Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately what you wrote is equivalent to the mythical "640k is enough for anyone". We will of course reach the "theoretical" limit, and manufacture food synthetically well before then. Maybe you should brush up on your science knowledge;)
:) If you do not agree with a ten year plateau and subsequent cooling then I'll just not agree with there having been twenty years of warming. You can't cherry pick data and still claim to perform science.
When it comes to anything before the 70s we are in uncertain territory due to not having troposphere temperatures. Your claims about not being able to match the first and second halves at the same time is just one of many opinions.
You can't be serious. The whole point is that the WHOLE last half century has been stronger than any period of similar length for as long as we've studied the sun.
one of which (solar) makes predictions which are wrong by an order of magnitude
Currently neither of them can explain what we're seeing. The amount of research and funding having gone into them also differs by a huge amount.
(I also don't agree with your remarks - even the wikipedia article on Svensmark's hypothesis has more info on the various claims and counter claims than you seem to display here. You seem to believe science in progress can be "true" and "false" to a degree it cannot)
No, I'm quite confident that we'll only need to wait two more years until the AGW crowd becomes very quiet. Like the sun.
(You make a serious scientific error when claiming "disproven" btw. No, the hypothesis is not falsified. There isn't enough data, but the data that exists is both in support as well as not. You should, of course, know this)
The allegations aren't vague, and a problem with the scientific process is very much on topic.
I claim that human herd mentality, as many times before throughout history, causes unnecessary hardship for some scientific breakthroughs.
My "shiny epicycles" should've given that away.
Now, please answer the question: If Hansen was your boss, would you publish an AGW-sceptic paper?
(I've read most of the papers you've cited, and also Svensmark's rebuttals of course. It's still a hypothesis with a better match, and more Occam'ish, than the IPCC CO2 wildly spiralling feedback nonsense)
I'm sorry, but posting your own (faulty) speculation is a bad argument.
1) No the trends aren't flat 2) I disagree with "it" having been tested 3) We don't know enough about ocean currents to claim that time lag cannot explain what we're seeing
(There is a 4 as well, of course, and that is that anything that's verified against surface temperatures is in doubt)
I'm a bit puzzled as to how you believe science is advanced.
Question: If this was your boss, would you try to publish an AGW sceptic paper?
(I say try, because some who do get them refused without explanation)
"James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists [sic], will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer."
I don't get what you're trying to accomplish. I'm not talking about TSI. As far as I know, no one is talking about TSI except you just now.
Svensmark has a nice hypothesis, that fits extremely well with the historical record, and is testable. (And tests are, as far a I know, on their way)
Oh, and yes, they were indeed quite strong. If we use sun spots as the proxy, the solar cycles in the second half of the 20th century were actually the strongest combined in several hundred years (since measurements began).
Yes - exactly. The temps have been flat and now going down for a while and it seems we're in for some very cold years ahead. If the sun stays quiet like this we're in for a new period of river-freezing winters in northern europe.
The sun was very active a few years ago when we indeed saw some slight warming (which caused this whole global warming - sorry - climate change panic.
I've read it, and I know which section you've misunderstood. That's why I thought it would be funny to ask you to quote it - since then you might see where you went wrong.
So, again. Please quote the section you claim exists.
Maybe it was hard to figure out what you said and what you quoted. I usually use italics to point out which is which.
Anyway, Svensmark is a scientist, yes.
(You seem to believe that there's a consensus around the effects of GH gasses. There's not. It's likely that we will find a much better explanation for the small warming between 197x and ~2000 and the whole CO2 nonsense will go away)
I see no reasons why we would need to keep biological bodies around. Uploading, as I see it, is absolutely a win-win situation.
(I wasn't just pointing out that you can't prove whether we're in a simulation - no matter what you believe, unless you're religious of course, the concept of "you" is a simulation created by your brain anyway)
Sorry, but while you're stating quite a lot that really doesn't help since that's either your opinion or an unproven hypothesis. Science (as opposed to religion) has no problems with competing hypothesises where testing and falsifiability are the means to find the better model.
(You also seem to be very confused as to how the current thinking goes with solar influense - why do you believe the last 40 years aren't a good match? The cycles have been very strong and quite short)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately what you wrote is equivalent to the mythical "640k is enough for anyone". We will of course reach the "theoretical" limit, and manufacture food synthetically well before then. Maybe you should brush up on your science knowledge ;)
The earth only has so much arable land, and that can only sustain so many people
Not true, unless you believe we will not let technological advancements impact our food (nutrients) source.
The only real limit is the amount of solar output.
This has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth in general. No one is using a thermometer in cities and averaging them out.
That's exactly how it is done. Please visit http://surfacestations.org/ to see what a problem it is, as well.
Who disputes that there are unknown factors still in all theories on climate?
Actually, if anyone would claim that there aren't then I'd immideately claim they're not scientists :)
(And no, there are no models at all that have made any _predictions_ of value)
:) If you do not agree with a ten year plateau and subsequent cooling then I'll just not agree with there having been twenty years of warming. You can't cherry pick data and still claim to perform science.
When it comes to anything before the 70s we are in uncertain territory due to not having troposphere temperatures. Your claims about not being able to match the first and second halves at the same time is just one of many opinions.
in the last half century
You can't be serious. The whole point is that the WHOLE last half century has been stronger than any period of similar length for as long as we've studied the sun.
over the last 50 years
You're actually the only one I can find claiming that. Others generally stop at "the last 20 years" and some at "the last 8-9" years.
one of which (solar) makes predictions which are wrong by an order of magnitude
Currently neither of them can explain what we're seeing. The amount of research and funding having gone into them also differs by a huge amount.
(I also don't agree with your remarks - even the wikipedia article on Svensmark's hypothesis has more info on the various claims and counter claims than you seem to display here. You seem to believe science in progress can be "true" and "false" to a degree it cannot)
You don't even know what the solar trend looks like
Weird statement to make, since I just corrected you on that subject.
*smile*
No, I'm quite confident that we'll only need to wait two more years until the AGW crowd becomes very quiet. Like the sun.
(You make a serious scientific error when claiming "disproven" btw. No, the hypothesis is not falsified. There isn't enough data, but the data that exists is both in support as well as not. You should, of course, know this)
... and thus we're back to having two competing hypotheses, both relying on unknown feedback mechanisms and neither having been tested enough.
Do you see where the "YOU WILL NOT SPEAK UP AGAINST AGW OR DIE!" error lies?
The allegations aren't vague, and a problem with the scientific process is very much on topic.
I claim that human herd mentality, as many times before throughout history, causes unnecessary hardship for some scientific breakthroughs.
My "shiny epicycles" should've given that away.
Now, please answer the question: If Hansen was your boss, would you publish an AGW-sceptic paper?
(I've read most of the papers you've cited, and also Svensmark's rebuttals of course. It's still a hypothesis with a better match, and more Occam'ish, than the IPCC CO2 wildly spiralling feedback nonsense)
I'm sorry, but posting your own (faulty) speculation is a bad argument.
1) No the trends aren't flat
2) I disagree with "it" having been tested
3) We don't know enough about ocean currents to claim that time lag cannot explain what we're seeing
(There is a 4 as well, of course, and that is that anything that's verified against surface temperatures is in doubt)
I'm a bit puzzled as to how you believe science is advanced.
Question: If this was your boss, would you try to publish an AGW sceptic paper?
(I say try, because some who do get them refused without explanation)
"James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists [sic], will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/22/jim-hansen-calls-for-energy-company-execs-to-be-jailed/
I like science. The AGW frenzy isn't about science any longer though, it has become religion/cult. You're not allowed to be sceptic.
Shiny epicycles.
I don't get what you're trying to accomplish. I'm not talking about TSI. As far as I know, no one is talking about TSI except you just now.
Svensmark has a nice hypothesis, that fits extremely well with the historical record, and is testable. (And tests are, as far a I know, on their way)
Oh, and yes, they were indeed quite strong. If we use sun spots as the proxy, the solar cycles in the second half of the 20th century were actually the strongest combined in several hundred years (since measurements began).
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/solarcycleupdate/ssn_yearlyNew2_strip3.jpg
I think you mean something else than I do with solar activity. Yes it increased - SC22 and SC23 were quite strong.
Yes - exactly. The temps have been flat and now going down for a while and it seems we're in for some very cold years ahead. If the sun stays quiet like this we're in for a new period of river-freezing winters in northern europe.
The sun was very active a few years ago when we indeed saw some slight warming (which caused this whole global warming - sorry - climate change panic.
I've read it, and I know which section you've misunderstood. That's why I thought it would be funny to ask you to quote it - since then you might see where you went wrong.
So, again. Please quote the section you claim exists.
I'm simply pointing out that the link does not support his statement :) I fail to see how that's "trollish".
Maybe it was hard to figure out what you said and what you quoted. I usually use italics to point out which is which.
Anyway, Svensmark is a scientist, yes.
(You seem to believe that there's a consensus around the effects of GH gasses. There's not. It's likely that we will find a much better explanation for the small warming between 197x and ~2000 and the whole CO2 nonsense will go away)
I watched the first part of the video
I found the error! Please reply again when you've watched all four.
I see no reasons why we would need to keep biological bodies around. Uploading, as I see it, is absolutely a win-win situation.
(I wasn't just pointing out that you can't prove whether we're in a simulation - no matter what you believe, unless you're religious of course, the concept of "you" is a simulation created by your brain anyway)
You value reality? How do you know you're in "reality" right now? What is "you"?
(In reality, pun intended, "you" are currently living in a simulation created by your neural pathways)
No, you didn't. I have no idea why you claimed that yet again :)
Sorry, but while you're stating quite a lot that really doesn't help since that's either your opinion or an unproven hypothesis. Science (as opposed to religion) has no problems with competing hypothesises where testing and falsifiability are the means to find the better model.
(You also seem to be very confused as to how the current thinking goes with solar influense - why do you believe the last 40 years aren't a good match? The cycles have been very strong and quite short)