|
Post by magellan on Sept 13, 2013 3:49:16 GMT
Anyone that disproves a scientific claim is relevant no matter what their credentials are. Steve McIntyre's discovery of chicanery in the paleo world was the beginning of the realization of just how dishonest and laughable climate science had become. He completely and utterly destroyed the hockey stick, but True Believers don't want to see the truth. Nope. There is something called "paradigm shift" in science, but that only happens when most of the scientific community agree. I can see your concept of making science is utterly political. If you are accusing others of harbouring political motives, then why are you doing just the same yourself the next day? Consensus is not science, it is politics. AKA herd mentality. The 97% number John Cook recently fabricated in a so-called "peer review" article has been outed for the garbage it is, but the intent to deceive was wonderfully executed; the power hungry politicians were on it like flies on #hit. We could always dig up some juicy Climategate quotes if you like.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 13, 2013 3:50:08 GMT
"We've been through the "pristine" Finland temperature records; there are enough holes to taxi a 747 through"
Empty talk -- what do you exactly mean by that?
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 13, 2013 3:50:28 GMT
I sure would like to know because after reading you for more than a year on this board, I don't think you know what that definition is, but surprise us Numerouno, since you claim to be the only one who has an 'idea of what science is?'I'm glad to help you guys here. First of all science is something that is performed by a real known person. That is step one. Anonymous internet posters do not count as science, not ever and not even once. I can see you guys would want a global glaciation, and you would want a global glaciation tomorrow, for your weird political reasons, but no, sorry, science says we all have to wait for quite a while still. No, that is incorrect, and is not a definition of 'science' to say the least Numeronuno. Also, I suggest that you check out your own rather 'anonymous' Internet name, since 'numerouno' is not your real name, yes? Moreover, as Isaac Newton stated, the entire point of science is the ability to predict. Now, you can go on and on into infinity about global glaciation, but what is your point? What is the object of your endless, round and round and round chit chat, however, do you actually have a point and prediction, since you claim to know what the definition of 'science' is?
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 13, 2013 3:53:33 GMT
Consensus is not science, it is politics. AKA herd mentality. Nope, a consensus is the final goal of all science. A consensus need not be correct however when viewed later from the point of another instance of consensus.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 13, 2013 3:55:20 GMT
Now, you can go on and on into infinity about global glaciation, but what is your point? What is the object of your endless, round and round and round chit chat, however, do you actually have a point and prediction, since you claim to know what the definition of 'science' is? Astromet the dictionary definition of science is that it is something you do not do!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 13, 2013 3:58:53 GMT
Anyone that disproves a scientific claim is relevant no matter what their credentials are. Steve McIntyre's discovery of chicanery in the paleo world was the beginning of the realization of just how dishonest and laughable climate science had become. He completely and utterly destroyed the hockey stick, but True Believers don't want to see the truth. Nope. There is something called "paradigm shift" in science, but that only happens when most of the scientific community agree. I can see your concept of making science is utterly political. If you are accusing others of harbouring political motives, then why are you doing just the same yourself the next day? Good Science can be performed well without fame or identification of the good science creator, and will be better Science than famous science until such time that famous science is better.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 13, 2013 4:10:48 GMT
Now, you can go on and on into infinity about global glaciation, but what is your point? What is the object of your endless, round and round and round chit chat, however, do you actually have a point and prediction, since you claim to know what the definition of 'science' is? Astromet the dictionary definition of science is that it is something you do not do! Every once in a while, it helps to understand what the scientific method really is. It can't be repeated enough. and
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 13, 2013 4:17:24 GMT
Nope. There is something called "paradigm shift" in science, but that only happens when most of the scientific community agree. I can see your concept of making science is utterly political. If you are accusing others of harbouring political motives, then why are you doing just the same yourself the next day? Good Science can be performed well without fame or identification of the good science creator, and will be better Science than famous science until such time that famous science is better. No. Science can NEVER be anonymous. Science is performed by known scientists and almost always published in an established source. Before publication, science can't be considered by others, which is the requisite. Am I really the only one here who has had to do the course on scientific practice? You folks seem to be way confused even on the basics.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 13, 2013 4:21:54 GMT
Magellan, in between the Youtube links -- I'd like to know more about the particular Finnish climatic data that you find lacking.
What was it, and can we contact the FMI and ask for a clarification? If you were unsure, why did you not ask them directly? They know English, I would say each one of the staff.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 13, 2013 5:29:20 GMT
You mean one scientist after considering the effects of anthropogenic additions of CO2 does not expect any more glaciation. Your reading and/or understanding skills do need some improvement: The following glaciation scenario models therefore choose to consider climatic trends as being unaffected by human activities.
(Page one into the study, yes, it is a bit complicated sentence) www.posiva.fi/files/2712/POSIVA-99-30_web.pdfYour the one not reading Numno! The caption for your graphic has CO2 forcing in place. Figure 4. Red line: Long-term variations in ice volume ( 1()6 km3 , the right-hand scale) in the Northern Hemisphere (volume increases downwards) according Berger and Loutre (1997) simulated by the LLN 2-D model forced by insolation (Berger, 1978) and by C02 reconstructed by ]ouzel et al. ( 1993)for the past 200 ka and a C02 scenario based upon this reconstuction for the next 130 ka.And of course the main study does use unforced models so the study concludes: "5 FUTURE GLACIATION SCENARIO Even if reality turns out to deviate from the basic forecasts, the present scenario aims to provide examples of basically realistic developments, serving as illustrations of what may be expected. It should be noted, however, that these forecasts are made without consideration of human effects on the climate"
"0 - 25 000 years AP A (maximum ice volume according to the ACLIN and Imbrie & Imbrie models). The climate in Fennoscandia will gradually become colder, permitting the growth of glaciers at in the mountainous area of Norway and Sweden at 5000 years. Gradually the ice sheet will enlarge, so that about 20 000 years from now the majority of Sweden and Finland will be covered by ice."
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 13, 2013 5:33:59 GMT
Good Science can be performed well without fame or identification of the good science creator, and will be better Science than famous science until such time that famous science is better. No. Science can NEVER be anonymous. Science is performed by known scientists and almost always published in an established source. Before publication, science can't be considered by others, which is the requisite. Am I really the only one here who has had to do the course on scientific practice? You folks seem to be way confused even on the basics. If the worlds greatest scientist was a Neanderthal man and we today discover this great scientist knew about Archimides principle and knew about pythagorus theorem he will not become the worlds greatest scientist just because you found out about it.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 13, 2013 10:42:59 GMT
Your reading and/or understanding skills do need some improvement: The following glaciation scenario models therefore choose to consider climatic trends as being unaffected by human activities.
(Page one into the study, yes, it is a bit complicated sentence) www.posiva.fi/files/2712/POSIVA-99-30_web.pdfYour the one not reading Numno! The caption for your graphic has CO2 forcing in place. Figure 4. Red line: Long-term variations in ice volume ( 1()6 km3 , the right-hand scale) in the Northern Hemisphere (volume increases downwards) according Berger and Loutre (1997) simulated by the LLN 2-D model forced by insolation (Berger, 1978) and by C02 reconstructed by ]ouzel et al. ( 1993)for the past 200 ka and a C02 scenario based upon this reconstuction for the next 130 ka.Icefisher my man, has it occurred to you that there is CO2 in the atmosphere even without us humans, and that can and must be used as a forcing? I hope you can understand what "reconstruction" means for CO2 in the context of past glaciations?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 13, 2013 16:24:25 GMT
Icefisher my man, has it occurred to you that there is CO2 in the atmosphere even without us humans, and that can and must be used as a forcing? I hope you can understand what "reconstruction" means for CO2 in the context of past glaciations? You can selectively choose the idea that CO2 levels are not influencing the glaciers. But it senseless. Its the only model of the 6 talked about that holds off the next iceage. Its the only one talking about CO2 forcing. Its the one model that has bought hook, line, and sinker into the idea of global warming it was done in 1992 and modified in 1997. Even this paper is an antique, 1999. Its freaking 14 years old! The other 2 models discussed in detail have temperatures cooling and states the rate of ice growth is uncertain but that the cooling will continue for 5,000 years and by then its predicted to be ice age climate conditions with the ability to create glacial maximums. The study says 4 other older models also show this same pattern. Only the model that puts in CO2 forcing shows no cooling for the next 50,000 years. Here is a typical output of the other models.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 13, 2013 18:00:55 GMT
Icefisher my man, has it occurred to you that there is CO2 in the atmosphere even without us humans, and that can and must be used as a forcing? I hope you can understand what "reconstruction" means for CO2 in the context of past glaciations? You can selectively choose the idea that CO2 levels are not influencing the glaciers. But it senseless. Its the only model of the 6 talked about that holds off the next iceage. Its the only one talking about CO2 forcing. Its the one model that has bought hook, line, and sinker into the idea of global warming it was done in 1992 and modified in 1997. Even this paper is an antique, 1999. Its freaking 14 years old! The other 2 models discussed in detail have temperatures cooling and states the rate of ice growth is uncertain but that the cooling will continue for 5,000 years and by then its predicted to be ice age climate conditions with the ability to create glacial maximums. The study says 4 other older models also show this same pattern. Only the model that puts in CO2 forcing shows no cooling for the next 50,000 years. Here is a typical output of the other models. Interesting post Icefisher. One of the things I find amazing is that for some strange reason many people forget that CO2 is a natural thermostat. It is known by forecasters that Earth's thermosphere received 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the Sun during a recorded burst of solar activity. It was recorded taking place in Earth's upper atmosphere, and the carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space. The jist of this is that NASA explained the reason for this in that Carbon dioxide and Nitric oxide are natural thermostats. When the upper atmosphere - the thermosphere - heats up, these molecules shed the excess heat back into space, as CO2 and NO are performing a cooling function. It was added that, "The report from NASA starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet.
However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.
Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmospheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades.
The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists' computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.
The SABER evidence also makes a mockery of the statement on the NASA GISS website (by Hansen underling Gavin Schmidt) claiming, "the greenhouse effect keeps the planet much warmer than it would be otherwise."
As NASA's SABER team at Langley admitted that,
"This is a new frontier in the Sun-Earth connection," says associate principal investigator Martin Mlynczak, "and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented."
Over at Principia Scientific International (PSI) greenhouse gas effect (GHE) critic, Alan Siddons hailed the findings. Siddons and his colleagues have been winning support from hundreds of independent scientists for their GHE studies carried out over the last seven years.
PSI has proved that the numbers fed into computer models by Hansen and others were based on a faulty interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics.
PSI also recently uncovered long overlooked evidence from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) that shows it was widely known the GHE was discredited prior to 1951.
Pointedly, a much-trumpeted new book by Rupert Darwall claimed to help expose the back story of how the junk GHE theory was conveniently resuscitated in the 1980's by James Hansen and others to serve an environmental policy agenda at that time.
As the SABER research report stated:
A recent flurry of eruptions on the Sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles. NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.
“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”
As PSI's own space scientists have confirmed, as solar energy penetrates deeper into our atmosphere, even more of its energy will end up being sent straight back out to space, thus preventing it heating up the surface of our earth. The NASA Langley Research Center report agrees with PSI by admitting:
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
To those independent scientists and engineers at Principia Scientific International this is not news.
The 'natural thermostat' effect of CO2 has long been known by applied scientists and engineers how have exploited it's remarkable properties in the manufacturer of refrigerators and air conditioning systems.
The fledgling independent science body has repeatedly shown in it's openly peer reviewed papers that atmospheric carbon dioxide does not cause global warming nor climate change.
Some diehard climate alarmists will still say that in the lower atmosphere the action of carbon dioxide is reversed, but there is no actual proof of this at all. PSI suggests it is time for the SABER team to have a word with James Hansen.
Two reference notes were added:
[1] Schmidt, G., 'Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect,' (October, 2010), www.giss.nasa.gov (accessed online: March 26, 2013.)
[2] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.”
In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It shows the American Meteorological Society had refuted the concept of a GHE in 1951 in its Compendium of Meteorology.
The AMS stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor."
Still, after all these years of the anthropogenic global warming lie, it is simply mind-boggling that 'man-made global warming believers' do not think that the Sun - which holds 99.8% of the total mass of our solar system - would not be the driver of the Earth's climate, but want to ascribe that function to a trace gas that makes up .04 % of the Earth's total atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 13, 2013 19:56:41 GMT
One of the things I find amazing is that for some strange reason many people forget that CO2 is a natural thermostat. It is known by forecasters that Earth's thermosphere received 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the Sun during a recorded burst of solar activity. It was recorded taking place in Earth's upper atmosphere, and the carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space. “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” As an auditor you are trained to look at entire transactions, not just the profit figure. The first thing that came to mind was the concept of trapping heat via greenhouse gases and why heat is not trapped from incoming also. Sunlight is 50% IR so the modtran calculations that completely ignore this fact at minimum exaggerate the 1 degree primary warming from a doubling of CO2. And of course CAGW theory stray even further from science in applying multipliers to the 1 degree primary warming. If there is a greenhouse effect from the so-called molecular screen model its a lot less than one degree for doubling of CO2. I can see that as plain as the nose on somebody's face. Of course that does not rule out feedback effects. But it seems by most measures feedbacks are negative as opposed to all the positive theories around which seem contrived in a similar manner that the 1 degree was contrived.
|
|