|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 17, 2019 19:03:21 GMT
You've got to be kidding me. This paper would receive an F if it were handed in for a grade at a school ... unless we're talking about Columbia University or Berkeley. 1) The title, "The Sun’s Role in Climate Change," implies we're going to be learning about a cause (sun) -> effect (Climate) in nature. Unfortunately "Climate" is never defined formally ... actually it isn't defined at all. Well, at least we know up front that we aren't going to be getting any science. 2) ... followed by five pages of irrelevant solar trivia. 3) At the bottom of Page 6 we find Section 3, "Correlation between solar activity and climate on Earth" and while the reader is presented a bunch of colorful but obviously fabricated charts and graphs and some unsubstantiated overgeneralized speculations about past environmental ecologies, the section disappointingly omits any direct correlation between solar activity and the as yet undefined "global climate" contradiction. I got a kick out of Page 16 where Svensmark presumes no one has paid attention up to that point and states unabashedly "Other ideas have been put forward to explain the Sun–climate link." Hey, Svensmark, you haven't presented any such ideas yet. You can't use the word "others" yet. 4) This is hilarious. On Page 17 we find Section 6 "Future solar activity." The very first sentence says it all: "Predicting changes in solar activity is beyond our current capabilities." So that should be the end of the section. But no. Svensmark inserts three paragraphs of filler. I'm guessing he was under contract to produce a certain number of pages. 5) So finally we get the conclusory (where the conclusions are laid out) section on page 18 "Impact of solar activity." There might as well have been no report up to this point. The "conclusions" are completely independent of, and are not supported by, anything beforehand. This paper is summarily dismissed and filed.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 17, 2019 19:17:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 17, 2019 22:17:14 GMT
I take the science purist position and point out that there is no such thing as a global climate, at least not in science anyway. A climate is local conditions bounded by a time-frame. There are millions of climates on the planet. A global climate would have to be a global-local that is bounded by a time-frame and yet open-ended time-wise, i.e. a logical contradiction. The important thing to remember is that Global Climate is just a religious myth of the Global Warming faith and is certainly not supported by any science. When folks talk about global climate they are talking about average climate, average temperatures, average precipitation, average ice extents, average snowfall, average wind conditions,etc. So there isn't any such thing as a global climate, per se, but there is the statistical concept of global climate. So you just need to be aware that when folks are talking about climate change in this forum they are talking about changes in long term averages. Hopefully you are aware of that and are not in denial of long periods of glaciation and deglaciation that has occurred over the past half million years.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 17, 2019 22:47:04 GMT
When folks talk about global climate they are talking about average climate, average temperatures, average precipitation, average ice extents, average snowfall, average wind conditions,etc. icefisher, I don't know how to make this any clearer. What you are saying is so absurd, it has to be someone playing a joke on the gullible just to see if they are paying attention. What is the average coin flip? Take all the weather that occurred around the globe today and tell me ... what is the average? Now take all the weather that has happened globally over some long-term time-frame and tell me ... what is the average? Wait, isn't it exactly the same as the previous answer? It makes no sense and is nothing that you will find scientists discussing. So there isn't any such thing as a global climate, per se, but there is the statistical concept of global climate. Nope. There is just weather, and you can observe it as it happens. There is no spiritual Climate deity governing the weather like a Greek goddess. So you just need to be aware that when folks are talking about climate change in this forum they are talking about changes in long term averages. Again, that concept makes no sense outside of religious dogma. Mathematically it's complete compost if your context is "global" weather. Hopefully you are aware of that and are not in denial of long periods of glaciation and deglaciation that has occurred over the past half million years. I hope you are not accidentally conflating "time periods" with "climates."
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2019 1:11:50 GMT
What is the average coin flip? 50% heads, 50% tails.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 18, 2019 1:22:24 GMT
What is the average coin flip? 50% heads, 50% tails. That's not a value. That's not an average. There is no such thing as an average coin flip. There is no such thing as average global weather.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2019 1:27:45 GMT
That's not a value. That's not an average. There is no such thing as an average coin flip. There is no such thing as average global weather. Sure it is. An average mixture can be 50% salt and 50% pepper. When you are talking about an average you are talking about an average of multiple conditions. You probably just spent too much time smoking pot in the 4th grade when averages were taught. www.eduplace.com/math/mw/background/4/09/te_4_09_mean_ideas.html
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 18, 2019 1:31:52 GMT
That's not a value. That's not an average. There is no such thing as an average coin flip. There is no such thing as average global weather. Sure it is. An average mixture can be 50% salt and 50% pepper. When you are talking about an average you are talking about an average of multiple conditions. You probably just spent too much time smoking pot in the 4th grade when averages were taught. www.eduplace.com/math/mw/background/4/09/te_4_09_mean_ideas.htmlNo. You have the basis for establishing probabilities. You do not have an average. An average is a value.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2019 1:34:35 GMT
No. You have the basis for establishing probabilities. You do not have an average. An average is a value. Its all statistics. . . .no difference unless of course the average is changing like in climate change.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 18, 2019 1:40:52 GMT
Its all statistics. . . .no difference unless of course the average is changing like in climate change. No. It's basic math. Just chalk it up to you not knowing the difference between an average value and a probability percentage. Sadly, most Climate Change Adventists are mathematically incompetent to this extent ... they just BELIEVE that they should be tenured math faculty.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2019 1:58:29 GMT
Its all statistics. . . .no difference unless of course the average is changing like in climate change. No. It's basic math. Just chalk it up to you not knowing the difference between an average value and a probability percentage. Sadly, most Climate Change Adventists are mathematically incompetent to this extent ... they just BELIEVE that they should be tenured math faculty. Well since you don't even know that average values and probability percentages are both statistical functions and you obviously don't want to learn anything there is no point in pursuing the discussion any further.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 18, 2019 2:06:02 GMT
Well since you don't even know that average values and probability percentages are both statistical functions and you obviously don't want to learn anything there is no point in pursuing the discussion any further. I knew you would look for the first chance to flee. You never answered the questions: 1) Take all the weather that occurred around the globe today and tell me ... what is the average? 2) Take all the weather that has happened globally over some long-term time-frame and tell me ... what is the average?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2019 2:12:06 GMT
Well since you don't even know that average values and probability percentages are both statistical functions and you obviously don't want to learn anything there is no point in pursuing the discussion any further. I knew you would look for the first chance to flee. You never answered the questions: 1) Take all the weather that occurred around the globe today and tell me ... what is the average? Using what parameters? Temperature is the most popular way to describe weather. I don't know what today's average temperature was.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 18, 2019 2:25:59 GMT
I knew you would look for the first chance to flee. You never answered the questions: 1) Take all the weather that occurred around the globe today and tell me ... what is the average? Using what parameters? Temperature is the most popular way to describe weather. I don't know what today's average temperature was. YOU are the one who supposedly knows what it is! YOU are the one who was "explaining" to me how I should interpret others' usage of the term "Climate"! I'm fine if you don't know how to define "Climate" and don't know what you mean by Climate = average global weather. I didn't think you did anyway.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 18, 2019 2:31:55 GMT
I don't know what today's average temperature was. Is that ALL you believe is involved in the weather? Just temperature? I don't know if I'm the first person to inform you but the weather involves much more than just temperature, such as pressure, dew point, precipitation, humidity, wind strength and direction, ... among others. Just give me the average global weather for [insert day of your choice] and give me the average global weather for [insert time interval of your choice].
|
|