Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 14th Jun 2011, 13:18
  #8121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
I was just looking further into...

Dr. Mörner, an interesting figure!

He got a rap over the knuckles for misrepresenting his status with a professional organization, INQUA, putting himself forth as its head when giving an address, when he had been replaced as head. Too, the current head of the parent organization noted that INQUA now disagreed with him! So, to put it very briefly, he appeared and gave a talk as though he was heading an organization which (presumably) agreed with him when the facts were that he no longer headed it and it disagreed with him. Hmm....

It turns out that in addition to his supposed expertise in the matter of rising sea levels (most scientists seem to think that they are rising steadily), Dr. M. also is an expert on dowsing. (On the other hand, he has not bothered to go pick up that million-dollar prize on offer from James Randi. Too busy doing other things, I guess...)

The linked interview (Who is EIR anyway? Is there a connection with Lyndon LaRouche there?) is a bit disjointed. The best bit in it, for me at least, is the good doctor's obvious upset over the three Austrian (not Australian, my mistake there) scientists, when 'Austria doesn't even have a coast!' Golly, does this mean I shouldn't be reading Hard Times unless I have fallen down a mine shaft?

I am sorry, but on further reading, none of it done using Wikipedia this time, Doctor M. just comes across as 'one more dingbat.' The poster of Big Al is going back up and I am reverting to my previous status as a blind believer in the whole AGM mischegoss. Still, you cannot say that I did not at least try to drink the Kool-Aid.

Edited to add:

EIR: Executive Intelligence Review, a publication backed by Lyndon LaRouche (a notorious right-wing dingbat of the highest magnitude, a total loon and a freaking moonbat). I wondered about how that interview link just went right into the interview without the usual mast-head identifying just who was doing the interview. The interviewer did seem to be rather uncritical, ignoring some obvious inconsistencies in what was being said, when it seemed pretty obvious to me that Dr. Mörner was at least disorganized in what he was saying. He might have had some valid points there but he was all over the map, plus the idea that 'if your country doesn't have a coastline, you have no business studying anything to do with the oceans...' is clearly nonsensical. If that is logical then any male gynecologist should be automatically disqualified.)

That sort of interview, when you read it, raises more questions in my mind about interviewer and interviewee than it answers. You have a journalist who cannot pose logical questions talking to a scientist who cannot give logical answers, with the resulting mish-mash being passed for publication by an editor who seems to find it okay and then linked here as support for a dubious theory!

I think that any fair-minded person who reads this, knowing nothing much of the science involved, would tend to agree that Dr. Mörner's not very good at making his case in a logical, persuasive way. Okay, it was a nice picture of a tree, but that was about it.

Then we can move right along to the practice of dowsing. There is no support for that in main-stream science so that any scientist who is a public advocate of it, well... at least you would expect him to back up that advocacy with very strong evidence. I guess I would expect him to say something like, 'Surprise! Dowsing works and I have shown this by having done the following experiment...' James Randi sort of went to town on him over this one, plus pointing out that million bucks waiting for him to do what he says he can do, make dowsing work. So far, no go, so 'no surprise,' to me at least.

Bear in mind here that I am not picking on Dr. M. completely at random. He was cited by one of your own as a strong advocate of the anti-AGW argument, a top man in his field and a voice of authority. Well, it turns out that the evidence cited is tainted by association with Lyndon LaRouche, that your top man was censured for misrepresenting himself, and that he is on the record as believing in the non-scientific practice of dowsing without being able to show evidence for having that belief.

If this is the sort of stuff that shows how most scientists are faking it, well, this guy is more-or-less a documented faker! Are you 100% sure that you want him on your side?

You know, choosing this guy as your paladin should be about like me saying that 'Whatever Al Gore says is fine by me and you should all believe in him too!' Really, I want to say that the data seem to support the AGW hypothesis; if Al Gore wants to go along with me on that, so be it, but the case would be stronger if he stayed out of this, politician that he is.

When such a dubious figure as Dr. M. is deliberately chosen as an advocate for what you guys want us to believe, what does that say about the quality of your critical thought, your ability to weigh evidence? I think it says quite a lot, actually, but quite a lot that is negative. Are you all still happy to stand behind Dr. Mörner after what I have just posted? Never mind AGW, what about dowsing? This guy is a strong scientist?

Last edited by chuks; 14th Jun 2011 at 14:03.
chuks is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 14:01
  #8122 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
On the other hand he has just published a peer reviewed paper on :

A new major Solar Minimum
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the past chair of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. Dr. Mörner has just published a peer-reviewed paper showing that the Sun will be in a new major Solar Minimum by the middle of this century, resulting in a new Little Ice Age over the Arctic and NW Europe. Dr. Morner bases his analysis upon solar influences on the Earth's length of day and the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al., and finds the analysis provides conclusions "completely opposite to the scenarios presented by the IPCC."

Abstract here: http://hockeyschtick.b logspot.com/2...el-morner.html

Remove the space from blog spot
green granite is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 14:31
  #8123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
As usual, nothing on the science from Chuks. A character assassination and dirt digging job on Morner, by somebody who has no clue or understanding of science or the scientific method and who has not posted or discussed one word of science.

Based on that criteria, you could judge Chuk's all statements to be useless and unworthy of discussion, based upon his pointless convoluted ramblings.

Don't let the door hit you.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 15:00
  #8124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Oh, really?

You tell us, then, rvv500, do you think that using the scientific method can support belief in dowsing?

1. Dowsing is non-scientific.

2. Dr. M. is on record as believing in dowsing.

3. A scientist who is on record as believing in something non-scientific is not adhering to the proper practice of science.

QED.

You really think that doing '1,2,3' as above, is 'character assassination?' It can be called 'dirt digging,' certainly, but that is not my dirt!

What I wrote is very much to the point of whether we should accept what Dr. M. says about AGW as fact. He has been discredited in several ways by that.

Let me put this to you in a slightly different way, rvv500:

1. Do you support Dr. Mörner's stated belief in dowsing?

2. Do you find that espousing a belief in dowsing is scientifically sound, such that you, too, believe in dowsing?

3. Does it matter to you if a scientist expresses a belief in non-science such as dowsing; would doing that discredit him as a scientist in your eyes?

If you mean that I have not done any of this tedious cut-and-paste stuff you lot are so fond of, what you seem to think of as 'science,' well, no, I have not. No, all I did was to put in two semesters of hard work studying chemistry and mathematics.

Which shows more interest in science, what I did or what you lot do?

I think that you might need to go wave a forked stick around for a while trying to come up with a reasonable answer to what I have just asked you. Just huffing and puffing that i write 'pointless and convoluted ramblings' will not serve to convince everyone who reads this stuff that that's really so. Your crowd, probably, but then it seems that they will swallow just about any nonsense going.
chuks is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 15:03
  #8125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
A scientist who is on record as believing in something non-scientific is not adhering to the proper practice of science.
Lots of scientists believe in God. Proper practice of science?
MagnusP is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 15:24
  #8126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Good point...

It is generally taken that science is compatible with religious belief because they exist as two separate things, with religion commonly taken to be outside the realm of science. Many, even most, of us believe in 'love,' for example, without being able to give a strict, scientific definition of what we are talking about, when 'God is love,' is a common religious utterance.

When it comes to belief or not in some religious writings, such as the account of Creation or the Great Flood, then science and religion may come into conflict, but a general belief in a Supreme Being is not generally taken to be non-scientific. Really, I think one could fairly say that it is, but it isn't.

Here I am confining my questioning to one area; dowsing.

Dowsing is a practice that is taken by its believers to take place here and now, in the physical realm: An adept at this practice can locate underground water by using a physical device combined with some power of his own in a way that defies scientific understanding. Well, that is assuming that you believe in dowsing, as Doctor Mörner says that he does!

So far, nobody has been able to demonstrate dowsing to a degree that would enable them to claim the million-dollar prize on offer from James Randi, including Doctor Mörner.

The same goes for such things as being able to bend a spoon without touching it, as Uri Geller famously claims to be able to do. No one has succeeded in claiming that million dollars from James Randi.

I don't know about any of you, but if I were able to simultaneously defeat a famous scoffer at the paranormal and to trouser a million of his bucks, I would be onto that like a duck on a bug!

If the good doctor has not bothered to do this thing, well, I am fairly sure that is because he is faking it when it comes to dowsing, and if he is faking it when it comes to dowsing that suggests he might be faking it in some other areas as well. He already got caught with his hand in the cookie jar faking it when giving an address in Moscow; that is a matter of public record.
chuks is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 15:29
  #8127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Same analogy applies to your posts. Science free rambling.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 15:29
  #8128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
chuks, while your in the mood for character assassination and dirt digging, here's some that perhaps you'd care to delve into :

Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGI Report

  1. How the IPCC invented a new calculus. The IPCC authors invented a new way of measuring the slope of a graph, in order to create the false impression that global warming is accelerating.
  2. The table that didn't add up. The WG1 SPM was approved by the IPCC even though it contained a table with arithmetic errors. The table was quietly corrected with no admission of the error.
  3. False statement about Antarctic sea ice. The IPCC claims that there is no significant trends in Antarctic sea ice. In fact several papers (ignored by the IPCC) show a significant positive trend.
  4. Misleading claims about sea level rise. AR4 gives the misleading impression that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, using the trick of switching from one measurement system (tide gauges) to another (satellites).
  5. Incorrect calculation of an average. An arithmetic error was made in the calculation of an average of a contribution to radiative forcing. Hence four diagrams in AR4 are wrong and misleading.
  6. False claims about Antarctic ice sheet. The IPCC claims that the Antarctic ice sheet is melting and that this is contributing to sea level rise, but recent research papers show that in fact the ice sheet is thickening.
  7. Dubious claims about Greenland ice sheet. The IPCC claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting and causing sea level to rise - ignoring or misrepresenting research that shows the opposite.
  8. Erroneous claims about snow cover. The IPCC makes the false claim that snow cover is decreasing in both hemispheres.
  9. Exaggerated claims about water vapour. The IPCC summary claims that water vapour has increased. In fact studies show no significant trend or in some cases a decrease.
  10. Misleading claims on increased tropical cyclone activity. The IPCC states that tropical cyclones have increased, by cherry-picking start dates, but their own data shows no evidence of this.
  11. The IPCC contradicts itself over the medieval warm period. The IPCC's own data shows clear evidence that the medieval warm period was as warm as the late 20th century, but the text states the opposite.
  12. False statement about paleoclimate studies. The IPCC claims that there is increased confidence in proxy temperature reconstructions, but in fact the opposite is the case.
  13. Proxies that aren't proxies. The IPCC makes use of 'proxy' data such as tree rings to justify their claim that current temperatures are unusual - but this data doesn't match measured temperature.
  14. Downplaying the urban heat island effect. The IPCC significantly underestimates the influence of the fact that many temperature measurement sites are located in cities.
  15. The UN misquotes its own report. A UN press release coinciding with the release of AR4 blatantly misquoted the report, incorrectly claiming that man-made global warming was unequivocal.
  16. Underestimating past variation in carbon dioxide. The IPCC claims that variation of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere was very low, ignoring published research that shows much greater variation.
  17. Biased reporting of the literature. One of many examples where the IPCC ignores or disparages research that does not support its agenda, in the area of past solar activity.
  18. Where's the beef? The crucial step of the argument for global warming - how carbon dioxide causes heating - is barely mentioned and the numbers not justified by the IPCC.
  19. Hypothetical positive feedback. The alarming predictions of the IPCC rely on the assumption of a strong positive feedback, for which there is no evidence.
  20. The lost continent of Antarctica. A world map of 'global warming' in the SPM omits Antarctica, where there has been cooling.
  21. Misleading claims about increased greenhouse effect. The IPCC claims that observations show an increase in the greenhouse effect, referring to one paper but ignoring more recent ones.
  22. Misleading statement about ocean heat. The IPCC SPM says that ocean heat content is increasing, without mentioning a paper that shows recent ocean cooling.
  23. Ignoring research that does not fit the agenda. Work of a Finnish research team with 34 publications in the field of tree ring temperature reconstructions is completely ignored by the IPCC.
  24. Inconsistent statement about wind strength. The IPCC SPM claims that the strength of westerly winds has increased - but if true this would be evidence for cooling of the atmosphere.
  25. Error regarding total radiative forcing. The 'total net anthropogenic radiative forcing' given by the IPCC is incorrect, according to climate scientist Roger Pielke.
  26. Unfair citation of criticism. IPCC author Kevin Trenberth cites his own criticism of the work of other authors, but does not mention those authors' response to his criticism.
  27. Ignoring criticism of the surface temperature record. Many papers have been written raising questions about the accuracy and bias of surface temperature measurements, but these are ignored by the IPCC.
  28. No explanation for mid-century cooling. The IPCC has no consistent or valid explanation for a period of cooling from 1940-1970.
  29. False statements about tropospheric warming. The IPCC claims that the troposphere (lower atmosphere) has warmed more than the surface, but the IPCC's own graphs show that this is not true.
  30. Unsubstantiated claims of human influence. The IPCC makes confident claims about man's influence on the climate but has no evidence to support these claims.
  31. Misleading temperature trends (1). The IPCC claims that the trend from 1906-2005 is larger than that from 1901-2000 due to recent warm years, but in fact this is due to a sharp drop in temperatures from 1901-1906.
  32. Misleading temperature trends (2). The IPCC compares chalk with cheese in order to convey the false impression that temperature trends are increasing.
  33. False claim of warming since the TAR. The IPCC's claim that temperatures have increased since its 2001 Third Assessment Report is demonstrably false.
  34. More false statements on temperature trends. The IPCC significantly underestimates temperature trends in the early part of the 20th century.
  35. False claims about hurricanes. The IPCC makes unsustainable claims about increasing hurricane activity and a link with global warming, ignoring key papers that find no link; this lead to one expert resigning from the IPCC.
  36. If you don't like it, resign. Some scientists who do not support the IPCC agenda find they have no alternative but to resign from the IPCC process.
  37. Reviewer comments ignored. The IPCC reports undergo a process of review by scientists and goverments. But many valid comments and criticisms of the IPCC view are simply ignored.
  38. Exaggerated claims of increased precipitation. The IPCC summary greatly exaggerates the claims from its main report about an alleged very slight increase in heavy rainfall events.
  39. Trying to suppress work that doesn't support the agenda. IPCC authors try to keep a paper by McKitrick and Michaels out of AR4, "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is".
  40. Hiding the decline - in the number of storms. IPCC authors insert a line about increasing wind strength into the final version of the SPM. They discuss evidence for declining number of storms but decide not to mention this.
  41. Hiding inconvenient proxy data. The IPCC refused to show proxy ice core data showing a warm medieval period in the Southern hemisphere, despite acknowledging a lack of such data and despite reviewer comments.
  42. False confidence in man-made warming. The IPCC SPM claims "very high confidence" regarding the quantification of man-mad global warming, but the main body of the report is much more cautious.
  43. Spinning the literature on cloud feedback. IPCC authors regurgitate chunks of their own papers on clouds, but cut back sections that refer to negative cloud feedback.
  44. Cherry-picking solar irradiance reconstructions. The IPCC selects outdated estimates of past solar radiance (to try to 'explain' early 20th century warming) while ignoring more recent research that shows very little variation.
  45. False confidence in long-term climate predictions. The IPCC makes the ridiculous claim that predicting the climate 50 years ahead is much easier than predicting the weather a few weeks ahead.

Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGII Report
  1. Incorrect claim about Himalayan glaciers. The IPCC incorrectly said that Himalayan glaciers could melt to one fifth of their current area by 2035. This is probably a misreading of 2350.
  2. False claims about disaster losses. The IPCC claims a link between disaster losses and climate, by relying on a single cherry-picked non-peer-reviewed paper.
  3. Unsubstantiated claim about loss of Amazon rainforest. Chapter 13 of WGII claimed that 40% of the Amazon rainforest could 'react drastically' to a change in climate. The source for this was a WWF report that does not even support the claim. See also BBC report and The Telegraph.
  4. Error about the Netherlands and sea level. Chapter 12 of WGII claims that 55% of The Netherlands is below sea level. In fact the figure is about 26%. See also reports here and here.
  5. Unsubstantiated claims about Africa. A claim repeatedly made by the IPCC that agricultural yields in some African countries could fall by 50% as soon as 2020 has no basis.
  6. False claims about wildfires and climate. The IPCC claims that wildfires influence tourism, relying on newspaper reports and ignoring three expert reviewers who identify problems with this claim.
Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGIII Report

The report of Working Group III of the IPCC is concerned with "Mitigation of Climate Change".

Richard Tol, Professor of Economics, has investigated WGIII and reported his results at Roger Pielke Jr.'s blog. In his overall summary, he writes that the IPCC "substantially and knowingly misrepresents the state of the art in our understanding of the costs of emission reduction. It leads the reader to the conclusion that emission reduction is much cheaper and easier than it will be in real life." He also writes that "all errors point in one direction: alarmism about climate change", and refers to the "inability of the IPCC to constructively engage with valid criticism". His specific criticisms are as follows:

Part I. Claims by the IPCC in WGIII chapter 11 that climate policy would stimulate growth and create jobs are biased and not based on peer-reviewed literature.

Part II. Again in Chapter 11, the IPCC highlights work that supports the view that costs of emission reduction are low, while ignoring or misquoting studies that find such costs are high.

Part III. In the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) in WGIII, the IPCC underestimates the costs of emissions reduction, failing to correct its estimates for selection bias.

Part IV. In Chapter 3, the IPCC misrepresents a paper (Fisher et al 2006), ignoring complaints about this by reviewers.

Part V. In Chapter 3 and in the SPM, the IPCC incorrectly claims that exchange rates are immaterial, and misrepresents the literature. Several reviewer comments on this are ignored.

Part VI. In the SPM, Table SPM1 underestimates the cost of reducing emissions, by a misleading process of "double counting". The errors were pointed out by reviewers, but ignored by the IPCC.
but the've already been down this road on this thread before.. http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/2833...ebate-374.html

"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy" - IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer

Last edited by stuckgear; 14th Jun 2011 at 15:39.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 15:30
  #8129 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Why should a belief in dowsing disqualify a person from being a scientist? Having seen dowsing in action I can assure you it does work. I was acting as a liaison officer on a brown field site for a few weeks, the contractor was told, by the council, that there was a water main but that its position was very uncertain, no problem says the contractor I'll get the company dowser to find it. He came the next day and wandered around the site, stakes were duly hammered in, digging commenced and there was the pipe.

I think the problem with the image of dowsing is it borders on black magic in people's eyes as it has no scientific explanation. Also it has a lot of people who think they can but very few that actually can. (I admit I was skeptical about it until I saw that demonstration of it.)

Also

"In a study in Munich 1987-1988 by Hans-Dieter Betz and other scientists, 500 dowsers were initially tested for their "skill" and the experimenters selected the best 43 among them for further tests. Water was pumped through a pipe on the ground floor of a two-story barn. Before each test the pipe was moved in a direction perpendicular to the water flow. On the upper floor each dowser was asked to determine the position of the pipe. Over two years the dowsers performed 843 such tests. Of the 43 pre-selected and extensively tested candidates at least 37 showed no dowsing ability. The results from the remaining 6 were said to be better than chance, resulting in the experimenters' conclusion that some dowsers "in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance ... a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven."

Last edited by green granite; 14th Jun 2011 at 15:40.
green granite is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 15:38
  #8130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
If your assertion that the professor has an interest in dowsing, something without any testable scientific theory, entitles any data or research presented by the Prof. to be discounted, then likewise, the assertions set forth by the IPCC on the issue of AGW must then also be discounted. It would be irrational to state otherwise.

Yet the IPCC has engaged in lies, manipulations, distortions and manufacture of data, whereas the Prof. has not.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 15:45
  #8131 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
A Water well guy helped me find two wells on property I was developing.
He dowsed the land, and wells came in. The geology was problematic, and his success raised local eyebrows, including mine. He taught me how to dowse, and I started finding my own wells, frequently in disagreement with geologists who said water could not be found. I dowsed four more locations, and the least productive well I found produced ten gpm. The best one was +100 gpm. This in an area known to be dry, and seeing dry holes drilled in the vicinity repeatedly. I know it works. I couldn't tell you why.

bear
 
Old 14th Jun 2011, 15:51
  #8132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
GG, bear it's interesting that you both brought up the issue. I've also seen it used with success. can't explain it, could be sceptical about the possibility that perhaps a geo-phiz survey had been done previously etc.

most odd.

but then perhaps its one of things like CO2 following temperature increase, dont know why it happens but it does. !
stuckgear is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 15:58
  #8133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Okay...

I guess that I can take it that those of you who are against the AGW hypothesis are also for dowsing, that you have no problem with believing in something not scientifically proven, as does one of your chosen champions. (Here we are leaving aside the various categories of religious belief simply to focus on dowsing.)

Then too, I am the one who is non-scientific in my 'ramblings.' You are all quite sure of this?

These things being so, is there some particular reason why I should try to engage any of you in some sort of logical discussion on the topic of AGW? I have to ask because I cannot think of a single one. I can think of many good reasons not to, but telling you many of those would probably upset you and the Mods, even assuming that you were able to understand that even one of them should be mortally insulting to your collective self-image as reasonable beings capable of scientific inquiry.

Gregor Mendel might have chosen to work with you, come to think of it...
chuks is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 16:07
  #8134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Here’s an excellent post from Dr.Pielke Sr. about the Ocean heat content and the climate models.

2011 Update Of The Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

It’s the same old story. Observations don’t match model predictions.

By the way, this is a scientific article based on facts, for certain people who may not understand.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 16:09
  #8135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Don't flatter yourself into thinking any of you discussions about AGW are logical or based upon science, Chuks.

And yes, Gregor Mendel might or might not have chosen to work with us but for sure it's clear whom he worked with.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 16:29
  #8136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,329
For greengranite:
Having seen dowsing in action I can assure you it does work.
I was acting as a liaison officer on a brown field site for a few weeks, the contractor was told, by the council, that there was a water main but that its position was very uncertain, no problem says the contractor I'll get the company dowser to find it.
He came the next day and wandered around the site, stakes were duly hammered in, digging commenced and there was the pipe.
I think the problem with the image of dowsing is it borders on black magic in people's eyes as it has no scientific explanation. Also it has a lot of people who think they can but very few that actually can. (I admit I was skeptical about it until I saw that demonstration of it.)
gg, you and your dowser are invited to apply to the James Randi Educational Foundation, and take home the million dollars on deposit for the Million Dollar Challenge. Go to www.randi.org for more info on how to enrich your dowser. Suggest you ask for a finder's fee.

bearfoil, the million is yours if you can beat them to it!

Also, for green granite:
From 500 to ... of the 43 pre-selected and extensively tested candidates at least 37 showed no dowsing ability.
Looks like dowsing doesn't really "work" with the reproducibility demonstrated. Bear's "I don't know how, but it works" is a frequent point made in re dowsing.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 16:38
  #8137 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
Just to muddy the AGW waters a little more,

Study finds global warming over past 400 years was due to increased Solar activity

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/stu...olar-activity/

Apparently previous studies of the sun-climate connection looked at the equatorial polar magnetic field which produces sun spots, but they did not consider the polar magnetic component of the solar dynamo. The polar fields are less strong than the equatorial fields, but it is claimed that the total magnetic fluxes of both fields are comparable. With proxy data they derive an empirical relation between tropospherical temperatures and solar equatorial and polar magnetic fields. The polar field could contribute about 30% as much as the equatorial field.

The paper, published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics focused on the period 1844-1960 (but extended at least one graph back to 1600) and finds our current warming period is not that different from earlier episodes and that the increase in solar activity in the last 400 years explains the warming, without any need to invoke a man-made enhanced greenhouse hypothesis.

“The amplitude of the present period of global warming does not significanty differ from the other episodes of relative warming.”
“1650 was the onset of the Maunder Minimum, 1835 was the Dalton Minimum”
“Around 1720 solar activity changed from a Grand Minimum into a period of Regular Oscillation”
“In 1923 the 20th century Grand Maximum started.”
Conclusions

“The three main results of this study are the following: First, there exists a relation between solar activity and average tropospheric temperatures. Next, this relation depends both on the toroidal and the poloidal component of solar magnetism. The seven temperature sets that we studied here, evidently give different results but it is gratifying that they agree qualitatively in confirming the dependence of tropospheric temperature on both components of solar activity. The third result is that a comparison of observed with calculated temperatures shows residual peaks and valleys. Some of these are significant, appearing in all seven data sets studied here.”

“These results may be of importance for understanding the solar mechanism(s) that influence(s) climate. The refereed literature contains 15 global or NH temperature data sets. Obviously all must be studied in order to further check the above results. It is also necessary to discuss the heliophysical and climatologic aspects of these findings. Such a study is presently underway with colleagues.”

h/t Gregg T.

UPDATE: There are mixed views on whether the solar flare today will disrupt satellites and electronics. See climate realists:

“”America’s space agency NASA has reported on Tuesday an unusual explosion on the surface of the Sun, which according to the US National

Weather Service (NWS) released a solar flare that would likely disrupt satellite, communication and power facilities on Earth over the next two days

The NWS added in its statement that a similar explosion of the same magnitude occurred five years ago, with the present one measured by NASA as M-2 or medium sized solar flare that carries “a substantial coronal mass ejection (CME) … and is visually spectacular.”"

But NASA was less concerned, and pointed out the flare emissions were not pointed towards Earth. “Spectacular” but “not that big”.
Don't know if the sun has been peer reviewed or not.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 16:39
  #8138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,329
rvv, thanks for the link to that page, is it your read on that data point offered, that since about 2003, total heat content not changing much if at all, that oceanic heat absorption has reached its limit?

Hmm: am I mixing this thought with carbon dioxide absorption data?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 16:47
  #8139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
I guess that I can take it that those of you who are against the AGW hypothesis are also for dowsing,
No. that's your assertion.

Because Gordon Brown didn't put the UK into the Euro, which i consider a good thing, doesnt mean that i ever agreed with his policies nor am or ever have been pro-labour (new or old). You are making an assertion that you are reaching for and it an assertion that is not based on any factual data, but then you seem to waver toward that stance.

Because someone does not agree with the the flawed and inaccurate hypothesis of AGW and the manipulations of the IPCC does not concur that a person belives in dowsing.

is there some particular reason why I should try to engage any of you in some sort of logical discussion on the topic of AGW?
well quite simply you have not. In fact you have clearly stated that you do not wish to engage in any form of debate or discussion of factual data. So your assertion there is disingenuous.

I can think of many good reasons not to, but telling you many of those would probably upset you and the Mods
ahh the old woe is me paranoia routine. The world, nor the mods are out to get you, in fact.. sssshs! don't tell anyone this, but the mods actually preser reasoned discussion. What they will not tolerate and it is in the ROE, is 'play the ball, not the player' which is what you consisently try to do. you have not and even stated that you will not engage in factual debate or discussion but instead opine as to the nature of the posters. 'play the ball, not the player'.

even assuming that you were able to understand that even one of them should be mortally insulting to your collective self-image as reasonable beings capable of scientific inquiry
such lofty arrogance from someone who cannot determine when they and their argument [sic] are being deconstructed routinely.

You have come across as someone with nothing to say but very eagre to say it, while attempting condencendance without realise he is ridiculing himself.

seriously, if you're doing a degree you need to buck up.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2011, 17:10
  #8140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Lonewolf, to be frank I can't opine if the ocean absorption has reached it's limit. It's my opinion that ocean heat content is basically due to absorption of the incoming shortwave radiation from the sun. That's the only radiation which can penetrate deep. So it's the sun's activity which determines ocean heat content.

But the AGW theory is predicated on oceans absorbing the back radiation due to CO2 and getting heated. This makes no sense in terms of physics as the back radiation emitted due to CO2 is long wave radiation and cannot penetrate deep into the water. That's why Trenberth and Hansen's postulated missing heat has not been found till date. Argo measurements upto 700 feet have not shown any missing heat residing there.

Now coming to CO2, if you look at purely water and CO2, cold water absorbs CO2 and heating the water causes CO2 to be emitted, like you see in a carbonated drink bottle.

So the fact is that extra CO2 being absorbed by the oceans and causing oceans to " acidify dangerously" itself is questionable hypothesis which is unproven. And the AGW crowd also say that human emitted CO2 stays for a " long time " in the atmosphere and causes warming in the upper troposphere. That projected heat is also missing as per empirical evidence.

Now, logically either CO2 stays in atmosphere or gets absorbed by water. It can't do both to dangerous levels, causing " ocean acidification " and also stay for long time in the atmosphere and cause warming. You can't have it both ways, that too with only the human element of CO2. Yet, the AGW crowd claim that all the time.

Lastly, like " climate change " being a deliberately misused word to signify something else, which is warming due to human emitted CO2, " ocean acidification " is also a term deliberately misused to signify a slight reduction in alkalinity. Oceans are never acidic. They are always alkaline. But the AGW edifice is based on these kinds of semantics intended to deceive and questionable models and hypotheses which are not supported by empirical evidence.
rvv500 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.