Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 And the first link that pops up is a peer reviewed paper correlating ENSO to the Geomagnetic Flux, BTW. This is another example of off topic crap. Nice how you left out the "solar" http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS289&q=%22Geomagnetic+Solar+Flux%22+&oq=%22Geomagnetic+Solar+Flux%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=4334l4334l0l7034l1l1l0l0l0l0l46l46l1l1l0 Explain it to me, You are the world expert! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Nice how you left out the "solar" http://www.google.co...0l0l46l46l1l1l0 Explain it to me, You are the world expert! 'Solar Flux' and 'Geomagetic Flux' are different things. I forgot to put a slash in between them, there is no 'Geomagnetic-Solar Flux'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/2/83/2002/nhess-2-83-2002.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/NinoLand.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 http://books.google.com/books?id=-mMWB7-B2ucC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=Geomagnetic+Sun,+ENSO,&source=bl&ots=FFPF9FmCMZ&sig=NX3CwfVTBKCAccdovh8RcDEf42M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XXIBT9aENMyJtweFtfHPBg&ved=0CGwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Geomagnetic%20Sun%2C%20ENSO%2C&f=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 http://www.nat-hazar...s-2-83-2002.pdf What does that have to do that you made up :"New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011 " I cut and paiste that you are the only source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 http://www.wbabin.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3647 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 What does that have to do that you made up : "New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer completely address the ongoing incorrect assertions regarding the UAH dataset, latest in Christy et al 2011 " I didn't make that up, as I already showed you. What does anything you've posted in this thread have to do with...the thread topic? Nothing. Go away now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Roy Spencer references it on his blog, along with many others: http://www.drroyspen...-at-13-century/ Thats all I know, I haven't read it. Thats not why I mentioned it. Bump for vergent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 http://www.wbabin.ne...ssays/View/3647 Purpose: The original and continued purpose of these pages is to provide an opportunity for public presentation of scientific theories without prior and arbitrary assessment, criticism or rejection by the recipient. Judgement by the few runs counter to the spirit of scientific exploration. The internet provides a potential world of criticism and support. Authors who make their theories known in this manner will probably find both. A non reviewed blog is the best you can do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 QUOTE FROM DR. SPENCER: We are always working to provide the best products, and we may soon have another adjustment to account for an apparent spurious warming in the last few years of the aging Aqua AMSU (see operational notes here). We know the data are not perfect (no data are), but we have documented the relatively small error bounds of the reported trends using internal and external evidence (Christy et al. 2011.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Purpose: The original and continued purpose of these pages is to provide an opportunity for public presentation of scientific theories without prior and arbitrary assessment, criticism or rejection by the recipient. Judgement by the few runs counter to the spirit of scientific exploration. The internet provides a potential world of criticism and support. Authors who make their theories known in this manner will probably find both. A non reviewed blog is the best you can do? Nope http://www.nat-hazar...s-2-83-2002.pdf You can go away now. Take your nonsense with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I never denied it was full of good info...good info that was posted to refute nonfactual claims that also ruined my UAH thread. Those who originally posted the good info in this thread were bashed and ridiculed, for doing good research and thinking rationally and objectively.. This happens here quite alot, it is somewhat irritating. Happy newyear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Happy newyear! Thanks! I'm not very happy right now! You know why! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Wow you are actually putting my quote of you as representing me. Nice move. "I did not say this he did.". Nice. Google "Geomagnetic Solar Flux" with the quotes and tell us what it means please. Interesting! As you suggested I googled "geomagnetic solar flux", both on google web and on google scholar, and found that there were no hits on google scholar and only Becky's own posts on google web. I found the scholar results informative because that means that is absolutely no research, in any field, that uses the term. But surely Becky isn't a flatuous windbag who invents terms to make his trolling sound more authoritative? I'd be shocked, shocked I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Nope http://www.nat-hazar...s-2-83-2002.pdf You can go away now. Take your nonsense with you. Gosh, Becky, that sure is a stale paper you linked to. Did you notice that it has only been cited 5 times since it was published a decade ago? Hardly cutting edge research. Here's a link to another paper on the same topic - Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun? And here is an excerpt from their conclusions: Astrophysical data demonstrate that the Sun has been variable in activity and radiative output. Unfortunately, precise data are limited to the satellite era, i.e. after 1978. Looking at the solar variability over this short period only provides a small range of solar forcing, e.g. 1‰ of the total irradiance over the 11-yr activity cycle. Conflicting views exist about a multi-decadal trend in irradiance and a possible link between solar activity and cloud cover. Acquiring data over the next solar minimum may contribute to answering both of these questions. Moreover, the hypothetical effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation is poorly understood and requires further research efforts. Please note that this paper has been cited 79 times in just 6 years. Might be worth your reading. BTW - I'm still eagerly awaiting the link to the recent peer-viewed Christy and Spencer paper you mentioned in your opening post. You probably just forgot to provide the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 PhillipS, listen. You need to know when to stop. 1) I linked you the reference to Christy et al 2011 by Roy Spencer 7 times now. I haven't read it, thats not why I mentioned it...but you can find it if you want to read it. 2). There is no such thing as the Geomagnetic-Solar flux. The geomag flux and Solar flux are two different things, I forgot to but a slash or dash in between them because they are both relevant. 3). There is no understanding of the mechanism behind the correlation, so there is little need to cite...but the correlation to ENSO and other climate variables is so strong that it is unlikely to be coincidence. 4). The paper you linked has NOTHING to do with the paper I linked. Do you know why? If you don't, then you have no business posting about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Interesting! As you suggested I googled "geomagnetic solar flux", both on google web and on google scholar, and found that there were no hits on google scholar and only Becky's own posts on google web. I found the scholar results informative because that means that is absolutely no research, in any field, that uses the term. But surely Becky isn't a flatuous windbag who invents terms to make his trolling sound more authoritative? I'd be shocked, shocked I say! That's because the "Geomagnetic-Solar Flux doesn't exist! I combined the terms in an improper manner because this is a hobbyist forum and the solar flux and geomag flux, although different things, were both relevant points of discussion. The fact that you don't know the two terms are different doesn't surprise me, and explains the laughable cluelessness in all of your posts here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 That's because the "Geomagnetic-Solar Flux doesn't exist! I combined the terms in an improper manner because this is a hobbyist forum and the solar flux and geomag flux, although different things, were both relevant points of discussion. The fact that you don't know the two terms are different doesn't surprise me, and explains the laughable cluelessness in all of your posts here. Allowing yourself to get annoyed by AmericanWx forum posters is not the right move. Certain people are conformists and like to circle the wagons when their theory of AGW is perceived to be under attack or review. In their minds, they are comforted by the notion of the science being settled and are willing to plunge ahead with whatever our dear leaders in the Climate Science field demand of us. Continue linking your sources and sharing information that questions pre-conceived notions in the field of climate science. They may mock and criticize your work, but they can't prevent the unraveling of their strong coalition dating back to the late 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Allowing yourself to get annoyed by AmericanWx forum posters is not the right move. Certain people are conformists and like to circle the wagons when their theory of AGW is perceived to be under attack or review. In their minds, they are comforted by the notion of the science being settled and are willing to plunge ahead with whatever our dear leaders in the Climate Science field demand of us. Continue linking your sources and sharing information that questions pre-conceived notions in the field of climate science. They may mock and criticize your work, but they can't prevent the unraveling of their strong coalition dating back to the late 80s. What science do you believe we think is settled? I hear this charge all the time, but I don't know what specifically is being referred to. Could you explain please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Allowing yourself to get annoyed by AmericanWx forum posters is not the right move. Certain people are conformists and like to circle the wagons when their theory of AGW is perceived to be under attack or review. In their minds, they are comforted by the notion of the science being settled and are willing to plunge ahead with whatever our dear leaders in the Climate Science field demand of us. Continue linking your sources and sharing information that questions pre-conceived notions in the field of climate science. They may mock and criticize your work, but they can't prevent the unraveling of their strong coalition dating back to the late 80s. Thanks bro, yeah I think you're right. I don't mind debating the science on both sides, all I've seen in this thread is a combo of bad trolling and false accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 What science do you believe we think is settled? I hear this charge all the time, but I don't know what specifically is being referred to. Could you explain please? That the warming we had was predominately a result of our CO2 emissions. It is obviously possible for that to be true, but it is far from settled, perhaps as far as it can get. There are other means in explanation as well as contradictory data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 That's because the "Geomagnetic-Solar Flux doesn't exist! I combined the terms in an improper manner because this is a hobbyist forum and the solar flux and geomag flux, although different things, were both relevant points of discussion. The fact that you don't know the two terms are different doesn't surprise me, and explains the laughable cluelessness in all of your posts here. The only person to use the term "Geomagnetic Solar Flux" is you - and if it was simply a typo you could have corrected it at any time. But you didn't, did you? Trying to make a technical point with imaginary or incorrect terms indicates, at best, sloppy unscientific thinking. The other possibility is you're being deliberately disingenuous. The reading audience will pick the explanation they feel most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 What science do you believe we think is settled? I hear this charge all the time, but I don't know what specifically is being referred to. Could you explain please? I never said "WeatherRusty" is that person. Unfortunately, both sides have too many who I have heard make dogmatic claims to the contrary. Those are the people I refer to and they are here as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 That's because the "Geomagnetic-Solar Flux doesn't exist! I combined the terms in an improper manner because this is a hobbyist forum and the solar flux and geomag flux, although different things, were both relevant points of discussion. The fact that you don't know the two terms are different doesn't surprise me, and explains the laughable cluelessness in all of your posts here. I thought it was a science forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 I thought it was a science forum. It is a science forum too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 The only person to use the term "Geomagnetic Solar Flux" is you - and if it was simply a typo you could have corrected it at any time. But you didn't, did you? Trying to make a technical point with imaginary or incorrect terms indicates, at best, sloppy unscientific thinking. The other possibility is you're being deliberately disingenuous. The reading audience will pick the explanation they feel most likely. lol wut? It is my abbreviation to combine "total solar flux" and "geomag flux". You translate that into me lying about something? Amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 lol wut? It is my abbreviation to combine "total solar flux" and "geomag flux". You translate that into me lying about something? Amazing. "geomag flux" gets a whopping 4 hits with google. http://www.google.com/search?ix=iea&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22geomag+flux%22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 "geomag flux" gets a whopping 4 hits with google. http://www.google.com/search?ix=iea&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22geomag+flux%22 "Geomag" flux stands for "Geomagnetic" Flux, in full. Now get out of my thread please. Take your nonsense elsewhere. Sad when you have to defend your own trolling. You and PhilllipS are really preventing objective scientific discussion in this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 "Geomag" flux stands for "Geomagnetic" Flux, in full. Now get out of my thread please. Take your nonsense elsewhere. Sad when you have to defend your own trolling. You and PhilllipS are really preventing objective scientific discussion in this forum. Imteresting phrase for you to use, Becky - especially since you aren't objective (your denialist biases are evident in all your posts), you aren't scientific (you rarely provide any support for your assertions, and when you do it's typically from a denialist site such as climate4you or old, superceded research reports), and a discussion requires more than one person so your telling participants things like "get out of my thread" makes it pretty clear you don't want discussion at all. Or is this another example of your shorthand - like "Geomagnetic Solar Flux"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.