Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

Robert S <roberts218e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> The data, and the predictions, weren't that advanced, except by the
>> standards of a very ignorant era.
>
>Amazing. Of course. But it's good enough to show massive correlation
>between different data obtained by different astronomers. It's good
>enough to show a long trend lasting a long time.
>
>The astronomy of a 1,000 years hence will probably trump what we do
>now in terms of accuracy. Does that render our data useless?

To them?  In most cases, probably so.  But unless they have thrown out
our models of the universe, not to the degree that 300 year-old data
from the pre-dawn of modern science.

>Do you think our data would be of no use to future astronomers who
>were studying long trends and tem****al events?

It would be of some use, but not likely much, unless we are gathering
just the sort of data they are needing, for purposes and under
controls that are sufficient.

>> The data is too spotty to tell.  I've seen attempts to superimpose
>> cycles on the earlier data, but they aren't very convincing.
>
>Nasa thinks differently:
>
>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html

The evidence for the Maunder minimum consists of a LOT more than
sunspot numbers, and indeed the sunspot numbers wouldn't tell a thing
if the other observations hadn't led to a hypothesis.  They just
aren't that strong as evidence.  (And note that the article says that
the sunspot cycle disappeared.  Yet you can still find charts that
assign minima and maxima during that period.  One of them is
completely wrong.  Looking at the data myself, I thing the answer is
completely indeterminate.

>> >And longer time-scale trends emerge.
>>
>> >And we have modern correlation of sunspot numbers and solar output.
>> >And we have a mini-ice back then. What does all that say to you?
>>
>> Nothing.  Because the variations in solar output associated with
>> sunspot cycles are too small to make any difference.  If they did,
>> then we would see some sign of a sunspot cycle in charts like this:
>>
>>
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec...
>>
>> We don't.
>
>Your obsession that 11 year cycles don't cause climate change is
>bewildering. They don't. No-one is saying they do. They get blurred
>out.

Then I have no idea what your silly claim is.  Sunspot numbers are
irrelevant except for observing the cycles.

>Peaks that vary over time with long trends are different. And cause
>changes in climate.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot-bfly.gif

That picture says nothing about climate.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

I see an incompletely specified hypothesis
<The Milankovitch theory[1] of climate change is not perfectly worked
< out; in particular, the largest observed response is at the
< 100,000-year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this
< scale, in regard to the ice ages. Various feedbacks (from carbon
< dioxide, or from ice sheet dynamics) are invoked to explain this
< discrepancy.

In other words this is at the level of Aristotle epicycles.  The
predictions fail, so they keep adding variables on the assumption that
the theory is correct even though it fails to make validated
predictions.

lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Lojban language www.lojban.org