Good news on the weather front...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » Good news on the weather front...

Page 3 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Good news on the weather front...

Author

Message

Peter Webb...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:42 pm

Guest

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:12tHm.117700$la3.10905 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
[quote]Peter Webb wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:O8sHm.111464$5n1.11396 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
Peter Webb wrote:

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?
[/quote]
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)?

Peter Webb...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:56 pm

Guest

"Chris L Peterson" <clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:jgmse5tr823n69hju5ou93gpquaka0bd23 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:00:58 +1100, "Peter Webb"
webbfamily at (no spam) 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.
[/quote]
Ohh, so they are not right, and they are not wrong, nobody knows.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Was that predicted by AGW?

[quote]Given
that, it isn't surprising that we've not seen a major change is
hurricane activity.
[/quote]

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".

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote]Then
judge the IPCC predictions.
_________________________________________________
[/quote]

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?

[quote]
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote]

Sam Wormley...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:58 pm

Guest

Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:12tHm.117700$la3.10905 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
Peter Webb wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:O8sHm.111464$5n1.11396 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
Peter Webb wrote:

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".
[/quote]
Peter, you are confused. AGW is an observation, not a theory. AGW
does NOT make predictions.

[quote]
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)?

[/quote]
Peter--More information other than the original paper
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/fa189a8186a324d8f62b5d55ba4b8969.html
http://www.physorg.com/news175188684.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162929.htm

NOT predictions of AGW!

Sam Wormley...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:02 am

Guest

oriel36 wrote:

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

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.

Peter Webb...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:26 am

Guest

"Chris L Peterson" <clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:9qlse5tpt5acue8dtt85f66de41g6sfool at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:28:47 +1100, "Peter Webb"
webbfamily at (no spam) 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.

[/quote]
Great. What is the weight of evidence that AGW is correct? What specific
predictions has it made that turned out to be correct?

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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?

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Then its not a scientific theory.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
"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?

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

The IPCC summary I read and quoted did not say this or anything like it.

[quote]Wrong that
AGW is a real thing? Highly unlikely.

[/quote]
So which of the predictions of the IPCC are correct and which are wrong?

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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?

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

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?

[quote]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.

[/quote]
The first IPCC report was 1992. That was 17 years ago. AGW theories existed
long before then.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote]In fact, as the
models improve the evidence continues to mount that the IPCC predictions
were far too conservative.

[/quote]
So they were in fact wrong?

_________________________________________________
[quote]
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote]

Chris L Peterson...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:35 am

Guest

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:56:50 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Peter Webb...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:01 am

Guest

"Chris L Peterson" <clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:imrse5dbfmur16n7pv7kgbeoqrq2j20ddq at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:56:50 +1100, "Peter Webb"
webbfamily at (no spam) 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.

[/quote]
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.

[quote]You should be posting on one of the forums for ideologues; you are badly
out of your depth in a SCI forum.

[/quote]
"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?

_________________________________________________
[quote]
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote]

Peter Webb...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:15 am

Guest

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:0GtHm.111568$5n1.87634 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
[quote]Peter Webb wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:12tHm.117700$la3.10905 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
Peter Webb wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:O8sHm.111464$5n1.11396 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
Peter Webb wrote:

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.

[/quote]

Then by definition its not a science.

[quote]

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)?

Peter--More information other than the original paper
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/fa189a8186a324d8f62b5d55ba4b8969.html
http://www.physorg.com/news175188684.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162929.htm

NOT predictions of AGW!

[/quote]
I have got a million things that weren't predicted by AGW but have
subsequently shown to be true.

So what?

Or is your argument that these are all things which should have been
predicted by AGW, but weren't, and so AGW is wrong?

Sam Wormley...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:23 am

Guest

Peter Webb wrote:
[quote]
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:0GtHm.111568$5n1.87634 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
Peter Webb wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:12tHm.117700$la3.10905 at (no spam) attbi_s22...
Peter Webb wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1 at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:O8sHm.111464$5n1.11396 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
Peter Webb wrote:

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)?

Peter--More information other than the original paper
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/fa189a8186a324d8f62b5d55ba4b8969.html
http://www.physorg.com/news175188684.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162929.htm

NOT predictions of AGW!

I have got a million things that weren't predicted by AGW but have
subsequently shown to be true.

So what?

Or is your argument that these are all things which should have been
predicted by AGW, but weren't, and so AGW is wrong?

[/quote]
I think I made my point!

yourmommycalled...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:34 am

Guest

On Nov 1, 7:18 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
[quote]"Sam Wormley" <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message

news:J%pHm.111332$5n1.60474 at (no spam) attbi_s21...

Peter Webb wrote:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

"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!
[/quote]
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!

oriel36...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:43 am

Guest

On Nov 2, 3:27 pm, Chris L Peterson <c... at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

[quote]Climate only makes sense when analyzed over decades or longer.
[/quote]
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 -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg

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.

Chris L Peterson...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:27 am

Guest

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:01:41 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Steve Paul...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:19 am

Guest

Chris L Peterson wrote:

[quote]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. _________________________________________________
[/quote]
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. ;-)

Just saying...
-SteveP.

David Staup...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:18 pm

Guest

Chris L Peterson...

Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:42 pm

Guest

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:18:36 -0600, "David Staup" <dstaup at (no spam) sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

[quote]I'm just curious, what is scientific truth?
[/quote]
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.

[quote]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...
[/quote]
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.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Page 3 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:14 pm Science Forum Index