Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

On 19 Jul, 03:53, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert S <roberts2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On 18 Jul, 20:08, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> >Pre-dawn. Galileo. Kepler. Newton.
>
> Yep.  Galileo came up with some of the methods of modern science.  But
> it took Newton/Leibnitz to come up with the math.  Much of what Kepler
> did was tied up in astrological mysticism like the "music of the
> spheres".

Are you even aware of Kepler's 3 laws of planetary motion?

> Newton was heavily in the occult, alchemy, and other weird
> stuff, and actually spent more time on that than he did on real
> science. But only after the Enlightenment set in was it possible for
> modern science to develop.

Can you give a critique of the actual science that Newton did that
defines it as not being "modern", without venturing off into his
alchemy?

> >Experimentation leading to theories with predictive power.
>
> The ancient Greeks did that.  The Ptolemaic epicycles were predictive.
> But they were wrong.

Er, no, they disagreed with observation. That's why they kept adding
epicycles. And they still disagreed with observation.

> >If this is "pre-dawn" to you,
>
> Yep.
>
> >then you're a fool.
>
> Nope.  Just a little better versed in the history of the science of
> that era than you seem to be (and I've been doing some reading in this
> area before this thread came up).

Evidently not.

> >> Then I have no idea what your silly claim is.  Sunspot numbers are
> >> irrelevant except for observing the cycles.
>
> >Bizarre statement. The number of sunspots, which is strong correlated
> >with the energy the Earth recieves
>
> No, not "strongly".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_composite.gif

Try looking at it this time.

> >> >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.
>
> >Maybe, if you look hard, you can see something other than the 11 year
> >cycle.
>
> >Try. Can you see some trend there, or is that beyond you?
>
> I'm not interested in making up hypotheses that I'm not going to test.
>
>
>
> >> >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.
>
> >Detail an alternative with better retrodiction.
>
> There isn't one.  But it isn't science yet.  Just wannabe science.
>
> >Come up with an model that retrodicts the Vostok cores.
>
> Not my field, and not my interest.  I am NOT required to come up with
> a better theory than one which isn't done.
>
> >I'm sure to you, distance from the Earth to the Sun has no impact on
> >the Earth's climate,
>
> I'm sure it does, but not much.
>
> Summer in the Southern hemisphere isn't notably warmer than summer in
> the Northern, even though one occurs at perihelion and one at
> aphelion.

There a far higher percentage of the southern hemisphere is ocean.
Which moderates.

Again, things that happen once a year, or once every 11 years aren't
especially fruitful places to look for climate altering factors. And
no one is saying they are.