Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 131 of 131

Thread: The Climate Then And Now

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Which points in particular Darius? A good deal of your post was addressed already. And seriously you shouldn't muddy your own post with the conspiracy stuff (e.g. they keep the info from us) or meaningless anecdotal (they knew! There were sunspots in 1998!) if you want to have a serious conversation. I sometimes do the same thing and it's a bad practice in most forums because its darn hard to follow.
    "They keep the information from us"

    Not a conspiracy, because many if not most, law makers have come forth, and told us openly that they do keep much from us. To avoid senseless panic and unwarranted fear. The rest of the law makers do not come forward and deny it, so they are all in the same boat to me.

    I try not to watch TV to much. But when I do, I watch the history channel. And I am sure that much is kept from us about nuclear power plant failures. And the like. At least at the time. It comes out after all involved get their retirement package or die.

    Of course at the time it was to stave off panic and individuals trampling themselves to death. Not at all to protect the past lies of law makers and their blunders. Ha-ha.

    The law makers have come forward openly and stated they must lie to keep us safe. They must lie to keep knowledge from other countries. Even fifth world industrial safety knowledge that some countries could rightly consider an act of war.

    I remember when they said that violent minority types must not receive full scientific knowledge through education in the sixties. Openly, no conspiracy at all.

    My pastor suggested marching on Washington DC and using force.

    I just heard them say that they will not share Air Force Ones Secret Defense with us. My guess is that, it is lacking. That is why they will not share it with us. Air Force One, perhaps only has shields of secrecy. Ha-ha.

    Secrecy often invites experimentation. So they certainly have not learned anything from George Washington. Our founding father.

    "Nothing deserves your utter most patronage more then the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness." George Washington

    What George Washington suggested that we do not share and trust our neighbors with. Was the production of the food we eat to survive. And the raw products that allow us to defend ourselves. Like steel and other metals. We were never to ally with other countries in war. Or allow other countries to speak for us. Part of that comes from the help we got from France.

    France caused the problem, not the brave souls that helped us, France tried to misuse that friendship. So did England. We know now that England had plans to destroy America if we did not ally with England During World War Two. Was George Washington clairvoyant or just using 2+2=4 logic?

    George Washington said we will never win a war on foreign soil. By the history lesson of every war ever fought. That is why he knew it was only a matter of time before we beat England. If you look at what American citizens lost in each conflict overseas. I have no doubts that we lost more then the "enemy".

    In fact it looks like we do everything foolish, against what George Washington warned us not to do, two hundred plus years ago. And do not do what he suggested we should do.

    The Air Force One Helicopters look like Bolshevik egg beaters. If I was in Russia, I would say fine. But those things are something that got on the drawing board as an insult to those running the country of America. And as a slap in the face back to those that submitted them, they were allowed to be built.

    Anything better though and brave men would use them to assault the capital.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Which points in particular Darius? A good deal of your post was addressed already.
    So far it has been "addressed" by you repeatedly misinterpreting my words, chalking some things up to conspiracy, directly taking me out of context, and producing flawed charts. Adressed indeed. You also ignored the bulk of my links AND appear to have ignored the bulk of my posts as well.

    And seriously you shouldn't muddy your own post with the conspiracy stuff (e.g. they keep the info from us) or meaningless anecdotal (they knew! There were sunspots in 1998!) if you want to have a serious conversation. I sometimes do the same thing and it's a bad practice in most forums because its darn hard to follow.
    This is an example. I never have. I simply complained about how difficult it is to find and use data that exists. Had you read my words, rather than supplemented them with your own preconceptions, you would know that. Also, my argument about solar output is hardly a meaningless anecdote (Especially since it's backed up by evidence?)

    Perhaps if you were to take off your sunglasses when you're inside...

    There were other parts that didn't make sense at all such as: " GISS data more or less agrees with satellite data trends until 1978-9?" Well considering that's when the satellite data started that couldn't be the case. What did you mean to say?
    TRENDS. TRENDS. TRENDS. Key word there. Such a key word. That's the crux of my point and my suspicion of purposeful GISS data corruption. One of my charts lines up GISS and UAH satellite data using yearly and five-year trends to show how the two seem to agree with how the temperature increases and decreases. Recent GISS data, on the other hand, disagrees by varying extremes.

    The trend of the GISS data from 1880-1978 shows a climb of about 0.2C. The UAH data from 1979-08 shows that same rate of climb excepting 1998 and onward, which one can blame on the sun. Meanwhile GISS data shows an outrageous rate of climb from 1979-present that's completely disconnected from prior obserations. In truth, this would prove man made warming if satellite data agreed. The fact is it doesn't, which adds further proof to the fact recent GISS data is corrupt. How many times do I have to retype the same words?

    Anyhow, here the satellite trend from 1979 to 2007 plotted on a map from the agency actually responsible for the RSS satellite data analysis (I posted the source earlier). It's color coded by change in degrees (C).

    Your POINT BEING? I made charts (USEFUL ones, this one is not useful) using data from the official UAH website and compared it with RSS (as my spreadsheets still contain RSS data). They agree so much with yearly trends the inclusion of RSS in my chart was unnecessary. So posting this says nothing.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    What did you calibrate it too?
    ...
    Believe it or not I am not being facetious at all. I just know that after working with heating equipment I have seen its flaws. And one degree Celsius is not within our grasp. Especially across the globe.

    And yet I do take my hat off to the real weathermen that know the climate does not change. And have kept amazing records.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Good questions. When I was doing it most were still mercury in glass. We didn't do the actual calibration, we confirmed the the general condition of the instruments and shelter and verified that the max min thermometer had gone through calibration or sent them off to a lab where the conditions you referred to could be met. Including from what I remember test at a standard atmosphere (set pressure, humidity, temp, insulated from radiation etc), a high temp, low temp and one in the middle against a known good thermometer. At that time those standards for testing and calibration were set by the Bureau of Standards, (one of the numerous agencies in Boulder where I worked in a weather research lab).


    --
    Darious if you wish to use the most current information you can find the latest GIS data on http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
    and satellite data here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/....html#analysis

    Time for a new thread, hopefully one that's a bit more focused.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Good questions. When I was doing it most were still mercury in glass. We didn't do the actual calibration, we confirmed the the general condition of the instruments and shelter and verified that the max min thermometer had gone through calibration or sent them off to a lab where the conditions you referred to could be met. Including from what I remember test at a standard atmosphere (set pressure, humidity, temp, insulated from radiation etc), a high temp, low temp and one in the middle against a known good thermometer. At that time those standards for testing and calibration were set by the Bureau of Standards, (one of the numerous agencies in Boulder where I worked in a weather research lab).

    I am not really battling with you in anyway. I actually believe that the mercury in glass, thermometers are pretty darn accurate. The history shows it.

    It is just the number of locations the number of different thermometers in use, and the type of thermometers that are being used today that give me concern. For calling a less then one degree in change in the last 25 years a problem or emergency.

    Some of the RTD's have an ohms reading over ten ohms. If you have worked with oscilloscopes and ten ohm pickups. You know that even the slightest touch of the human hand to the plastic pickup could change the reading.

    I have installed hundreds of RTD's in heating and cooling equipment. And they provide highly repeatable results to a fraction of a degree. However I would not trust them to one degree accuracy, for telling me the actual temperature. They are mostly used in highly accurate process control and exacting repeatability. Not actual temperature seeking. As you also mentioned very honestly.

    I know you were very thorough about mentioning the degree of repeatability you strive for. I totally agree with you, that at each station there is probably an awesome amount of repeatability. And that the repeatability is what counts.

    I am just saying as times change, our new instruments react much more quickly, so if a site replaces its equipment with modern technology, they may actually be measuring the temperature five minutes or twenty minutes sooner then they did with the old equipment. I would be the first to say that it might all average out. But it might not.

    But to hold all that change to one degree Celsius, I say, I would not cry wolf yet. There are plenty of variables to kill first.

    My point about all those very real variables for a calibration center in the other post. Was to say that when the device leaves that pristine environment it is now subject to all those variables in different proportion at each different actual working site. As you say this will probably not effect the averaging much. Yet they may start to create a slight unnoticed change in recording, to the actual temperature. Even if the new thermometers are actually more accurate then the old.

    So as you say, and I totally agree, the purpose is to keep a running average. I am sure that the accuracy is probably far better then I could achieve. I forget to put out the garbage on occasion. Any occasion I get. Ha-ha.
    The truth to me is that as you change thermometers, change the location of the sites. Change the individuals monitoring them. Change the methods, and procedures over a hundred years. I am sure that one degree is just not within our scope.

    I used to sit with heating equipment and monitor it. And I know the heating equipment is highly accurate, amazingly accurate. But to be honest one degree Fahrenheit is just out of its scope, upon a change up or during extreme situations.

    Even though I could setup a repeatable experiment and hold a half a degree and repeat it. I would not expect someone taking the equipment somewhere else to get the same results. I would say, I would gamble my life, on plus or minus 2.5 degrees Celsius. If certain criteria at the site are met. But no more then that, except for lab like conditions.

    I am saying scientifically if any real scientists are left, they will concur that the instrumentation used in weather temperature recording just cannot be within one degree Celsius of accuracy. I am not arguing for me, I am stating tried and true scientific basics of experimentation. Or at least these were important issues, at one time in science.

    If I explained the situation of all the equipment in the field, and stated that I noticed a one degree Celsius temperature change over a hundred years, I would be laughed at. That was all I was saying.

    I have been laughed at. Rightly so at times. Ha-ha. I stated a few amazing things in my life about heating and cooling over the years. I still get red over them. I just had to hear it from an engineer that did it his whole life, and really loved it. Along with the embarrassing way he found out.

    He would check out a 110 volt thermostat, standing in his polyester socks in water outside on a wet deck, not to wake anyone, at his house, in the middle of the night, just to get to the bottom of something. I warned him that if there was an ARC he could get a shock. He said this is more important.
    He would show me some little known trick, and it became really obvious to me. I still grin about it as I think of it. Ha-ha.

    It had to do with vapor pressure, and the weight of the tank I was heating, the structure holding the object being heated. Humidity, things like that. I had a lot of great ideas. He just smashed them. Ha-ha. The scary part is I made the mistake again, later on. Go figure.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    I have a question. Totally in the interest of science and math. Have the number of monitoring sites increased?

    Perhaps we are getting a better overall picture, and that picture could be showing us a whole picture. Rather then a partial picture we had many years ago?

    Perhaps if we removed the new sites from current statistics, we could check what kind of results we get compared to the old statistics?


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    I read your original post, William McCormick. It was not exactly a very convincing one. From your own experience, you claim that the climate hasn't changed.

    However, many others would disagree with you.

    Climate change has become an almost inescapable curse in India. Last year, the temperature of Mumbai fell to 8.5 degrees Celsius, despite it usually being warmer than most other cities owing to it being a harbour city on the ocean. Most of the country experienced extraordinary cold, even in the warmest of areas. This is unprecedented in Indian history; no such weather has ever actually been recorded before in India.

    Exactly how do you explain this? Or do you shrug it off as being an anomaly that won't happen again?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    I read your original post, William McCormick. It was not exactly a very convincing one. From your own experience, you claim that the climate hasn't changed.

    However, many others would disagree with you.

    Climate change has become an almost inescapable curse in India. Last year, the temperature of Mumbai fell to 8.5 degrees Celsius, despite it usually being warmer than most other cities owing to it being a harbour city on the ocean. Most of the country experienced extraordinary cold, even in the warmest of areas. This is unprecedented in Indian history; no such weather has ever actually been recorded before in India.

    Exactly how do you explain this? Or do you shrug it off as being an anomaly that won't happen again?
    I never said that there is not an ocean warming trend taking place, a trend that is probably at the end of a major or minor cycle.

    I stated that global warming is not something you have to worry about. As a kid we experienced 107 degree summers in the sixties, on the water. I have not seen them since. You could die in humidity and 107 degrees, in the sun.

    Is it coming back, I don't know. Is it a one time thing, I don't know. I think they said the last time anything near that happened it was 90 years ago or one hundred years ago.

    But I do know that these catastrophes have been taking place for so long now. With so many unbelievable highs and lows. That I could not even blink at any localized climate change. They will happen. They have been happening.

    Investigate real weather, and you will see some of the amazing and outrageous effects of localized weather. Outrageous stuff.

    Some local change is admittedly made more obvious and uncomfortable by man and his emissions. However the global temperature is not effected. Someone was just telling me, near salt lake city, that in the valley a strange effect takes place causing harmful air to collect in the valley. Some blame the steel mill or some factory for it. Many get ill and need medical attention. But it is localized.

    I do remember when the modern multi subatomic particle scientists of the day said we were entering into another ice age. Because of global cooling. In the late sixties and early seventies. It was just an attention getter then and it is just an attention getter now.

    I never saw the Time Life magazine, but check out this video. It pretty much tells the story.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68...eature=related

    People are paranoid and rightly so. But they don't know they have really nothing to fear from global warming. They do have to fear that supposed top modern scientists cried wolf about global warning.
    The chain of command contaminates the lower hard working folk. Who do not have access to the whole picture. The lower grunts do assume that the higher ups have checked with all the proper places, to get information, and have made a sound and logical conclusion. No way. Ha-ha.

    A seventh grade science class would or should have taught them about the scientific method. And how you come to a conclusion like that, or do not come to a conclusion like that.

    The amount of variables in claiming global warming, is just so outrageous that you really could not hold the tolerance to plus or minus 2.5 degrees Celsius.

    I work with heating and cooling equipment. It is great stuff, if used in a specific place, calibrated to a random point that brings comfort or agreement. But you cannot just take that device and plug it in somewhere else and expect it to hold the same accuracy, or create the precise digital value and be accurate.

    That one degree difference over the years is a big pat on the back for honest weather sites that love their job. However, you cannot take that information and state that it shows global warming or global cooling. We are not even approaching the edges of inaccuracy, that is to be expected with the system and equipment recording temperature.
    Excellent work has kept the inaccuracy to within one degree accuracy through war, nuclear explosions, and testing. Rocket launches, meteorites, solar flairs. Burning of oil fields. Volcanos. You name it. That deserves merit.

    Al Gore crying wolf to create fear and get money does not deserve any merit. A public hanging maybe.

    When you monitor something very closely you do pick up trends. You pick up inaccuracies of the equipment. You can speculate much better, in which way something will effect the whole.
    But you also know that you would not gamble on a marginal one degree difference in temperature over the last one hundred years. Based on so much information, from so many sources, using a wide array of equipment, placement and procedures.

    You could not use that to verify the actual temperature change over time. But it is amazing to show the steady nature of the climate. Weather is not stable, it will kill man again and again. Even after he has been warned. But you can always count on the global climate.

    If the oceans warm, the land cools in the hotter regions. And warms in the cooler regions.

    When the ocean cools, and it will, with the polar cap heating blankets removed now. The normally hotter land masses will heat again. The colder regions will cool again.

    In our area we have experienced milder seasons the last couple years. We will get sharper seasons again.

    That is because the global climate does not change. The weather does.

    When the polar caps melt, you should know that if you are in a normally hot region you may experience extreme cold.

    As the trend reverses you should be prepared for anything anywhere. We are human and we unfortunately record pain and suffering as the global climate, changing and hurting us. Ha-ha.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Darious if you wish to use the most current information you can find the latest GIS data on http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
    and satellite data here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/....html#analysis

    Time for a new thread, hopefully one that's a bit more focused.
    I used the most current GISS data, and in fact from those same websites. Your POINT BEING?
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Did anyone happen to save the source of my charts in http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=166884#166884 ? For some reason I cannot find it on my PC, AND the images are gone, AND evilshare decided to remove it from the internet without warning. Not only this, but nobody I know has the damn source. If ANYONE downloaded it, I am asking you to reupload it for me (either post it here or in a PM), so that I may download it.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    I do remember when the modern multi subatomic particle scientists of the day said we were entering into another ice age. Because of global cooling. In the late sixties and early seventies. It was just an attention getter then and it is just an attention getter now.
    William, go do a search of the primary literature for climatology from 1960 to 1980 and count up the percentage of primary papers proposing global cooling versus other climate models. Do the same from 1960 onwards for global warming. The contention that "the scientists" were supporting the global cooling hypothesis en masse during the 70's is bogus and is an argument used to paint the climatology community (and by extension the scientific community) as arbitrary and over confident. The mainstream media coverage certainly suggested that there was some sort of consensus, but in reality the number of papers in support of global cooling was very small. So in fact all the "global cooling" argument can be used for is a case study of how the media misrepresent science.

    Even in the 70s the global cooling publications were outnumbered by papers supporting global warming. What sort of consensus for cooling is that? One fabricated by magazines and TV slots, I guess. The percentage support for warming has risen steadily since then. Now we have an actual scientific consensus for warming. There's still a media circus, as there always is for these things, but this time the scientific community really does support the current climate model. The media just happen to be right this time, at least about this one thing.

    Go to Google Scholar and do that search William. If you can't be bothered, then there's a summary of climate model publications during the 1970s in this article. Table 1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I do remember when the modern multi subatomic particle scientists of the day said we were entering into another ice age. Because of global cooling. In the late sixties and early seventies. It was just an attention getter then and it is just an attention getter now.
    William, go do a search of the primary literature for climatology from 1960 to 1980 and count up the percentage of primary papers proposing global cooling versus other climate models. Do the same from 1960 onwards for global warming. The contention that "the scientists" were supporting the global cooling hypothesis en masse during the 70's is bogus and is an argument used to paint the climatology community (and by extension the scientific community) as arbitrary and over confident. The mainstream media coverage certainly suggested that there was some sort of consensus, but in reality the number of papers in support of global cooling was very small. So in fact all the "global cooling" argument can be used for is a case study of how the media misrepresent science.

    Even in the 70s the global cooling publications were outnumbered by papers supporting global warming. What sort of consensus for cooling is that? One fabricated by magazines and TV slots, I guess. The percentage support for warming has risen steadily since then. Now we have an actual scientific consensus for warming. There's still a media circus, as there always is for these things, but this time the scientific community really does support the current climate model. The media just happen to be right this time, at least about this one thing.

    Go to Google Scholar and do that search William. If you can't be bothered, then there's a summary of climate model publications during the 1970s in this article. Table 1.

    "Top Scientists" predicted an ice age. Not global warming. Global warmers would have been laughed out of existence at those times, by global coolers. Neither global climate warming, or cooling is happening.

    No one was claiming global warming at this time openly. I had a mountain of snow in front of my house, over the second story. At that time. Some thought the world was coming to an end by way of the ice age. It was just weather patterns.

    Since that time we have had 18 inches of snow as a maximum. I believe the large snow storm was something like 32 or 38 inches. But drifts and high winds created huge snow drifts.

    The only thing stupider then global warming or cooling. Is communist or capitalist. Neither can exist without the other. So neither are right or wrong. In fact the individual cannot sanely be a communist or a capitalist exclusively. In fact to give favor to either action or type of handling of a situation is to expose yourself as a mental patient.

    Welcome to psycho central.

    I would suggest first clarifying what global climate change is. Then admit they meant something else. Like weather patterns. If you want to fix it.

    Papers do not mean anything to real people. Sorry they just do not mean anything. You can write a billion more, that we can never read in one lifetime and they will still be as useless as ever.

    You do not think I expect to be read, in this sea of nonsense? Yet this sea of nonsense is far more accurate then the scientific papers. This sea of nonsense may stimulate some fellows mind into testing for himself some of the things I say, or others say. So all I hope to do is wake up one individual at a time.

    Trust me in the seventies, the hype was global cooling. Not global warming. Just like our fellow forum member Milum pointed out, many scientists came forward and did squash global warming. It will take another weather pattern to crush global warming though. Some claimed they were secondary papers. How?

    If I watch something I work with blow up. Do I need a scientist to tell me it did not blow up? They will. Ha-ha.

    What is primary literature? As opposed to secondary literature? Who are the primary scientists and who are the secondary scientists? Anybody that filed papers in either direction global warming or cooling, is not a good scientist.
    They should have stated that weather patterns are taking place or have taken place. And left global climate change alone.

    We are no where near effecting global climate. Unless we use perpetual motion. And we can.

    I read the article it seems to be damage control. For an argument that either global cooling or global heating is taking place, making all involved in need of medical attention.

    You can note that neither side just squashed the other side. Why? Because neither side has a leg to stand on. They are playing good and bad weather specialist. Neither is actually good. We just have a very steady global climate.

    Even the temperature instruments may only be recording the solar flares activity, not even actual heat created or delivered. Some of my tests show that even totally shielded in a basement, I could tell whether it was daytime or night time outside. By rays that permeate the basement.

    So even before the really good weather experts could say for sure that there was an actual 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature, you would have to determine what the role of sunspots actually are. And how they effect temperature testing equipment.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Biologista, in that link you provided in that table. Only the people down the middle have a shot at being called competent scientists.

    Unless the scientists claiming warm or cold, papers state that they are discussing weather patterns rather then global climate change.

    And since I did not read each of those papers, and would not even know where to look for them. I do not know if they are talking about weather patterns or actual global average temperature change.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    "Top Scientists" predicted an ice age.
    do you happen to have names + how did they come by the epithet of "top scientist" ?
    as far as i'm aware the term "top scientist" is something used in the media, not amongst scientist - there the best you can hope for is to be recognised as an expert in your field
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Why is this thread back from the dead?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    it's a "norwegian blue" thread
    it wasn't dead, merely resting
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Wow. So I do all that work, gather data the scientists themselves use, compile proper charts that show definite facts, and nobody saves the source OR the images. I certainly wasted my time.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    In 1927, based on the last 50 years (or 47 anyhow), he was pretty much right. The data shows it as well (see below), with subtle ups and downs. Things are considerably different now and we see it not only in the global temperature average, we're seeing as biological communities move, glacier retreats and in other ways. These aren't just the anecdotal type of examples that he gives.

    I think there is an interesting correlation between the satellite data and the last 40 years on this chart. Prior to that period, there were no satellites, so the changes could also be explained by the differences in which the temperatures were measured.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    William, go do a search of the primary literature for climatology from 1960 to 1980 and count up the percentage of primary papers proposing global cooling versus other climate models. Do the same from 1960 onwards for global warming. The contention that "the scientists" were supporting the global cooling hypothesis en masse during the 70's is bogus and is an argument used to paint the climatology community (and by extension the scientific community) as arbitrary and over confident.
    I assume you have done this research yourself, so could you give us the numbers please?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    The mainstream media coverage certainly suggested that there was some sort of consensus, but in reality the number of papers in support of global cooling was very small. So in fact all the "global cooling" argument can be used for is a case study of how the media misrepresent science.
    Yes, one might even be skeptical of the media today regarding the consensus issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Even in the 70s the global cooling publications were outnumbered by papers supporting global warming.
    So the media passed over all those global warming papers and managed to weed out the few global cooling ones. Basically what you are proffering here is the media found the needle (the cooiling papers) but missed the haystack (the global warming papers). That does not seem likely. I will check your links then get back to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    William Pinn, remember what is said in the other thread ?

    "i would also like to add that any other thread that starts to look like this one will be pruned and/or deleted"

    i consider transplanting a post from a closed thread as a means to continue a sterile discussion that everyone (apart from you) is heartily sick of as an attempt to circumvent the closure of the original thread, an as such i'm closing this thread as well

    any further attempts at reviving said discussion will be deleted without any further warning


    [edit]
    in view of the post below, i withdraw the above comments
    i do, however, leave them for all to see as an abject lesson against conclusion jumping
    [/edit]
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    apologies - my impression that this was a continuation of a different thread was wrong

    thread reopened
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    "Top Scientists" predicted an ice age.
    do you happen to have names + how did they come by the epithet of "top scientist" ?
    as far as i'm aware the term "top scientist" is something used in the media, not amongst scientist - there the best you can hope for is to be recognised as an expert in your field
    It was put forth by the media. In a pretty frantic flurry. If you do not trust the media, then I am sure you do not trust the media when they say someone is or is not guilty. Or was or was not given a fair trial.

    If you trust the media then top scientists claimed an ice age.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    let's say i don't have a blanket trust for the media - their record when it comes to reporting politics and economics usually is up to scratch, but when it comes to science their coverage is often not up to the same standard (and that remark stands even when you ignore coverage of global warming for the time being)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    "Top Scientists" predicted an ice age.
    do you happen to have names + how did they come by the epithet of "top scientist" ?
    as far as i'm aware the term "top scientist" is something used in the media, not amongst scientist - there the best you can hope for is to be recognised as an expert in your field
    It was put forth by the media. In a pretty frantic flurry. If you do not trust the media, then I am sure you do not trust the media when they say someone is or is not guilty. Or was or was not given a fair trial.

    If you trust the media then top scientists claimed an ice age.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I think it is safe to say people trust the media when it tells them what they want to hear. They don't trust the media when the media tells them what they don't want to hear. I personally don't take any media seriously. I figure if they lie all the time, then they lie at least most of the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    it's not so much about lying, but what makes a good story
    in general, science doesn't make a good headline unless you embellish it somehow, sometimes with disastrous consequences (e.g. the MMR-autism scare in the UK, which, apart from the first report by Andrew Wakefield, was totally media-driven - and totally wrong)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If you trust the media then top scientists claimed an ice age.
    If you had a brain you would understand what was happening here. An ice age is coming. It is almost inevitable. It will arrive in ten thousand years, or thereabouts.

    Global warming is also occuring. It is happening now.


    Do you uderstand that today is different from tomorrow? Next year is different from 2000 years from now?

    Apparently not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If you trust the media then top scientists claimed an ice age.
    If you had a brain you would understand what was happening here. An ice age is coming. It is almost inevitable. It will arrive in ten thousand years, or thereabouts.

    Global warming is also occuring. It is happening now.


    Do you uderstand that today is different from tomorrow? Next year is different from 2000 years from now?

    Apparently not.
    Ah finally. I was looking for a curious thread about time travel and global warming but I guess one of you rude posters (as in above) called another poster "brainless" and the post master declared the thread CLOSED.

    But hey! This thread seems rambling enough to accomadate a little time triping so here goes....

    Yogi Berra maybe said, "Predictions are uncertain; especially when they are about the future".

    Ain't it the truth. But we as thinking creatures can automaticly time travel back to the past to look for reoccurring events that might recur in our future.

    And we find that for the last two million years Ice Ages have proved to be our most faithful geologic events. We still can't be sure of the initiating and terminating causes of these terrible cycles , but we know that they are almost clockwork cycles of roughfully 100,000 years of deep freeze interpted by 10,000 years of balmy times.

    Our best measurements indicate that the happy interludes between the times of bitter cold are shortening. The last Ice age ended 10,000 years ago and a rough beast, irrepressible, immutable, slouches towards Bethlehem while we fat human whine about a one degree rise in temperature from unknown causes instead.

    But thank whomever it is that you wish to thank that the swan songs currently being sung here on Earth are achanging, and thank the Lord, the fantasy world of Global Warming is no longer the social vogue.

    Brr.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If you trust the media then top scientists claimed an ice age.
    If you had a brain you would understand what was happening here. An ice age is coming. It is almost inevitable. It will arrive in ten thousand years, or thereabouts.

    Global warming is also occuring. It is happening now.


    Do you uderstand that today is different from tomorrow? Next year is different from 2000 years from now?

    Apparently not.
    John do you have any idea of what might cause an ice age? And do you know how they can predict such a thing? I know they cannot.

    I do have some feasible ideas how an ice age could be started. But they are all man-made phenomena.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    John do you have any idea of what might cause an ice age? And do you know how they can predict such a thing? I know they cannot.
    Milankovich cycles acting upon continent distribution and ocean current patterns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    remember that we're still in an ice age, only in a temporary interglacial part of it
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    remember that we're still in an ice age, only in a temporary interglacial part of it

    There is no proof of any of that. That is pure speculation. Because we do not know if there was man made interference or not, to create past ice ages. If they were actually ice ages.

    Some of the effects could be caused by causing the planet to change its axis. This would cause the poles to move and could create the effect of a global ice age, to later historians and archeologists.

    You just cannot say that there is global climate change without real evidence, taking into consideration all variables that could stand in its way.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    remember that we're still in an ice age, only in a temporary interglacial part of it

    There is no proof of any of that. That is pure speculation. Because we do not know if there was man made interference or not, to create past ice ages. If they were actually ice ages.
    not speculation at all - if geologists in the 19th century already were convinced by the geological evidence, to which we now have added detailed evidence from ice and deep see cores, that to me is undeniable evidence that for the past 2 million years the earth has been in an ice age

    this has nothing whatsoever to do with human interference, since Homo sapiens only has been around for a tenth of that time
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •