argue against my little analysis if you know what you're doing.  You could say I'm using an overly-simple model (That's what I would say.).  Or you could say that sunspots are only part of the story.  Or you could say that you were using a different time frame and so the two comparisons are not comparable.  Or you could say that your pretty chart is based on solar activity estimated from carbon 14 from tree rings (I thought you didn't trust tree rings.) and not on actual sunspot counts and so the two are not exactly comparable.

So why don't you use one of them and at least sound like you know what you're talking about?
Doug

P.S.:  Your chart does not tell who made it, what datasets he/she used, or provide a reference.  How do I know you didn't just make it up?  Or did you?
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 20 August 2012 - 04:19 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#107    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 August 2012 - 04:43 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 20 August 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

I used monthly average daily sunspot counts from NCDC's site for 1911 to 2010.  The calculations were done by SAS.  The confidence level is 95%.  Unless you are about to accuse NCDC of putting up false data, or the SAS Institute of putting out a defective program, this is so much BS.

There are ways to argue against my little analysis if you know what you're doing.  You could say I'm using an overly-simple model (That's what I would say.).  Or you could say that sunspots are only part of the story.  Or you could say that you were using a different time frame and so the two comparisons are not comparable.  Or you could say that your pretty chart is based on solar activity estimated from carbon 14 from tree rings (I thought you didn't trust tree rings.) and not on actual sunspot counts and so the two are not exactly comparable.

So why don't you use one of them and at least sound like you know what you're talking about?
Doug

P.S.:  Your chart does not tell who made it, what datasets he/she used, or provide a reference.  How do I know you didn't just make it up?  Or did you?
Doug
not interested in debating and proving what is self evident. why does everything end up so complicated and convulted with you.

the graph is a solar activity carbon 14 proxy from wikipedia (a co2-warmist biased source), it shows high correlation with temperature estimates over the last 100 years, so to imply there is "no correlation" or to imply that solar activity has declined over the last 100 years is false.

I don't need to run software and do calculations to show what is self evident.

I'll tell you what - YOU prove that one plus one equals two, and i'll consider wasting more of time. I'm not interested in "i've done the calculation, and I get two" as a proof, i want you to prove that one plus one equals two.


#108    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,173 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 20 August 2012 - 05:39 PM

Carbon 14 is not an indicator of solar activity.

Br  Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#109    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,238 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 20 August 2012 - 05:50 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 20 August 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

not interested in debating and proving what is self evident. why does everything end up so complicated and convulted with you.
If you would spend a little time reading up on the subject you would not find it so complicated.

Quote

the graph is a solar activity carbon 14 proxy from wikipedia (a co2-warmist biased source),
If the source is known to be biased, it is not a valid source, regardless of what its politics are.

Quote

it shows high correlation with temperature estimates over the last 100 years, so to imply there is "no correlation" or to imply that solar activity has declined over the last 100 years is false.
Your graph says nothing at all about correlations.  No model, no source, no statistics, nothing.  Just a wiggly line without any way to quantify it or verify it.  As a source for anything, it's worthless.  Of course, we have been over the graph issue before.  That was some time ago and I see you still haven't learned to read them.

Quote

I don't need to run software and do calculations to show what is self evident.
For some people, a wildass guess is sufficient evidence.

Quote

I'll tell you what - YOU prove that one plus one equals two, and i'll consider wasting more of time. I'm not interested in "i've done the calculation, and I get two" as a proof, i want you to prove that one plus one equals two.
You won't believe this, but I actually saw a proof of that.  It was way back in my undergraduate days and I have no idea what it was in.  But if you really want one, there are lots of math books out there.  You can probably find one with that proof in it.  Happy reading.  Or do you prefer to remain ignorant?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#110    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,238 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 20 August 2012 - 05:58 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 20 August 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

Carbon 14 is not an indicator of solar activity.

Br  Cornelius
Anderson, Roger Y.  1992.  Possible connection between surface winds, solar activity and the Earth's magnetic field.  Nature 358, 51-53 (02 July 1992); doi:10.1038/358051a0

Found that using Google Scholar.  Took about 20 seconds.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 20 August 2012 - 05:59 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#111    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,173 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:00 PM

The estimated effect of current solar maxima to current warming is about 20%;

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.4958v2

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#112    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:09 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 20 August 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

Carbon 14 is not an indicator of solar activity.

Br  Cornelius
what do you mean?


#113    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,173 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:22 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 20 August 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Anderson, Roger Y.  1992.  Possible connection between surface winds, solar activity and the Earth's magnetic field.  Nature 358, 51-53 (02 July 1992); doi:10.1038/358051a0

Found that using Google Scholar.  Took about 20 seconds.
Doug

i stand corrected. However its a very poor proxy for solar activity as it is influenced by multiple other factors - including plant growth.
Posted Image

http://en.wikipedia....spot-1000px.png

Note how the trend flatlines over the last 50yrs.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 20 August 2012 - 06:26 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#114    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:40 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 20 August 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

The estimated effect of current solar maxima to current warming is about 20%;

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.4958v2

Br Cornelius
your link doesn't say that.


#115    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,173 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:47 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 20 August 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

your link doesn't say that.

It estimates the effect which when calculated as a percentage of total forcing is 20%.

Solar influence has declined in the last 20yrs;

http://www.atmos.was...cted_trends.pdf

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#116    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:57 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 20 August 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

i stand corrected. However its a very poor proxy for solar activity as it is influenced by multiple other factors - including plant growth.
Posted Image

http://en.wikipedia....spot-1000px.png


Br Cornelius
so if the carbon-14 proxy is a poor proxy for solar activity then how can you be sure to rule out solar activity as the driver for 20th century warming?


Quote

Note how the trend flatlines over the last 50yrs.
note how the trend in lowest point of the troughs is a good match for temperature, but you'll need a better resolution graph. factor in the thermal inertia and resultant decadel length time lag of the oceans affecting land temperature, the last decade or so of cooling and you have an even better match to the "global temperature" graphs (whatever that index means).

what about berillium-10 as a proxy for solar activity, inverse relastionship so you'll have to mentally flip the chart upside down, you see a very good match to the estimated temperature rise on the right hand side of the graph. note that there is no flatline in trend over the last 50 years.
Posted Image

Edited by Little Fish, 20 August 2012 - 06:59 PM.


#117    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,173 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 20 August 2012 - 07:09 PM

I would not use C14 as evidence of solar activity.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#118    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 August 2012 - 07:14 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 20 August 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

It estimates the effect which when calculated as a percentage of total forcing is 20%

I can't find where it says that.

pictures of james hanson naked
http://heydollfacele...nce.tumblr.com/

Quote

Solar influence has declined in the last 20yrs;

http://www.atmos.was...cted_trends.pdf

Br Cornelius
temperatures have declined over the last 10 years. and then there is the decadel length of thermal lag of the oceans to consider.


#119    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 August 2012 - 07:16 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 20 August 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

I would not use C14 as evidence of solar activity.

Br Cornelius
the paper that you linked in post#111 does.


#120    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,173 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 20 August 2012 - 09:57 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 20 August 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

I can't find where it says that.

pictures of james hanson naked
http://heydollfacele...nce.tumblr.com/

temperatures have declined over the last 10 years. and then there is the decadel length of thermal lag of the oceans to consider.
No they have not declined - they have remained stably high.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users