Starship Asterisk*

And on and on and round and round it goes to no purpose except venting of superheated gasses.

aristarchusinexile wrote:And on and on and round and round it goes to no purpose except venting of superheated gasses.

Wait...Doesn't venting superheated gasses lead to global warming?

Chris Peterson wrote:

"Of course, there's no way to sell that approach to anyone who believes in conspiracies. It's no different than trying to convince somebody who thinks we never went to the Moon that they are wrong. Science and conspiracy theories are pretty much at odds on a fundamental level."

Ya know, you guys are really something. You speak so dismissively of 'conspiracy-theorists' but you're so quick to invoke the hidden hand of 'Big Oil' behind any suggestion contrary to the AGW dogma ("I could equally site "bad science" articles funded by big oil to supporting your opinion, (rhetorically) would you have the same critical eye for these reports?").

BMAONE23 wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:And on and on and round and round it goes to no purpose except venting of superheated gasses.

Wait...Doesn't venting superheated gasses lead to global warming?

Exactly, BMA. It's all APOD's fault. We either need a crackdown, or put a cork in it.

well; it looks like Sunspot activity is starting to increase
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090508/ap_ ... ce_weather
It looks like a new (relatively) massive spot is just peeking over the limb
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/

Oh, yeah! That "massive sunspot" was a real humdinger, wasn't it?

gpobserver wrote:Oh, yeah! That "massive sunspot" was a real humdinger, wasn't it?

It may be average sized when compared to historical activity but It it massive considering the total ammount of activity to date during the emergence of this activity cycle.

BMAONE23 wrote:

"It may be average sized when compared to historical activity but It it massive considering the total ammount of activity to date during the emergence of this activity cycle."

It wasn't even a spot, it was a plage. Spots are dark in the center and get a number. But you're right about the meager activity, Cycle 24 is definitely not off to a roaring start, if it can be said to have actually started yet. We're still getting occasional Cycle 23 spots such as two instances a few weeks ago. David Archibald has even suggested the current situation is more similar to the beginnings of the Maunder Minimum than the Dalton Minimum (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/08/m ... #more-7712).

Do I detect a sure waning in postings on the forum? If so, I suspect it's weather related .. we posters too busy outdoors spotting the sun to be indoors.

It could also be waiting to see what is going to happen WRT climate/weather. I know, first hand, that my area (Santa Rosa, Ca.) experienced record high temps in Jan (mid winter) of over 80dag F and record high temps in April (early Spring) of 98deg F. Both heat waves lasting 4 days to 2 weeks.

It's been abnormally cool and wet in Oklahoma this spring.

bystander wrote:It's been abnormally cool and wet in Oklahoma this spring.

What seems to define local weather in many parts of the world the last decade or so is just that: abnormal. While the time frame is too short to really tie this to climate change, it is certainly suggestive. Climate models do predict just that- extreme fluctuations in weather patterns.

BMAONE23 wrote:well; it looks like Sunspot activity is starting to increase
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090508/ap_ ... ce_weather
It looks like a new (relatively) massive spot is just peeking over the limb
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/

It looks like a third "Hot Spot" is about to break the solar Limb
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/rea ... i_mag/512/

Chris Peterson wrote:

"Climate models do predict just that- extreme fluctuations in weather patterns."

If these climate models are so good, why don't they reproduce ice age conditions or transitions to and from ice age states?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/13/9 ... #more-7818

gpobserver wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:

"Climate models do predict just that- extreme fluctuations in weather patterns."

If these climate models are so good, why don't they reproduce ice age conditions or transitions to and from ice age states?

They do, in fact, describe ice age conditions rather well. They don't deal with transitions because the actual cause of those transitions isn't well understood, so there's no good theory to incorporate into the models.

Note, however, that I said the climate models currently predict extreme weather patterns, which is what we are now seeing. Used in this way, the models aren't predicting the past or future, but are describing current conditions. These are immediately testable models of the current atmosphere and climate system.

Chris Peterson wrote:

bystander wrote:It's been abnormally cool and wet in Oklahoma this spring.

What seems to define local weather in many parts of the world the last decade or so is just that: abnormal. While the time frame is too short to really tie this to climate change, it is certainly suggestive. Climate models do predict just that- extreme fluctuations in weather patterns.

A grand turbulence is, I think, happening .. with masses of hotter than normal air rising and causing huge downdrafts of masses of cold air in normally warm places. My mother in Hawaii says it's been cold there, cold meaning under 60 F.

The Scientific Method



1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.

2. Develop a hypothesis that possibly explains the phenomenon.

3. Perform a test in an attempt to disprove or invalidate the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is disproven, return to steps 1 and 2.

4. A hypothesis that stubbornly refuses to be invalidated may be correct. Continue testing.



The Scientific Computer Modeling Method



1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.

2. Develop a computer model that mimics the behavior of the phenomenon.

3. Select observations that conform to the model predictions and dismiss observations as of inadequate quality that conflict with the computer model.

4. In instances where all of the observations conflict with the model, “refine” the model with fudge factors to give a better match with pesky facts. Assert that these factors reveal fundamental processes previously unknown in association with the phenomenon. Under no circumstances willingly reveal your complete data sets, methods, or computer codes.

5. Upon achieving a model of incomprehensible complexity that still somewhat resembles the phenomenon, begin to issue to the popular media dire predictions of catastrophe that will occur as far in the future as possible, at least beyond your professional lifetime.

6. Continue to “refine” the model in order to maximize funding and the awarding of Nobel Prizes.

7. Dismiss as unqualified, ignorant, and conspiracy theorists all who offer criticisms of the model.

Repeat steps 3 through 7 indefinitely.

gpobserver wrote:The Scientific Method...
The Scientific Computer Modeling Method...

Clueless.

Name-calling always works.

StACase wrote:Name-calling always works.

How about "straw man argument" then?

Qev wrote:

StACase wrote:Name-calling always works.

How about "straw man argument" then?

The first two points seem to be what's going on:

1. Observe a phenomenon carefully.

2. Develop a computer model that mimics the behavior of the phenomenon.

The rest was a sarcastic editorial. Straw man? Sure.

As near as I can tell, point number 2 above has failed. The current average global temperature taken from the available data sources, GISS, Hadley, NOAA, UAH & RSS, is below all of the 20 or so models referenced in the IPCC fourth assessement report (AR4) see figure 10.5 or 10.20. A mere 8 years of a 100 year prediction have elapsed, and it's already wrong! Why would anyone have faith that it will be correct in another 92 years? If you can't hit the broad side of a barn at 25 feet, you're not going to hit the target at 100 meters.

Chris Peterson wrote:

"Clueless."

Thank you, I forgot that one.

Step 7 should read:

"7. Dismiss as clueless, unqualified, ignorant, and conspiracy theorists all who offer criticisms of the model."

Best regards,
- Roy

A test subject jumps off the top of the Sears Tower and makes copious measurements on his descent.
- 0 sec s = 0 m/sec
- 5 sec s = 41 m/sec
- 10 sec s = 49 m/sec
- 15 sec s = 53 m/sec
- 20 sec s = 53 m/sec
- 24 sec maintaining terminal v, turbulents negligible, all is well.

53 m/sec air flow around the human body is uncomfortable but survivable, proving within the chosen parameters for the experiment, a fall from the Sears Tower is a survivable act.

Deceleration forces applied to human tissue and elasticity properties of concrete does not fall into the parameters of this study. Those and/or other issues will be addressed as needed when needed.

gpobserver wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:

"Clueless."

Thank you, I forgot that one.

Step 7 should read:

"7. Dismiss as clueless, unqualified, ignorant, and conspiracy theorists all who offer criticisms of the model."

Just trying to be brief. Basically, there's no point in discussing the matter further, since you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of the entire climate change issue, and of science itself. You base your arguments on largely non-technical sources (blogs, politicized websites, etc), and this latest attempt demonstrates only that you have no idea whatsoever how computer models work, or why they are valuable.

There are plenty of alarmist, pseudoscientific blogs and websites for people who think the way you do. I don't see the point or value of your wasting your time on a science oriented site like this one.

Just in:

Changes In The Sun Are Not Causing Global Warming, New Study Shows

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 122425.htm