Jump to content


Science question for smart people


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

mattwong #101 Posted May 30 2017 - 05:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on May 29 2017 - 16:58, said:

Your problem is you only think in one dimension. You need to work on your spatial skills.

 

I don't bother answering your questions anymore for several reasons.

 

1. I have already, often multiple times, answered your questions in previous topics over the past few years.  

 

No, you have NEVER answered any of my questions.  You're a liar.  That's why you vaguely point people to a 40 page thread and pretend the answer is in there somewhere: you know no one is actually going to dig through a 40 page thread looking for these imaginary answers of yours.

 

The fact that you SERIOUSLY claimed that thermodynamics is covered in high-school science earlier in this thread revealed sooooo much about you.

 

For the third time, here's a simple question that can be answered in one sentence:

"A popular global warming denial argument is that upper-atmospheric CO2 levels are irrelevant because there is already so much greenhouse gas at lower altitude (from clouds, methane, etc) that 100% absorption of infrared emission takes place.  Do you understand what this means, and do you know what the obvious scientific rebuttal to this argument would be, regardless of whether 100% absorption actually occurs?"

If you're not lying about being well-read on this subject, why do you refuse to answer?  You have literally posted pages worth of material since I posed that question, thus putting the lie to your claim that you just don't have the time to bother.  YOU ARE LYING.  The truth is obviously that you don't know the answer, but you're too arrogant, stubborn, and prideful to admit it.



_GeorgePreddy #102 Posted May 30 2017 - 05:54

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 20 battles
  • 1,155
  • Member since:
    05-15-2017
I believe the overall geovoidal climate is actually getting cooler.

Klaatu_Nicto #103 Posted May 30 2017 - 06:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,552
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostEraden, on May 29 2017 - 17:33, said:

Klaatu, Matt, it would appear that the two of you will simply not be able to agree on things. Perhaps you should both relax a bit and not worry too much about each other. This appears to be a battle that can't be won. I enjoy posts from both of you and I hope that you fellas don't try to bury the hatchet into each other.

 

I'm not trying to win a battle with Matt. Matt has an engineering degree which he thinks makes him an expert on climate change so there is no way he would ever except anything I post that does not conform to his beliefs. For me this debate with Matt, and stuff on this issue I post elsewhere, is about providing information and opinion from the side of the issue you don't hear or read about in the mainstream media. It is intended for those reading this who are interested in both side of the climate change issue and are not close minded. 

Klaatu_Nicto #104 Posted May 30 2017 - 06:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,552
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

I'll write a few words of my own since it's been requested.

 

But on my own terms rather than waste my time playing Matt's game.

 

There are a lot of problems with the theory (AGW) that humans are responsible for the global warming that began in the 1800's - a warming that has not reached the average global temperature that existed prior to the 1300's AD.

 

For one thing, it ignores solid climate science and especially science or research which contradicts AGW theory or AGW based predictions. A good example of that was a few years ago when Canada's foremost expert on polar bears had his invitation to the Copenhagen Climate Conference revoked and told to stay away. This scientist was not a global warming skeptic. The problem was his data and solid science contradicted the "scary scenario" the AGW crowd was spreading about polar bears being endangered because of melting ice caps. His research and observations showed just the opposite - the polar bear population was increasing. This is what happens to scientists and researchers whose research leads to a contradiction of the AGW theory or it's predictions, Or worse, they get blacklisted, lose their funding, lose their job, have their character dragged through the mud, get threatened with losing their credentials or, in the case of Dr Roy Spencer and Dr John Christy, get shot at. This is not the way science is supposed to work, why many, many scientists are afraid to speak out in opposition of the AGW theory and why most of you are only hearing and seeing one side of this issue. Anyone who has taken a basic science course should see that this is all a violation of the 'scientific method.'

 

Another problem are the computer models from which the predictions of the amount of warming that will occur are based on. These models are written assuming C02 is a significant or major contributor to warming along with other assumptions about other factors influencing climate. The fact is there is no, what would be considered solid scientific evdience, to support the claim that human produced C02 caused the recent warming trend. Furthermore, nobody really knows how much if any CO2 effects climate, nobody knows exactly how the various factors which effect climate and climate change, and there's a bunch of them, effect climate and climate change nor how they interact with each other. Therefore, all these computer models are worthless and their failed predictions support that comment.

One thing those models failed to predict was the pause in warming between 2005 and 2014 which the AGW crowd disputes but which the actual data supports. In January 2015 NASA released a press release stating 2014 had become the warmest year on record by beating the previous warmest year on record by 0.02 degrees (2/100's of a degree). The previous warmest year record was set in 2005. What that means is there was no warming between 2005 and 2014. This shows there was a slight cooling during that period and NOAA's data from a network separate from NASA's monitoring network also shows a slight cooling during that period.

 

What follows is an example of real and solid climate science. The kind of science you never hear about in the mainstream media.   
 
Rewriting The History Of Volcanic Forcing During The Past 2,000 years

 

A team of scientists led by Michael Sigl and Joe McConnell of Nevada's Desert Research Institute (DRI) has completed the most accurate and precise reconstruction to date of historic volcanic sulfate emissions in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

These reconstructions are critical to accurate model simulations used to assess past natural and anthropogenic climate forcing. Such model simulations underpin environmental policy decisions including those aimed at regulating greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions to mitigate projected global warming.

 

Most notably, the research found that the two largest volcanic eruptions in recent Earth history (Samalas in 1257 and Kuwae in 1458) deposited 30 to 35 percent less sulfate in Antarctica, suggesting that these events had a weaker cooling effect on global climate than previously thought.

https://phys.org/news/2014-07-rewriting-history-volcanic-years.html

 

What this means is volcanic eruptions were not as big a factor than some had theorized in regards to the global cooling period that began in the 1300's AD, known as the Little Ice Age, and lasted for abut 500 years. And, while this does not prove the theory that the Little Ice Age began as the result of a Grand Solar Minimum, it supports it.

 

When the Little Ice Age began nobody had been observing the sun and leaving a record of solar activity. There are other ways to establish what solar activity was in the past and they point to a decrease in solar activity at the beginning of the Little Ice Age. We do have a record of weather and climate from the period. What that record shows is that as the solar activity began to decrease, but before major cooling began, a change in weather patterns, a change in wind patterns, a change in rain patterns, an increase in extreme weather along with out of season weather became more and more common. This is based on solid science, not theory. Those changes I just described that occurred at the beginning of the Little Ice Age have been seen with increasing regularity around the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres, for the past several years. Just a few weeks ago, in early May, the U.S loses a significant percentage of it's wheat crop and a large number of farm animals when a blizzard struck parts of the grain belt. Shortly before that significant crop loses occurred throughout many parts of Europe after record cold temperatures struck for the second year in a row in mid/early Spring. Earlier in the year Britain had to ration vegetables because of crop loses due to extreme weather.    

 

By the 1600's there were people who had been observing the sun and recording solar activity. We can see from that record during the 1600's our sun experienced a Grand Solar Minimum. Solar activity decreased greatly and preceded a further decrease in temperature which lasted until the 1800's. That period of the Little Ice Age is known as the Maunder Minimum and again this is solid science, not theory. In the 1800's solar activity began to increase and continued to do so for most of the 1900's but began decreasing in the early to mid 2000's.

 

In 2014 it was said by astrophysicists the low level of solar activity that was being seen at that time was the lowest in over 100 years and since then solar activity has decreased even more. The decrease in solar activity we have been seeing, especially in the past two or three years, closely mirrors the decreasing solar activity seen in the 1600's when the second phase of the Little Ice Age began. Once more time, this is solid science, not theory.

 

What remains to be be seen is if this really does lead to several decades, at least, of global cooling. Solid science from different fields of science, especially paleoclimatology and astrophysics, point in that direction but is not conclusive. Only time will tell.

 

What is certain is the theory that human use of fossil fuel have caused the recent warming has no sound, solid science to provide as evidence to support that claim. All it has is an alleged correlation, computer models and a false claim of a consensus none of which, according to the 'scientific method," is sound, solid science which establishes factual evidence to support a theory.  

 

I'm going to save this note to my files. Ten years from know I'll post it to Matt after the advancing ice cap scrapes his home off the face of the earth. :);)


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, May 30 2017 - 07:05.


Klaatu_Nicto #105 Posted May 30 2017 - 07:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,552
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View Postmattwong, on May 29 2017 - 20:38, said:

 

No, you have NEVER answered any of my questions.  You're a liar.  That's why you vaguely point people to a 40 page thread and pretend the answer is in there somewhere: you know no one is actually going to dig through a 40 page thread looking for these imaginary answers of yours.

 

The fact that you SERIOUSLY claimed that thermodynamics is covered in high-school science earlier in this thread revealed sooooo much about you.

 

For the third time, here's a simple question that can be answered in one sentence:

"A popular global warming denial argument is that upper-atmospheric CO2 levels are irrelevant because there is already so much greenhouse gas at lower altitude (from clouds, methane, etc) that 100% absorption of infrared emission takes place.  Do you understand what this means, and do you know what the obvious scientific rebuttal to this argument would be, regardless of whether 100% absorption actually occurs?"

If you're not lying about being well-read on this subject, why do you refuse to answer?  You have literally posted pages worth of material since I posed that question, thus putting the lie to your claim that you just don't have the time to bother.  YOU ARE LYING.  The truth is obviously that you don't know the answer, but you're too arrogant, stubborn, and prideful to admit it.

 

I'm not the one who always resorts to personal attacks, insults, fallacious arguments and dishonesty, none of which negates the data, research articles and world events I post - most of which comes from sources that are not, like you have claimed a number of times, "politically motivated right-wing climate denial sites."   My knowledge of science and my ability or lack of ability to answer your questions has absolutely no bearing on the validity or implications of the data, research articles and world events I post. Truth does not need your kind of tactics and dishonesty. Only falsehoods require that.

 

You go on believing what you want about me and what I post. I really don't care.

 



mattwong #106 Posted May 30 2017 - 14:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

I love the way this guy spews paragraphs of talking points but cannot answer a simple question about the theory.  This is because he does not understand it at all.  So when asked a simple question about the theory, he refuses to answer and pretends that he's just "refusing to play Matt's game", but the truth is that he has no idea what the answer is, and he is too much of a liar to just come clean and admit it.

 

Memorizing a bunch of talking points it NOT a substitute for actually understanding an issue.  It's what people do when they are simply too cognitively limited to grasp an issue.  When someone can spew pitch-perfect talking points on cue but is incapable of thinking on his feet and answering a simple question, it tells you that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.  He's just a mindless talking-point regurgitator.



Klaatu_Nicto #107 Posted May 30 2017 - 19:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,552
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

What follows is a research paper from 2012. In this paper are two important bits of information.

 

1. Throughout most of the 1900's and up until the early 2000's we were experiencing a grand solar maximum.

 

What you just read above is something the human caused global warming proponents would prefer you not know.

 

2. While they don't go as far as to predict a grand solar minimum in this paper, they do establish that a transition is taking place from a grand solar maximum phase to a solar minimum phase.   

 

Since this paper was published in 2012 there is now no doubt our sun is transitioning to a minimum phase.


Sudden Transitions And Grand Variations In The Solar Dynamo, Past And Future

ABSTRACT
The solar dynamo is the exotic dance of the sun’s two major magnetic field components, the poloidal and the toroidal, interacting in anti-phase. On the basis of new data on the geomagnetic aa index, we improve our previous forecast of the properties of the current Schwabe cycle #24. Its maximum will occur in 2013.5 and the maximum sunspot number Rmax will then be 62 ± 12, which is within the bounds of our earlier forecasts. The subsequent analysis, based on a phase diagram, which is a diagram showing the relation between maximum sunspot numbers and minimum geomagnetic aa index values leads to the conclusion that a new Grand Episode in solar activity has started in 2008. From the study of the natural oscillations in the sunspot number time series, as found by an analysis based on suitable wavelet base functions, we predict that this Grand Episode will be of the Regular Oscillations type, which is the kind of oscillations that also occurred between 1724 and 1924. Previous expectations of a Grand (Maunder-type) Minimum of solar activity cannot be supported. We stress the significance of the Hallstatt periodicity for determining the character of the forthcoming Grand Episodes. No Grand Minimum is expected to occur during the millennium that has just started.

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In previous papers we have forecasted that a new grand solar dynamo episode will start with sunspot cycle #24. Its character would either be that of a Grand Minimum or that of Regular Oscillations....we predicted that the date of occurrence of the forthcoming sunspot maximum #24 will be 2013.5. These conclusions, as well as our forecasts (maximum R value for cycle #24; the character of the forthcoming Grand Episode), do not depend on the exact choice of the year (1924) in which we place the start of the past Grand Maximum – e.g., they will remain the same when the start of the 20th century Grand Maximum would have been chosen one Schwabe cycle later or earlier. On the other hand, the observed peculiar behavior of the poloidal cycle #24 confirms that the present transition between Grand Episodes is actually occurring during polar cycle #24, that is, the polar cycle that maximized between sunspot cycles #23 and #24 (cf.Fig. 1 ). Hence, the dynamo system will be settled in its new regime during sunspot maximum #24.
http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2012-sudden-trans-JSWSC-2-A073.pdf  

 

Sunspot maximum #24 occurred but it did not occur in 2013, it occurred a year late in 2014 and was the lowest sunspot maximum in over a century.    


Here is what an astrophysicist had to say about solar cycle #24 in a 2014 BBC news story.

 

Since this BBC report aired in 2014 solar activity has decreased even more.

 

 

Some more recent news.......

 

Weakest solar cycle in more than a century now heading towards next solar minimum

It is pretty well understood that solar activity has a direct impact on temperatures at very high altitudes in a part of the Earth’s atmosphere called the thermosphere. This is the biggest layer of the Earth’s atmosphere which lies directly above the mesosphere and below the exosphere. Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation and are highly dependent on solar activity. Weak solar activity for a very prolonged period of time (several decades) can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere - and where we all live.

 

Some solar scientists are already predicting that the next solar cycle will be even weaker than this current one which has been historically weak. However, it is just too early for high confidence in those predictions since many solar scientists believe that the best predictor of future solar cycle strength involves activity at the sun’s poles during a solar minimum phase – something we are now rapidly approaching.
https://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/2016/2/1/1245-pm-weakest-solar-cycle-in-more-than-a-century-now-heading-towards-next-solar-minimum

 

Solar Cycle #24: On Track to be the Weakest in 100 Years

Our nearest star has exhibited some schizophrenic behavior thus far for 2013. By all rights, we should be in the throes of a solar maximum, an 11-year peak where the Sun is at its most active and dappled with sunspots. Thus far though, Solar Cycle #24 has been off to a sputtering start, and researchers that attended the meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s Solar Physics Division earlier this month are divided as to why “Not only is this the smallest cycle we’ve seen in the space age, it’s the smallest cycle in 100 years,” NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center research scientist David Hathaway said during a recent press teleconference conducted by the Marshall Space Flight Center.
https://www.universetoday.com/103803/solar-cycle-24-on-track-to-be-the-weakest-in-100-years/

 

How ‘Consensus Science’ Blew The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction, Which Turned Out To Be The lowest In 100 Years

A few years ago, the best solar models predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would be larger than Solar Cycle 23. So much for “consensus” based predictions. Not just a basic consensus mind you, but a supermajority.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/09/how-consensus-science-blew-the-solar-cycle-24-prediction-which-turned-out-to-be-the-lowest-in-100-years/

 

Here are a couple of good sites were you can learn about and monitor solar activity.

 

http://spaceweather.com/

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers/videos

 

 

Today's daily solar update


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, May 30 2017 - 20:24.


Markd73 #108 Posted May 30 2017 - 22:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 32795 battles
  • 5,082
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on May 30 2017 - 06:03, said:

 

I'm not the one who always resorts to personal attacks, insults, fallacious arguments and dishonesty, none of which negates the data, research articles and world events I post - most of which comes from sources that are not, like you have claimed a number of times, "politically motivated right-wing climate denial sites."   My knowledge of science and my ability or lack of ability to answer your questions has absolutely no bearing on the validity or implications of the data, research articles and world events I post. Truth does not need your kind of tactics and dishonesty. Only falsehoods require that.

 

You go on believing what you want about me and what I post. I really don't care.

 

 

Agreed. The real challenge is that the data and research articles you keep citing have been debunked numerous times.



riff_ #109 Posted May 30 2017 - 22:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 28830 battles
  • 10,120
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

View Postmattwong, on May 30 2017 - 08:30, said:

I love the way this guy spews paragraphs of talking points but cannot answer a simple question about the theory.  This is because he does not understand it at all.  So when asked a simple question about the theory, he refuses to answer and pretends that he's just "refusing to play Matt's game", but the truth is that he has no idea what the answer is, and he is too much of a liar to just come clean and admit it.

 

Memorizing a bunch of talking points it NOT a substitute for actually understanding an issue.  It's what people do when they are simply too cognitively limited to grasp an issue.  When someone can spew pitch-perfect talking points on cue but is incapable of thinking on his feet and answering a simple question, it tells you that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.  He's just a mindless talking-point regurgitator.

 


 

Just tell me what it is and if it is simple question, I shall answer it.

Thank You



Klaatu_Nicto #110 Posted May 30 2017 - 22:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,552
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMarkd73, on May 30 2017 - 13:07, said:

 

Agreed. The real challenge is that the data and research articles you keep citing have been debunked numerous times.

 

That is not true.

 

I'm waiting for an answer to my question about Matt's logical fallacy.



Klaatu_Nicto #111 Posted May 31 2017 - 01:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,552
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Here is some interesting history that revolves around solar activity.

 

NASA launched Skylab in 1973 and expected it would remain in orbit until at least the early 1980's by which time the space shuttle would be operational and able to dock with it. Unfortunetly, NASA did not have accurate data regarding how solar activity would effect earth's atmosphere which led to the Australian incident in1979. :ohmy:

 

Spoiler
 

I don't consider Wiki an 'always reliable' source of information but in this case what I read there correlates with everything else I've read or seen about Skylap and solar activity. I have boldfaced the key parts.

 

British mathematician Desmond King-Hele of the Royal Aircraft Establishment predicted in 1973 that Skylab would de-orbit and crash to earth in 1979, sooner than NASA's forecast, because of increased solar activity. Greater-than-expected solar activity heated the outer layers of Earth's atmosphere and increased drag on Skylab. By late 1977, NORAD also forecast a reentry in mid-1979; a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist criticized NASA for using an inaccurate model for the second most-intense sunspot cycle in a century, and for ignoring NOAA predictions published in 1976.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab#CITEREFMartin_MariettaBendix1978

 

Let's break this down and correlate solar activity with climate since the 1940's.

 

From the early/mid 1940's to the late 1970's the earth experiences global cooling. This is well recorded and documented. It is not in dispute as some would have you believe.

 

In the mid 1970's solar activity increases to it's second-most highest level in a century and higher than the previous three decades. This high level of solar activity will continue until the late 1990's/early 2000's. The earth's atmosphere expands. Global cooling ends, global warming begins. Solar activity begins to decrease in the late 1990's/early 2000's and continues. The earth's atmosphere contracts. Global warming takes a pause.  

 

According to both NOAA and NASA there was no warming between 2005 and 2014 and when NASA announced 2014 had replaced 2005 as the warmest year on record it did so by only 0.02 degrees. Temperature averages for 2015 and 2016 are somewhat in dispute for different reasons including the the Super El Nino - a cyclical, wind driven event that has been occurring for thousand of years - that began in late 2015, lasted until early 2016 and skews the averages for those two years.

 

We will have a much better idea of were climate is heading over the next several years but right now I would not place a bet on global warming.

 

Hmm...I wonder if you can bet on that in Vegas. I bet with you get much better odds if you place your bet on global cooling.

 

This ends today's lecture. Quiz tomorrow.


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, May 31 2017 - 01:42.


Mudman24 #112 Posted May 31 2017 - 01:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 36574 battles
  • 12,162
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012
Why have you decided to turn a thread that asked about bacteria into a soapbox on climate change?

Klaatu_Nicto #113 Posted May 31 2017 - 03:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,552
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMudman24, on May 30 2017 - 16:56, said:

Why have you decided to turn a thread that asked about bacteria into a soapbox on climate change?

 

You can thank Matt for that. My response to Matt's comment " Do you really think scientists just BS things like that," which he made to another person, included a number of example of scientists doing BS things but only one of which I believe concerned climate change. I moved on after that but Matt came back and started his familiar behavior, soon to be joined by Mr. Logic,  which has led us to where we are now.

 

Hey, this topic was dying. You should thank Matt for bringing it back to life.  :unsure:

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users