@BrianK

Quote:

At this time

In this thread and 1 thread ago. Time is flying...

Quote:

In addition, the starting dates and ending dates on each land mass appear to be different. Personally yes I want to see more work at understanding and defining when this period was truly a global occurrance. To date there are some regional indications that some areas might have been warmer than today but the evidence that this was a Global phenonmena is, IMO, still under research.

I understand: you complain there is not enough evidences with almost 700 papers demonstrating MWP using observations but you have no problem with the unprovable and unverifiable IPCC modelling. A clear case a scientific disruption.

Quote:

To the heart of the matter the problem is your incorrect use of unanimous for 'scientific consensus'. Scientific consensus is the general agreement of the collective position in a theory by scientists in that field. It's not the unanimous view, as you said that never exists.

Fallaciously putting 'unanimous' word in my mouth to deform the meaning of my sentence. I treat the rest accordingly.

Quote:

Varous of your points you list are false. For example (2) you posted the UAH data, and others, which demonstrated temperature rises since 1998.

Nothing than hard cold data to silently extinguish wrong claims:


Quote:

And certainly temps haven't been falling since 2001.

And again:

Data from here.

That makes you wrong on two counts. But you knew it.

Quote:

How and what Mann does remains to be seen. And how he does it may be more akin to Wegmann it may be more off

Many 'remain' or 'maybe' here. So no 'scientific consensus' with Mann then. That's OK, it is how Science works.

Quote:

So any area of study is under science and science defines what a study is?

Twisting my words once again. Reread what I wrote. Mathematics is a Science in every meaning a sane person could think of it.

Quote:

If you actually read how I defined the two this shouldn't be a problem.

I have read and my conclusion is that in the real world, no one really care with your 'imaginative' and obviously wrong definition as I demonstrated: it is more interesting to study flies flying.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I understand: you complain there is not enough evidences with almost 700 papers demonstrating MWP using observations but you have no problem with the unprovable and unverifiable IPCC modelling. A clear case a scientific disruption.

The vast majority of the MWP papers have to do with the climate and detection in Europe. Europe != world. Other papers determine things such as Antarctica warming lagged nearly 500 years on the European warming. Things, at present, appear out of phase for a world wide effect.

Of course now we see you cry the 700 papers of MWP perfectly correct observation on a world wide effect but the thousands of papers on the same current period are wrong. A clear case of a scientific disruption.

Quote:

Fallaciously putting 'unanimous' word in my mouth to deform the meaning of my sentence

The only way your sentence draws it's conclusion is through a incongruent use of 'scientific consensus'. You're welcome to restate to fit the definition if it's somehow being miscommunicated.

On the claim of no temperature rises since 1998
Quote:

Nothing than hard cold data to silently extinguish wrong claims:

Egads do we have to do this again? Look at the graph. Jan 2000 is -.2., Jan 2002 is .15, Jan 2004 is .4. There's a rise from Jan 2000 vs Jan 2002 and Jan2000 vs 2004 and Jan 2002 vs 2004... I think the problem here is you are looking at the line which describes the difference in change between 1998 and 2009. It's a net cooling in that period but temps did rise during this period.

Re: falling temps since 2001... Again look your graph temps rose and fell. There is not a consistent falling effect. Together these two items are wrong your point #2. But you knew it we did this dance before.

Quote:

Many 'remain' or 'maybe' here. So no 'scientific consensus' with Mann then

Wow congrats on another misuse.

@TMTisFree

Hmmm Volcano’s are becoming very active and now Italy gets hit by a decent earthquake, and last week northern Ca USA had and earthquake. This is all stuff the Planet X people were talking about.


Need to find a yearly seismographic chart to find out if the earth is going super active.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK

Quote:

The vast majority of the MWP papers have to do with the climate and detection in Europe. Europe != world. Other papers determine things such as Antarctica warming lagged nearly 500 years on the European warming. Things, at present, appear out of phase for a world wide effect.

Pure dishonesty or intentional ignorance. In either case typical cognitive dissonance of a blind believer.
Quote:

"People don't like to see or hear things that conflict with their deeply held beliefs or wishes. An ancient response to such bad news was to kill the messenger."

- Dr Elliot Aronson 1995
You fit very well. Go ahead alone.

Quote:

Of course now we see you cry the 700 papers of MWP perfectly correct observation on a world wide effect but the thousands of papers on the same current period are wrong.

Still waiting for a listing of papers others than the usual suspects since about 1000 posts...still waiting for greenhouse btw...

Quote:

Egads do we have to do this again?

Bragging degree in Mathematics without knowing it is a Science and unable to correctly read plots in general and trends particularly. I am all but unimpressed. Science does not advance by rewriting it. Ah sorry, forgot you are definitely not a scientist per your own definition: quidam has the right to be wrong on all count. Or color-blind you are?

Quote:

There is not a consistent falling effect.

What is consistent is your ability to twist simple data that do not fit your preconception. Nothing surprising in fact given your track record, it is your best field.

Quote:

Wow congrats on another misuse.

Put your glasses, I am quoting yourself.

Keep the blinders tightly and enjoy the interglacial.
Currently putting CO² in atmosphere here, as much as is possible.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 06-Apr-2009 at 09:33 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

Quote:

Hmmm Volcano’s are becoming very active and now Italy gets hit by a decent earthquake

Yes, at least 150 people dead at this time.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

Quote:

Need to find a yearly seismographic chart to find out if the earth is going super active.

Something like that?
Search around, there are plenty of data in many formats with maps, etc

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

Quote:

Hmmm Volcano’s are becoming very active and now Italy gets hit by a decent earthquake, and last week northern Ca USA had and earthquake. This is all stuff the Planet X people were talking about. Need to find a yearly seismographic chart to find out if the earth is going super active.

An earthquake in the Mediterranean. Wow, now that's something that's never happened before and needs imaginary planets to be explained...

Sorry, I've been following this conversation with great interest and I do not want to intervene in the GW or no-GW side of things, it's informative on both sides, but this "oh my god there's a new planet, everything happening around us is because of it!" balls is getting pretty silly.

Here's the seismic hazard map of Europe. Note the hazard zones and where the earthquake was.

Last edited by Zardoz on 06-Apr-2009 at 10:29 PM.
Last edited by Zardoz on 06-Apr-2009 at 10:29 PM.

_________________

@Zardoz

Quote:

Here's the seismic hazard map of Europe. Note the hazard zones and where the earthquake was.

thx but what I'm looking for is a seismic map to tell me the number of seismic "events" is growing based on info today vs years ago. If Planet x is real then we should be able to graph steady growing seismic activity for the last few years. Their should be no doubts towards the end of 2009 start of 2010 if this is real.

btw: I have an open mind regarding this matter. I see a few things right with the theory and a few things missing. One stupid thing is the name...if its a second Sun moving toward us it should be named Sol 2 and not Planet x.

Last edited by Interesting on 07-Apr-2009 at 01:02 AM.
Last edited by Interesting on 07-Apr-2009 at 01:00 AM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Define "years ago".

Earthquakes in Europe has some info on the areas we're discussing right now (since this was triggered by the earthquake in Italy). There's a great number of fault lines in the region and it has always had many seismic events. Major ones have been recorded in history, like Italy's eruptions, the major eruption of Thera in Greece and the huge seismic event of 8 Richters in 365 that sent a Tsunami to north Africa. So, no, ANY seismic activity in southern Europe does not prove any Planet X theory.

_________________

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Pure dishonesty or intentional ignorance. In either case typical cognitive dissonance of a blind believer.

You have claimed to have 700 papers on the subject and all you come up with is personal attacks? Alas why not break out the evidence instead of reach for insults and clever quips from others?

For those that's like a primer on some of the research Wikipedia is a good start.

Quote:

Bragging degree in Mathematics without knowing it is a Science and unable to correctly read plots in general and trends particularly. I am all but unimpressed

Again more insults? Out of 'facts' or something? This really isn't as hard as you want to make it.

Here's the quote Quote:

no rise in temperatures since 1998, falling temperatures since late 2001

Your graph is on post #221. (Not sure if this is the exact same graph as some of your others in the past but for ease let's use the first one.) A rise in temperature is represented by the graph increasing from the lower left corner to the upper right corner. A fall in temperature is represented by the grap decreasing from the upper left corner to the lower right corner. So the shape of the graph is a continual slope downwards so no rises occur? No?

Since it's not a slope down how do we descripe it? It's a drop from 1998 to 2000 then a hump from 2000 to 2008. Why? Clearly there's a rise in temperature. During the period since 1998 there are rises in temperature. We have later years hotter than earlier years. Not always but it doesn't matter against the quote. The quote claimed no rises. There are rises. Previously you even agreed to a spike in 2007. The spike is a quick rise (2006-2007) followed by a quick fall (2007-2008).

Here look at the graph at one of your favorite sites. Watts Up with That Do you see the fall from 1998 to 2000 ? If the fall was continual to 2009 you'd see a similar downward line from 1998 to 2009. Not a lump. It's a lump because after 2000 the temp rises for a few years... The quote you included is wrong.

Perhaps there's more to the quote? Did you snip off some important info?

@BrianK

Quote:

You have claimed to have 700 papers on the subject

Not claimed, proved with links, locations, authors and papers, all on a worldwide map. Still waiting for the same extensiveness from you.

Quote:

and all you come up with is personal attacks? Alas why not break out the evidence instead of reach for insults and clever quips from others?

I see. You will also take offence of your doctor when he will next announce to you that you have a brain cancer. Not wise but fit perfectly.

Quote:

For those that's like a primer on some of the research Wikipedia is a good start.

That is all you can come with? Pathetically funny but sadly unsurprising.

Quote:

Again more insults? Out of 'facts' or something? This really isn't as hard as you want to make it.

Take it as you feel. It is the dishonest and religious-like footprint you let based on your systemic refusal of evidence in face of it.

Quote:

Your graph is on post #221.

No matter where is my graph, UAH MSU data are the same. You seem to have difficulties to apprehend the (simple) concept of 'trend'. What about a search for this word in the dictionary?

Quote:

Here look at the graph at one of your favorite sites. Watts Up with That

This very plot shows as the others (not surprising, same data) that the +0.75°C difference of 1998 decreases to a -0.114 anomaly in 2008: a clear fall (written in the plot itself). The refusal of this is just a miserable tentative to suppress sound evidence.

You seem not liking my quote: let your brain reread it carefully:
Quote:

"People don't like to see or hear things that conflict with their deeply held beliefs or wishes. An ancient response to such bad news was to kill the messenger."

- Dr Elliot Aronson 1995

Keep the blinders tightly and enjoy the interglacial.
Currently putting CO² in atmosphere here, as much as is possible.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You will also take offence of your doctor when he will next announce to you that you have a brain cancer. Not wise but fit perfectly.

You wrongly assume that I take offence. But, that doesn't change the fact that you attempted an insult. Also your analogy is compeletely wrong here. I certainly wouldn't see an insult from a Dr. when asked by me to investigate a problem as it turning up as cancer. But, if the janitor says snidely you have brain cancer. Well certainly there's an insulting factor in the later.


Quote:

That is all you can come with? Pathetically funny but sadly unsurprising.

Wow some evidence from me is better than no evidence from you, IMO. Sure you claim the 700 and provide the links but provide 0 guidance to anyone to verify the claims. So why do you see it as pathetic when I provide research of a starting point and some of the data that's available on how MWP doesn't perfectly match in every contient.

I claimed 500 years apart for Antartica. Sorry the cooling period was 1000AD, in the middle of the MWP in the North Atlantic. 1400AD was the North Atlantic's Little Ice Age. So Antarctica showed 400 years seperation in that case.

Quote:

It is the dishonest and religious-like footprint you let based on your systemic refusal of evidence in face of it.

If you want to play the insult game sure... My opinion on you is mutual.

Quote:

You seem to have difficulties to apprehend the (simple) concept of 'trend'. What about a search for this word in the dictionary?

I have no problem with the word "trend". Reread the quote the word is not in the quote.

And alas you end with more insults. Sure again I can play... Insults are the last refuge of your failed arguements.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Apr-2009 at 02:16 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 07-Apr-2009 at 12:34 PM.

@Zardoz

Quote:

Define "years ago".

the last 100 years of seismic activity world wide should be a starting point. We should then focus on say the last ten years and see if a buildup is there. Fair?

What makes me wonder is that Yellowstone a super Volcano and it became very active a few months ago. I also heard in channel surfing that Krakatoa is bulding up again and it might become something in the near future.

Quote:

So, no, ANY seismic activity in southern Europe does not prove any Planet X theory.

I agree, but it could be part of a larger puzzle.

@all
btw: One of the major Astronomers on this Planet x theory is also a believer in Global warming. Maybe he is just accepting the junk science, or maybe this whole GW stuff is a smoke screen?

just me thinking out loud...

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK

Quote:

Wow some evidence from me is better than no evidence from you, IMO. Sure you claim the 700 and provide the links but provide 0 guidance to anyone to verify the claims.

Let me count: 2 lies in the first sentence, a 3rd with 'you claim', a 4th with '0 guidance' and a 5th with 'the claims'. Have you some sort of respect left for yourself? If I were to provide some more guidance to someone else, it would be to real blind and openminded person, not to a blind, puerile and liar believer: liar because 'some evidence from me' is a mere 1 link that moreover, though badly written and lacking proper citations, emphasizes the existence of the MWP worldwide, liar because 'no evidence from you' is just the opposite to '700 [evidences/papers] and provide the links', liar because 'provide 0 guidance to anyone' is just that, a lie. Or it is some short term memory deficiencies?

Scientific way: if your theory doesn't fit observed reality, change your theory.
Dishonest way: if the observed reality doesn't fit the theory, ignore the observed reality.

Quote:

My opinion on your statements is mutual.

It is clear you have a problem with open-mindedness and common sense accepting scientific evidences.
Quote:

Global warming alarm has always been a political movement, and opposing it has always been an up-hill battle.

- Pr Richard Lindzen

Quote:

And alas you end with more insults. Insults are the last refuage of someone's failed discussion.

Not from me. You are the one insulting and not respecting yourself by your remarkable constance in dishonesty. Remember: Quote:

"People don't like to see or hear things that conflict with their deeply held beliefs or wishes. An ancient response to such bad news was to kill the messenger."

- Dr Elliot Aronson 1995
By delighting yourself in childish games and refusing evidences when faced to, you are the one refusing the discussion.

Keep the blinders tightly and enjoy the interglacial.
Currently putting CO² in atmosphere here, as much as is possible.

Edit: miss a word
Edit: added one more quote

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 07-Apr-2009 at 03:40 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 07-Apr-2009 at 03:29 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

I am the new proud owner of 3 of these green TShirts:



Can wait to wear one!

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

One the questions I've had is how is the ice changing. A large number of articles talk about the change of area. But, few handled changes to thickness. Part of the problem for that is the difficulty in measuring the depth.

Recently NASA came out with one of the first reports that attempts to look at not only the change in area but the change in depth of ice. LINK

Last edited by BrianK on 08-Apr-2009 at 03:56 AM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Let me count

I went back and searched for 700 through this thread and did not find a link to the 700 articles from you. Please provide me the post # in this thread and I'll gladly jump back there.

Quote:

It is clear you have a problem with open-mindedness and common sense accepting scientific evidences.

It's fair to fault me agreeing with the scientific consensus on Global Warming. Heck I even agree there is evidence for the MWP. You're getting all bent because I asked the science to be tightened up so we can understand better exactly what the years are, what the duration is, and how this is a world wide phenomena. And yes much if not most of the work with the MWP is in the North Atlantic.

Quote:

By delighting yourself in childish games and refusing evidences when faced to, you are the one refusing the discussion.

Wow and you are doing what? Come on here. I provided a link to 25+ articles and mentioned their a good place to start. They demonstrate the world wide phenomena appears at different times. Many of these times overlap. Often the times have different durations. The link there for Antartica is to the core sample that shows the significant cooling dip at 1000AD in the middle of the MWP. If it's a global warm period why do we see a significant drop in one part of the globe?

Quote:

added one more quote

Hiding your insults by reguritating the cleverness of others is a false sense of security.

@BrianK

Quote:

You're getting all bent because I asked the science to be tightened up so we can understand better exactly what the years are, what the duration is, and how this is a world wide phenomena.

If it was world-wide, then the Huon Pines on Mount Read, Tasmania did not get the memo....

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Can wait to wear one!

Good, wait a bit longer, then. No need to look like a moron too early...

@umisef

I see that your manner is at the level of your scientific understanding, pathetically low. I guess the latter complements correctly the former.

You have been reported.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".