Climate Change

[gerald]

Are the outer planets locations influencing the solar cycle thereby effecting the Earth's climate?

http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/ ... e-climate/

http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/ ... nd-minima/

[OLD1953]

Gaining mass would push it up the main sequence, which means greater luminosity - IOW, hotter. Same dance, different song.

The outer planet location thing is not very logical. Mass tides on the surface of the sun aren't going to be much, even less than on the surface of Earth. The tide from Jupiter is barely measurable. In an object the size and mass of the Sun, a motion of the surface of even a kilometer would be unnoticable, and the outer planet tides would be a minute fraction of that.

You could make a way better arguement that space debris comes in surges, and those surges cause the sun to heat up and cool off. Come to think of it, that was suggested a few years back, that since we've recently moved out of a dust thick region of the galaxy, the sun was compressed by all the stuff falling in, and the rebound hasn't quit springing back and forth as yet. Not enough damping. Which I doubt, the magnetic field of the Sun would provide a monster damping effect on any moving conductor, and all plasma is conductive.

[The Grey Badger]

At any rate, what the individual should do is the same,whether we're in for global warming, or climate change, or a cooling period; whether humans caused it or nature did.

Prepare for wild weather anyway and you'll be money ahead.

Pat, who REALLY needs to grade and asphalt that dirt-and=gravel driveway!

[OLD1953]

Since this discussion seems to have turned to astronomy before it died, I'll just throw in a logic puzzle that I've always found amusing.

Q. How many meteors fall to Earth in a given day?

A. None. Meteors (meteorites) fall to the Sun. Earth merely gets in the way.

Think about it.

[OLD1953]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... nline-news

Wave heights increasing. Interesting.

As usual, politicians find out about an old problem and try to make it sound new. Weeks ago I pointed out that much data from ground stations was suspect, a well known fact. Now that's supposed to be a "scandal". Sheesh!

[OLD1953]

This is fairly amusing, and, unhappily, fairly typical. And, of course, the record years are related to the peaks of the sunspot cycle. I don't think I'd base any policies on the notion that we'll never have another sunspot.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/02/o ... ature.html

Now it turns out that what Levitt and Dubner meant was something different: that 2005 was the hottest year on record, and that that record high temperature had not yet been broken--so global temperatures had "decreased" from their high back in 2005.

There have been thirteen new global annual temperature records set in the past 130 years--about one per decade. Since a new global temperature record is set once every ten years, Levitt and Dubner's methodology would thus lead them to say that over the past century and a third global temperatures have been decreasing 90% of the time--

[OLD1953]

And the above is an example of something very important, which Ifirst heard of as Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is shit.

90% of all research is shit, 90% of all the economic "fixes" are shit, 90% of what you are told about politics and religion is shit (in those cases, perhaps even a higher percentage) 90% of EVERYTHING we think we know or understand is just plain crap!

This doesn't mean the world is hopeless, it just means you need to have the old BS filter turned up pretty high on everything.

And that's why I don't get upset when I'm told that some scientists are exaggerating the results of their research - they are already in my crap pile.

When you are trying to make up your mind about something, you have to go to the basics and work up from that, and by basics, I meant original data that's public and known to be good as you can get.

So what was the data that I felt confirmed global warming was happening that could not be refuted or altered? The most obvious bits were:

1. The satellite data for worldwide temperatures is accurate and the gathering methodology isn't changing. Nobody is disputing that data, though it only goes back to the 70's.
2. Breakup of the Antarctic ice shelves as predicted
3. Opening of the NorthWest passage for the first time in over a century.

All of those are facts, none can be argued with, and they aren't crap. The stuff that CAN be argued about, is crap, and I dismissed it as crap long ago. (Yes, Al Gore is full of crap.) So I don't get excited about it. Incidentally, if they'd drop the price, I'd take that cruise through the NorthWest passage. That's got to be some cruise.

[VinceP1974]

When you are trying to make up your mind about something, you have to go to the basics and work up from that, and by basics, I meant original data that's public and known to be good as you can get.

Absolutely. This Global Warming thing is so God-damned stupid that if anyone spent just a few minutes going over its first princples, it's easily exposed as a fraud.

( I never took formal training in logic, so I'm probably using some terms incorrectly)

Premise
P1 - CO2-level changes in the air cause Air Temp Changes

P2 - Mankind's industry is causing CO2 level in air to increase

Conclusion
C1 - Mankind is causing the air temp to increase

So is P1 true?

Well... when in the past has P1 been true? Never! Never in the past has (have?) changes in CO2 levels in the air CAUSED the air temp to change. So why are they saying it's (the CO2 change) going to cause the air temp to change now?

P1A - Computer models

Well.. are those accurate? No they are not. Global Warming Alarmists are not able to predict anything with any accuracy

So I would say that P1 is so-far unsubstantiated and very close to being False.

It's up to the Global Warming Alarmists to establish P1. Until they do, they should be mocked and ridiculed.

[xakzen]

...
P1 - CO2-level changes in the air cause Air Temp Changes

P2 - Mankind's industry is causing CO2 level in air to increase

Conclusion
C1 - Mankind is causing the air temp to increase

So is P1 true?

Well... when in the past has P1 been true? Never! Never in the past has (have?) changes in CO2 levels in the air CAUSED the air temp to change. So why are they saying it's (the CO2 change) going to cause the air temp to change now?

P1A - Computer models

Well.. are those accurate? No they are not. Global Warming Alarmists are not able to predict anything with any accuracy

So I would say that P1 is so-far unsubstantiated and very close to being False.

It's up to the Global Warming Alarmists to establish P1. Until they do, they should be mocked and ridiculed.

Over millions of years worth of Antarctic ice core data there is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and Antarctic temperature. In statistics correlation is a requirement for causation, but does not prove causation. So one can disprove that one thing does not cause another if there is no correlation (i.e. essentially the two data series can be graphed to show similarity). Unfortunately correlation doesn't say which might be causing the other or even if there isn't a third factor that is causing both data series to be correlated. It might be just as likely that increased temperatures allow the atmosphere to hold more CO2. Scientist have to purpose a mechanism to explain the correlation and more experiments to verify that postulate. CO2 is a green house gas, but not as strong a green house gas as H20 which is the dominate contributor to the life enabling green house effect on the planet. The problem scientist are having is coming up with those other experiments since we only have one Earth and so many have resorted to computer simulation. As John is well aware what they are trying to model is a Chaotic System mathematically speaking in that initial conditions (input data) drastically affect the out come. Much of the input conditions have to be estimated and so even the most ethical scientist's work is susceptible to unintentional bias. And as we are seeing throw in GenXer nihilism & self serving behavior and the biases are completely out of control.

The point is that in spite what either side is saying, the scientific question concerning the exact effect of burning large amounts of carbon based fuels is not known. It could be increasing the temperature and/or it could be inconsequential to the natural cyclical climate changes though which the Earth/Sun system go. Which by the way the Sun is the ultimate source of Global Warming by far so if the solar flux increases or decrease which it does over long and short cycles there isn't any thing on Earth that can counteract those effects. Personally I think the man-make effects (if there are such) are probably small compared to the natural cycles, but I remain open to any scientific evidence to the contrary. That being said I also strongly believe we should wait for that evidence before we drastically alter our civilization. Having grown up during the Cold War, I heard lots of doomsday tales that fortunately never came to pass. Having political organizations regardless of their credentials declare something is true, does not make scientific consensus. The Popes saying that the sun revolved around the Earth didn't change the fact that it just ain't so.

[VinceP1974]

...

Over millions of years worth of Antarctic ice core data there is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and Antarctic temperature. In statistics correlation is a requirement for causation, but does not prove causation.

The ice core data shows a correlation alright.... that Air Temp Changes are followed, hundreds of years later, by changes to the CO2 level in the air. So it's the opposite relationship than the one the Alarmists suggested.

CO2 is a green house gas, but not as strong a green house gas as H20 which is the dominate contributor to the life enabling green house effect on the planet.

CO2's efficiency as a greenhouse gas is on a logarithmic scale. It's already contributing all it's going to on the wavelength of energy coming from space. Increasing or decreasing the amount in our atmosphere is going to contribute very little to the "greenhousing" that it does.

The point is that in spite what either side is saying, the scientific question concerning the exact effect of burning large amounts of carbon based fuels is not known. It could be increasing the temperature and/or it could be inconsequential to the natural cyclical climate changes though which the Earth/Sun system go.

I think the effect of burning "large amounts" of carbon based fuel is well known. What needs more publicy is what is the true motivation of the people who seek to control it by foisting a fraud on society.