| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
abelard
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:42 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
 |
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:53:15 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
<roberts218e@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 16 Jul, 00:23, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:02:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:05 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?
you're a double idiot my boy.....
1)to expect to trust wikipedia....
2)as a moonbat in denial over agw.....
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/49370/story.htm
"The US Environmental Protection Agency said on Monday that greenhouse
gas emissions endanger human health, a critical finding that has
languished in bureaucratic limbo since last December.
In a 149-page document, the agency's scientists said that "warming of
the climate system is unequivocal" and that potential health risks
include more heat waves, floods and droughts, insect outbreaks and
wildfires, along with crop failure and decline in livestock and
fisheries productivity."
still keep it up and eventually you could be unique....
a bit like the last person on earth to still believe in phlogiston...
Slight warming is unequivocal. The proportion, or lack thereof, caused
by man is very much equivocal.
How's the Sun doing now? We might be in for a new mini ice age.
1)there is no evidence of serious variation in sun input...
Output, and no, we do:
i said input...i meant input....
Recent:
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/images/solar.gif
Time scale of hundreds of years, for sunspots:
and what is that meant to indicate or what does it indicate to you...
lower scale unclear....
What you mean by "lower scale" is unclear.
|
from memory....it was all labelled with 2008 and you were on about
hundreds of years
ps i responded at speed and only caught a rough understanding of
your drift as i rushed through
| Quote: |
The graph, OTOH, is straight forward - x-axis is time, and the traces
are solar flux, sunspot number, and planetary A index (degree of
disturbance of Earth's magnetic field).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/
Sunspot_Numbers.png
...correlation of sunspot activity and irradiance:
why do you believe numbers so far back...and why do you care
There have been very accurate scientific astronomers going back to
Tycho Brahe and before. Kepler couldn't have done what he did if this
wasn't the case.
|
kepler 18th century...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html
"Shindell noted that the effects of this period of a dimmer Sun were
concentrated more regionally than globally. "Global average
temperature changes are small, approximately .5 to .7 degrees
Fahrenheit (0.3-0.4C), but regional temperature changes are quite
large." Shindell said that his climate model simulation shows the
temperature changes occurring mostly because of a change in the Arctic
Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation (AO/NAO)."
| Quote: |
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_composite.gif
ah, right...a claimed difference of ~2 watts per meter2 with a cycle
of around 10 years...
at the top of the atmosphere?
without much correlation with the long term upward trend....
why do you imagine these differences aren't smoothed by the planet
over a ten year period...
It shows that solar output and sunspot number are intimately linked.
Now look at the 2nd graph again.
|
op cit
""The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to
atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age.
However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have
had far less impact on the Earth's recent climate than human actions,"
Shindell said. "The biggest catalyst for climate change today are
greenhouse gases," he added."
| Quote: |
2)we may well *have been* on course for a real ice age
prior to agw....although the timing is outside current knowledge
as for 'mini ice-age' the consensus is that it is already
approximately understood...probably local and related to the
atlantic
Or related to the variably outputting source of Earth's energy.
i see no evidence...i've seen no evidence....
i've seen such claims...and i've seen rebuttals....
There is evidence of variable outputting of solar energy. I've shown
you three graphs that demonstrate this, over different time scales.
It's a fact.
|
see above....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:08 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:42:57 +0200, abelard <abelard3@abelard.org>
wrote:
please insert these changes here
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/anthropogenic_global_warming.php
at
The warmer, medieval period in Europe is regarded as a local effect,
related to the Atlantic Conveyor. Alongside this rather speculative
linked article from NASA is a useful animation showing this effect
(Animation of World - 2.2 MB MPEG).
alter to:-
The warmer, medieval period and the so-called 'maunder minimum' (or,
'little ice age') in Europe are regarded as a local and relatively
minor effects, related to the Atlantic Conveyor and sun variation.
| Quote: |
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html
"Shindell noted that the effects of this period of a dimmer Sun were
concentrated more regionally than globally. "Global average
temperature changes are small, approximately .5 to .7 degrees
Fahrenheit (0.3-0.4C), but regional temperature changes are quite
large." Shindell said that his climate model simulation shows the
temperature changes occurring mostly because of a change in the Arctic
Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation (AO/NAO)."
op cit
"The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to
atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age.
However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have
had far less impact on the Earth's recent climate than human actions,"
Shindell said. "The biggest catalyst for climate change today are
greenhouse gases," he added."
|
Alongside this rather speculative linked article from NASA is a
useful animation showing this effect (Animation of World - 2.2 MB
MPEG).
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:01 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
Robert S <roberts218e@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/
Sunspot_Numbers.png
...correlation of sunspot activity and irradiance:
why do you believe numbers so far back...and why do you care
There have been very accurate scientific astronomers going back to
Tycho Brahe and before. Kepler couldn't have done what he did if this
wasn't the case.
|
Tycho Brahe and Kepler weren't focused on sunspot activity (and I'm
not sure they even observed sunspots - Brahe died 10 years before
Galileo was systematically observing sunspots), and had no way to
measure irradiance.
The sunspot cycle was not discovered until the 1840s:
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whschwab.html
and it was another decade before older observations were observed to
match the cycle, but even then systematic data was lacking before
1700, which was 70 years after Kepler died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
<The cyclic variation of the number of sunspots was first observed by
< Heinrich Schwabe between 1826 and 1843 and led Rudolf Wolf to make
< systematic observations starting in 1848. The Wolf number is an
< expression of individual spots and spot groupings, which has
< demonstrated success in its correlation to a number of solar
< observables. Also in 1848, Joseph Henry projected an image of the Sun
< onto a screen and determined that sunspots were cooler than the
< surrounding surface.[8]
<
<Wolf also studied the historical record in an attempt to establish a
< database on cyclic variations of the past. He established a cycle
< database to only 1700, although the technology and techniques for
< careful solar observations were first available in 1610.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Roger Dewhurst
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:38 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
leonard78sp@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?
Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters.org
Two weeks ago, a parent-teacher council blamed the
online research source Wikipedia for falling test scores
in Scotland.
On Tuesday, Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon
blamed Wikipedia for helping to spread global warming
hysteria around the world. The connection? Oftentimes
"inaccurate or deliberately misleading information"
published by Wikipedia being taken as fact by
unsuspecting readers.
In the case of climate change, such inaccurate or
deliberately misleading information acts to solidify the
myth being espoused by Nobel Laureate Al Gore as
millions of people across the globe believe Wikipedia
is a purely factual resource.
[Eco-fascists and islamofascists right or wrong
get preference in every dispute]
|
A fellow named Connolly, who is an acolyte of Mann of hockey stick
infamy, has cornered the 'editing' of global warming material. Nothing
gets past the 'editing' of Connolly! Connolly knows how to work the
system, most do not.
R
-- Posted on news://freenews.netfront.net - Complaints to news@netfront.net -- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert S
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On 17 Jul, 00:42, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:53:15 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16 Jul, 00:23, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:02:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
still keep it up and eventually you could be unique....
a bit like the last person on earth to still believe in phlogiston...
Slight warming is unequivocal. The proportion, or lack thereof, caused
by man is very much equivocal.
How's the Sun doing now? We might be in for a new mini ice age.
1)there is no evidence of serious variation in sun input...
Output, and no, we do:
i said input...i meant input....
Recent:
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/images/solar.gif
Time scale of hundreds of years, for sunspots:
and what is that meant to indicate or what does it indicate to you...
lower scale unclear....
What you mean by "lower scale" is unclear.
from memory....it was all labelled with 2008 and you were on about
hundreds of years
ps i responded at speed and only caught a rough understanding of
your drift as i rushed through
|
OK, because I did label that graph "recent". Over 5% solar flux
variation in a few months. Just to show how non-static it is.
| Quote: |
The graph, OTOH, is straight forward - x-axis is time, and the traces
are solar flux, sunspot number, and planetary A index (degree of
disturbance of Earth's magnetic field).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/
Sunspot_Numbers.png
...correlation of sunspot activity and irradiance:
why do you believe numbers so far back...and why do you care
There have been very accurate scientific astronomers going back to
Tycho Brahe and before. Kepler couldn't have done what he did if this
wasn't the case.
kepler 18th century...
|
Kepler was alive in the 16th and 17th centuries. Brahe, whose
observations he used, lived one year into the 17th century.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794....
| Quote: |
"Shindell noted that the effects of this period of a dimmer Sun were
concentrated more regionally than globally. "Global average
temperature changes are small, approximately .5 to .7 degrees
Fahrenheit (0.3-0.4C), but regional temperature changes are quite
large." Shindell said that his climate model simulation shows the
temperature changes occurring mostly because of a change in the Arctic
Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation (AO/NAO)."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_composite.gif
ah, right...a claimed difference of ~2 watts per meter2 with a cycle
of around 10 years...
at the top of the atmosphere?
without much correlation with the long term upward trend....
why do you imagine these differences aren't smoothed by the planet
over a ten year period...
It shows that solar output and sunspot number are intimately linked.
Now look at the 2nd graph again.
op cit
""The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to
atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age.
However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have
had far less impact on the Earth's recent climate than human actions,"
Shindell said. "The biggest catalyst for climate change today are
greenhouse gases," he added."
|
And I'm not convinced. Things like the infamous and much-hyped "hockey
stick" graph, beloved of the IPCC, being shown to be garbage, have
sown a lot of doubt in my mind.
From where does this highly cyclical temperature variation originate:
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/vostok.jpg
Massive correlation with C02, no doubt. But which drives which, given
that man isn't responsible for any of that. No industry for 99.9% of
that time axis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert S
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On 17 Jul, 03:01, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Robert S <roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/
Sunspot_Numbers.png
...correlation of sunspot activity and irradiance:
why do you believe numbers so far back...and why do you care
There have been very accurate scientific astronomers going back to
Tycho Brahe and before. Kepler couldn't have done what he did if this
wasn't the case.
Tycho Brahe and Kepler weren't focused on sunspot activity (and I'm
not sure they even observed sunspots - Brahe died 10 years before
Galileo was systematically observing sunspots), and had no way to
measure irradiance.
|
I didn't say they were. I offered Brahe as a counter-example to the
idea that astronomic data from hundreds of years ago can't be trusted.
I offered that as an example, because it was highly accurate, and it
was used to generate a mathematical model of the movement of the
planets, i.e. it had predictive power.
| Quote: |
The sunspot cycle was not discovered until the 1840s:http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whschwab.html
and it was another decade before older observations were observed to
match the cycle, but even then systematic data was lacking before
1700, which was 70 years after Kepler died.
|
Yes, but we also have a high degree of temporal correlation of
results. 11 year cycles blend into the background on a time scale of
hundreds of years, no?
And longer time-scale trends emerge.
And we have modern correlation of sunspot numbers and solar output.
And we have a mini-ice back then. What does all that say to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert S
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:05 pm Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On 17 Jul, 01:19, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <a29e439b-3f19-408b-aee3-d8cfa8d37...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> Robert S <roberts2...@gmail.com> writes:
On 16 Jul, 02:13, =A7=A7 KR=A5K=A5T =A7...@home.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
Slight warming is unequivocal. The proportion, or lack thereof, caused
by man is very much equivocal.
How's the Sun doing now? We might be in for a new mini ice age.
That would be kewel! :)
Climate is constantly changing, and has been for hundreds of millions
of years empirically. But changing about an equilibrium point.
Yet, miraculously, the present climate is apparently nirvana,
In fact it is, in the sense that both the biota and human cultures
are adapted to the current climate.
|
What was the average temperature over the time period in which
humanity evolved? I'll wager quiet different from what it is right
now, purely from a statical point of view.
| Quote: |
and any deviation from it will be disastrous.
And because both the biota and human cultures are
adapted to the current climate, then deviations
do in fact have the potential to be disasterous.
If the current average global temperature were five degrees
warmer -- or cooler -- then the same arguments
would apply.
|
Humanity lives in deserts and in tundra and everywhere in between.
Sentience enables very, very rapid adaption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cary Kittrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
In article <f06321a3-5610-4e93-a163-21b88e835884@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> Robert S <roberts218e@gmail.com> writes:
| Quote: |
On 17 Jul, 01:19, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <a29e439b-3f19-408b-aee3-d8cfa8d37...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> Robert S <roberts2...@gmail.com> writes:
On 16 Jul, 02:13, =A7=A7 KR=A5K=A5T =A7...@home.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
Slight warming is unequivocal. The proportion, or lack thereof, caused
by man is very much equivocal.
How's the Sun doing now? We might be in for a new mini ice age.
That would be kewel! :)
Climate is constantly changing, and has been for hundreds of millions
of years empirically. But changing about an equilibrium point.
Yet, miraculously, the present climate is apparently nirvana,
In fact it is, in the sense that both the biota and human cultures
are adapted to the current climate.
What was the average temperature over the time period in which
humanity evolved? I'll wager quiet different from what it is right
now, purely from a statical point of view.
and any deviation from it will be disastrous.
And because both the biota and human cultures are
adapted to the current climate, then deviations
do in fact have the potential to be disasterous.
If the current average global temperature were five degrees
warmer -- or cooler -- then the same arguments
would apply.
Humanity lives in deserts and in tundra and everywhere in between.
Sentience enables very, very rapid adaption.
|
True and true.
But not without a price. Not without pain and loss.
Additionally, the same cannot be said about the other
three million (conservative estimate) species with
whom we share the planet. Whether you view that
as a philosophical and asethetic problem, or a very
practical problem purely from the viewpoint of our
species, we are dependent on many species other
than our own.
-- cary |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Blackwater
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:19 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
<roberts218e@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 17 Jul, 01:19, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <a29e439b-3f19-408b-aee3-d8cfa8d37...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> Robert S <roberts2...@gmail.com> writes:
On 16 Jul, 02:13, =A7=A7 KR=A5K=A5T =A7...@home.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
Slight warming is unequivocal. The proportion, or lack thereof, caused
by man is very much equivocal.
How's the Sun doing now? We might be in for a new mini ice age.
That would be kewel! :)
Climate is constantly changing, and has been for hundreds of millions
of years empirically. But changing about an equilibrium point.
Yet, miraculously, the present climate is apparently nirvana,
In fact it is, in the sense that both the biota and human cultures
are adapted to the current climate.
What was the average temperature over the time period in which
humanity evolved? I'll wager quiet different from what it is right
now, purely from a statical point of view.
|
Since the climate is never "settled", you can pick most ANY
instant in time and 'prove' that todays situation is unique
and 'abnormal'. How'd the man phrase it ... "Lies, damned
lies - and statistics" ? 
| Quote: |
and any deviation from it will be disastrous.
And because both the biota and human cultures are
adapted to the current climate, then deviations
do in fact have the potential to be disasterous.
If the current average global temperature were five degrees
warmer -- or cooler -- then the same arguments
would apply.
Humanity lives in deserts and in tundra and everywhere in between.
Sentience enables very, very rapid adaption.
|
Yep. WE will survive quite nicely ... well, SOME of us, the
species anyway. However there are a LOT of people who now
live in very marginal environments and really can't move
anywhere else. Most of THEM will perish if there's a big
climate swing ... a couple billion perhaps ? There will
also be resource wars - the poor and deprived predating on
other poor deprived people ... fighting over water, farm
land, wood and such. Add another billion casualties.
Of course some 'marginal' environments will become GOOD
environments because of climate shifts. SOME people will
benifit, flourish ... somewhat offsetting the losses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Force Majeure
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:36 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
Blackwater <bw@barrk.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:05:45 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts218e@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 Jul, 01:19, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <a29e439b-3f19-408b-aee3-d8cfa8d37...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> Robert S <roberts2...@gmail.com> writes:
On 16 Jul, 02:13, =A7=A7 KR=A5K=A5T =A7...@home.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert S
roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 15, 7:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
Slight warming is unequivocal. The proportion, or lack thereof, caused
by man is very much equivocal.
How's the Sun doing now? We might be in for a new mini ice age.
That would be kewel! :)
Climate is constantly changing, and has been for hundreds of millions
of years empirically. But changing about an equilibrium point.
Yet, miraculously, the present climate is apparently nirvana,
In fact it is, in the sense that both the biota and human cultures
are adapted to the current climate.
What was the average temperature over the time period in which
humanity evolved? I'll wager quiet different from what it is right
now, purely from a statical point of view.
Since the climate is never "settled", you can pick most ANY
instant in time and 'prove' that todays situation is unique
and 'abnormal'. How'd the man phrase it ... "Lies, damned
lies - and statistics" ? :-)
and any deviation from it will be disastrous.
And because both the biota and human cultures are
adapted to the current climate, then deviations
do in fact have the potential to be disasterous.
If the current average global temperature were five degrees
warmer -- or cooler -- then the same arguments
would apply.
Humanity lives in deserts and in tundra and everywhere in between.
Sentience enables very, very rapid adaption.
Yep. WE will survive quite nicely ... well, SOME of us, the
species anyway. However there are a LOT of people who now
live in very marginal environments and really can't move
anywhere else. Most of THEM will perish if there's a big
climate swing ... a couple billion perhaps ? There will
also be resource wars - the poor and deprived predating on
other poor deprived people ... fighting over water, farm
land, wood and such. Add another billion casualties.
Of course some 'marginal' environments will become GOOD
environments because of climate shifts. SOME people will
benifit, flourish ... somewhat offsetting the losses.
Some idiots think that the arctic tundra will become arable farm land! |
I've already sucked up all the property in Moose Factory on Hudson Bay.
I plan on creating "new Miami Beach" up there.
Yeah! That's the ticket! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:31 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
Robert S <roberts218e@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On 17 Jul, 03:01, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Robert S <roberts2...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/
Sunspot_Numbers.png
...correlation of sunspot activity and irradiance:
why do you believe numbers so far back...and why do you care
There have been very accurate scientific astronomers going back to
Tycho Brahe and before. Kepler couldn't have done what he did if this
wasn't the case.
Tycho Brahe and Kepler weren't focused on sunspot activity (and I'm
not sure they even observed sunspots - Brahe died 10 years before
Galileo was systematically observing sunspots), and had no way to
measure irradiance.
I didn't say they were. I offered Brahe as a counter-example to the
idea that astronomic data from hundreds of years ago can't be trusted.
|
Astronomic data that far back was high quality by 16th century
standards, but I doubt if they would qualify by modern standards.
Hobbiest amateur astronomers these days can run circles around even
19th century astronomers.
| Quote: |
I offered that as an example, because it was highly accurate, and it
was used to generate a mathematical model of the movement of the
planets, i.e. it had predictive power.
|
The data, and the predictions, weren't that advanced, except by the
standards of a very ignorant era.
| Quote: |
The sunspot cycle was not discovered until the 1840s:http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whschwab.html
and it was another decade before older observations were observed to
match the cycle, but even then systematic data was lacking before
1700, which was 70 years after Kepler died.
Yes, but we also have a high degree of temporal correlation of
results. 11 year cycles blend into the background on a time scale of
hundreds of years, no?
|
The data is too spotty to tell. I've seen attempts to superimpose
cycles on the earlier data, but they aren't very convincing.
| Quote: |
And longer time-scale trends emerge.
And we have modern correlation of sunspot numbers and solar output.
And we have a mini-ice back then. What does all that say to you?
|
Nothing. Because the variations in solar output associated with
sunspot cycles are too small to make any difference. If they did,
then we would see some sign of a sunspot cycle in charts like this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
We don't.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:07 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
Robert S <roberts218e@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
and any deviation from it will be disastrous.
And because both the biota and human cultures are
adapted to the current climate, then deviations
do in fact have the potential to be disasterous.
If the current average global temperature were five degrees
warmer -- or cooler -- then the same arguments
would apply.
Humanity lives in deserts and in tundra and everywhere in between.
Sentience enables very, very rapid adaption.
|
That doesn't help the millions of non-sentient species.
Adaptation means "change in lifestyle". If we are going to have to
change our lifestyle anyway in order to survive, why not do it
voluntarily before it is too late and save the non-sentient species.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
leonard78sp@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? |
|
|
On Jul 15, 2:51 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:44:38 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?
you're a double idiot my boy.....
•• Indeed Abelard is the "double idiot" |
| Quote: |
1)to expect to trust wikipedia....
|
•• 1) whose English is severely challenged
| Quote: |
2)as a moonbat in denial over agw.....
|
•• 2) as a moonbat accepting the global
warming propaganda
•• “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW
has been discovered. And recent global
climate behaviour is not consistent with
AGW model predictions.”
| Quote: |
Noel Sheppard, NewsBusters.org
Two weeks ago, a parent-teacher council blamed the
online research source Wikipedia for falling test scores
in Scotland.
On Tuesday, Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon
blamed Wikipedia for helping to spread global warming
hysteria around the world. The connection? Oftentimes
"inaccurate or deliberately misleading information"
published by Wikipedia being taken as fact by
unsuspecting readers.
In the case of climate change, such inaccurate or
deliberately misleading information acts to solidify the
myth being espoused by Nobel Laureate Al Gore as
millions of people across the globe believe Wikipedia
is a purely factual resource.
[Eco-fascists and islamofascists right or wrong
get preference in every dispute]
--
web site atwww.abelard.org- news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
106 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
