A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Major analysis confirms global warming is real



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 26th 11, 01:54 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Peter Webb[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 407
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real


"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 01:30:04 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Funny, you didn't answer my questions.


They've all been answered before- and by people who, unlike yourself,
understand science.


Sorry, yesterday when I wrote the questions I wasn't aware that there were
already expert answers already available on the internet.

Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?

Here are the questions again:

'Take for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ord_(NASA).svg
The 5 year average global temperature was lower in 1963 than at any time
since 1935. Was "global warming" occurring in (say) 1961? How do you know?
What calculation based on temperatures (which is what was measured)
determines if "global warming" is occurring or not occurring at some point
in time?'


Your science denialist tactic of asking the same questions over and
over, ignoring the answers already given,


You appear to be confusing me with somebody else. I personally have never
asked if the earth was warming in (say) 1961. I still don't know. Hopefully
the link you provide will answer my question, when you post it.


might work with the peanut
gallery on pseudoscience sites like that of Watts, but you're on a
science forum here... way out of your depth.


I have no idea what you are talking about.

I just want a scientific term defined. That term being "global warming".
Such that given a complete temperature record, the definition will allow us
to determine if global warming is occurring or not at any particular time.

This is needed because the referenced paper talked about global temperatures
at different times, but you seem to be talking about "global warming". To
see if your conclusions follow, we need a way of translating statements
about temperature into statements about global warming, which means a
definition of global warming.

Anyway, even though I only wrote the questions yesterday, according to you
the answers are readily available on the internet. Or maybe you could just
provide your definition of "global warming"; it is a term that you use and
hence I would assume that you know what it means, or at least have some
meaning in mind.


  #22  
Old October 26th 11, 02:05 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Peter Webb[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 407
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real


"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Oct 25, 1:48 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

It doesn't even define what "global warming" is, and nor has anybody in
this
thread.


What is global warming?

It's an increase in the worldwide mean temperature, due to increased
levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

________________________________________
In that case, the study did *not* confirm global warming is real. It did not
consider the causes of warming at all, it only verified that the earth has
indeed warmed and cooled at varous times over the last 200 years.

By your definition, global warming did not occur at the end of previous ice
ages. (Whilst the temperatures increased, this was not preceded by increases
in greenhouse gas levels.)

And its still a very poor definition. It doesn't actually answer the
question. Here is the example I gave befo

Take for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ord_(NASA).svg
The 5 year average global temperature was lower in 1963 than at any time
since 1935. Was "global warming" occurring in (say) 1961? How do you know?
What calculation based on temperatures (which is what was measured)
determines if "global warming" is occurring or not occurring at some point
in time?

I can't see how your definition answers the question as to whether there was
"global warming" at any time between 1935 and 1963. In fact I can't see how
it can be used to determine that global warming was occuring at any point in
time.

Could you provide a worked example which shows us how a global temperature
record (such as that confirmed by this study) can be used to determine if
global warming is occuring at any point in time?

Thanks in advance



Peter Webb


  #23  
Old October 26th 11, 04:37 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?


You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand them- as
demonstrated many times. I'm not wasting my time on a science denier.
  #24  
Old October 26th 11, 05:39 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Peter Webb[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 407
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real


"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?


You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand them- as
demonstrated many times. I'm not wasting my time on a science denier.


So you can't give me a link to the answers.

Which rather makes a lie of your statement that you have provided them many
times before.

Here is a hint, for those unfamiliar with science. If you can't define a
term, then you can't make scientific statements regarding that term. Have a
look at what regular sciences do. For example, Einstein's theory or
relativity states there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. Einstein
first defined this concept (and some others regarding simultaneity) before
making any statements concerning its properties.

In fact, in all sciences you will find the terms that it uses to be well
defined. Chemistry defines terms like pH, mole, triple point, partial
pressure, polymer, ion, valence and many others, which is a pre-condition
for being able to talk about properties like pH, mole, triple point, partial
pressure, polymer, ion, and valence.

If climate "science" is to make statements about "global warming" (as indeed
the title of this thread does), then it has to define the term.

All I want is the definition of this term, such that given a temperature
record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that time.

For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?

It is a very simple question. It just requires you to define "global
warming". Why won't you do that? Does it have a definition, or is it a
meaningless term?




  #25  
Old October 26th 11, 11:06 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
They've all been answered before- and by people who, unlike

yourself,
understand science.

Sorry, yesterday when I wrote the questions I wasn't aware that

there were
already expert answers already available on the internet.


There are lots of things you aren't aware of....


Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?


Doing so is pointless, since you'll just misinterpret the link, then
you'll forget about it and re-ask the same question again, and again,
and again...


Here are the questions again:


'Take for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...e_Record_(NASA
).svg
The 5 year average global temperature was lower in 1963 than at any

time
since 1935. Was "global warming" occurring in (say) 1961? How do

you know?
What calculation based on temperatures (which is what was measured)
determines if "global warming" is occurring or not occurring at

some point
in time?'


In that particular case no calculation is necessary - a quick glance
at the figure you linked to is enough. Unless you're blind
(physically or mentally) that is....

You appear to be confusing me with somebody else. I personally have

never
asked if the earth was warming in (say) 1961.


There you go again! You add or change a small detail in your
question, then you claim your question is completely new even though
it's just a small variation of questions you've already asked many
times before.


I just want a scientific term defined. That term being "global

warming".

That definition is simple: there is a global warming if the global
mean temperature increases. It's no more complex that that.

Such that given a complete temperature record


Sorry but you'll never reach that ideal. All available temperature
records are and will be incomplete. That's what you'll have to work
with. If you require perfection, you'll never be able to draw any
conclusions.

And here's where your agenda reveals itself: you want to avoid the
obvious conclusions, and you do so by requesting unattainable
perfection.
  #26  
Old October 26th 11, 11:32 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Peter Webb[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 407
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real


"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
They've all been answered before- and by people who, unlike

yourself,
understand science.

Sorry, yesterday when I wrote the questions I wasn't aware that

there were
already expert answers already available on the internet.


There are lots of things you aren't aware of....


Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?


Doing so is pointless, since you'll just misinterpret the link, then
you'll forget about it and re-ask the same question again, and again, and
again...


Ohh. So you don't know either.

So typical of cranks with crank theories. You use terms that you don't
define, you claim that evidence for your beliefs is all over the internet
(but always refuse to provide even a single credible link), you make
ad-hominem attacks when cornered, you refuse to have your theories disected
using the scientific method ...



Here are the questions again:


'Take for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...e_Record_(NASA
).svg
The 5 year average global temperature was lower in 1963 than at any

time
since 1935. Was "global warming" occurring in (say) 1961? How do

you know?
What calculation based on temperatures (which is what was measured)
determines if "global warming" is occurring or not occurring at

some point
in time?'


In that particular case no calculation is necessary - a quick glance at
the figure you linked to is enough. Unless you're blind (physically or
mentally) that is....


So, was global warming occuring in 1961?

How did you determine your answer?

Why do you cranks always refuse to answer specific questions about the
scientific basis of your beliefs?




You appear to be confusing me with somebody else. I personally have

never
asked if the earth was warming in (say) 1961.


There you go again! You add or change a small detail in your question,
then you claim your question is completely new even though it's just a
small variation of questions you've already asked many times before.


And never been answered.

Was global warming occuring in 1961?

What criteria determine if global warming is occuring at some point?

Why don't you just answer the question? Or point me to where the question
has been answered in the past?




I just want a scientific term defined. That term being "global

warming".
That definition is simple: there is a global warming if the global mean
temperature increases. It's no more complex that that.


Increases since when? The day before? The year before? The decade before? An
increase implies a difference between two numbers. I am guessing that one of
the numbers is the average global temperature for that year. I am also
guessing that the other is the average global temperature during some
different year. Is this correct? What is the "other" year which is used for
comparison?

Have you got a single calculation which shows that global warming has ever
occured? Was global warming happening in 1961? If it was, when did it
increase from which means that global warming was occuring? If it wasn't
when was the period over which there was no temperature difference?



Such that given a complete temperature record


Sorry but you'll never reach that ideal. All available temperature records
are and will be incomplete. That's what you'll have to work with. If you
require perfection, you'll never be able to draw any conclusions.


I realise that their are limits to measurement. That is not the issue. Lets
imagine that you had access to complete and accurate temperature records -
say the records which have been published for the last 150 years are
perfectly correct. What formula/algorithm/definition allows you to determine
when global warming did or not occur within that period of (assumed) perfect
and complete temperature records?



And here's where your agenda reveals itself: you want to avoid the obvious
conclusions, and you do so by requesting unattainable perfection.


No. I do not ask for any perfection. I don't actually care about the
possible inaccuracies in the temperature record; they are the best we have.
I simply want a definition of "global warming", such that given an idealised
perfect and complete temperature record the periods during which global
warming occurred can be identified.

Imagine that the all of the values given in the graph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ord_(NASA).svg

are absolutely correct and perfect.

During which years was global warming occurring? How did you work that out?

  #27  
Old October 26th 11, 05:01 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:32:06 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
In that particular case no calculation is necessary - a quick

glance at
the figure you linked to is enough. Unless you're blind

(physically or
mentally) that is....


So, was global warming occuring in 1961?


What's so special about the year 1961? Woukdnt't it be more
interesting to know about the global warming over the entire time
period of the diagram?


There you go again! You add or change a small detail in your

question,
then you claim your question is completely new even though it's

just a
small variation of questions you've already asked many times

before.

And never been answered.


You didn't understand the answers......


I just want a scientific term defined. That term being "global

warming".
That definition is simple: there is a global warming if the

global mean
temperature increases. It's no more complex that that.


Increases since when? The day before? The year before? The decade

before? An
increase implies a difference between two numbers. I am guessing

that one of
the numbers is the average global temperature for that year. I am

also
guessing that the other is the average global temperature during

some
different year. Is this correct? What is the "other" year which is

used for
comparison?


See? Immediately you pick apart the question with those gory little
details. There are no fixed answers to all your little questions --
you have to make wise choices of those parameters. Of course you
don't know what 'wise' is, that's why you ask those sillyquestions.

Have you got a single calculation which shows that global warming

has ever occurred?

No calculations needed - if there neved had been any global warming,
it would still be as cold as during the ice ages. Obviously that's
not the case, therefore we've had global warmings.

Was global warming happening in 1961? If it was, when did it
increase from which means that global warming was occuring? If it

wasn't
when was the period over which there was no temperature difference?


.....and how do you intend to use the answers to those silly little
questions?


I realise that their are limits to measurement. That is not the

issue. Lets
imagine that you had access to complete and accurate temperature

records -
say the records which have been published for the last 150 years

are
perfectly correct. What formula/algorithm/definition allows you to

determine
when global warming did or not occur within that period of

(assumed) perfect
and complete temperature records?


No single formula is sufficient, you must supplement your formulae
with wise judgement. Of course the word 'wise' is completely alien to
you, so I expect you to go bonkers when trying to reply to this.


And here's where your agenda reveals itself: you want to avoid

the obvious
conclusions, and you do so by requesting unattainable perfection.


No. I do not ask for any perfection. I don't actually care about

the
possible inaccuracies in the temperature record; they are the best

we have.
I simply want a definition of "global warming", such that given an

idealised
perfect and complete temperature record the periods during which

global
warming occurred can be identified.


You should care about the inaccuracies because they do matter....


Imagine that the all of the values given in the graph



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...e_Record_(NASA
).svg

are absolutely correct and perfect.


During which years was global warming occurring? How did you work

that out?

The answer to that question isn't particularly interesting. It's the
overall picture that's interesting.
  #28  
Old October 26th 11, 07:01 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,410
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real

On Oct 26, 6:01*pm, Paul Schlyter wrote:

The answer to that question isn't particularly interesting. It's the
overall picture that's interesting.


Webb seems to suffer from the same hideous aberration as kelleher.
Except one asks endless stupid questions and ignores the answers and
everyday reality. While the other gives endless stupid answers to
questions which were never asked and ignores infant level tests of
reality.
  #29  
Old October 27th 11, 06:07 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Peter Webb[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 407
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real


"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:32:06 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
In that particular case no calculation is necessary - a quick

glance at
the figure you linked to is enough. Unless you're blind

(physically or
mentally) that is....


So, was global warming occuring in 1961?


What's so special about the year 1961? Woukdnt't it be more interesting to
know about the global warming over the entire time period of the diagram?


I just picked 1961 as an example, so you could illustrate the rule for
determining if global warming is occuring at a particular time. Any or all
other years would suffice equally well.



There you go again! You add or change a small detail in your

question,
then you claim your question is completely new even though it's

just a
small variation of questions you've already asked many times

before.

And never been answered.


You didn't understand the answers......


I never got any.

I am just after a definition of "global warming" sufficient to determine
whether it is occuring at any particular time (assuming you had full
knowledge of the variables that you use, such as a complete record of
previous and subsequent global temperatures).

Most scientific definitions take about a sentence. For example I can define
"Mole", "Valency", "Acceleration", "Prokaryotic", and a bazillion other
words by science in a sentence.

What is the problem with simply giving a definition of "global warming" in
the same manner as real sciences define their terms?





I just want a scientific term defined. That term being "global
warming".
That definition is simple: there is a global warming if the

global mean
temperature increases. It's no more complex that that.


Increases since when? The day before? The year before? The decade

before? An
increase implies a difference between two numbers. I am guessing

that one of
the numbers is the average global temperature for that year. I am

also
guessing that the other is the average global temperature during

some
different year. Is this correct? What is the "other" year which is

used for
comparison?


See? Immediately you pick apart the question with those gory little
details. There are no fixed answers to all your little questions --
you have to make wise choices of those parameters.


So "global warming" has no fixed meaning?

It can mean whatever you want, and you don't have to say what it is? So I
could pick the period of the baseline to commence 20 million years ago, in
which case we are undergoing global cooling, or I could pick it as 150 years
in which case we are undergoing global warming?

Are their any other fields of science that you know of where key terms have
no fixed meaning?

And what is the meaning of "Global Warming" in the statement "Major analysis
confirms global warming is real"? If you use a 20 million year baseline for
the measurement, then it is certainly false. Its probably false if you use a
10 year baseline.

Without a fixed meaning to the term "global warming". I am struggling to
interpret what the statement "global warming is real" is actually supposed
to mean in terms of the temperature record. Do you know? Can you tell me?


Of course you don't know what 'wise' is, that's why you ask those
sillyquestions.

Have you got a single calculation which shows that global warming

has ever occurred?

No calculations needed - if there neved had been any global warming, it
would still be as cold as during the ice ages. Obviously that's not the
case, therefore we've had global warmings.


But when?

Was their global warming in 1961?

Can you identify a single year, in which global warming occured, and tell us
how you determined that global warming occured in thet year?


Was global warming happening in 1961? If it was, when did it increase
from which means that global warming was occuring? If it

wasn't
when was the period over which there was no temperature difference?


....and how do you intend to use the answers to those silly little
questions?


By looking at how you determined if global warming occured in 1961, and use
this to reverse engineer a definition for global warming.

Treat it as a worked example.

So, was their global warming in 1961, and how did you determine the answer?





I realise that their are limits to measurement. That is not the

issue. Lets
imagine that you had access to complete and accurate temperature

records -
say the records which have been published for the last 150 years

are
perfectly correct. What formula/algorithm/definition allows you to

determine
when global warming did or not occur within that period of

(assumed) perfect
and complete temperature records?


No single formula is sufficient, you must supplement your formulae with
wise judgement. Of course the word 'wise' is completely alien to you, so I
expect you to go bonkers when trying to reply to this.


It has no fixed meaning?

You can change its meaning to suit whatever argument you want? And you don't
even have to state which meaning you are using?

What definition of "global warming" applies to the subject of this thread,
"Major analysis confirms global warming is real"? Or is it undefined, in
which case this statement is meaningless?





And here's where your agenda reveals itself: you want to avoid

the obvious
conclusions, and you do so by requesting unattainable perfection.


No. I do not ask for any perfection. I don't actually care about

the
possible inaccuracies in the temperature record; they are the best

we have.
I simply want a definition of "global warming", such that given an

idealised
perfect and complete temperature record the periods during which

global
warming occurred can be identified.


You should care about the inaccuracies because they do matter....


Not to a definition of global warming, they don't. There are lots of
physical things that are hard to measure in practice, but nevertheless have
precise definitions. It is very hard to accurately measure the specific heat
or pH of a substance in practice, but they both have very precise
definitions - as indeed all scientific terms do (except apparently "global
warming", "extreme weather", and some other from climate "science".)




Imagine that the all of the values given in the graph



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...e_Record_(NASA
).svg

are absolutely correct and perfect.


During which years was global warming occurring? How did you work

that out?

The answer to that question isn't particularly interesting. It's the
overall picture that's interesting.



Why don't you answer the question?

I personally am very interested by what the term "global warming" is
supposed to mean, because I hear it a lot but have never seen a definition.

Now you tell me it has no fixed meaning at all, and there is no way of
determining of global warming was occurring at any specific time in history.

Which then makes the statement " Major analysis confirms global warming is
real" completely meaningless, because "global warming" is undefined.

Which, incidentally, is the point I first made when entering this thread.

What is it with cranks inventing words to support their theories but never
defining them? We have enough problems with relativity cranks talking about
the "ether" without defining what they mean, without you AGW believers doing
the same with "global warming".


  #30  
Old October 27th 11, 06:15 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Peter Webb[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 407
Default Major analysis confirms global warming is real


"Chris.B" wrote in message
...
On Oct 26, 6:01 pm, Paul Schlyter wrote:

The answer to that question isn't particularly interesting. It's the
overall picture that's interesting.


Webb seems to suffer from the same hideous aberration as kelleher.
Except one asks endless stupid questions and ignores the answers and
everyday reality.

___________________________________
Nobody has yet given me a definition of what "global warming" is supposed to
mean, such that given a global temperature record we can determine when
global warming was occuring and when it wasn't.

Can you tell me please?

You use the term; surely you can tell me what it means.

For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?

(Or pick any other date or time in history at all).

In the absence of a proper definition, a worked example will do fine.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks! Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 2 February 27th 10 04:27 AM
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" Jonathan Policy 9 December 22nd 06 08:19 AM
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" Jonathan History 9 December 22nd 06 08:19 AM
NASA Survey Confirms Climate Warming Impact on Polar Ice Sheets(Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 March 9th 06 04:10 PM
Global warming v. Solar warming Roger Steer UK Astronomy 1 October 18th 05 10:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.