Global Warming Debate, Split From ANWR Drilling Thread

[Matrix]

scpg02 Wrote:

Matrix Wrote:Surely, your friend, Mark, has documented evidence to support this contention?

Yes he does. I'm sure if you contact him he would be happy to discuss it with you.

As you of all people seem to realize, it is important to be skeptical about any claims until there is sufficient evidence available. If your friend is on to something here, someone else will write about the same subject, independently. That's when people start taking such claims seriously.

[scpg02]

Matrix Wrote:And I agree with you completely on this. Peer review can have its flaws. The real point is that, if an article with questionable conclusions is published by a peer-reviewed journal, thousands of other scientists read and criticize it. It is more difficult to get away with "manufactured" conclusions.

Not really. The AGW side has been getting away with it. How many times do you see that disceditted hockey stick used? That's just one example.

[Matrix]

scpg02 Wrote:

Matrix Wrote:And I agree with you completely on this. Peer review can have its flaws. The real point is that, if an article with questionable conclusions is published by a peer-reviewed journal, thousands of other scientists read and criticize it. It is more difficult to get away with "manufactured" conclusions.

Not really. The AGW side has been getting away with it. How many times do you see that disceditted hockey stick used? That's just one example.

The phraseology of your above sentence is such that you seem to have reached a conclusion about a subject under dispute.

In any case, the evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that, apart from a few commercially-minded skeptics in the US (a mining engineer, an economist and a medical doctor, I believe ), the rest of the world is moving ahead on the basis of a very sound scientific axiom -- the precautionary principle.

No doubt, America's rearguard action with regard to global warming will change dramatically no matter who succeeds the laughable Mr. Bush.

[John L]

Matrix Wrote:In any case, the evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that, apart from a few commercially-minded skeptics in the US (a mining engineer, an economist and a medical doctor, I believe ), the rest of the world is moving ahead on the basis of a very sound scientific axiom -- the precautionary principle.

No doubt, America's rearguard action with regard to global warming will change dramatically no matter who succeeds the laughable Mr. Bush.

:lol: :lol: Will you be saying that in the next year or two, when the entire global temperatures finally respond to the almost total lack of sunspot activity this last three years?

"M", when I think of you, or look at your avatar, I am reminded of one single word,...........Hubris.

[scpg02]

Matrix Wrote:In any case, the evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that, apart from a few commercially-minded skeptics in the US

LOL! There is no, repeat, no evidence of AGW. None. And there are more skeptics than believers as the list of 31,000 + would indicate. Remember, correlation is not causation and the correlation has been failing for the last 8 years.

________________________________________________________

Quote:The situation with sunspots from July 2007 to July 2008.
The cycle 23 that began already in 1996 still reigns. There were no cycle 24 spots in June and July.

From cycle 24 there are three tiny signatures: one in January (1 day), one in April (2 days) and one in May (2 days).

In 2008 there has been 17 groups from cycle 23 lasting together 94 days, and 3 groups from cycle 24 lasting together 5 days.

From July 2007 to December 2007

month
year
spotless days

days with below 10 Wolfs (1 sunspot group)
days with below 20 Wolfs (most probable 2 groups)
days between 20-30 Wolfs (3-4 groups)

07 2007 08 10 09 04
08 2007 08 22 01
09 2007 22 07 01
10 2007 28 02 01
11 2007 24 04 02
12 2007 12 05 05 08

-------------------------------------------------------------------

January 2008
spotless days 20
one spot group from cycle 23 (southern hemisphere) on 11 days
one spot group from cycle 24 (northern hemisphere) on 1 day (4.1.)
4.1. there were two spot groups at the same time, one from cycle 23
and one from cycle 24
Sunspot number 3.4 (3.1 from cycle 23 0.3 from cycle 24)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

February 2008
spotless days 21
one spot group from cycle 23 (southern hemisphere) on 8 days
none spots from cycle 24
Sunspot number 2.1 (all from cycle 23)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

March 2008 (some ending in April)
spotless days 16
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 2 days (5.-6.3.) max size 30 per mil
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (10.3.) max size 90 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 3 days (15.-17.3.) max size 20 pm
a triplet (3 at the same time 25.3.-31.3.):
first sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 12 days (23.3.-31.3.)
second sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 13 days (24.3.-2.4.)
third sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 13 days (25.3.-3.4.)
max size together 520 pm (26.3.), above 100 from 24.3.-2.4.
none spots from cycle 24
Sunspot number 9.3 (all from cycle 23)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

April 2008
spotless days 20
remnants from sp-gr from cycle 23 1.4.-3.4. (see March)
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 2 days (19.-20.4.) max size 20 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (NH) on 3 days (22.-24.4.) max size 40 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 24 (NH) on 2 days (14.-15.4.) max size 10 pm
this is number 2 cycle 24 spot 102 days after the first in January
Sunspot number 2.9 (2.45 from cycle 23 and 0.45 from cycle 24)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

May 2008
spotless days 23
three simultaneous sp-groups from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (16.5) ms 45
two sim. sp-groups from cycle 23 (SH) on 4 days (17.5.-20.5.) ms 80
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (26.5.) ms 10
one sp-gr from cycle 24 (SH!) on 2 days (4.-5.5.) ms 20
sunspot number 2.9 (2.5 from cycle 23 and 0.4 from cycle 24)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

June 2008
spotless days 19
one sunspot group from cycle 23 (SH) on 4 days (10.-13.6.) msize 40
one sunspot group from cycle 23 (SH) on 7 days (16.-22.6.) msize 20
no sunpot groups from cycle 24
sunspot number 3.1

-------------------------------------------------------------------

July 2008
spotless days 28
one sunspot group from cycle 23 (SH) on 3 days (18.-20.7.) msize 20
no sunpot groups from cycle 24
sunspot number 0.5

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The 12-monthly best fit gives around the year 1797. The Dalton minimum reigned 1798-1823. It's anybody's guess what happens next. At least the Earth is already cooling.

Sunspot number from Jan to July = 3, 2, 9, 3, 3, 3, 0.5 = 24.2 = 23.05(from 23) + 1.15(from 24).

Spotless days Jan to July = 20, 21, 16, 20, 23, 19, 28 = 69%.

It looks like the cycle 23 is coming to an end. But we can't be sure. There have been situations when monthly sunspot number of a declining cycle has gone to zero, but then suddenly had a burst. On the other side we have not the slighest hint when cycle 24 has its initiating burst. The very slow rise (3 spots together in 5 days in half a years is really a slow rise. The cessation that now has lasted from early May does not have any predictive power for the coming months. However the Sun continues to be so silent, that anyway we can say that a burst of cycle 24 would really make many theories of the sunspots to a reconsideration. My prediction of the minimum in Summer 2009 is still valid.

[scpg02]

Matrix Wrote:

scpg02 Wrote:

Matrix Wrote:And I agree with you completely on this. Peer review can have its flaws. The real point is that, if an article with questionable conclusions is published by a peer-reviewed journal, thousands of other scientists read and criticize it. It is more difficult to get away with "manufactured" conclusions.

Not really. The AGW side has been getting away with it. How many times do you see that disceditted hockey stick used? That's just one example.

The phraseology of your above sentence is such that you seem to have reached a conclusion about a subject under dispute.
.

Even the IPCC has distanced itself from the hokey stick.

Matrix Wrote:the precautionary principle.

Ah the spending of a lot of money for no reason to the detriment of the world's poor. Yeah let's do that...not!

[Matrix]

John L Wrote:

Matrix Wrote:In any case, the evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that, apart from a few commercially-minded skeptics in the US (a mining engineer, an economist and a medical doctor, I believe ), the rest of the world is moving ahead on the basis of a very sound scientific axiom -- the precautionary principle.

No doubt, America's rearguard action with regard to global warming will change dramatically no matter who succeeds the laughable Mr. Bush.

:lol: :lol: Will you be saying that in the next year or two, when the entire global temperatures finally respond to the almost total lack of sunspot activity this last three years?

I suggest you reread my signature quote.

Of course, statements like yours will require some proof before one could take them seriously. As far as I can determine, there is nothing in the way of conclusive evidence about sunspot activity at this stage. As you undoubtedly know, there's a Danish scientist who has speculated about this. Interestingly, his views receive more publicity from the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute than they do from the scientific establishment.

Here is a recent report that claims the contrary.

Quote:Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

Quote:According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues. (Source))

How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?

Quote:Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming
Since the middle of the last century, the Sun is in a phase of unusually high activity, as indicated by frequent occurrences of sunspots, gas eruptions, and radiation storms. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Katlenburg-Lindau (Germany) and at the University of Oulu (Finland) have come to this conclusion after they have succeeded in reconstructing the solar activity based on the sunspot frequency since 850 AD. To this end, they have combined historical sunspot records with measurements of the frequency of radioactive isotopes in ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. As the scientists have reported in the renowned scientific journal, Physical Review Letters, since 1940 the mean sunspot number is higher than it has ever been in the last thousand years and two and a half times higher than the long term average. The temporal variation in the solar activity displays a similarity to that of the mean temperature of the Earth. These scientific results therefore bring the influence of the Sun on the terrestrial climate, and in particular its contribution to the global warming of the 20th century, into the forefront of current interest. However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.

If you have some information that these sources don't have, please share it.

John L Wrote:"M", when I think of you, or look at your avatar, I am reminded of one single word,...........Hubris.

Like Prometheus stealing fire from the gods?

[scpg02]

Matrix Wrote:If you have some information that these sources don't have, please share it.

LOL! Yeah actually we do.

[Matrix]

scpg02 Wrote:

Matrix Wrote:In any case, the evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that, apart from a few commercially-minded skeptics in the US

LOL! There is no, repeat, no evidence of AGW. None. And there are more skeptics than believers as the list of 31,000 + would indicate. Remember, correlation is not causation and the correlation has been failing for the last 8 years.

Show me some reputable scientific sources, then we'll discuss your claim.

________________________________________________________

Quote:The situation with sunspots from July 2007 to July 2008.
The cycle 23 that began already in 1996 still reigns. There were no cycle 24 spots in June and July.

From cycle 24 there are three tiny signatures: one in January (1 day), one in April (2 days) and one in May (2 days).

In 2008 there has been 17 groups from cycle 23 lasting together 94 days, and 3 groups from cycle 24 lasting together 5 days.

From July 2007 to December 2007

month
year
spotless days

days with below 10 Wolfs (1 sunspot group)
days with below 20 Wolfs (most probable 2 groups)
days between 20-30 Wolfs (3-4 groups)

07 2007 08 10 09 04
08 2007 08 22 01
09 2007 22 07 01
10 2007 28 02 01
11 2007 24 04 02
12 2007 12 05 05 08

-------------------------------------------------------------------

January 2008
spotless days 20
one spot group from cycle 23 (southern hemisphere) on 11 days
one spot group from cycle 24 (northern hemisphere) on 1 day (4.1.)
4.1. there were two spot groups at the same time, one from cycle 23
and one from cycle 24
Sunspot number 3.4 (3.1 from cycle 23 0.3 from cycle 24)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

February 2008
spotless days 21
one spot group from cycle 23 (southern hemisphere) on 8 days
none spots from cycle 24
Sunspot number 2.1 (all from cycle 23)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

March 2008 (some ending in April)
spotless days 16
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 2 days (5.-6.3.) max size 30 per mil
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (10.3.) max size 90 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 3 days (15.-17.3.) max size 20 pm
a triplet (3 at the same time 25.3.-31.3.):
first sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 12 days (23.3.-31.3.)
second sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 13 days (24.3.-2.4.)
third sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 13 days (25.3.-3.4.)
max size together 520 pm (26.3.), above 100 from 24.3.-2.4.
none spots from cycle 24
Sunspot number 9.3 (all from cycle 23)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

April 2008
spotless days 20
remnants from sp-gr from cycle 23 1.4.-3.4. (see March)
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 2 days (19.-20.4.) max size 20 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (NH) on 3 days (22.-24.4.) max size 40 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 24 (NH) on 2 days (14.-15.4.) max size 10 pm
this is number 2 cycle 24 spot 102 days after the first in January
Sunspot number 2.9 (2.45 from cycle 23 and 0.45 from cycle 24)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

May 2008
spotless days 23
three simultaneous sp-groups from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (16.5) ms 45
two sim. sp-groups from cycle 23 (SH) on 4 days (17.5.-20.5.) ms 80
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (26.5.) ms 10
one sp-gr from cycle 24 (SH!) on 2 days (4.-5.5.) ms 20
sunspot number 2.9 (2.5 from cycle 23 and 0.4 from cycle 24)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

June 2008
spotless days 19
one sunspot group from cycle 23 (SH) on 4 days (10.-13.6.) msize 40
one sunspot group from cycle 23 (SH) on 7 days (16.-22.6.) msize 20
no sunpot groups from cycle 24
sunspot number 3.1

-------------------------------------------------------------------

July 2008
spotless days 28
one sunspot group from cycle 23 (SH) on 3 days (18.-20.7.) msize 20
no sunpot groups from cycle 24
sunspot number 0.5

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The 12-monthly best fit gives around the year 1797. The Dalton minimum reigned 1798-1823. It's anybody's guess what happens next. At least the Earth is already cooling.

Sunspot number from Jan to July = 3, 2, 9, 3, 3, 3, 0.5 = 24.2 = 23.05(from 23) + 1.15(from 24).

Spotless days Jan to July = 20, 21, 16, 20, 23, 19, 28 = 69%.

It looks like the cycle 23 is coming to an end. But we can't be sure. There have been situations when monthly sunspot number of a declining cycle has gone to zero, but then suddenly had a burst. On the other side we have not the slighest hint when cycle 24 has its initiating burst. The very slow rise (3 spots together in 5 days in half a years is really a slow rise. The cessation that now has lasted from early May does not have any predictive power for the coming months. However the Sun continues to be so silent, that anyway we can say that a burst of cycle 24 would really make many theories of the sunspots to a reconsideration. My prediction of the minimum in Summer 2009 is still valid.

These are data, not sources.

And who are these mysterious 31,000 you mention?

Links, please!

[John L]

Matrix Wrote:These are data, not sources.

And who are these mysterious 31,000 you mention?

Links, please!

Had you bothered even reading several of the Many, Many threads devoted to the AGW issue, here at Jane, you would not be acting the dunce, or crying for links, as there are so many posted there your head would be in a tailspin.

You should branch out more "M". Intellectual laziness is not going to be favoured here. It is all there for you to see, so try "rooting" around some more, please. We are not going to spoon feed you.

[Matrix]

John L Wrote:You should branch out more "M". Intellectual laziness is not going to be favoured here. It is all there for you to see, so try "rooting" around some more, please. We are not going to spoon feed you.

LOL! It is not up to me to do someone's research for them. This fallacy is called shifting the burden of proof.

[John L]

Matrix Wrote:

John L Wrote:You should branch out more "M". Intellectual laziness is not going to be favoured here. It is all there for you to see, so try "rooting" around some more, please. We are not going to spoon feed you.

LOL! It is not up to me to do someone's research for them. This fallacy is called shifting the burden of proof.

Incorrect! I don't have the TIME to write you a soliloquy, when I have already done so where you can easily check it out. If you wish to believe all that AGW HorseShit, that is your business. Only try somewhere else, where others will believe you. It will not work here.

[Matrix]

John L Wrote:

Matrix Wrote:

John L Wrote:You should branch out more "M". Intellectual laziness is not going to be favoured here. It is all there for you to see, so try "rooting" around some more, please. We are not going to spoon feed you.

LOL! It is not up to me to do someone's research for them. This fallacy is called shifting the burden of proof.

Incorrect! I don't have the TIME to write you a soliloquy, when I have already done so where you can easily check it out. If you wish to believe all that AGW HorseShit, that is your business. Only try somewhere else, where others will believe you. It will not work here.

:?

Check this out, John.

Just for the record, if a soliloquy means "talking to oneself", you can neither write one nor write one to me.

Talking about horseshit, John, is this one of the sources of the now infamous fraud of the 31,000?

If so, here is some information that conflicts with the magical realism of some AGW deniers on this board.

http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2008/0...lobal.html

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/

http://antiguanoctane.gnn.tv/blogs/28821...entists_eh

But don't get me wrong. I have nothing against true-believer-ism.

[scpg02]

Hey Matrix, why don't you come over and argue with the guys on Global Warming Skeptics. I'm sure they would love to debate you on this subject.

[John L]

scpg02 Wrote:Hey Matrix, why don't you come over and argue with the guys on Global Warming Skeptics. I'm sure they would love to debate you on this subject.

You will personally have to apply, or be recommended by a member. They have some True Believers there, but they don't remain True Believers very long, since there are REAL scientists there who KNOW the science.

[scpg02]

John L Wrote:

scpg02 Wrote:Hey Matrix, why don't you come over and argue with the guys on Global Warming Skeptics. I'm sure they would love to debate you on this subject.

You will personally have to apply, or be recommended by a member. They have some True Believers there, but they don't remain True Believers very long, since there are REAL scientists there who KNOW the science.

Wrong forum dear. I was talking about Tommy's forum.

[John L]

scpg02 Wrote:

John L Wrote:

scpg02 Wrote:Hey Matrix, why don't you come over and argue with the guys on Global Warming Skeptics. I'm sure they would love to debate you on this subject.

You will personally have to apply, or be recommended by a member. They have some True Believers there, but they don't remain True Believers very long, since there are REAL scientists there who KNOW the science.

Wrong forum dear. I was talking about Tommy's forum.

Oh, sorry. :oops: I get them mixed up. Why don't you give him the link there. Tommy would LOVE to have him join. [/size]

[scpg02]

John L Wrote:

scpg02 Wrote:

John L Wrote:

scpg02 Wrote:Hey Matrix, why don't you come over and argue with the guys on Global Warming Skeptics. I'm sure they would love to debate you on this subject.

You will personally have to apply, or be recommended by a member. They have some True Believers there, but they don't remain True Believers very long, since there are REAL scientists there who KNOW the science.

Wrong forum dear. I was talking about Tommy's forum.

Oh, sorry. :oops: I get them mixed up. Why don't you give him the link there. Tommy would LOVE to have him join.

Uh, I did. Get much sleep last night? :lol:

[Matrix]

scpg02 Wrote:Hey Matrix, why don't you come over and argue with the guys on Global Warming Skeptics. I'm sure they would love to debate you on this subject.

So you can provide links, as long as I don't ask for them.

Well, I'm flattered that you feel the need to call in your big guns on this one. But, frankly, I consider AGW deniers a fringe element. It is like debating intelligent design and/or its underlying principle, creationism. It's a slow, syllable by syllable process -- a kind of intellectual torture -- for which I lack the patience.

On the other hand, I do enjoy challenges. Hmmmm.

[scpg02]

Matrix Wrote:But, frankly, I consider AGW deniers a fringe element. It is like debating intelligent design and/or its underlying principle, creationism.

Ah a Holier than Thou attitude. If you really want a challenge then try and join the one John eluded to. We are both members. Sadly he is correct, you will need a degree or a sponsor to join. The data I posted above came from there.

Climate Sceptics