A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

calling all physicists



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old October 4th 17, 10:16 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,689
Default calling all physicists

On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 07:58:02 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 03/10/2017 22:17, Java Jive wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2017 07:53:36 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:



Given what we know about the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus, it
seem quite impossible to me, and I would imagine to any other rational
person who understands the physics.

Any rational person who understand physics will be fully aware of the
inverse square law and the decrease in solar energy with distance.


Of course, that's why, despite other similarities between the planets,
we don't have a runaway greenhouse effect here on Earth, while Venus
does.


You brought up Venus to prove your argument. I pointed out the
irrelevance, and you agreed with me thus showing that your argument was
flawed.


I didn't point out its irrelevance, on the contrary I pointed out that
the laws of physics are the same there as here.

At this point, you can go your way and I will go mine. There is no
point is pursuing this with you.


Because your beliefs are not based on science.

When you can explain how and why El Nino can affect weather in Australia
and Siberia, I will look again.


That's barely relevant to AGW, so you're just trying to move the goal
posts, as so many denialists do when they get defeated. But
meanwhile, if you're really interested in El NIno, which I doubt, read
the decadal oscillations links provided in my exchanges with Chris
Hogg.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
  #42  
Old October 4th 17, 12:14 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,202
Default calling all physicists

On 04/10/2017 11:16, Java Jive wrote:

That's barely relevant to AGW, so you're just trying to move the goal
posts, as so many denialists do when they get defeated. But
meanwhile, if you're really interested in El NIno, which I doubt, read
the decadal oscillations links provided in my exchanges with Chris
Hogg.


I am not a denialist of climate change, only the assumption that it has
a human cause.

I read the decadal oscillations links. They say that El Nino affects
the weather worldwide (which I already knew) but they don't explain how
or why. And they certainly don't explain why in the Eocine period El
Nono stopped oscillating and stayed in a permanent location for a period
of time [Science: Issue 299].

I have also looked at the pattern of warm and cool periods in the
Northern Hemisphere over the last 11,000 years (based on Schonwiese and
Dansgaard before him) and I can see three overlapping patterns, and the
roughly 3000 year cycle shows that the current warm period started about
3000 years after the start of the Roman warm period (and so far hasn't
reached the Roman peak level) and one of the shorter cycles (with a
roughly 1000 year cycle) aligns with the start of either temperature
rises or temperature falls of a lesser magnitude than the 3000 cycle,
but significantly shows that the start of the medieval warm period and
the start of the temperature rise after the Little Ice Age sit on this
cycle.

On a galactic level, the motion of the sun in the galactic spiral arm
brings in into and out of areas of higher interstellar hydrogen
concentrations on a roughly 4,300 year recurrence and our sun started to
enter an area of lower concentration around 1960, after which there
would have been less gravitational collection of fuel for the sun. The
sun is currently in what has been described as a "quiet" period as a result.

I am not trying to move the goal posts, I am just pointing out that they
were *never* in the right position because they start from the
assumption that "when records began" is a suitable time frame.

Going back even further, the start of the last two Ice Ages were
preceded by a period of about 300 years of abnormally high temperatures.
There is some evidence that another Ice Age is due soon. This is
looking at other longer term patterns with 150 Million year cycles as
the shortest, with the 41,000 year Milankovitch cycles superimposed on
them. The science of paleoclimatology considers that the Earth is
currently in an "icehouse" state, a state which accounts for just 20% of
the time the Earth has been a planet.

Icehouse states are defined as periods when there is permanent ice on
some parts of the planet, and they start when atmospheric CO2 levels
drop, which is something the AGW enthusiasts ought to think long and
hard about. Ice caps are a rarity in geological timescales, and by
trying to preserve the current ones AGW proponents are seeking to deepen
the current icehouse state. That looks short-sighted.

Jim
  #43  
Old October 4th 17, 08:50 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,689
Default calling all physicists

On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 13:14:11 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 04/10/2017 11:16, Java Jive wrote:

That's barely relevant to AGW, so you're just trying to move the goal
posts, as so many denialists do when they get defeated. But
meanwhile, if you're really interested in El NIno, which I doubt, read
the decadal oscillations links provided in my exchanges with Chris
Hogg.


I am not a denialist of climate change, only the assumption that it has
a human cause.


It's a great deal more than an assumption. See next reply below ...

I read the decadal oscillations links. They say that El Nino affects
the weather worldwide (which I already knew) but they don't explain how
or why. And they certainly don't explain why in the Eocine period El
Nono stopped oscillating and stayed in a permanent location for a period
of time [Science: Issue 299].


I don't think you can possibly mean Issue 299, that was October 1888.
Perhaps, but there's really no telling, you mean Volume 299, which
covers all 2003. If so, that's 52 issues you expect others to wade
through, when you could have provided the link yourself, so that
everyone else knows exactly to what you refer. Before I list some of
the various possibilities, let me just throw this quote at you:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5605/309

"The scientific evidence on global warming is now beyond doubt.
Readers of these pages during the past couple of years have seen one
careful study after another documenting the role of anthropogenic
sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in global
warming; describing the impact of past and present climate change on
marine and terrestrial ecosystems; and measuring rates of glacial
melting in the Arctic, the Antarctic, and on the tops of low-latitude
mountains."

.... and that was in 2003 - here we are 14 more years of evidence for
AGW later and still f*k all that stands up to any rational scrutiny
against it, and you are still not convinced! That is not a rational
position.

To return to Science Magazine, some of the articles I've found that
might be the one you indicate are (not that this information does most
of us much good, because most of us will not have a subscription, and
I'm certainly not going to waste my pension paying to refute someone
who holds such an obviously untenable position):


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5604/183.2

"Tropical Pacific a Key to Deglaciation

Summary
In this week's issue of Nature, paleoceanographers present the latest
and most persuasive evidence yet that the tropical Pacific did not
stand idly by as the world melted out of its latest ice age 18,000
years ago. Instead, the tropical Pacific was a participant, if not the
dominant driver, in one of the biggest climate shifts of the past
half-billion years."


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5605/336.2

"Volcanic Blasts Favor El Niño Warmings

Summary
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA-- A record 9300 earth, ocean, atmospheric,
and planetary scientists gathered here last month for the union's fall
meeting. Talks included a discussion of a new statistical analysis of
the timing of large tropical volcanic eruptions relative to ocean
warmings over the past 300 years."


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5607/636

"A Perfect Ocean for Four Years of Globe-Girdling Drought

Summary
On page 691 of this issue of Science, climate dynamicists compare
climate-model simulations with the pattern of Northern Hemisphere
drought. The comparison shows how two parts of the tropical Pacific
ganged up on the mid-latitudes to create persistent drought in widely
separated, seemingly unrelated regions."


http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...645#login-pane

"Who Pushed Whom Out of the Last Ice Age?

Summary

On page 1709 of this issue, researchers suggest that 14,700 years ago,
a pulse of mel****er from Antarctica into the Southern Ocean
influenced events 10,000 kilometers away, triggering the biggest
climate shift of the past 25,000 years. But some say the evidence
isn't yet strong enough to topple the north from its climatic
dominance."

At this point, less than half way through, I thought: "Why should I
waste my time any further on this, when even if I find the right one,
I can only read the summary anyway?"

I have also looked at the pattern of warm and cool periods in the
Northern Hemisphere over the last 11,000 years (based on Schonwiese and
Dansgaard before him) and I can see three overlapping patterns, and the
roughly 3000 year cycle shows that the current warm period started about
3000 years after the start of the Roman warm period (and so far hasn't
reached the Roman peak level) and one of the shorter cycles (with a
roughly 1000 year cycle) aligns with the start of either temperature
rises or temperature falls of a lesser magnitude than the 3000 cycle,
but significantly shows that the start of the medieval warm period and
the start of the temperature rise after the Little Ice Age sit on this
cycle.


It's strange that searching for Schonwiese Dansgaar gives very few
links, almost none of any worthwhile provenance, and, of those, none
were to a paper by either person. So again, give us a link.

On a galactic level, the motion of the sun in the galactic spiral arm
brings in into and out of areas of higher interstellar hydrogen
concentrations on a roughly 4,300 year recurrence and our sun started to
enter an area of lower concentration around 1960, after which there
would have been less gravitational collection of fuel for the sun. The
sun is currently in what has been described as a "quiet" period as a result.


Yet GW continues apace, so logically it follows that this fact,
however interesting in its own right must be totally irrelevant.

I am not trying to move the goal posts, I am just pointing out that they
were *never* in the right position because they start from the
assumption that "when records began" is a suitable time frame.


You ARE moving the goalposts. It's standard denialist form - throw
out one half-baked argument, when that fails, cast around for another,
and so on, hoping that eventually all opposition will be bored into
silence. But actually all it does is waste everyone's time.

Going back even further, the start of the last two


Three

Ice Ages were
preceded by a period of about 300 years of abnormally high temperatures.
There is some evidence that another Ice Age is due soon. This is
looking at other longer term patterns with 150 Million year cycles as
the shortest, with the 41,000 year Milankovitch cycles superimposed on
them. The science of paleoclimatology considers that the Earth is
currently in an "icehouse" state, a state which accounts for just 20% of
the time the Earth has been a planet.

Icehouse states are defined as periods when there is permanent ice on
some parts of the planet, and they start when atmospheric CO2 levels
drop, which is something the AGW enthusiasts


You mean AGW scientists.

ought to think long and
hard about. Ice caps are a rarity in geological timescales,


Again, no links, but on this occasion I can supply one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenh...icehouse_Earth

"Without the human influence on the greenhouse gas concentration, the
Earth would be heading toward a glacial period. Predicted changes in
orbital forcing suggest that in absence of human-made global warming
the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now[18]
(see Milankovitch cycles).

But due to the ongoing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the
Earth is instead heading toward a greenhouse earth period."

Again, note 'anthropogenic', and see below.

and by
trying to preserve the current ones AGW proponents are seeking to deepen
the current icehouse state. That looks short-sighted.


I'm not saying that this is all false, on the contrary Milankovitch
cycles and the icehouse state are about the only independently
provably true and relevant thing that you've said during this entire
thread, but your conclusion in the final paragraph is driven by your
slanted viewpoint, and misses the point.

By far the majority, 99%, of species that have ever lived on this
planet have gone extinct ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction
.... and humans have survived here for only a fraction of geologic time
- seemingly we have only really prospered during the last 10-15
millennia of relatively stable climate, and only formed the first
known civilisations less than 10,000 years ago. By forcing the
climate with our CO2 emissions, effectively we are conducting an
uncontrolled experiment not in a lab, but on the planet itself, and we
don't know what the results will be. This is why scientists attach
such importance to and spend a great deal of time, effort, and
resources in trying to improve modelling, because it's all we have to
tell us what the results of this experiment will be. Meanwhile, we
have absolutely no guarantee whether the results will be benign - but
can guess that this is unlikely given current rates of
desertification, current shortages of fresh water supplies in many
parts of the world, and that many of our major cities are vulnerable
to sea-level rise - or severe - which on the face of it seems the
more likely scenario. Until we can make more accurate predictions, it
seems wisest to adopt a precautionary principle, on the grounds that
it is usually cheaper, not to mention kinder, to avert a disaster than
to clear up after one.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
  #44  
Old October 5th 17, 12:35 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,202
Default calling all physicists

On 04/10/2017 21:50, Java Jive wrote:

- seemingly we have only really prospered during the last 10-15
millennia of relatively stable climate,


We haven't exactly had a stable climate though. There have been warm
spells far warmer than the temperatures we are currently hearing about
as being troublesome, and cold spells severe enough to be considered
mini ice ages, all in that 10-15 millennia window. There have been past
crises too, like the Mayan civilisation being virtually wiped out by a
30-year drought and consequent desertification in an area where we now
have to penetrate thick jungle to find some of their sites. Things are
not constant, they ebb and flow, yet droughts and famines are treated as
far more significant than benign times. Some areas benefit and others
suffer but none of the changes are permanent, though (as the Mayans
discovered) they might last long enough to be locally disastrous.

Also, we are not forcing the climate with CO2 emissions. Without the
convenient smoothing in the models it would be more obvious that CO2
increases lag a rise in temperature, not lead it. What AGW treats as a
cause is otherwise seen as an effect.

Until we can make more accurate predictions, it
seems wisest to adopt a precautionary principle, on the grounds that
it is usually cheaper, not to mention kinder, to avert a disaster than
to clear up after one.


We had the Dickensian Cold Spell despite all the efforts of mankind to
burn large quantities of coal to generate steam to power railways,
factories and shipping. The climate is driven by many things more
powerful than mankind. My prediction is that the "precautionary"
measures will precede another mini ice age, so rather than averting a
disaster it will appear to precipitate it. I give it 50 years maximum
before we start on a series of abnormally long cold winters.

You stick to your views and I will stick to mine. Time will tell.
Meanwhile I will draw a line under this conversation, because no matter
how long it goes on for you will not shift your position and I see no
reason for shifting mine.

[Exaunt]

Jim
  #45  
Old October 5th 17, 04:00 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,689
Default calling all physicists

On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 01:35:51 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 04/10/2017 21:50, Java Jive wrote:

- seemingly we have only really prospered during the last 10-15
millennia of relatively stable climate,


We haven't exactly had a stable climate though. There have been warm
spells far warmer than the temperatures we are currently hearing about
as being troublesome, and cold spells severe enough to be considered
mini ice ages, all in that 10-15 millennia window.


According to the Vostok data we have not had any global spells "far
warmer than the temperatures we are currently hearing about
as being troublesome [etc]". Before about 16-17000 years BP, the
climate was some 8 degC colder than present, between 17-11000 years BP
it rose approximately steadily to around current values - there was
one major and a number of minor short-term fluctuations but the
underlying upward trend is unmistakable - and since then there has
been one very brief period (a single data point ~ 50 years) when it
was around +2 degC, one rather longer period (5 points ~ 200 years)
when it was around +1 degC, and it has never been colder than -2 degC.
That relatively stable period encompasses all of known human
civilisation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/iceco...k_isotope.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal..._petit1999.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...ok/deutnat.txt

There have been past
crises too, like the Mayan civilisation being virtually wiped out by a
30-year drought and consequent desertification in an area where we now
have to penetrate thick jungle to find some of their sites. Things are
not constant, they ebb and flow, yet droughts and famines are treated as
far more significant than benign times. Some areas benefit and others
suffer but none of the changes are permanent, though (as the Mayans
discovered) they might last long enough to be locally disastrous.


These are LOCAL not GLOBAL effects.

Also, we are not forcing the climate with CO2 emissions. Without the
convenient smoothing in the models it would be more obvious that CO2
increases lag a rise in temperature, not lead it. What AGW treats as a
cause is otherwise seen as an effect.


So again the goal-posts move, and yet again you show ignorance of the
science ...

It's a feedback loop:
Temp -- CO2

Increases in temperature cause realease of CO2 from both land
(short-term) and sea (long-term) into the atmosphere, and increases in
atmospheric CO2 raise temperature.

Most natural climate change is kick-started, and therefore led, by
temperature, because Milankovitch cycles change the amount of solar
radiation reaching the Earth. However, the underlying physics of the
feedback loop works the same whether kick-started by temperature or
CO2, and by adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we are merely kick-starting
the feedback loop from the CO2 side rather than the temperature side,
thus warming the planet.

Until we can make more accurate predictions, it
seems wisest to adopt a precautionary principle, on the grounds that
it is usually cheaper, not to mention kinder, to avert a disaster than
to clear up after one.


We had the Dickensian Cold Spell despite all the efforts of mankind to
burn large quantities of coal to generate steam to power railways,
factories and shipping.


Again, you are confusing LOCAL and GLOBAL, and the scale of global
emissions is now way beyond what it was in Dickensian days.

The climate is driven by many things more
powerful than mankind. My prediction is that the "precautionary"
measures will precede another mini ice age, so rather than averting a
disaster it will appear to precipitate it. I give it 50 years maximum
before we start on a series of abnormally long cold winters.


You can make all the predictions you like, but they matter not a jot
to me nor anyone else, because ...
:-( You do not have an open-minded view;
:-( You do not understand the science;
:-( You are not suitably qualified.

You stick to your views and I will stick to mine.


You mean that you will stick to your religion, and I will continue to
accept scientific truth.

Time will tell.


But for this issue we probably don't have enough of it.

Meanwhile I will draw a line under this conversation, because no matter
how long it goes on for you will not shift your position and I see no
reason for shifting mine.


In other words, you failed to make a rational case for your deviant
beliefs.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
 




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


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.