What to do about 'Jerry posts'

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Lurker

A quote from a previous post of yours below. One may not post outside the ATM forum on certain subjects; yet since one posts in the ATM forum one's motives may be suspect. It is a class system that is unfair to ATM ideas. ATM posters cannot post outside ATM but because they post in ATM their motives are suspect and must be addressed. If you post with the mainstream no such examination is required.

Incorrect.
You took a quote of mine from another discussion and used it out of context.
Then you altered its meaning.
A poster can post anywhere without motivations beoing (ETA: NO I'm Neverfly-No Boeing!) being suspect.
Should, in ATM, a poster be stubborn by ignoring evidence in order to support his ATM idea, and should other posters question his motives- it serves as a reminder to the poster of the ATM theory that all of us are fallible and to consider that he may be biased. Biased means he is no longer discussing options and alternatives. "Gentleman, don't confuse me with facts! My mind's made up!"
A poster who posts in mainstream falls under those same constraints.

Originally Posted by Lurker

This is ad hominem in its worst form because it is sanctioned by the forum moderators and those who run the board. The definition of ad hominem as presented in Wikipedia is:

The motivations of a poster are irrelevant all that matters are the of the argument and the evidence produced. It has been stated time and time again that Ad hominem is one of the most grievous sins that can be committed in these forums and yet structural ad hominem rules are being discussed and considered for this forum.

You are misusing the definition of ad hom.

Speculating about a persons character or personality is irrelevent to their motives.
I can be either an exemplary citizen or a scumbag, either way I can still be swayed by my own biased motives. See explanation above.

Lurker, I am in complete agreement about pointing out when some posters here seem to "attack" or "browbeat" a poster. I completely agree that the posters here should be granted some freedom of self expression. I agree that it is wrong to nitpick at a persons character.

However, if a poster is motivated by an extreme desire to find life on Mars and that poster repeatedly presses ATM ideas that there is evidence that there is life on Mars. And that poster repeatedly ignores evidence that there is not, I would find it right and proper to ask that person to take a good look at their motives.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You are misusing the definition of ad hom.

Speculating about a persons character or personality is irrelevent to their motives.
I can be either an exemplary citizen or a scumbag, either way I can still be swayed by my own biased motives. See explanation above.

NONSENSE!!! UTTER NONSENSE!!!

from wikipedia: an irrelevant characteristicabout the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim

This says nothing about character... this specifically states a characteristic whether that characteristic be his religion, the color of his skin, his moral character, or his motivation for putting forth an argument. That this board is even discussing this issue shows its blindness toward its own accepted structural bias.

[Neverfly]

Ow!...

My ears...

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

Lurker, I post threads about global warming all the time, as everybody reading this thread knows, and haven't gotten sanctioned as promoting ATM ideas. People have also posted threads that take the opposite view to my views about GW, and those posts aren't considered ATM either. I'm unsure of what you are referring to by the above remark. Could you give examples as to when you've been censored for posting on this topic in regular fora?

I have been specifically asked in a number of threads not to promote the idea that there is not enough scientific to support the theory of global warming outside the ATM forum. It is on this that I base my claim.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Lurker

NONSENSE!!! UTTER NONSENSE!!!

from wikipedia: an irrelevant characteristicabout the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim

This says nothing about character... this specifically states a characteristic whether that characteristic be his religion, the color of his skin, his moral character, or his motivation for putting forth an argument. That this board is even discussing this issue shows its blindness toward its own accepted structural bias.

as you quoted..ad hom is when you use an "irrelevent characteristic."

When all the evidence and arguments have been addressed and the ATM'er is still pushing his wares in spite of the evidence-I would say his motives are relevent.

But I dunno...
Ask ToSeek or Antoniseb.
Maybe we can get a bigger brain or a Mod to make a ruling on this one.
I only stated my opinion with regards to that particular issue then and now it's dragged up again simply by my saying:
Neverfly :

Lurker, I disagree with you.

Generally people are intelligent and have the discretion to tell the difference between someone idly commenting on an idea or making a connection...
And promoting an Against The Mainstream idea outside of its bounds.
Many ATM'ers do it in the hopes of slipping through the cracks.
A few don't mean to do it but are enthralled with their idea and it creeps out.

The trouble is that if an ATM idea gets promoted in Mainstream, it's tiring for others to have to refute it (again) and also risk derailing the thread into an ATM argument.
Many ATM theories are pretty outlandish and not currently accepted in Mainstream science. Allowing the theories to be posted about outside of ATM promotes confusion and more "work" for Mainstream posters trying to keep things simple and clear.

ETA for clarity: My use of the word creeps may have better been used by the word "seeps"
Either way I did Not intend it as the word "creepy" implies but rather like a slow leak in a tire seeps out.

[Paracelsus]

Yup, found part of something on the 'Global Warming IS politics' thread.

[CodeSlinger]

My impression is that the consensus of the scientific community is that there is enough scientific evidence to support global warming. Therefore, proposing that there is *not* enough scientific evidence to support global warming is going against the consensus, aka Against The Mainstream. As such, such proposals should be restricted to the ATM forum, and posters proposing this are under strict requirements to support their proposal, as per ATM rules. This seems straight-forward to me.

Also, the current discussion seems to have little, if any, bearing to the OP, so may I suggest interested parties to open a new thread?

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

Lurker, I post threads about global warming all the time, as everybody reading this thread knows, and haven't gotten sanctioned as promoting ATM ideas. People have also posted threads that take the opposite view to my views about GW, and those posts aren't considered ATM either.

Often they are, and a number of GW related threads were moved to ATM.

[Nereid]

Speaking for myself (i.e. not as a mod), I'm uncomfortable with GW in BAUT, other than (perhaps) in OTBB, or any such related to planets (or moons, or ...) other than Earth. After all, this is a forum focussed on astronomy and space science ... members can reasonably expect to have good discussions, based on the best and latest scientific work in those fields. That's not the case with GW.

[Serenitude]

Per the ad-hom - motives are part of what is being discussed in this thread. I think it has relevance, and isn't a handwaive.

On Global Warming - GW threads need to be manageable. We ask that they remain in a couple of places due to the tendency for them to get passionately heated quickly, so they can be watched, and for GW threads to pop up like wildfire if not restricted to a couple of commonplace-argument threads. It's either this, or no GW.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

Per the ad-hom - motives are part of what is being discussed in this thread. I think it has relevance, and isn't a handwaive.

I have no problem with this... it is if motives become an issue in an ATM thread. In this respect, it seems that simply posting in support of an ATM idea results in a loss of credibility.

[mugaliens]

One of the greatest things about message boarding, which some of you have apparently failed to grasp, is the opportunity to field new ideas, even if they conflict with established scientific opinion.

If that mentality were to have prevailed we'd still be in the depths of the Dark Ages.

Thankfully, upstart yet innovative thinkers like Galileo, Leonardo, and Copernicus didn't yield to those that hold to the close-minded mentality which clings so precariously to "that which we know."

The fact is that most innovative new ideas throughout the history of time have met with either ridicule, disbelieve, or an unwillingness to even examine them, even by the leading "experts" of the day, the ones who were as well educated as the scientific system allowed at the time.

Yet time after time, a lot of previously held ideas have been overturned by people, like Jerry, who have noticed abberations in the data, stuff that wasn't quite right, and who've put forth innovative ideas as to why that might be.

Whether or not Jerry or others who post in a manner similar to him are right or wrong is immaterial. Whether or not an idea has been discussed once or a thousand times is immaterial. The fact of the matter remains that there's always a new angle, a new way of looking at something that no one has yet thought of.

If anyone in 1980 had said they'd thought of a way to slow light to walking speed, the leading experts of the day would have laughed their heads off. If they persisted, and posted commentary such as Jerry and others sometimes posts, they would have counter-posted the beginnings of this thread, "What to do about Jerry posts?"

And they would have been just as wrong to do so as whoever began this thread.

Science is more than repeating known mantra. It is absolutely not about turning blind eyes to new ideas, even if the new ideas tend to conflict with currently held dogma.

It has everything to do with discovery, and discovery doesn't happen by chanting dogma. It happens when people keep current thinking in mind, but notice things either yet unexplained, or poorly explained, and who set out to either find explanations, or better ones.

So, in answer to the question, "What to do about Jerry posts?", here's my answer:

Bring 'em on!

We might actually discover something new and different through them. If you're not into discovery and learning something new, I've three words for you:

Don't read them.

[mugaliens]

As for global warming...

Well, as per Serenitudes comments, I'll limit my thoughts and comments about that to the appropriate areas and threads. Perhaps the rest of us should do likewise and refrain from hijacking the thread, which is supposed to be about certain types of posts.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

Thankfully, upstart yet innovative thinkers like Galileo, Leonardo, and Copernicus didn't yield to those that hold to the close-minded mentality which clings so precariously to "that which we know."

There's a parallel to Godwin's Law that seems to apply here. In any meta-discussion on ATM, as the thread grows, the probability of someone resorting to a direct comparison of ATMers to Galileo and/or Einstein will reach 1. Once this happens, the thread may as well end immediately, as there are simply no remaining relevant facts to discuss on that topic.

No hostility on my part to Jerry in any case, he is who he is. But these comparisons simply don't fly, Mugs. Jerry isn't Galeleo. Jerry never faced prison, excommunication, nor threat of torture/death if he doesn't recant his math. He'll never be tased for hogging the microphone. The Pope neither knows nor cares who Jerry is. Galeleo ended up recanting anyway.

ATMers aren't Einstein either. Einstein published. BAUT doesn't count as publishing.

[Neverfly]

Mugaliens- GOOD SPEECH

Moose- Not every ATM'er or Tom, Dick and Harry that comes down the pike is a Galileo or Einstein. Such is rare.

The difference between these folks is a matter of EGO
Versus EDUCATION.
A lot of these "Godwin" law types that claim a relevence to Galileo are ignorant. Their own ego's got in the way of their learning.

Ok so you do your best. Should their ego close their ears to you, then so be it.

We have gained just a tiny bit of knowledge. Yes it seems phenominal with our technology...
But we are just getting started. Our understanding of the universe is in its infancy.

Mugaliens is right. Don't make the mistake of the very snub-nosed scientists of days past by thinking scienctific knowledge has progressed to the point where it is set in stone.
An educated man who understands the mathematics and the principles calling question to the "old theory" deserves the spotlight.

Don't let the common misconceptions and ignorance that leads to a lack of understanding of sound principles fool you into thinking science can't be questioned.

[captain swoop]

the difference is I have never seen an ATmer actualy support his idea with real evidence or Maths!

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Speaking for myself (i.e. not as a mod), I'm uncomfortable with GW in BAUT, other than (perhaps) in OTBB, or any such related to planets (or moons, or ...) other than Earth. After all, this is a forum focussed on astronomy and space science ... members can reasonably expect to have good discussions, based on the best and latest scientific work in those fields. That's not the case with GW.

Well, it certainly isn't the case with all of the biology/medicine threads I see cluttering the 'General Science' forum, but nobody makes a peep about those. Climate science is much closer to space science and astrophysics than discussions on neurobiology, evolutionary biology, botany, meteorology (although that field is closely-related to climate science, if not the same), nuclear engineering, alternative energy sources, paleontology, etc. There have been quite a few threads on those topics in the 'General Science' and 'Q&A' fora. If one is going to say that GW should not be discussed as it is unrelated to space science/astrophysics, then the rest of the topics I've named above should go too.

On the other hand, if one were to say that GW should not be discussed because civil discussion of the available evidence appears to be impossible, then I'd agree with you.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

As for global warming...

Well, as per Serenitudes comments, I'll limit my thoughts and comments about that to the appropriate areas and threads. Perhaps the rest of us should do likewise and refrain from hijacking the thread, which is supposed to be about certain types of posts.

No one here has hijacked anything... however, this comment clearly illustrates the strong bias against ATM ideas. I am defending neither side of the issue here, I am simply using it as an example of the bias that I believe has become a part of this forum. However, I cannot even do this because it requires meantioning the topic outside the ATM forum.

I was told that questioning the motives of a poster in this thread does not constitute ad hominem attack... surely using ATM topics as examples of unfair practices should not constitute a rules violation either.

Thank you for your comments... you allow me to make my point here...

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

Well, it certainly isn't the case with all of the biology/medicine threads I see cluttering the 'General Science' forum, but nobody makes a peep about those. Climate science is much closer to space science and astrophysics than discussions on neurobiology, evolutionary biology, botany, meteorology (although that field is closely-related to climate science, if not the same), nuclear engineering, alternative energy sources, paleontology, etc. There have been quite a few threads on those topics in the 'General Science' and 'Q&A' fora. If one is going to say that GW should not be discussed as it is unrelated to space science/astrophysics, then the rest of the topics I've named above should go too.

On the other hand, if one were to say that GW should not be discussed because civil discussion of the available evidence appears to be impossible, then I'd agree with you.

As someone with a background in geophysics I see so many half-truths and evidence taken out of context that I have given up on the topic here. As many here have pointed out, this is not a place for an education, it is a place for questions to be answered. Unfortunately, rather than doing the deep research a lot of data and quotes are mined rather than a deep examination being made of the field.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

One of the greatest things about message boarding, which some of you have apparently failed to grasp, is the opportunity to field new ideas, even if they conflict with established scientific opinion.

It's Friday, night no less.

Of the bazillion places one could find inspiration, for new (scientific) ideas, I have bad news for you: internet discussion fora surely rank quite low ... well below things such as a walk in the woods, fine food and good company, several glasses of excellent New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc, etc.

If that mentality were to have prevailed we'd still be in the depths of the Dark Ages.

Thankfully, upstart yet innovative thinkers like Galileo, Leonardo, and Copernicus didn't yield to those that hold to the close-minded mentality which clings so precariously to "that which we know."

The fact is that most innovative new ideas throughout the history of time have met with either ridicule, disbelieve, or an unwillingness to even examine them, even by the leading "experts" of the day, the ones who were as well educated as the scientific system allowed at the time.

Yet time after time, a lot of previously held ideas have been overturned by people, like Jerry, who have noticed abberations in the data, stuff that wasn't quite right, and who've put forth innovative ideas as to why that might be.

Whether or not Jerry or others who post in a manner similar to him are right or wrong is immaterial. Whether or not an idea has been discussed once or a thousand times is immaterial. The fact of the matter remains that there's always a new angle, a new way of looking at something that no one has yet thought of.

Moose already spiked this nonsense quite well; just how, shall we say, weak this is can be easily demonstrated: no one, mugaliens, stands between the first world you (or the, I guess, USA Jerry) and almost effortless presentation of whatever mould-breaking (or not) ideas you have on the internet. Sure, if you live in rural Myanmar things would be different ...

If anyone in 1980 had said they'd thought of a way to slow light to walking speed, the leading experts of the day would have laughed their heads off. If they persisted, and posted commentary such as Jerry and others sometimes posts, they would have counter-posted the beginnings of this thread, "What to do about Jerry posts?"

And they would have been just as wrong to do so as whoever began this thread.

Science is more than repeating known mantra. It is absolutely not about turning blind eyes to new ideas, even if the new ideas tend to conflict with currently held dogma.

It has everything to do with discovery, and discovery doesn't happen by chanting dogma. It happens when people keep current thinking in mind, but notice things either yet unexplained, or poorly explained, and who set out to either find explanations, or better ones.

So, in answer to the question, "What to do about Jerry posts?", here's my answer:

Bring 'em on!

We might actually discover something new and different through them. If you're not into discovery and learning something new, I've three words for you:

Don't read them.

Whatever.

Please read the OP again, carefully.

This thread is about, if I may paraphrase, a certain high tau (opacity) to (rather obvious) fatal inconsistencies ... you got an idea that would make Einstein's GR look like the casual thought of a kindergartener? here's my suggestion:

Bring it on!

But please, do your homework before you bring on your I'm-gonna-show-all-you-scientists-are-{insert perjorative here}!-ideas. Please be sure that said ideas are not so laughably internally inconsistent that even after two glasses of excellent New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc they are blindingly, obviously, absurd.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

the difference is I have never seen an ATmer actualy support his idea with real evidence or Maths!

There are some. IIRC, almost all of them have started threads in the ATM section after the new ATM policy went into effect.

Curiously, several of these attracted few, if any, challenges*.

*Of course, this doesn't mean they are free from pretty obvious, fatal, inconsistencies! However, FWIW, the new ATM policy that Fraser implemented has been followed by a substantial improvement in the average scientific merit of those ideas ... but then, correlation is not causation, is it?

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Nereid

It's Friday, night no less.

Of the bazillion places one could find inspiration, for new (scientific) ideas, I have bad news for you: internet discussion fora surely rank quite low ... well below things such as a walk in the woods, fine food and good company, several glasses of excellent New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc, etc.

Well put... I have lost much of my youthful enthusiasm for the internet. It can bring people a lot closer together than they have ever been in the history of the human race, but it cannot change how humans interact with each other. What's worse, the anonymity of the medium seems to reduce the responsibility many take for their words. To take an extreme hypothetical... if I said that I was a sockpuppet of Nereid's who but the mods and admins would know the truth. If they protested too much it might make some here suspicious...

Well that's it for you Nereid... you know the penalty for sockpuppets...
Oh hey... its friday and I need some time away from this cube of mine, but not iw not to be this weekend...

Originally Posted by Nereid

Moose already spiked this nonsense quite well; just how, shall we say, weak this is can be easily demonstrated: no one, mugaliens, stands between the first world you (or the, I guess, USA Jerry) and almost effortless presentation of whatever mould-breaking (or not) ideas you have on the internet. Sure, if you live in rural Myanmar things would be different ...Whatever.

Tis true... to paraphrase Plato... this new medium is going to see the end of civilized discourse in the world

Originally Posted by Nereid

But please, do your homework before you bring on your I'm-gonna-show-all-you-scientists-are-{insert perjorative here}!-ideas. Please be sure that said ideas are not so laughably internally inconsistent that even after two glasses of excellent New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc they are blindingly, obviously, absurd.

awwww now no one would do that here would they???

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

the difference is I have never seen an ATmer actualy support his idea with real evidence or Maths!

I have, several times. The problem has been that the evidence is either a "look at this picture" or dosen't apply to the particular idea and the math has been wrong. But, at least it was there.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Nereid

Speaking for myself (i.e. not as a mod), I'm uncomfortable with GW in BAUT, other than (perhaps) in OTBB, or any such related to planets (or moons, or ...) other than Earth. After all, this is a forum focussed on astronomy and space science ... members can reasonably expect to have good discussions, based on the best and latest scientific work in those fields. That's not the case with GW.

Since the only scientific alternative to anthropogenic global warming is climate change directed by solar forcing mechanisms, the topic is very much the subject matter of BAUT.

[Maksutov]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

Since the only scientific alternative to anthropogenic global warming is climate change directed by solar forcing mechanisms, the topic is very much the subject matter of BAUT.

False dichotomy.

There are also things called "weather patterns". Too bad Meteora isn't around to elaborate on these. But, in short, the Earth and its atmosphere are very capable of changing weather patterns, up to and including global patterns, on their own.

Concerning what mugaliens wrote

So, in answer to the question, "What to do about Jerry posts?", here's my answer:

Bring 'em on!

and what Nereid wrote

here's my suggestion:

Bring it on!

I agree as long they bring it and 'em on in the correct forum, which is ATM.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Maksutov

False dichotomy.

There are also things called "weather patterns". Too bad Meteora isn't around to elaborate on these. But, in short, the Earth and its atmosphere are very capable of changing weather patterns, up to and including global patterns, on their own.

You're probably right. I shouldn't have said "only thing". But when there is talk about climate change there are only a few major ideas for what is observed not only currently, but historically (eg. ice age cycles):

1. Milankovich orbital cycles as drivers of the ice ages.
2. Solar forcing as a driver of the ice age cycles.
3. Volcanic activity as an influence in shorter term variations and temperature anomalies.
4. Anthropogenic global warming as a driver of recent warming.

Do you remember any of the examples Meteora referred to?

At any rate, my point to Nereid was that the subject of climate very much involves the topic of astronomy. Since the Earth is an open system with solar and orbital climate influences - and possibly other influences - I don't see how one could defend the notion that climate change is a subject that only involves the Earth's own atmospheric and geological influences.

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

You're probably right. I shouldn't have said "only thing". But when there is talk about climate change there are only a few major ideas for what is observed not only currently, but historically (eg. ice age cycles):

1. Milankovich orbital cycles as drivers of the ice ages.
2. Solar forcing as a driver of the ice age cycles.
3. Volcanic activity as an influence in shorter term variations and temperature anomalies.
4. Anthropogenic global warming as a driver of recent warming.

Do you remember any of the examples Meteora referred to?

At any rate, my point to Nereid was that the subject of climate very much involves the topic of astronomy. Since the Earth is an open system with solar and orbital climate influences - and possibly other influences - I don't see how one could defend the notion that climate change is a subject that only involves the Earth's own atmospheric and geological influences.

There are at least two others:

1) The North Atlantic Oscillation
2) The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

AFAIK, these cycles are separate from the solar cycles in radiative intensity and the orbital cycles. However, I agree with what you are saying RE climate science being closely-tied to the topic of astronomy.

[VanderL]

Originally Posted by Tensor

I have, several times. The problem has been that the evidence is either a "look at this picture" or dosen't apply to the particular idea and the math has been wrong. But, at least it was there.

You're both absolutely wrong, there have been discussions in ATM by people who have published papers to their name, math included. Captain swoop and Tensor, I think your comments are uncalled for.

Also, there is ATM published in many mainstream papers as well, it is very much part of science. There have been many ATM discussions on BAUT based on such published papers. (Unfortunately the forum rules don't allow such discussions any longer, unless one is the author or his/her stand-in).

Originally Posted by Nereid

internet discussion fora surely rank quite low

Then the answer to: "What to do about "Jerry posts", is also obvious: nothing.

Cheers.

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by dgruss23

Since the only scientific alternative to anthropogenic global warming is climate change directed by solar forcing mechanisms, the topic is very much the subject matter of BAUT.

Ahhhh... but this just the sort of foolish misunderstanding which shows the dangers of scientists and engineers drawing conclusions beyond their area of expertise. Your statement here is by no means true.

Originally Posted by dgruss23

You're probably right. I shouldn't have said "only thing". But when there is talk about climate change there are only a few major ideas for what is observed not only currently, but historically (eg. ice age cycles):

1. Milankovich orbital cycles as drivers of the ice ages.
2. Solar forcing as a driver of the ice age cycles.
3. Volcanic activity as an influence in shorter term variations and temperature anomalies.
4. Anthropogenic global warming as a driver of recent warming.

Once again you show your limited understanding of the field. Milankovich orbital cycles and Volcanic activity have never really been seriously considered possible mechanisms because ice ages are rare in planetary history. These mechansims tend to be far too regular to be the primary cause of ice ages.

Solar activity has been considered, but the data to date are far too minimal to correlate to ice age activity. As someone pointed out there are slight variations in the solar data that don't corolate to what we expect. However, ice ages last 100's of thousands of years and are punctuated by interglacial periods. We have no hard data over such long periods to understand what, if any, role solar activity might play. I do know that there are many who would willingly sell their souls for a solar max that could measure solar output, sunspot activity, and hundreds of other solar properties during the period of the Maunder Minimum.

One of the points that is overlooked on this forum is that most ice ages, including the current one, occur when a large landmass is located over one of the polar regions of the planet. This fact is not lost on the geoscience community. It has been observed that the movement of the landmass out of the polar region coincides with the end of the ice age. There is not enough data or evidence to prove or disprove this theory either, but it is very much a candidate.

There are more complex theories such as delayed cause theories. These theories are based on the complex feedback mechanisms that are so much a part of terrestrial meteorology. These theories suggest that a precipitating event such as a change in solar output or a combination of the milankovich cycle with axial tilt of the planet may initiate ice ages. The complex weather cycles for the planet are then disrupted and unstable weather patterns develop that produce the advances and retreats of continental ice sheets. This pattern then remains in effect until they run their course or until some further event precipitates a termination of the event.

I should also meantion the fact that it is possible that there is no single mechanism which is responsible for all the ice ages that have occured. This has been suggested because the "snowball earth" period does not appear to fit with what we know of the other ice ages that have occured over time. Once again, however, we simply don't have time machines to see the past clearly enough and the evidence left from past ice ages is far from satisfactory.

There are other theories and, as has been meantioned here, it is not at all clear whether the increase in CO₂ is a driving mechanism or a side effect of other driving mechanisms. The cause of ice ages is a poorly understood area in a complex field of study. It is unfortuante that it has become so extremely politicized... it makes further study very difficult in this field. In so many ways, we know far more about the stars and distant galaxies than we do about the workings of our own small planet.

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

There are at least two others:

1) The North Atlantic Oscillation
2) The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

Good examples... I have not been closely involved in this field for too long. I have sold my soul for the more lucrative area of kernel systems design and implementation.

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

AFAIK, these cycles are separate from the solar cycles in radiative intensity and the orbital cycles. However, I agree with what you are saying RE climate science being closely-tied to the topic of astronomy.

This is true, but the background of an astronomer does not necessarily prepare them to understand the mechanisms being studied in connection with current meteorological cycles or paleo meteorological cycles. It does not teach them what we have learned from passed ice ages or the strange attractors that may govern the nature of teresteral meteorology.

[dgruss23]

Originally Posted by Lurker

Ahhhh... but this just the sort of foolish misunderstanding which shows the dangers of scientists and engineers drawing conclusions beyond their area of expertise. Your statement here is by no means true.


Once again you show your limited understanding of the field. Milankovich orbital cycles and Volcanic activity have never really been seriously considered possible mechanisms because ice ages are rare in planetary history. These mechansims tend to be far too regular to be the primary cause of ice ages.

What is it with the people on this board and their incessant need for arrogance? I've been putting up with these sorts of unneccessary attributions with someone else on this board for over a month now - and here you're starting in with the same garbage.

Do you know that my statement from the other night was a "foolish misunderstanding" or perhaps a rushed statement because it was late at night and I was tired??

Do you really know the actual extent of my understanding of the topic? You're making an inference based upon a few comments I've made. And how do you define "limited understanding"? Limited understanding of what? Limited understanding compared to what standard?

For the record - Lurker - I'd suggest that my past history as a poster on this topic demonstrates as much understanding of the arguments for a solar influence in climate change - both recent and historical - as anyone on this board.

Second, Milankovich cycles have never been advocated as a means of driving climate change? As recently as the 9th addition of the Tarbuck and Lutgens Earth Science textbook (Prentice Hall 2000 - pages 138 and 139) Milankovitch cycles are discussed as a possible cause of ice age activity.

And this statement on your part is not true:

Originally Posted by Lurker

Solar activity has been considered, but the data to date are far too minimal to correlate to ice age activity. As someone pointed out there are slight variations in the solar data that don't corolate to what we expect. However, ice ages last 100's of thousands of years and are punctuated by interglacial periods. We have no hard data over such long periods to understand what, if any, role solar activity might play.

Sharma provided evidence for a possible role of the Sun in the ice age cycles. More data is needed of course.

Should I chastise you for a supposedly "limited understanding" of the field of research into solar influence on climate?

Nereid, perhaps instead of worry about "Jerry posts", it would be more productive to promote a posting atmosphere that minimizes arrogant posting. This is a quite common problem on this forum that is not limited to the ATM forum. I will tell you that I myself have made posts that no doubt come across as arrogant - usually inspired by my annoyance at someone else that has started the arrogant debate tone train a rollin'.

I'm taking a self-enforced break from this board. I don't know for how long, but I've had it with the general arrogance and rudeness of people in debates here. There was a time when you could disagree with most people here (certainly in the BABB days) with some humor. Now there is way too much cranky, arrogant, attitude on this board.