ad: Winterfest-1

Interesting connection between solar activity, propagation and earthquakes

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by VE7DXW, Oct 9, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Ok, here we go:

    First, the text you quote is identical word for word to the very dated 1996 information from NASA I just browsed. And, as I said, in the video the byline with the data is mysteriously missing.

    But don't take my word for it, here is a screen shot from the video, notice no byline or date under the title:

    Screen Shot 2019-10-18 at 5.16.59 PM.png

    And here is a screenshot of the exact same website just now from NASA showing the byline and date. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rossow_01/computer.html

    Screen Shot 2019-10-18 at 5.20.38 PM.png

    Hmm, I wonder who might have removed the byline and date?

    Now, on to your challenge about the other data. For starters I looked up the first item, the Princeton reference. It actually is a brief press release/summary of the actual paper, "Diurnal cloud cycle biases in climate models", published Dec. 2017 in Nature Communications, a very reputable journal. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02369-4

    So what does it say? Well, first it isn't about cloud effects themselves, which have been known and modeled for a long time. It's about a more suble effect, the diurnal cycle of clouds (DCC). The abstract says (emphasis added):

    "While this model tuning does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming, it may potentially increase the uncertainty of climate predictions."​

    And the discussion (conclusion) says in part (emphasis added):

    "Thanks to the limited responses of DCC to global warming, such biases do not seem to invalidate future climate projection; however, they may induce an overestimation of cloud-feedback strength and distort the patters of land–ocean–atmosphere interaction."​

    In other words, future climate projection is NOT invalidated, but possibly there could be some additional uncertainties from the influence of DCC which should be taken into account to improve the models. Hardly earth shaking, and exactly the kind of incremental improvements that occur in science all the time.

    So, I haven't "failed to understand" or "missed" anything at all. I simply went to the original sources and found that the first two items I looked into are certainly not what the narrator dramatically claims is a "rebellion" against climate science. The video author is grossly exaggerating, at the very least. Par for the course with much on You Tube.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2019
  2. N5EQY

    N5EQY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Wouldn't it be nice if we could get true and accurate information....without all the extraneous bickering. We have gotten to the point its almost impossible to tell who is lying, who it trying or who is dying. Even getting true and factual info is almost impossible. Politics:)-(.
     
    W4MHZ and (deleted member) like this.
  3. W4MHZ

    W4MHZ Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Ok, as I said, you have decided that the premise of the video is false because you see a date on a web page you can not explain. You do that in spite of the fact that the content I quoted supports the premise the video presents. Namely that the models would have to be ten times more accurate than they are to accurately predict the magnitude of changes brought about by adding additional CO2 into the environment. So, either the NASA changed the web page (wayback machine indicates numerous revisions of the page over the years but does not show them) or they didn't and it STILL says the models are not accurate enough to make the assertions being made by climate zealots. Either way, it supports the assertion the author of the video made, right? ... or do we first have to define what the meaning of the word "is" is?

    Now you also selectively quote one of the 4 additional sources (the Princeton one) and selectively highlight the context. Let me show you another way to do exactly what you have done here:

    "While this model tuning does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming, it may potentially increase the uncertainty of climate predictions."

    "Thanks to the limited responses of DCC to global warming, such biases do not seem to invalidate future climate projection; however, they may induce an overestimation of cloud-feedback strength and distort the patters of land–ocean–atmosphere interaction."

    Moreover; you have completely ignored the other sources pointed out in the video... so you have once again proven my point. That point being that we ALL tend to see what we want to see and we ALL tend to discount the opinions of others more than we should.
     
  4. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I wouldn’t have bothered with your challenge at all except that you claimed I missed the point and was mistaken, and also because pseudoscientific nonsense is a topic of the thread.

    As for the rest of the video, if you want to attempt to validate it go right ahead. I’ve done enough for the first two items, and have other things to do besides trying to disprove more of some random You Tube video with an obvious axe to grind, and no real data behind it besides a few screen shots, some stock animation, and a three minute voice over. Plus it’s really off topic now.

    It’s actually good that you posted the video though, in my view it highlights the type of half-truth peddling that is all too prevalent these days in the the fear mongering over electromagnetic energy. I’m sure there is a similar You Tube video on the “horrors” of RF, maybe I’ll try to find one.

    And from this point I’ll go back to that topic; my apologies to other readers for the diversion.
     
    K8XG likes this.
  5. W4MHZ

    W4MHZ Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    There was no challenge issued... not sure how you imagined that.

    Kinda figured this would end just about like it has:cool: ... you sure taught me a lesson. ;) I just love these kinds of discussions. There is always someone who knows pretty much everything there is to know about anything there is to know about ... even if they are not nearly as subtle as they believe themselves to be.

    I'm still trying to figure out if the Internet was a good idea ... but I am totally convinced the global warming zealots will eventually catch up to the very real science which is being done of late.

    Have a great day and remember, confirmation bias is like opinions and we all know what opinions are like and who all has one :cool:
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2019
    K7GYB likes this.
  6. IU4FLP

    IU4FLP Ham Member QRZ Page

  7. IU4FLP

    IU4FLP Ham Member QRZ Page

  8. WA7SCH

    WA7SCH XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    It's almost a law that Correlation does not imply causation. A correlation coefficient of .319 implies a moderate correlation which means in essence it is something more than a random relationship. At least that's what I was taught in the various statistics courses that I have been through.

     
  9. K0RGR

    K0RGR XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I will challenge the statement that earthquake precursors have been 'debunked'. If you mean that some "expert' somewhere speculated that observed radio precursors were something else, I can tell you without a doubt that they are wrong. That goes for USGS if that's their position, too. I know what I and my father observed, and I believe the reports that have been sent to me over the years. The phenomenon is highly ephemeral, and may only happen in certain kinds of quakes. Some of those who sent me reports were scientists, as well.

    What my father observed was rapid Doppler warble, similar to what is heard on signals coming through the Auroral zone, but in this instance, the signals in question came from the LA Basin, about 400 miles south of us. Only LA Basin signals were affected. The effect was first observed in the afternoon, and continued throughout the night before the big quake in the north end of the LA Area. The effect was pronounced on amateur signals from 160 through 20 meters, and AM broadcast stations in the LA Basin. It was truly a strange sound.

    Yes, that auroral Doppler warble can be caused by other things. But not for many hours on many bands.
     
  10. K7GYB

    K7GYB XML Subscriber QRZ Page

     
    VE7DXW likes this.

Share This Page