|
|
Post by dopeydog on Aug 5, 2009 20:39:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 6, 2009 1:26:50 GMT
More interestingly it again answers the " but there is no known mechanism for the Sun to influence climate" common response. |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Aug 6, 2009 12:14:44 GMT
It also suggests that sunspots are only part of the sun's influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 6, 2009 12:42:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 6, 2009 13:36:06 GMT
I guess i have a mental health problem of an inquisitive mind. Gosh durn it.......Could it be that there is debate, and this denier thing is soooooo old, but debate because of the holes in the science. And some of us doooo realize that what we know about climate is like a speck of dust on an elephants hide...and it is a biggggggggg elephant. I do very much love the learning curve on both sides of this issue tho. Some of what AGW believers quote is truthful, and some of what smarter people quote is truthful. But for anyone to make the statement that the certainty is high is not being truthful to themselves, and this is the crux of the whole matter. Why would one want to lie to themselves unless they have huge mental health issues? |
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Aug 6, 2009 18:09:49 GMT
Dead on, Sigurdur. Not only is how the climate works a big elephant, but so is the whole issue of what to do about climate.
Did it warm in the 1990s? Probably.
Was it natural or anthropogenic? To be determined.
Is it still getting warmer? All signs point to no.
Is a warmer earth good or bad for mankind? To be determined.
If a warming world is bad, what would a benefit/cost analysis show if we took steps to stop it (i.e., is the cure worse than the disease?)? To be determined.
What is the ideal average global temperature for mankind? Can this even BE determined?
And here's one last question: Would mankind be better off adapting to a much warmer world if it eliminates or minimizes ice ages?
I seriously doubt if you will get a 'consensus' of scientists to agree on more than just the first two questions, and even then many will admit to a good chance they're wrong about the second.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 6, 2009 18:15:38 GMT
Btw, here's the APA press release with links to the full report (pdf). I suggest reading it and drawing your own conclusions. I have my own views on this, but don't want to prejudice anyone. www.apa.org/releases/climate-change.html . Note the contact in case you care to reply to them. |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Aug 7, 2009 13:27:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 28, 2009 0:54:52 GMT
Hmm.... Small fluctuations in solar activity, large influence on the climate www.scienceblog.com/cms/small-fluctuations-solar-activity-large-influence-climate-24510.htmlmy bold Our sun does not radiate evenly. The best known example of radiation fluctuations is the famous 11-year cycle of sun spots. Nobody denies its influence on the natural climate variability, but climate models have, to-date, not been able to satisfactorily reconstruct its impact on climate activity. Maybe because climate models are nothing more than engineering code. |
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Aug 28, 2009 1:34:19 GMT
in these computer models, how many decimal places do they go out? And if you happen to change just 1 of them doesn't that change the rest by factors. While some models may have a short term accuracry rate that tells nothing further out. The projection from NASA was a very active solar cycle. What happened? I think those guys are pretty smart, but what are they working with? The only thing I know for sure is that in the past when the sun was active, we had warmer weather, and when it went quite it got colder. Someone refute that, that believes the sun is constant and we change the weather. Or maybe we change the weather on the sun as well. As for global warming, the 90's were warm except for 1996 when umm let me think, the last solar min
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 28, 2009 1:40:36 GMT
Hmm.... Small fluctuations in solar activity, large influence on the climate www.scienceblog.com/cms/small-fluctuations-solar-activity-large-influence-climate-24510.htmlmy bold Our sun does not radiate evenly. The best known example of radiation fluctuations is the famous 11-year cycle of sun spots. Nobody denies its influence on the natural climate variability, but climate models have, to-date, not been able to satisfactorily reconstruct its impact on climate activity. Maybe because climate models are nothing more than engineering code. Pythia would have found this amusing, since her clients also desired absolute truth and certainty. Much to their chagrin they received exactly what they deserved. When one visits Delphi in expectation of an audience, one must be certain that one's goat will shake the water off. |
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Aug 28, 2009 2:58:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Aug 28, 2009 3:01:41 GMT
Unfortunately, I do not have a link, but here is an interesting paper. Copy and paste part or all of the title in scholar.google.com and you should be able to find it:
Quaternary Science Reviews 18 (1999) 331Ð338
Rapid Communication
The role of solar forcing upon climate change
B. van Geel!,*, O.M. Raspopov", H. Renssen, J. van der Plicht,
V.A. Dergache%, H.A.J. Meijer
|
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Aug 28, 2009 3:10:38 GMT
And on models: www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=12794The models are not there yet. Not sure, since we don't understand the forcings we bear witness to in the paleo record, including the Termination I/Bolling-Allerod/Younger Dryas recent abrupt swings, if the models can be considered at least predictive until we do. Not just mathematically, anybody can play virtual reality computer games tweaking one's data sets this way or that, but understanding what caused the non-anthropogenic yet recent warmings and coolings. Until we do, this will remain a signal to noise ratio problem. With the AGW maximum predicted signal ridiculously small compared to the natural noise. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 28, 2009 10:51:23 GMT
Btw, here's the APA press release with links to the full report (pdf). I suggest reading it and drawing your own conclusions. I have my own views on this, but don't want to prejudice anyone. www.apa.org/releases/climate-change.html . Note the contact in case you care to reply to them. I felt I had to send a brief reply: "I found the brief summary of your task force report interesting more for what it left out than for what it discussed. There have been several ‘panics’ in my lifetime, starting with the ‘Nuclear Clock’ then the impending ice age and Paul Ehrlich’s ‘Population Bomb’ then the ‘Millennium Bug’ panics. These all have one thing in common a group of well meaning concerned scientists trying to get the rest of the world to listen to what they feel is a real disaster in the making. They also have in common that the events that were being raised did not come to pass which means that each successive attempt to gain public acceptance has a steeper hill to climb.
It would be interesting for your task force to carry out the same psychological investigations on the scientists who forecast these catastrophic events. They all exhibit levels of frustration that they cannot get the ‘general public’ to understand and react to their concern. This leads to them lowering their opinion of those who can’t see the problem or seem to mistrust them or be in denial or worse don’t consider the forthcoming disaster in the same apocalyptic terms that the scientists are now using to try to get them to listen. This seems to lead the scientists out of their normal scientific modes of thought into a more apostate mode where their normal scientific skepticism is abandoned and their belief in what they see is strengthened by the disbelief of others. This would be a really interesting psychological research area
I am certain that if you go back you will find that everything being said now was presaged by what was said on these previous occasions. It would be useful as a control for your current hypothesis and also show that you were considering _both sides_ of these debates from a psychological perspective. "
|
|
