Looks like Joe Bastar*i agrees with me about the made up hysteria around the so called solar storms as well.
http://www.accuweather.com/video/96827541001/run-hide-the-sun-is-coming-to-get-you-%28if-you-trust-nasa%29.asp?channel=vbbastaj

Edit: Again gotta love the word filtering on this forum...

Last edited by Tomas on 18-Jun-2010 at 04:39 PM.

@Tomas

Quote:

What about PDO, AMO and el nino versus la nina and so on?

If this is your criteria for a negative event in 2009 the sun and the ocean were both in a negative event. At the same time the planet warmed.

Quote:

I believe that temperature is modulated by all such varying factors

You make it sound as if climatologists just ignore all these factors. They don't. They are accounted for. GW is that CO2 is the present largest of these factors in play at the present time. And of course that humans have contributed greatly to CO2, which is fairly easy to show.

Quote:

You cannot predict future climate without understanding the climate system

You'd have to prove this for climate. Even if a system is chaotic that doesn't eliminate predictability. We deal with predictable chaotic systems all the time.

Quote:

There are absolutely nothing to suggest that CO2 is bad for climate or environment either, infact it looks like life thrives during periods of higher than current CO2 concentrations.

Certainly CO2 is not good in all aspects. Every form of life has a different level of exposure capability. Too much CO2 and it dies. Too little CO2 and it dies. In the past threads here I posted the scientific articles indicating that certain plants, not all, will be negatively impacted by increasing CO2 levels.

And of course how this applies to humans? It's unlikely CO2 on the planet will kill us directly. However, when the climate changes it impacts where we live and what we do. Places that are desert may increase or shrink. It depends on where it's located and other effects. Even minor changes in environment have shown to be detrimental to people as often wars are started due to the struggle for resources. Africa today you can see the effects of a change in the environment and the associated conflicts. (not saying that point support GW it does support we kill each other when we don't have what we need to live.) With about a 3 degree temperature increase we're entering a period of climate where Homo Sapiens Sapiens likely haven't existed before.

Quote:

If you look at past it actually seems like it was temperatures that drove the CO2 and not the other way around.

I disagree. When you look into the past you see a tightly coupled relationship where CO2 drove temperature and where temperature drove CO2. This relationship is not a single X->Y cause. It's circular where XY.

Last edited by BrianK on 18-Jun-2010 at 04:54 PM.

@BrianK
Quote:

What about PDO, AMO and el nino versus la nina and so on? If this is your criteria for a negative event in 2009 the sun and the ocean were both in a negative event. At the same time the planet warmed.

Like i said.. There seems to be a delay between such cycles and actual global temperatures.
There seems to be at least a decade delay between grand minimum before it really starts affecting temps globally based on what happened during past minimums. This does not mean that some areas like Europe will not experience it much sooner though.
Those who believe sun is the driver expect the real drop to be noticeable somewhere between 2015-2020.
It is the combination of all these cycles that i think is the main driver of climate. Until now most of these cycles have favored warming and it is only now it is starting to favor global cooling.

Last edited by Tomas on 19-Jun-2010 at 07:25 PM.

Interesting article about the "unusual" behaviour of the sun and possible climate link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627640.800-whats-wrong-with-the-sun.html?page=1

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/20/firms-paid-to-shut-down-wind-farms-when-the-wind-is-blowing/
Quote:

Energy firms will receive thousands of pounds a day per wind farm to turn off their turbines because the National Grid cannot use the power they are producing. Critics of wind farms have seized on the revelation as evidence of the unsuitability of turbines to meet the UK’s energy needs in the future. They claim that the ‘intermittent’ nature of wind makes such farms unreliable providers of electricity.

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @Dandy Why do you have jump on absolutely everything i post here?

Errrrrmmmmm - in your last reply to me you said:
"All I want to do in this thread is discuss the science and post the skeptic side of the story."

Wikipedia about "Discussion":

" Debate
"Discussion" redirects here.

Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion; in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.
..."

So I am free to reply to whatever and whomever I like and equally to ask questions regarding their statements to whomever.

Having put that straight, I'd like to place emphasis on that I was either jumping, nor was I replying to "everything" you "post here".

Please go back to the beginning of this very thread, count your postings, count my postings where I reply to you and if you substract the latter figure from the former, you will easily realise that your criticism was excessively exaggerated.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: The "they" are news media, which i made clear earlier in this thread. We were discussing how news media and journalists makes sensational headlines out of anything.

I know - I was just referring to the fact that in your post #163 another post of you was quoted, containing the link "NASA: Civilization will end in 2013 (possibly)/", while this was obviously wrong. When I followed the link it led me to an obscure "The Register"-article - not to NASA. I just wanted to point you to that misleading link title with my question "Who are "they"?".

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Quote: Sorry - but I could not find such statements from climate scientists... Go read about how the sun works and maybe also check the latest solar cycle predictions. Lower sunspot numbers are a result of lower solar activity in general, which includes sun flares/solar storms.

I know...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: This cycle will be lowest in our lifetime unless something unexpected happens.

Not sure where you take this confidence from.
And what do you mean with "unless something unexpected happens"?
We're just leaving the current low and head towards a new high.
Do YOU know that the next minimum will not be even more quite than this one, or what do you mean with "unless something unexpected happens"?
Does anybody know that at all?
At least I don't...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: This does not mean that a solar storm cannot happen as there was even solar storms during maunder minimum which is basically the lowest solar cycles we have on records.

Yeah - but to my best knowledge nobody can make safe predictions - neither on the intensity of the next solar cycles, nor on the likeliness of solar storms during solar minima.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Here is a example of what i mean by bad journalism: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/16/solar_storms/ Quote: NASA: Civilization will end in 2013 (possibly)

Yeah - really bad journalism.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Not as bad as the article we had in Norwegian news though..

Hmmmmm - my Norwegian is far too bad to be able to follow the norwegian news - so I have to believe you here.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: You should seriously read what i say before attacking my posts.

Sorry - but this was no attack at all - and especially not against your posting (as I'm not Don Quixote ).


Quote:

Tomas wrote: This is not the first time you have put words into my mouth.

This is not the first time you failed to understand me.
Can it be that you ar a little bit "thin-skinned" and touchy?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas ... Seems the Thomas Model says don't worry about leaping without looking. ...

(whistle)
...don't worry - be happy...
(whistle)

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @BrianK ... Again time will tell what will really happen.

100% agreed.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: I believe that temperature is modulated by all such varying factors.

Of course - and it appears as if it currently is out of sync.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: You cannot predict future climate without understanding the climate system.

Sorry - I have to contradict:
Of course you can.
Its just that the chances that these predictions are correct are very, very slim...
(sorry - couldn't resist )

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Such models are just more or less useless in tha fasion they are used today. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that CO2 is bad for climate or environment either, infact it looks like life thrives during periods of higher than current CO2 concentrations.

Drought affects the state of vegetation by lowering photosynthetic
activity leading to a reduction in productivity, in particular for crops
and fodder. It also affects forests, weakening trees and making them
more vulnerable to diseases and insect attacks.

The summer heatwave 2003 even made plants release CO2 instead of O (sort of reverted photosynthetis), some reports claimed back then.
I didn't verify those reports so I cannot tell you if it really was that serious.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: The only evidence you really have are seen in incomplete computer models that dont take into account the unknown feedbacks and natural cycles.

Hmmmm - well - there's the saying "nobody is perfect".
This saying refers to us humans.

I'd say - if it is publically known that we are imperfect, how can one expect human-made computer models to be perfect?

Just look at the historical development of lathing machines. The firtst ones were mostly made from wood and used for turnuing.

When the first matal lathing machines came up, the precision of the products made on it was inferior.

But with this first lathing machine the parts for the next machine were made and this new machine provided better precision.

Then the parts for the third machine generation were made on the second generation ones and improved precision again.

This way it worked until we got the high prcision machines of today.
But even today we still have tolerances...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: If you look at past it actually seems like it was temperatures that drove the CO2 and not the other way around.

Yeah - from what I've heard and read about that topic you're right with that.

Volcanic activity is said to have led to higher CO2 levels.
And now a mechanism called "positive feedback" enters the stage.
The higher CO2 level enables the (lower) atmosphere to store more heat, which in turn leads to even higher CO2 levels and so on.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: How could you have sudden coolings happening with CO2 concentrations being in thousands of ppm range??

With enogh volcanoes releasing sulphur dioxide into the uppermost layers of the atmosphere, leading to a sufficiant higher reflection rate of the incoming sunlight, perhaps? Other possible reasons are extended periods of decreased sun activity and changing earth orbit.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Or sudden warmings that dwarfs the modern "global warming" period during periods of pre industrial levels of CO2?

Higher sun activity, slightly changed earth orbit, natural disasters, ...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Even during warm times when CO2 was in thousands of ppm range it was still liveable even in equator regions.

What bothers me here is the question: "Could I exist at such temperatures, given that the summer heat wave of 2003 caused so many thousands of deaths?"

Quote:

Tomas wrote: The main difference from now was that climate was more alike on all latitudes and all seasons while equator regions was around the same temperature as today. The only real worry i see is increased sea level but even that is something that can be prepared for.

This is the first time I hear that...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: I worry more about potentential future ice age that is most likely "around the corner" due to milankovich cycles. Such a ice age lasting tens of thousands of years would be far more catastrophic than a less cold climate at high latitudes and less cold winters.

Your ice age is being offset by the impact of the CO2 mankind is releasing on top of the natural amounts and so just slows the warming. But you choose to ignore or refuse to accept that.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: But either way real observations points towards temperature driving CO2 and not the other way.

You should really read about "positive feedback" in this regard.

Last edited by Dandy on 22-Jun-2010 at 06:37 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy
This is probably the last time i bother to respond to you, as you clearly keep on attacking absolutely everything i post THESE days.
I am only going to bother responding about the sun.
The reason i know this, is because i have read everything i can on the sun since this minimum started.
I also hang/lurk on a forum with several solar physicist who shares their views and latest scientific data and papers.
The thing is that they can see around how strong the solar cycle will be based on the speed of rampup and length of minimum. It has now been so long and slow that it is near impossible according to what we know to have anywhere near normal sized cycle.
I have posted this many times before but will post again: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
Quote:

Predicting the behavior of a sunspot cycle is fairly reliable once the cycle is well underway (about 3 years after the minimum in sunspot number occurs [see Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann Solar Physics; 151, 177 (1994)]). Prior to that time the predictions are less reliable but nonetheless equally as important.

Quote:

Ohl's method now indicates an amplitude of about 70 for Cycle 24. The smoothed aa index has reached its minimum (a record low) of 8.4 in September of 2009. Using Ohl's method indicates a maximum sunspot number of about 70 ± 18 or less for cycle 24. We then use the shape of the sunspot cycle as described by Hathaway, Wilson, and Reichmann [Solar Physics 151, 177 (1994)] and determine a starting time for the cycle by fitting the data to produce a prediction of the monthly sunspot numbers through the next cycle. We find a starting time of July 2008 with minimum occurring in November or December 2008 and maximum in June 2013.

And here is the graph so you can see it with your own eyes: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

I seriously find your behaviour childish. The only reason you jump on anything i say seems to be because i have different views than you. But i guess you will again ignore this or cherrypick some news article that talks about how sun will peak in december 2012 and fry us all.

I am sick and tired of you twisting every word i write or putting words into my mouth.

Last edited by Tomas on 21-Jun-2010 at 02:13 PM.

@Dandy

Quote:

Quote: BrianK wrote: Seems the Thomas Model says don't worry about leaping without looking. (whistle) ...don't worry - be happy... (whistle)

Though reality is a bit more like (whistle) Always look on the bright side of life (whistle)

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @Dandy This is probably the last time i bother to respond to you, as you clearly keep on attacking absolutely everything i post THESE days. ... I seriously find your behaviour childish. The only reason you jump on anything i say seems to be because i have different views than you. But i guess you will again ignore this ...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: I am sick ...

Get well soon!

Quote:

Tomas wrote: and tired ...

Go back to bed and sleep well! Nice dreams!

Last edited by Dandy on 22-Jun-2010 at 06:32 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tomas

You said you wished scientists would stand up more against bad journalism. Here is such a case. The Sunday Times (a UK paper) published a retraction and apology. The so called "Amazongate" the Times published wasn't true. The story is no longer available via their website.

NOAA is out with the May 2010 climate analysis

Shorts:
* Warmest May since 1880
* Warmest ocean+land in the March-May record
* Warmest ocean in the Jan-May record
...
The rest is for your reading pleasure.

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Tomas Quote: Tomas wrote: @Dandy This is probably the last time i bother to respond to you, as you clearly keep on attacking absolutely everything i post THESE days. ... I seriously find your behaviour childish. The only reason you jump on anything i say seems to be because i have different views than you. But i guess you will again ignore this ... Quote: Tomas wrote: I am sick ... Get well soon! Quote: Tomas wrote: and tired ... Go back to bed and sleep well! Nice dreams!

You just proved my point. Not only did you ignore the links i posted, but you go as low as throwing personal insults. Congrats.. you are the first person to get abuse report from me.


@All is it possible to ignore people here at amigaworld so i dont have to read such crap from dandy anymore?

Last edited by Tomas on 22-Jun-2010 at 05:17 PM.

@Dandy

Quote:

Get well soon!...Go back to bed and sleep well! Nice dreams!

I don't have time right now to read back through this thread to see how you and Tomas got to this point of discord between you, but this childish response to him is simply unnecessary. Don't try to goad people. If you are frustrated with each other take a break from communicating on this topic with each other. Simple enough, right?

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

fairlanefastback wrote: @Dandy Quote: Get well soon!...Go back to bed and sleep well! Nice dreams! I don't have time right now to read back through this thread to see how you and Tomas got to this point of discord between you, but this childish response to him is simply unnecessary. Don't try to goad people. If you are frustrated with each other take a break from communicating on this topic with each other. Simple enough, right?

The thing is that i like this thread and like discussing with for example BrianK.
Tt really ruins my mood that i have to everytime read those comments from dandy.
I really wish there was a way to ignore users.
It was the "i am with stupid" that pushed me over edge to hit that report button.

@Tomas

Here is some info for us all on the 'consensus'. It appears that the vast majority of papers and scientists working in the field of climatology agree that humans have played a role in changing the climate. LINK

Michael Mann unanimously cleared of any wrong doing. His research activity is found to be within scientific norms. The charges were found to be without substance.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Here is some info for us all on the 'consensus'. It appears that the vast majority of papers and scientists working in the field of climatology agree that humans have played a role in changing the climate. LINK

I will give it a read later.
Even most skeptics agree that CO2 most likely causes some warming. The only difference is that skeptics believe the warming is way less significant and that natural forcings are much stronger and significant.

I would rather like to know how many scientists actually believe in the so called catastrophic climate chnage part.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Michael Mann unanimously cleared of any wrong doing. His research activity is found to be within scientific norms. The charges were found to be without substance.

Yep.. By his own friends.
To me it is pretty clear that this is just white wash. Mann has even admitted now anyways that it was wrong to use his hockey stick as "proof" of AGW.