El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
>>> Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe >>> to be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory?
>> Global Warming? That's happening--the data is clear the global >> surface temperature is increasing. Here's some resent research >> that indicates that fossil fuel burn has an effect on Arctic warming.
> Of course, it iscompletely off-topic, as we were discussing cyclones ...
> But I note that the abstract says:
> "Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the >> past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar >> trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of >> which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, >> however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural >> pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within >> the past 200 millennia.
> So, if this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must be > some previous prediction that this lake would have a warming cycle which > followed a different "trajectories in temperature lake biology, and > lakewater pH".
> Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this > prediction made?
> Or are you instead showing examples of things which weren't predicted by > AGW theories but which actually did happen? If so, I was after > predictions made by AGW that turned out to be correct, not things that > *weren't* predicted by AGW that turned out correct. Or at least that is > how I understand science is supposed to work ...
>>>> Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe >>>> to be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory?
>>> Global Warming? That's happening--the data is clear the global >>> surface temperature is increasing. Here's some resent research >>> that indicates that fossil fuel burn has an effect on Arctic warming.
>> Of course, it iscompletely off-topic, as we were discussing cyclones ...
>> But I note that the abstract says:
>> "Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the >>> past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar >>> trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of >>> which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, >>> however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern >>> and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past >>> 200 millennia.
>> So, if this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must be >> some previous prediction that this lake would have a warming cycle which >> followed a different "trajectories in temperature lake biology, and >> lakewater pH".
>> Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this >> prediction made?
>> Or are you instead showing examples of things which weren't predicted by >> AGW theories but which actually did happen? If so, I was after >> predictions made by AGW that turned out to be correct, not things that >> *weren't* predicted by AGW that turned out correct. Or at least that is >> how I understand science is supposed to work ...
> <smiling>
> Did you read the paper?
I read the abstract you posted.
If this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must be some previous AGW prediction that this lake would have a warming cycle which followed a different "trajectories in temperature lake biology, and lakewater pH".
Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this prediction made?
Or is this a completely random and off-topic example of something that happened which wasn't predicted by AGW, in which case you are tendering it as evidence that AGW is wrong (as what happened in the lake was not in fact predicted by AGW)?
> >>> Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
> >>> 1. That AGW is correct. > >>> 2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes. > >>> 3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year > >>> low) > >>> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
> >>> You seem to believe:
> >>> 1. That AGW is correct > >>> 2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes > >>> 3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity > >>> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
> >>> Is that the situation?
> >> What I "believe" is unimportant. The science indicates that the > >> current global warming correlates with the fossil fuel burning > >> that came with the industrial revolution.
> > "Correlates".
> > There is a (positive, FWIW) correlation between electricity consumption > > and car ownership (as both correlate positively with income), this > > doesn't prove that buying a car increases your electricity consumption, > > or even vica versa.
> >> The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher > >> global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and > >> intensity.
> > So you say the person who said AGW does NOT predict an increase in the > > intensity of cyclones is wrong?
> >> Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. > >> Francisd, Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, > >> Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
> >> Abstract
> >> The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental > >> transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes > >> compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake > >> sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods > >> of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record > >> provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by > >> approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice > >> core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and > >> the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS > >> 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer > >> temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. > >> Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three > >> interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in > >> temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked > >> orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the > >> study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has > >> entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 > >> millennia.
> >> "There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that > >> demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but > >> that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood > >> patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has > >> now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades > >> is different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
> > So, couldn't find anything about hurricanes, so in typical crank style > > just decided to change the topic?
> We're not talk'n cars and electricity... we are talking about recent > changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years > that indicate the changes are due to human activity in the form of CO2 > from fossil fuel burning.
The temperature drop in places like New York over the next few months will be many magnitudes greater than any temperature spike due to global warming.None of you can explain using planetary dynamics why that temperature drop occurs or you rely on inclination to solar radiation based on 'tilt' to the Sun or orbital plane.How,for goodness sake,can an entire group of people miss out on the orbital dynamic behind seasonal changes yet influence human behavior so much by creating a fuss over pollution and labeling 'climate change' ?.This beats me,the climate has always changed on the planet due to some causes that are known and some that are not and here we have a society 'combating' something that occurs anyway and is vital to explain astronomical and geological features and factors.
Somewhere in the back of their heads a few scientists must know this carbon dioxide temperature dial is intellectual suicide for excluding all else for the sake of raising taxes or some other social concern,all avenues relating to rapid or long term temperature spikes and dips are shut down.Of course it is all due to love of predictions rather than interpretation of celestial and terrestrial phenomena and that all goes back to the original error of the Ra/Dec convenience which tries to explain planetary dynamics using the rotation of the constellations around Polaris.
I have never seen in any human endeavor a level of complicity remotely close to this truly desperate situation centering around planetary dynamics and basic planetary facts,almost an enjoyment of doing something spectacularly wrong just because nobody is around to object but this diminishes our race and rots our civilisation from within.I do not know how any of you do it,even allowing for the original error and silly conclusion by Flamsteed in attempting to turn Ra/Dec into a predictive tool for planetary dynamics but 'climate change' exposes something far more insidious and dangerous than global warming,it exposes the human condition is a pretty bad state.
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:00:58 +1100, "Peter Webb" > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>Ohh, so the fact that the IPCC report is wrong about cyclones is because >>it >>is wrong about how much warming we would see?
> First of all, the IPCC report is not wrong about cyclones. Perhaps you > are referring to North Atlantic hurricanes? However, they aren't really > wrong about that, either, since there hasn't been enough time since the > report to tell.
Ohh, so they are not right, and they are not wrong, nobody knows.
> In spite of a number of factors that ought to have > resulted in a cooling trend over the last decade, we've seen nothing > more than a leveling of the long term rise in global temperature.
Was that predicted by AGW?
> Given > that, it isn't surprising that we've not seen a major change is > hurricane activity.
Well, if the AGW people are wrong about the earth warming, then I guess they are wrong about hurricanes as well, and a million other things based upon climate "science".
> Give the report time for decadal averages to make > sense. Watch what happens when the temperatures really start shooting up > again in the next few years- as they are almost certain to do.
Perhaps if you supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have turned out to be true, I would have a little more confidence.
As it is, AGW's record of correct predictions seems to be somewhat less than those of astrology.
> Then > judge the IPCC predictions. > _________________________________________________
Sure. I just wish everybody else would wait for evidence before deciding if a particular theory is correct. I use the same rules for Special Relativity, the photo-electric effect, Maxwell's equations, astrology and climate "science".
Its called the "scientific method". If AGW weants to be considered a science, it has to demonstrate predictive ability. Where has it done this?
>>>>> Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you >>>>> believe to be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory?
>>>> Global Warming? That's happening--the data is clear the global >>>> surface temperature is increasing. Here's some resent research >>>> that indicates that fossil fuel burn has an effect on Arctic warming.
>>> Of course, it iscompletely off-topic, as we were discussing cyclones ...
>>> But I note that the abstract says:
>>> "Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the >>>> past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar >>>> trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of >>>> which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, >>>> however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural >>>> pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique >>>> within the past 200 millennia.
>>> So, if this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must >>> be some previous prediction that this lake would have a warming cycle >>> which followed a different "trajectories in temperature lake biology, >>> and lakewater pH".
>>> Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this >>> prediction made?
>>> Or are you instead showing examples of things which weren't predicted >>> by AGW theories but which actually did happen? If so, I was after >>> predictions made by AGW that turned out to be correct, not things >>> that *weren't* predicted by AGW that turned out correct. Or at least >>> that is how I understand science is supposed to work ...
>> <smiling>
>> Did you read the paper?
> I read the abstract you posted.
> If this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must be some > previous AGW prediction that this lake would have a warming cycle which > followed a different "trajectories in temperature lake biology, and > lakewater pH".
Peter, you are confused. AGW is an observation, not a theory. AGW does NOT make predictions.
> Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this > prediction made?
> Or is this a completely random and off-topic example of something that > happened which wasn't predicted by AGW, in which case you are tendering > it as evidence that AGW is wrong (as what happened in the lake was not > in fact predicted by AGW)?
> The temperature drop in places like New York over the next few months > will be many magnitudes greater than any temperature spike due to > global warming.
That's right Gerald--Too many people confuse weather and seasonal changes with global climate change. The typical benchmark for global climate change is what happens globally over a thirty year interval.
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:28:47 +1100, "Peter Webb" > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>I have hear astrologists make the same claim. Everybody who really >>understands astrology believes it is correct.
> Astrologers are not scientists. Like other religionists, making > unsupported claims is what they are about. Scientists speak with the > weight of evidence and theory behind them.
Great. What is the weight of evidence that AGW is correct? What specific predictions has it made that turned out to be correct?
>>You are offended because I call people who believe in AGW "AGW believers"?
> I'm not offended, but the term is offensive as applied to scientific > truth.
So who exactly is offended?
And how did you decide AGW is the scientific truth? By using the scientific method? This would involve you examining a list of the specific predictions of AGW and verifying that these were correctly predicted by AGW.
Can you tell me what they were?
>>Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and >>AGW >>also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
> AGW predicts nothing.
Then its not a scientific theory.
> AGW is an observation. There are theories of > climate behavior that explain AGW, and make a variety of predictions. No > current climate theory makes any predictions about future hurricane > activity in the North Atlantic with a high degree of confidence.
"With a high degree of confidence" !!!
I thought you said AGW doesn't predict anything, now you are saying it predicts future hurricane activity, but not with a high degree of confidence!
What specific predictions (if any) of AGW have a "high degree of confidence" and have subsequently be shown to have been correct?
> People > who call AGW a belief or theory are the same as those who call evolution > a belief or theory. That would be people who don't even understand the > basics of science.
Well, evolution is a theory, its just that it has so much supporting evidence that I believe it to be true.
So are Maxwell's equations, Special Relativity, Plate techtonics, and a million other theories I believe to be true.
Astrology and climate "science" are theories which seem to have no predictive power, and hence which I don't believe.
>>So IPCC and NOAA are quite possibly wrong?
> Wrong about the effects of global warming on hurricane activity? Of > course- the very papers they publish or reprint admit this.
The IPCC summary I read and quoted did not say this or anything like it.
> Wrong that > AGW is a real thing? Highly unlikely.
So which of the predictions of the IPCC are correct and which are wrong?
>>What else in the IPCC report is quite possibly wrong, or is it just the >>bit >>about hurricanes?
> Read the report. Confidence levels are given for all the predictions.
No they aren't. There is no confidence level given for the thing we are in fact discussing, increased severity of hurricanes.
What is the confidence level given that the earth's temperature would increase at all?
>>> Nobody would ever use these predictions to determine if "AGW is >>> correct". That's pretty much a given, based on actual observation.
>>Well, not observation of hurricanes, obviously.
> Because theory isn't yet advanced enough to reliably predict hurricane > accuracy, a point that isn't hidden by the modelers. So any failure of > the models in this area isn't seen as a serious problem with respect to > other parts that are much more solid.
>>The IPCC report was over a 1,000 pages long, and made many predictions.
>>Which of these predictions match up with what has been observed since the >>report was published?
> The warming trend continues.
Didn't you just say the earth hasn't increased in average temperatures over the last 10 years, or was that some other AGW believer?
> It's pretty hard to match predictions that > are largely reflecting 10-year and 30-year averages in the few years > since the latest IPCC report was published.
The first IPCC report was 1992. That was 17 years ago. AGW theories existed long before then.
>>The point of the models is to predict what will happen to the earth's >>climate.
>>How well do they do that? What specific predictions of the IPCC report (of >>the thousands that were made) have turned out to be true?
> They are predicting climate over decades- a point that seems to be > overlooked by people who don't understand the reports, don't understand > statistics, and don't understand the underlying science.
There have been "decades" since the theory was first advanced, and 20 years since the models used for the IPCC were created.
If you are arguing that "the theories have not been experimentally verified because not enough time has elapsed, I am happy to put AGW into the category of "untested scientific theories", but really after 20 years this excuse is wearing more than a little thin.
> In fact, as the > models improve the evidence continues to mount that the IPCC predictions > were far too conservative.
On Nov 2, 6:02 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > The temperature drop in places like New York over the next few months > > will be many magnitudes greater than any temperature spike due to > > global warming.
> That's right Gerald--Too many people confuse weather and seasonal > changes with global climate change. The typical benchmark for global > climate change is what happens globally over a thirty year interval.
Unreal !.
Global climate is the effect of two major causes - distance from the Sun and planetary dynamics,weather patterns are a secondary effect of global climate due to multiple factors such as proximity to oceans ,landmass and events which arise from both such as volcanic activity or cyclical ocean warming.
The one fact you can all be certain of is that the study and appreciation of planetary dynamics for any purposes,global climate especially, is non existent and this is why there is no clear distinction between global climate and weather patterns for the latter is a secondary effect of the former whereas you numbskulls have weather running into climate.Of course you want to use the same procedure as predicting short range weather patterns by extending it to climate but that is both silly and irresponsible.
Continue on with this 'climate change' question begging exercise but it would be nice to meet somebody for a change who is actually interested in climate minus human pollution with particular interest in what actually causes seasonal temperature drops and rises with greater variations away from the Equator.
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >Perhaps if you supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have >turned out to be true, I would have a little more confidence.
As always, you betray an appalling lack of understanding of this subject and of science in general. You can't even use the term "AGW" correctly. And you can't carry on a reasoned discussion, because you use the pseudoscientist's approach of simply ignoring everything that you can't respond to and asking the same useless (and already answered questions) over and over.
You should be posting on one of the forums for ideologues; you are badly out of your depth in a SCI forum. _________________________________________________
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:56:50 +1100, "Peter Webb" > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>Perhaps if you supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that >>have >>turned out to be true, I would have a little more confidence.
> As always, you betray an appalling lack of understanding of this subject > and of science in general. You can't even use the term "AGW" correctly. > And you can't carry on a reasoned discussion, because you use the > pseudoscientist's approach of simply ignoring everything that you can't > respond to and asking the same useless (and already answered questions) > over and over.
No, you keep refusing to answer the same questions. Then you use the lame excuse that you have already answered them.
No, you haven't.
You have not supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have turned out to be true, which is my starting point for evaluating the likely truth of scientific theories.
The pretty obvious reason is that there are none with a pinch of shit.
Which does raise the question of why you believe in it if its predictions have not been successfully tested. Obviously not for scientific reasons, as these require theories to make novel testable predictions and for these to be born out by experiment. This clearly hasn't happened for AGW, unless of course you can supply these novel predictions that AGW correctly predicted.
> You should be posting on one of the forums for ideologues; you are badly > out of your depth in a SCI forum.
"Out of my depth"? Discussing the scientific method? Very funny.
Got anything other than ad-hominem attacks?
Or is AGW more of a faith based thing than a science thing, so evidence doesn't matter?
>>>>>> Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe >>>>>> to be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory?
>>>>> Global Warming? That's happening--the data is clear the global >>>>> surface temperature is increasing. Here's some resent research >>>>> that indicates that fossil fuel burn has an effect on Arctic >>>>> warming.
>>>> Of course, it iscompletely off-topic, as we were discussing cyclones >>>> ...
>>>> But I note that the abstract says:
>>>> "Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the >>>>> past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar >>>>> trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of >>>>> which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, >>>>> however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural >>>>> pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within >>>>> the past 200 millennia.
>>>> So, if this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must be >>>> some previous prediction that this lake would have a warming cycle >>>> which followed a different "trajectories in temperature lake biology, >>>> and lakewater pH".
>>>> Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this >>>> prediction made?
>>>> Or are you instead showing examples of things which weren't predicted >>>> by AGW theories but which actually did happen? If so, I was after >>>> predictions made by AGW that turned out to be correct, not things that >>>> *weren't* predicted by AGW that turned out correct. Or at least that is >>>> how I understand science is supposed to work ...
>>> <smiling>
>>> Did you read the paper?
>> I read the abstract you posted.
>> If this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must be some >> previous AGW prediction that this lake would have a warming cycle which >> followed a different "trajectories in temperature lake biology, and >> lakewater pH".
> Peter, you are confused. AGW is an observation, not a theory. AGW > does NOT make predictions.
>> Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this >> prediction made?
>> Or is this a completely random and off-topic example of something that >> happened which wasn't predicted by AGW, in which case you are tendering >> it as evidence that AGW is wrong (as what happened in the lake was not in >> fact predicted by AGW)?
>>>>>>> Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you >>>>>>> believe to be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory?
>>>>>> Global Warming? That's happening--the data is clear the global >>>>>> surface temperature is increasing. Here's some resent research >>>>>> that indicates that fossil fuel burn has an effect on Arctic >>>>>> warming.
>>>>> Of course, it iscompletely off-topic, as we were discussing >>>>> cyclones ...
>>>>> But I note that the abstract says:
>>>>> "Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the >>>>>> past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar >>>>>> trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all >>>>>> of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent >>>>>> decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring >>>>>> natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is >>>>>> unique within the past 200 millennia.
>>>>> So, if this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there >>>>> must be some previous prediction that this lake would have a >>>>> warming cycle which followed a different "trajectories in >>>>> temperature lake biology, and lakewater pH".
>>>>> Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this >>>>> prediction made?
>>>>> Or are you instead showing examples of things which weren't >>>>> predicted by AGW theories but which actually did happen? If so, I >>>>> was after predictions made by AGW that turned out to be correct, >>>>> not things that *weren't* predicted by AGW that turned out correct. >>>>> Or at least that is how I understand science is supposed to work ...
>>>> <smiling>
>>>> Did you read the paper?
>>> I read the abstract you posted.
>>> If this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must be >>> some previous AGW prediction that this lake would have a warming >>> cycle which followed a different "trajectories in temperature lake >>> biology, and lakewater pH".
>> Peter, you are confused. AGW is an observation, not a theory. AGW >> does NOT make predictions.
> Then by definition its not a science.
>>> Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this >>> prediction made?
>>> Or is this a completely random and off-topic example of something >>> that happened which wasn't predicted by AGW, in which case you are >>> tendering it as evidence that AGW is wrong (as what happened in the >>> lake was not in fact predicted by AGW)?
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >You have not supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have >turned out to be true, which is my starting point for evaluating the likely >truth of scientific theories.
I'll say it one last time, although the concept appears beyond your ability to understand, so I'm not optimistic.
AGW makes no predictions. AGW is an observation. It is what most people would call a simple fact. AGW is not a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word.
The theory behind it is increasingly well developed, and that is what makes predictions. Those predictions, applied to actual climate, have proven exceptionally successful when applied to real climate over the last 150 years. If you don't understand what "prediction" means when applied to historical data, you should not be discussing this at all.
Climate only makes sense when analyzed over decades or longer. It is obvious why this is when you look a the historical record: there is a significant warming trend over the last 150 years, but it is invisible over any selected period of a few years, and usually difficult to detect even over 10 years. That's simply not long enough to see the signal against the noise. Good quality models have not been in place long enough for most future trends to show up. Sensible people look at the success of these models in explaining the past, and recognize that there is a high probability they will come close with their future projections. Fools refuse to accept the science, and instead just keep asking "what predictions have come true", while the climate crashes around them and it finally becomes too late to do anything about it. _________________________________________________
> >> "It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming > >> century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than > >> present-day hurricanes."
> >> That's NOAA, folks.
> >> Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to > >> be incorrect.
> > Actually there is data supporting that prediction.
> Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
> 1. That AGW is correct. > 2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes. > 3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low) > 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
> You seem to believe:
> 1. That AGW is correct > 2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes > 3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity > 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
> Is that the situation?
> Any of you other AGW believers out there?
> If so, do you believe that:
> 1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. > 2. These have increased. > 3. Therefore AGW is correct
> *** OR ****
> 1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes > 2. Their intensity has *not* increased. > 3. Therefore AGW is correct.
> C'mon, speak up!
Try rading all the posts before you shoot your mouth off and prove you haven't a clue.
Try the following for science rather than your own ill-informed opinion
Emanuel, K. Environmental Factors Affecting Tropical Cyclone Power Dissipation, 2007 Journal of Climate DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1571.1
Vecchi, G, and T. Knutson, On Estimates of Historical North Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Activity, 2008, Journal of Climate DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI2178.1
Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty- first- century warming conditions, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo202
The IPPC makes no definitive statement about the relationship between hurricanes and global warming. It suggests that a link is tenuous at best and needs more work to filter the naturally occurring cycles in hurricanes from that of global warming. Quoting from a recent conference summary
i) It is premature to conclude that human activity--and particularly greenhouse warming--has already had a discernible impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. ii) It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes.
Once again rather than believing a disgraced television news reader try the reading the science.
So regardless what the observed data shows you going to still claim no global warming!
Chris L Peterson wrote: > future projections. Fools refuse to accept the science, and instead > just keep asking "what predictions have come true", while the climate > crashes around them and it finally becomes too late to do anything > about it. _________________________________________________
Sounds a lot like prophecy <snerk>, which raises the question of whether the prophets of antiquity were actually scientists in the midst of a supersitious people.
Noah comes to mind when one thinks of climate related events. He took a lot of years to build that boat. (If there's _any_ truth in the telling.) He may have simply been a keen observer of weather trends.
It would be fun twist of fate, if we could prove to modern man that God (being the human ideal and all) is not only established in love, but in science. Sacrificing your precious time on this earth to find a cure for a disease, or to awaken a people to danger on the horizon, qualifies as laying down your life for a friend, of which it has been said that man has no greater love.
There's a lot of good people doing a lot of good science, because they care about others. My personal opinion on the value of AGW research and technology development is that it can't hurt the atmosphere, and it can only help us ecomonically by providing employment through future tech.
Can't understand why anyone would be against it, except to perserve their own personal wealth. Selfishness is the root of all evil. If I have to live with less, in order to fund new technologies that will help preserve or improve the natural environment, and provide a future of economic health for generations to come, then I do so willingly. I don't see any other new tech on the horizon that will employ my kids. Information technology is now operating in maintenance mode, and financial markets have proven to be a scam.
Just don't take away my guns or my religion. I may appear a liberal, but I'm no socialist. ;-)
On Nov 2, 3:27 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Climate only makes sense when analyzed over decades or longer.
Unintelligent junk that is unfortunately all too prevalent !.
The normal temperature spikes and dips over the daily cycle is due to the rotation of the Earth in and out of solar radiation with seasonal variations,to a large extent,due to prolonged exposure of any given latitude to solar radiation or the length of time it spends in the orbital shadow.
A person who gets hold of a normal globe and spins it 15 degrees will see that it covers 1669.8 km at the Equator and spin it once covers an entire 40,075 km equatorial circumference -
As the hours,and minutes are organised around the Earth's rotational characteristics,it should be no problem to state that the Earth's Equatorial circumference rotates at 1669.8 miles per hour as 15 degrees of geographical separation equates to 1 hour difference and then take this information into daily temperature dips/spikes.In short,people who can't understand the most basic planetary dynamic of daily rotation properly belong nowhere near climate or global temperature variations.
Unlike the recent financial crisis based on so-called foolproof mathematical modelling,the much more serious issue of speculating on climate with a pollution input is an incredibly dumb thing to do and it exposes the lack of astronomers capable of halting a rapid disintegration of Western sciences for a type of social tyranny that the world does not need.
Is there a single sane person here who knows enough that a crisis situation has developed very quickly despite having its roots in the late 17th century ?.
Global climate is fundamentally a consequence of distance from the Sun and planetary dynamics and without an understanding how daily and orbital cycles combine to give distinctive latitudinal weather patterns,none of the other inputs from terrestrial and even speculative pollution factors will make sense.
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:28:47 +1100, "Peter Webb" > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>I have hear astrologists make the same claim. Everybody who really >>understands astrology believes it is correct.
> Astrologers are not scientists. Like other religionists, making > unsupported claims is what they are about. Scientists speak with the > weight of evidence and theory behind them.
>>You are offended because I call people who believe in AGW "AGW believers"?
> I'm not offended, but the term is offensive as applied to scientific > truth.
I'm just curious, what is scientific truth? for the most part true scientists talk about theories and try their best to falsify them. only those that don't really understand the history of science would talk about truths. even the word consensus is questionable.
at the beginning of the era of science the consensus was that all material was made up of four types of atoms (earth, wind, fire, and water), that consensus was 2000 years old and continued to hold for decades with considerable attempts to modify.. seems current theories don't give that much credence...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:18:36 -0600, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I'm just curious, what is scientific truth?
I'd say it is knowledge arrived at by a scientific process: observation, theorizing, testing, correction. It isn't usually an absolute, but an endpoint that we are converging on- sometimes asymptotically.
>at the beginning of the era of science the consensus was that all material >was made up of four types of atoms (earth, wind, fire, and water), that >consensus was 2000 years old and continued to hold for decades with >considerable attempts to modify.. seems current theories don't give that >much credence...
I'd argue that this doesn't represent the beginning of "the era of science". I'd put that much later- just a few hundred years ago. Prior to that, the methods of seeking knowledge of nature were very different, and very inefficient and error prone compared to science.
However, as I noted, scientific knowledge converges on truth. I think that in most areas we are quite close. It's hardly surprising that if you go back to early beliefs, they were substantially in error. The corrections we make to our understanding these days tends to be much smaller- just little fixes here and there. _________________________________________________
> The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global > warming is tenuous, but possible.
> _____________________________________ > No it doesn't. This is what it states:
> "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future > tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will > become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds > and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing > increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
> Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
> I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC > report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you posted > which said there was no connection.
> What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect?
Exactly where does it say they will be more frequent, which is what the original poster questioned? The link between frequency and global warming is again tenuous at best. The paragraph from the IPPC report that states A hurricane will be more intense and have more rainfall when sea-surface temperatures are higher is merely a statement of observed fact. The relationship between hurricane intensity/rain and sea-surface temperatures is well-established theory and one of the tools HRD uses to predict hurricane strength. One of the reason Katrina strengthened after passing over Florida was that the sea surface temperatures in the Gulf were warmer than usual (Read NCDC tech-report 2005-01 for the details). All you have shown is that you can hunt down a phrase or word that looks like it fits your preconceived notion, unfortunately you don't understand what you are reading and drew the wrong conclusion. You shown you're right up there with Gerald and Ajay with your understanding of science.
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:01:41 +1100, "Peter Webb" > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>You have not supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have >>turned out to be true, which is my starting point for evaluating the >>likely >>truth of scientific theories.
> I'll say it one last time, although the concept appears beyond your > ability to understand, so I'm not optimistic.
> AGW makes no predictions. AGW is an observation. It is what most people > would call a simple fact. AGW is not a "theory" in the scientific sense > of the word.
OK, AGW is not a scientific theory.
> The theory behind it is increasingly well developed, and that is what > makes predictions.
OK, the theory behind AGW is a theory.
Seems like you are splitting hairs, but if that is what you want ...
> Those predictions, applied to actual climate, have > proven exceptionally successful when applied to real climate over the > last 150 years. If you don't understand what "prediction" means when > applied to historical data, you should not be discussing this at all.
Anybody can fit a curve to existing data. The test of a scientific theory is its predictive ability, ie its ability to successfuly predict outcomes where the results of the experiemnts are not known in advance.
If the scientific theory behind AGW is getting better, then it must be more accurate at predicting the results of novel experiments.
Is it? Are the models developed in 1999 any better at predicting what happened in 1999 to 2009 than the 1989 models were at predicting what happened in 1989 to 1999?
> Climate only makes sense when analyzed over decades or longer. It is > obvious why this is when you look a the historical record: there is a > significant warming trend over the last 150 years, but it is invisible > over any selected period of a few years, and usually difficult to detect > even over 10 years. That's simply not long enough to see the signal > against the noise. Good quality models have not been in place long > enough for most future trends to show up.
So you are saying that the models have not been tested successfully with novel data?
> Sensible people look at the > success of these models in explaining the past,
No, sensible people look at the success of the models in predicting the future.
If all you want is agreement with the past, I can easily produce a perfect model which exactly reproduces the past.
> and recognize that there > is a high probability they will come close with their future > projections.
Why do you think that is the case?
If I used polynomial interpolation to exactly model historical data, would you then assume on the basis of the perfect fit with experimental data that my model will also predict the future with some accuracy?
> Fools refuse to accept the science, and instead just keep > asking "what predictions have come true",
That is what science is. Theories are formed, the predictions are compared to novel experimental data, and the agreement between theory and experiment is used to determine the likely truth of the theory.
You may think it is foolish to use the scientific method to determine the truth or otherwise of scientific theories, but many fools have used this approach over the last 500 years with spectacular results.
> while the climate crashes
So you say, even in the absense of any evidence of apparent ill effects whatsoever over the 100 years we have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Whoops, sorry, you don't think that evidence matters; only a fool would ask for it.
> around them and it finally becomes too late to do anything about it.
Yeah, yeah, the sky is falling in.
Or so you keep telling us.
I have a friend (an acquaintance) who believes that WW3 will shortly start, because it is predicted in Nostradamus.
Nostradamus and AGW have about equal confirmation through experimental evidence. Both appear great at predicting the past but hopeless at predicting the future.
My bet is that neither the predictions of AGW or those of Nostradamus will eventually come true.
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >Anybody can fit a curve to existing data.
Climate models do not use curve fitting. They are nothing more than collections of standard physics equations. Simulations are used because the system is too complex for any single equation to describe it, and because you can't experiment with the real climate.
>If the scientific theory behind AGW is getting better, then it must be more >accurate at predicting the results of novel experiments.
I'm done. You're clearly too stupid to understand this. You may be a simple computer program that produces standard responses, but most of the programs I've seen along these lines do a better job. _________________________________________________
> >> "It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the > >> coming > >> century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates > >> than > >> present-day hurricanes."
> >> That's NOAA, folks.
> >> Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved > >> to > >> be incorrect.
> > Actually there is data supporting that prediction.
> Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
> 1. That AGW is correct. > 2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes. > 3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low) > 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
> You seem to believe:
> 1. That AGW is correct > 2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes > 3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity > 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
> Is that the situation?
> Any of you other AGW believers out there?
> If so, do you believe that:
> 1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. > 2. These have increased. > 3. Therefore AGW is correct
> *** OR ****
> 1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes > 2. Their intensity has *not* increased. > 3. Therefore AGW is correct.
> C'mon, speak up!
Try rading all the posts before you shoot your mouth off and prove you haven't a clue.
Try the following for science rather than your own ill-informed opinion
Emanuel, K. Environmental Factors Affecting Tropical Cyclone Power Dissipation, 2007 Journal of Climate DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1571.1
Vecchi, G, and T. Knutson, On Estimates of Historical North Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Activity, 2008, Journal of Climate DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI2178.1
Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty- first- century warming conditions, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo202
The IPPC makes no definitive statement about the relationship between hurricanes and global warming. It suggests that a link is tenuous at best and needs more work to filter the naturally occurring cycles in hurricanes from that of global warming. Quoting from a recent conference summary
i) It is premature to conclude that human activity--and particularly greenhouse warming--has already had a discernible impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. ii) It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes.
Once again rather than believing a disgraced television news reader try the reading the science.
________________________________________ complete bollocks. The 1992 IPCC report nowhere states that the link is "tenuous at best", and in fact states quite clearly:
"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes."
However, the links you have provided state the exact opposite.
So its your position that the IPCC was wrong about tropical cyclones, and they will decrease in intensity?
So regardless what the observed data shows you going to still claim no global warming! ___________________________________________ Places warm, places cool, has been happening for 4.7 billion years. From about 1850 to 1998 the earth was generally warming; I don't know if it is currently warming or cooling.
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:18:36 -0600, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
>>I'm just curious, what is scientific truth?
> I'd say it is knowledge arrived at by a scientific process: observation, > theorizing, testing, correction. It isn't usually an absolute, but an > endpoint that we are converging on- sometimes asymptotically.
Testing!
>>at the beginning of the era of science the consensus was that all material >>was made up of four types of atoms (earth, wind, fire, and water), that >>consensus was 2000 years old and continued to hold for decades with >>considerable attempts to modify.. seems current theories don't give that >>much credence...
> I'd argue that this doesn't represent the beginning of "the era of > science". I'd put that much later- just a few hundred years ago. Prior > to that, the methods of seeking knowledge of nature were very different, > and very inefficient and error prone compared to science.
There are many, many examples which aren't 2,000 years old. Up until 50 years ago nobody believed in plate techtonics. We had the scientific method in the 1950s. Go back 100 years and people (scientists) believed in Newtonian gravity and that particles had defined position and momentum. Now its dark matter.
The fact is that scientific theories are just that - theories. Their longevity and support is based upon how well they adhere to observation (ie their predictive ability).
> However, as I noted, scientific knowledge converges on truth. I think > that in most areas we are quite close. It's hardly surprising that if > you go back to early beliefs, they were substantially in error. The > corrections we make to our understanding these days tends to be much > smaller- just little fixes here and there. > _________________________________________________
Interesting argument:
1. All our scientific theories are correct excepting for little fixes here and there. 2. AGW is a scientific theory 3. Therefore AGW is correct except for little fixes here and there.
> The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global > warming is tenuous, but possible.
> _____________________________________ > No it doesn't. This is what it states:
> "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future > tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will > become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds > and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing > increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
> Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
> I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC > report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you > posted > which said there was no connection.
> What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect?
Exactly where does it say they will be more frequent, which is what the original poster questioned? The link between frequency and global warming is again tenuous at best. The paragraph from the IPPC report that states A hurricane will be more intense and have more rainfall when sea-surface temperatures are higher is merely a statement of observed fact. The relationship between hurricane intensity/rain and sea-surface temperatures is well-established theory and one of the tools HRD uses to predict hurricane strength. One of the reason Katrina strengthened after passing over Florida was that the sea surface temperatures in the Gulf were warmer than usual (Read NCDC tech-report 2005-01 for the details). All you have shown is that you can hunt down a phrase or word that looks like it fits your preconceived notion, unfortunately you don't understand what you are reading and drew the wrong conclusion. You shown you're right up there with Gerald and Ajay with your understanding of science.
_______________________________ So you disagree with the recent papers (posted here) that AGW will *not* increase the frequency or severity of tropical cyclones? I guess the authors of these papers "can hunt down a phrase or word that looks like it fits [their] preconceived notion, unfortunately [they] don't understand what [they] are reading and drew the wrong conclusion.".
|
