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.


- - - - -

'German Physicists Trash Global Warming


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#121    Startraveler

Startraveler

    Fleet Captain

  • Member
  • 4,539 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Knowledge Brings Fear.

Posted 03 January 2010 - 05:03 PM

Quote

is this how alarmists always debate?

What's an alarmist? Someone who agrees that the planet's surface temperature is higher than its effective radiating temperature and has been for a few billion years? Someone who acknowledges that Venus is warmer than Mercury and that the Mars ocean hypothesis (or any hypothesis about a warmer and wetter Mars) is physically possible?


#122    Siara

Siara

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,427 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maryland, USA

Posted 03 January 2010 - 09:14 PM

View PostMoon Monkey, on 03 January 2010 - 04:21 PM, said:

Why does he need the data to copy and paste an available equation that he has had from multiple sources for a month ?

Never used a statistical analysis software package, huh?


#123    Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,884 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester or Israel

  • All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 03 January 2010 - 09:26 PM

View PostSiara, on 03 January 2010 - 09:14 PM, said:

Never used a statistical analysis software package, huh?
Oh cripes, I have another one. I really don't know what you mean by that but yes I have used many different software packages for all kinds of analysis but mainly write my own toolboxes these days, too many mistakes in the off-the-shelf stuff...anyhoo..if memory serves me right you can import excel workbooks directly into SPSS just as you can with most packages should you want to.

OK.in plain english..... I want to use the equation and the CO2 data to produce a prediction of the temperature which I can then compare with the actual temperature data and perform my own analysis of its performance before and after 8000 YBP. I don't want or need any analysis of the data done for me...just the equation copying and pasting from one of his printed sources. But like I said I really don't care any more whether it is posted or not.

Edited by Moon Monkey, 03 January 2010 - 09:44 PM.


#124    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 January 2010 - 10:07 PM

View PostMoon Monkey, on 03 January 2010 - 09:26 PM, said:

Oh cripes, I have another one. I really don't know what you mean by that but yes I have used many different software packages for all kinds of analysis but mainly write my own toolboxes these days, too many mistakes in the off-the-shelf stuff...anyhoo..if memory serves me right you can import excel workbooks directly into SPSS just as you can with most packages should you want to.

OK.in plain english..... I want to use the equation and the CO2 data to produce a prediction of the temperature which I can then compare with the actual temperature data and perform my own analysis of its performance before and after 8000 YBP. I don't want or need any analysis of the data done for me...just the equation copying and pasting from one of his printed sources. But like I said I really don't care any more whether it is posted or not.

On Vostok graph for the last 400,000 years the relationship between temperature and CO2 is not logarithmic, it is linear. With some minor delay on time scale - temperature changes and few hundred years later CO2 changes the same way.


#125    Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,884 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester or Israel

  • All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 03 January 2010 - 10:19 PM

View Postmarabod, on 03 January 2010 - 10:07 PM, said:

On Vostok graph for the last 400,000 years the relationship between temperature and CO2 is not logarithmic, it is linear. With some minor delay on time scale - temperature changes and few hundred years later CO2 changes the same way.
:D Wait for it......


#126    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 January 2010 - 10:26 PM

View PostMoon Monkey, on 03 January 2010 - 10:19 PM, said:

:D Wait for it......

LOL! I guess this is a case of someone studying Calculus after skipping Arithmetic.


#127    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 04 January 2010 - 12:16 AM

View Postmarabod, on 03 January 2010 - 10:07 PM, said:

On Vostok graph for the last 400,000 years the relationship between temperature and CO2 is not logarithmic, it is linear. With some minor delay on time scale - temperature changes and few hundred years later CO2 changes the same way.
I was only saying what the general relationship is between CO2 and temp, not what Vostock data shows. I said I would calculate that for him, if he sent me formatted data.
Have you checked to see it there is a linear or log relationship? You can't just say there is by looking at a graph.

Edited by Mattshark, 04 January 2010 - 12:22 AM.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#128    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 January 2010 - 01:53 AM

View PostMattshark, on 04 January 2010 - 12:16 AM, said:

I was only saying what the general relationship is between CO2 and temp, not what Vostock data shows. I said I would calculate that for him, if he sent me formatted data.
Have you checked to see it there is a linear or log relationship? You can't just say there is by looking at a graph.

* snip *

Edited by Saru, 04 January 2010 - 02:06 PM.
Removed flame, personal attack


#129    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 04 January 2010 - 01:54 PM

View Postmarabod, on 04 January 2010 - 01:53 AM, said:

* snip *

So basically you are making claims based on looking at a graph.

Right. That is not scientific in the slightest.

Nice to see when challenged you fail to be civil too.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#130    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,838 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 04 January 2010 - 02:26 PM

Thread cleaned

Can we keep the replies civil and sensible please.


#131    Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,884 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester or Israel

  • All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 04 January 2010 - 02:30 PM

View PostMattshark, on 04 January 2010 - 12:16 AM, said:

I was only saying what the general relationship is between CO2 and temp, not what Vostock data shows. I said I would calculate that for him, if he sent me formatted data.Have you checked to see it there is a linear or log relationship? You can't just say there is by looking at a graph.
Why would you need to calculate it for me ? Why not simply copy and paste it from one of your 'multiple sources'?

If I wanted a personal estimation from the data I would simply calculate it myself, but I don't, I want the equation you claimed you had from day one that describes the relationship. The need to calculate it implies you have been BS-ing all along.  :yes:


#132    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 04 January 2010 - 03:04 PM

View PostMoon Monkey, on 04 January 2010 - 02:30 PM, said:

Why would you need to calculate it for me ? Why not simply copy and paste it from one of your 'multiple sources'?

If I wanted a personal estimation from the data I would simply calculate it myself, but I don't, I want the equation you claimed you had from day one that describes the relationship. The need to calculate it implies you have been BS-ing all along.  :yes:

I have put a link saying such a thing, that is evidencing it, that how you do it papers, that is how you do it in science. You ignored it.
I never claimed to have an equation. I told you what the relationship was as accepted in the scientific community.
You are being ridiculous.
You are dishonest and you approach is the what has been unscientific, calling me a bs-er is pure hypocrasy.
You are going on ignore because
I put up papers: you ignore them
I tell what an accepted relationship is: You dismiss my links with out reason and then then lie about what I have said.
You accept papers that support you view with out question but won't with ones from a different view.

You are simply not worth it.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#133    Moon Monkey

Moon Monkey

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,884 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester or Israel

  • All I learnt at school was how to bend not break the rules

Posted 04 January 2010 - 03:32 PM

You put up one abstract once ( http://adsabs.harvar...AGUFM.V41H..03R ), thats it, and nothing else apart from bluster. That paper or any of the authors previous and subsequent works do not contain said equation.

Cheerio BS-er.

Edited by Moon Monkey, 04 January 2010 - 03:37 PM.


#134    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,979 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 09 January 2010 - 03:21 AM

View PostMattshark, on 04 January 2010 - 12:16 AM, said:

I was only saying what the general relationship is between CO2 and temp, not what Vostock data shows. I said I would calculate that for him, if he sent me formatted data.
Have you checked to see it there is a linear or log relationship? You can't just say there is by looking at a graph.

What is the general relationship between CO2 and temperature? I am reading a book that sources a graph (as posted below) which shows that in the past both CO2 and temp having been doing differnt things in the past. Are the laws of physics constantly changing?
Climate.gif
My link


#135    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 January 2010 - 05:30 AM

View PostGlenBoy22, on 09 January 2010 - 03:21 AM, said:

What is the general relationship between CO2 and temperature? I am reading a book that sources a graph (as posted below) which shows that in the past both CO2 and temp having been doing differnt things in the past. Are the laws of physics constantly changing?
Attachment Climate.gif
My link

Glenboy, the funniest part of what is happening now is that it may well be that us burning fossil fuels really changes the climate. CO2 to me seems irrelevant too, but the incineration produces airborne dust, the result of incomplete combustion, and this dust is black in colour. The dust eventually comes down with rainfalls and snowfalls, and accumulates in the annual ice layers in the ice caps and ice fields. This makes the exposed surface of the ice to absorb the sun radiation and melts the surface layer of the ice, thus exposing the dust from the previous layers. As a result in North hemisphere the balance between salt and fresh water in the ocean changes and this slows down such currents as Gulf Stream, so Europe respectively cools down. Also, when the ice melts in polar areas, this causes heat absorbtion, so the climate eventually becomes colder. While the dust is still in atmosphere it also intercepts or reflects out some portion of sun radiation...

The same time at this historical moment we are anyway at the top of the local climatic cycle optimum, i.e. the global warming does exist naturally; the industrial emission of dust counters it to the degree by making the planet colder, but the price to this may be ice Age in some areas and the sea level rise, if it gets to serious ice caps like in Antarctic.

The graph you posted looks true, but it has too large scale, and the simultaneous fluctuations of CO2 and temperature on it cannot be seen. CO2 is surely temperature-dependent as it is a product of life, and life becomes more active with temperature rise. On the other hand during these millions of years the heat balance of the planet is changing, as the tectonic activity comes down and the planet starts to rely on the sun heat only, so it is not surprising what happens in its left part; on the other hand it highlights the trend and mechanisms of how our planet is going to die - it will be eventually cooling down and become like Mars, this is what the right part of it tells.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users