It is left as an exercise to try and figure out HOW the sunspot cycle affects earths weather.
The correlation is well studied and very clear.
The actual mechanism is still not actually identified.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Bill Gammon
- Start date
It is left as an exercise to try and figure out HOW the sunspot cycle affects earths weather.
The correlation is well studied and very clear.
The actual mechanism is still not actually identified.
Andy Cross
New member
True but here is
True but here is a theory that was given to me by an astronomer. The sun spots are strong electromagnetic fields.
The molten core of the earth is largely iron a ferromagnetic material.
The suns field pulls on the molten core. The oceans temperatures go up at bit where the magma comes closer to the surface.
Causes evaporation and rain.
Liquids are not compressible so the magma activates earth quakes and volcanoes.
Plausible I guess.
True but here is a theory that was given to me by an astronomer. The sun spots are strong electromagnetic fields.
The molten core of the earth is largely iron a ferromagnetic material.
The suns field pulls on the molten core. The oceans temperatures go up at bit where the magma comes closer to the surface.
Causes evaporation and rain.
Liquids are not compressible so the magma activates earth quakes and volcanoes.
Plausible I guess.
in the 50's we were all going to freeze to death, by the 60's Nuclear winters were predicted and still going to freeze to death, 70-80 radiation poisoning from the sun, funny thing around WI winters were doing some strange things -a but a couple of Ocean currents had changed course which affected the Jet streams, guess what changed those Ocean currents- under sea Volcanoes, and in the last 30 years we have seen quite a bit more of this activity enough so that the currents again have changed course and affected the jet streams and hence yet another change in the weather patterns.
To me global warming is nothing more than another scam to get money for something out of nothing- Carbon credits are right up there on my list of scams as well. I will crawl back under my rock now ( it is granite with a none permeable shield affixed to the under side so I am protected against radon gas and ventilated by solar radiation which drives a small fan also shielded so that I am not exposed to any harmful magnetic waves which may emanate from the brush-less dc motor. There is enough mass above me that I feel safe from the hazardous electromagnetic fields created by the high tension power lines near by) have a great day.
To me global warming is nothing more than another scam to get money for something out of nothing- Carbon credits are right up there on my list of scams as well. I will crawl back under my rock now ( it is granite with a none permeable shield affixed to the under side so I am protected against radon gas and ventilated by solar radiation which drives a small fan also shielded so that I am not exposed to any harmful magnetic waves which may emanate from the brush-less dc motor. There is enough mass above me that I feel safe from the hazardous electromagnetic fields created by the high tension power lines near by) have a great day.
Another one from a few years ago that slight changes in the particle flow (solar wind changes) might affect the upper atmosphere.
Liquids actually are compressible if you use enough force.
Andy Cross
New member
If the solar wind became strong enough it could strip our atmosphere completely which would make global warming seem insignificant by comparison.
Yeah I know you can compress a liquid but I don't have a star in my shed to achieve this.
Much of the atmosphere stripping appears to have occurred on planets with no magnetic field to deflect the solar wind.
While we know the field has flipped many times we do not have a good idea of how long it might take to actually flip.
The trapped fields we measure to determine polarity go back a long time but the actual change appears to be relatively fast compared to the time between changes.
A few years there was a solar storm so powerful the aurora was photographed in Arizona.
You're correct to use quotes when you write "climatologists". These people, for the most part, call themselves scientists but in reality they're activists. It's much easier to visualize half a million activists in agreement than to imagine half a million real scientists who agree that man made global warming is settled science.
Some of these activists are simply wackos going which ever way the political wind blows and some are involved because they want to get rich. Some, like Al Gore, are both; i.e. greedy wackos.
Bill Gammon
New member
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Every now and again,
Historical weather highs and lows appear on my computer from somewhere, from some news service. Remarkably, the weather has been much warmer in the distant recorded past than it is currently, that is to say, many of the record highs and lows have occurred back in the 30's and 40's.
I read a book a few winters ago about a freak snow storm that happened in July on the Great Plains that killed around 1200 school kids as they were trying to walk home. "The Children's Blizzard", I think the book is called.
I have also read the words of some of the science community who disagree with global warming. One thing I do know is Universities are more willing to keep sucking research money from the government than actually solve problems. I have personally experienced that. Similar to the government not doing anything to restrict Pharmaceutical companies from continuing to provide unlimited opiates that is addicting a huge percentage of our populations. It's always about the money. Our Science Communities are all about more money, the American Way, eh? We have honed Free Enterprise to the point it is killing us but then, hasn't every big society that has ever existed IMPLODED?
We know our enemy but ignore it.
Pete
Historical weather highs and lows appear on my computer from somewhere, from some news service. Remarkably, the weather has been much warmer in the distant recorded past than it is currently, that is to say, many of the record highs and lows have occurred back in the 30's and 40's.
I read a book a few winters ago about a freak snow storm that happened in July on the Great Plains that killed around 1200 school kids as they were trying to walk home. "The Children's Blizzard", I think the book is called.
I have also read the words of some of the science community who disagree with global warming. One thing I do know is Universities are more willing to keep sucking research money from the government than actually solve problems. I have personally experienced that. Similar to the government not doing anything to restrict Pharmaceutical companies from continuing to provide unlimited opiates that is addicting a huge percentage of our populations. It's always about the money. Our Science Communities are all about more money, the American Way, eh? We have honed Free Enterprise to the point it is killing us but then, hasn't every big society that has ever existed IMPLODED?
We know our enemy but ignore it.
Pete
Bill Gammon
New member
“Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a "correct" one by excessive elaboration. On the contrary following William of Occam he should seek an economical description of natural phenomena. Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity.”
George E. P. Box (October 18, 1919 – March 28, 2013) Science and Statistics (1976), p. 792
George Box is one of the 'fathers' of statistical modelling.
It would appear a whole lot of people stopped learning about statistical modelling before Box's founding book was published and have not stayed very up to date.
There is also an area called "Catastrophe Theory" that analyzes the multivariate surface the statistical models produce.
One of the scariest shapes that can occur is called a saddle.
It looks about like a horse saddle is shaped.
Curved side to side and dropping off but a concave shape front to back that hold you.
Your model may produce a surface of this shape.
Sitting on the peak of the saddle is NOT a stable location for your solution.
The slightest error to either side and your model rolls off to negative infinity.
It can only safely move forward and backward on the saddle surface.
Or you could be on the tip of a rounded cone. Pointed upwards.
The "Catastrophe" refers to a complex shape that appears stable for some variables but not others.
It tends to make the solution you have found easily disturbed by tiny variations in weighting and starting point.
Or for a statistical model extremely sensitive to the 'training' sequence used to determine model weights.
George E. P. Box (October 18, 1919 – March 28, 2013) Science and Statistics (1976), p. 792
George Box is one of the 'fathers' of statistical modelling.
It would appear a whole lot of people stopped learning about statistical modelling before Box's founding book was published and have not stayed very up to date.
There is also an area called "Catastrophe Theory" that analyzes the multivariate surface the statistical models produce.
One of the scariest shapes that can occur is called a saddle.
It looks about like a horse saddle is shaped.
Curved side to side and dropping off but a concave shape front to back that hold you.
Your model may produce a surface of this shape.
Sitting on the peak of the saddle is NOT a stable location for your solution.
The slightest error to either side and your model rolls off to negative infinity.
It can only safely move forward and backward on the saddle surface.
Or you could be on the tip of a rounded cone. Pointed upwards.
The "Catastrophe" refers to a complex shape that appears stable for some variables but not others.
It tends to make the solution you have found easily disturbed by tiny variations in weighting and starting point.
Or for a statistical model extremely sensitive to the 'training' sequence used to determine model weights.
David Halblom
Flying Fish Fundamentals
Canada Post
Bill,
Good to know Canada post is no faster than USPS, just way more expensive. Catalog arrived today. Thank you.
David
Bill,
Good to know Canada post is no faster than USPS, just way more expensive. Catalog arrived today. Thank you.
David
M
mks
Guest
If Occam were still around, he would describe global warming something like this: "Carbon dioxide lets sun in, but keeps heat from the earth from escaping, therefore, the earth warms."
Since we have increased atmospheric carbon from less than 300 ppm to over 400 ppm since the industrial revolution, the conclusion is inescapable. There are complicating factors, of course, but at its core, it's simple. It doesn't take a scientist to understand global warming. Here's an experiment you can do at home that demonstrates the principle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
Careful not to drink too much of Al Gore's grape KoolAid. The only conclusion that is inescapable is the fact that plenty of people are pushing the global warming Chicken Little narrative so that they can grab power, grab money, or both.
Look here for some facts about global warming. https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
M
mks
Guest
I agree that following the money can be revealing, and Big Oil funds friendsofscience. Fossil fuel companies have way more money to sway opinions than the fledgling renewable energy industry. But the changes are becoming personal for many, as new high temperature records have been set for three years in a row https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature, and severe weather increases. In Louisville, rainstorms of 3" or more have doubled over the last 10 years and we have had at least four "100-year" floods in the last 20 years. But I feel fortunate compared to folks in Houston and Puerto Rico and Santa Barbara.
Really???
Did YOU just say that?
I'm sorry but you're not silly people.......really. You've always been a voice of reason on this board. I've watched you reason before
What we're burning in our gas-guzzling Ferdmobiles IS RENEWABLE ENERGY! We are burning sunlight, absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between fossil fuel and so-called "renewables." And if they're warming the planet, they're ALL warming the planet! And yes, we're using faster than the "fossil fuel" is renewing but this is a transport problem, we're just draining our oil and water reservoirs faster than the new stuff can trickle down..... our albedo is still same as ever, the energy is staying here, it's renewing, it just can't get to the tanks quick enough. And using fuel to make fuel to offset this is teetotally bazackwards.
Do you actually think the water we're pulling from the aquifers is different water than if you collect your roofwater? Or that pulling up fuel is somehow different than cobbling together a Goldbergian contraption to "make" fuel? Collecting solar energy via "wind power" or "solar collection" is flatout stupid, akin to collecting your household bathing/washing/drinking needs from your roof gutters. There is no such thing as "the fledgling renewable energy industry"......They're not "fledgling" companies, they're FAILING companies, built to fail. They're not and never will be viable, they're scams. ALL of the renewable energy platforms are harder on the planet than just using the fuel as the engineers design systems for it to be used in, directly. So IF the use of fossil fuel is warming the planet, the use of "renewables" is warming it faster.
The "problem" (IF it's a problem) is one of consumption, and you, with your research, reasoning and math skills can easily do the math and prove scientifically, mathematically that the use of electric cars, windmills and solar collectors depletes our fossil fuels more quickly than if we just didn't ever build them in the first place.....and whether our consumption (read lifestyle) is causing the planet to warm out of sync with natural cycling is a fun topic for discussion but puh-leeeze
This is the first time I've seen you sucked into buzz-speak
Lawrence W.
New member
From about 1300 to 1800 AD the planet was experiencing abnormally cold conditions when compared to the past 4,000 years. My questions have always been: 1. Why do the environmentalists feel that returning to the average temperatures on earth just prior to the industrial revolution is perfection and a goal that should be pursued at all costs? 2. Why are they hellbent on keeping the planet from warming to more of an average temperature? 3. With NOAA stating that the increased CO2 levels are directly responsible for the earth having experienced a 14% increase in vegetation in the past 30 years, why do the environmentalists feel that a greener earth is a bad thing?
