Reply With Quote
speaking of which, they are wrapping up now. Joy. laters.
I tend to work more at night and weekends, which is why you don't see me much then.
That and I have had to sit in on mindless conference calls a lot recently. I am listening to someone drone on as I type on mute.
Hopefully this matter will get cleared up soon, erk.
speaking of which, they are wrapping up now. Joy. laters.
If this were true, it would be easy to make policy. Which its not. There is so much to consider when trying to validate a political policy contention. This is why the famed Texas common wisdom fails so often. To judge a statement on its face is to fail to do the homework.
And I am a native Texan.
I couldnt agree more with this.
The IPCC likes the debunked "hockey stick" graph. They liked it so much that they used it in 4 or 5 different places in one of their reports. That graph is also misleading. If plotted on a far larger time scale, the so-called unprecedented warming doesn't look very significant.
Hey, it's a free country.
Dude you were trying to prove no climate change with a graph with a single decade span. Now your talking about long-term data. Your a ing hypocrite. or a mindless conservative sheep.
The IPCC likes the debunked "hockey stick" graph. They liked it so much that they used it in 4 or 5 different places in one of their reports. That graph is also misleading. If plotted on a far larger time scale, the so-called unprecedented warming doesn't look very significant.
He's both!
y'all left out "duped shill for oil/gas/coal corps". see, eg: Koch Industries
how the can you measure global climate changes by limiting your samples to a single region?
what a disaster.
How can you reconstruct (not measure, dumbass) global TEMPERATURE ANOMALY (not "climate change", dumbass) by using tree proxies from only a select few locations?
That's all I wanted to hear...
The Sun is the driver... period.
P.S. The Polar ice caps on Mars are CO2... the main factor obviously is solar flux.
and ummmm.... (goes without saying) we can't really control solar flux (nor should we attempt to)...
The fact that our Polar ice caps and Mars' Polar 'dry-ice' caps shrunk in equal proportions over the last 8 years or so should be telling enough...
So that you might understand:
The sun makes a man without shade sweat.
A man in the shade may not sweat at all.
A man in a greenhouse may get hot enough to die with no water.
Mars has a greenhouse atmosphere. This concentrates the suns affect.
We are moving closer to mar's co2 levels because we are pulling huge amounts of carbon from its storage, storage that occured naturally over millions of years, and disrupting things by spewing it visibly into our atmosphere.
We are building a green house of our own, a greenhouse which will increase the suns affect, and put our way of life at risk.
If we stop, we may not suffer as much, regardless what the sun does.
Whatever the sun throws at us, it could always be worse. And we are doing our best to ensure that happens.
I dont know that this is true, you dont cite a source, but Mars is farther from the sun, so the fact that it may be warming at a rate equal to the earth shows that the concentrated CO2 effect would have to be magnifying the increased solar activity, since it is not so directly affected... You make my point for me
Occasionally better than doing the wrong thing.
An excellent article on climate models.
Why Climate Modeling Is Not Climate Science
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=cont...limate-science
Most everyone has heard the recent announcement that Global Warming has been put on hold for 20 to 30 years. Earth's variable climate continues to make fools of climate scientists, obstinately refusing to follow the IPCC's climate change script. Why? Because the climate change doomsayers put their faith in computer models, not in hard science.
Following a 30-year warming trend that started in the 1970's, global temperatures have leveled off and even declined since 2001 (see Greenland's Ice Armageddon Comes To An End). Despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have caused global temperatures to continue rising, nature has pulled a thermal about face and sent temperatures downwards. Climate scientists are flummoxed.
“It is possible that a fraction of the most recent rapid warming since the 1970's was due to a free variation in climate,” Isaac Held of the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) wrote in an email to Discovery News. “Suggesting that the warming might possibly slow down or even stagnate for a few years before rapid warming commences again.”
“This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Niñas. This current cooling doesn't have one.” Why didn't the vast cadre of global warming researchers see this cooling trend coming? After all they have been predicting how Earth's climate will behave 100 years in the future, surely they can predict what will happen over the next decade or two?
The problem here is that all the predictions bandied about by the IPCC and various climate change celebrities are based on General Circulation Models (GCM). These are large, complex computer programs that attempt to model Earth's entire environment. A computer model is a simplified stand-in for some real system; a computer network, a protein molecule, the atmosphere, or Earth's entire climate. A modeler tries to capture the most important aspects of the system being modeled, while leaving off unnecessary detail. Of course, determining what's important and what isn't is the trick.
This means that a model is always less complicated than the thing being modeled, which in turn means that a model never behaves exactly like the thing being modeled. When you have a large complex system that can react in unexpected ways—called non-linear responses by mathematicians—the accuracy of models becomes even more suspect. In fact, it may be impossible to create an accurate model at all.
Modeling the atmosphere alone is complex, requiring knowledge of incoming solar radiation, the movement of air currents over the land and sea, heat convection, the amount of water vapor, the effects of clouds, and on and on. People have been trying to model Earth's atmosphere for decades, primarily to predict the weather. The weather forecasts you hear on your evening news are all based on computer models. How accurate are these models? In the near term, a few days from today, local weather forecasts are about 60% accurate when predicting high temperatures. For a GCM add in modeling of many more features as well. In fact, GCMs started off very simple and have continued to grow in complexity, if not accuracy, over the years.
Storm track prediction is an example of quan ative modeling, where the expected results of a model are hard numbers. In the case of hurricanes, a storm's track and changes in strength over time are the desired results. But Hurricane trackers get constant feedback from the real storms they track, allowing them to constantly correct their models when they go wrong. We have so little accurate climate data that such corrections are not really possible with GCM. When a GCM prediction diverges from reality is the model wrong, is it missing some critical factor that has been overlooked, or is the baseline data erroneous or non-representative? It is very hard to tell. Ignoring the known inaccuracies of GCM, scientists are still asking models to provide hard answers, something they just cannot do.
Climate change modeling is an example of qualitative modeling. These types of models result in general trends and overall effects of parameter modification. They are used to provide insight into processes where scientists' intuition fails. For example, a qualitative model can tell us that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere should cause warming. But qualitative models should not be used to make concrete predictions of future conditions, such as the global average temperature for the next 100 years. As Richard W. Hamming put it, “The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers.”
That, unfortunately, has not stopped the IPCC and affiliated climate alarmists from trotting out model predictions as science fact. In doing so they are committing the cardinal sin of computer modeling: believing that the model is the thing being modeled. Factually speaking, such numbers are at best a guess and at worst out right lies. So, why is Earth cooling down?
Russian scientists have been saying for years that we’re headed for a cold spell based on known solar cycles. Swanson credits the alignment of a series of climate processes for the cooling climate but what's actually causing the cooling is a mystery. Sinking water currents in the north Atlantic Ocean could be transferring heat into the ocean depths. Extensive low cloud cover in the tropics may be reflecting more of the sun's energy than usual back out into space.
Cloud cover variation would be in line with the historically low solar activity according to the predictions of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. In 1997, Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen popularised a theory that linked galactic cosmic rays and global climate change mediated primarily by variations in the intensity of the solar wind, which they have termed cosmoclimatology. This theory was later expanded on by Shaviv. The influence of cosmic rays on cloud cover has been ignored by the traditional climate science community since it downplays the impact of CO2 on global temperature.
In 2008, a new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggested cooling will counter greenhouse warming for the next decade. However, this model predicts that temperatures will again be rising by 2020. More recently, the study in Geophysical Research Letters predicts global cooling for the next 20 to 30 years. But, that report also predicts that once the hiccup is over, “warming will return and be very aggressive.”
Why do all of the “main stream” climate researchers always add, “global warming will be back”? Because they are still using the outputs of the same models that didn't predict the current cooling trend. The same models that have never correctly predicted Earth's climate. Climate modeling has become a crutch for a previously ignored scientific community that has been thrust into the public light by the global warming scare. They don't have real scientific answers so they use their wonky models, hope for the best and keep asking for more grant money. It is time the public said enough.
And it is excactly insight that we draw from these models. No one knows for shure that we will be underwater in the next 100 years.
But "As Richard W. Hamming put it, 'The purpose of computing is insight,'" and the insight we get is that we could face a major diruption in the planet's economic and ecologic systems if we dont transition while we can still do so comfortably.
"Russian scientists have been saying for years that we’re headed for a cold spell based on known solar cycles"
And they are some of the best and brightest?
"They don't have real scientific answers so they use their wonky models, hope for the best and keep asking for more grant money."
The grant money would be doled out even if there wasnt a crisis.
But I know, instead of funding research into subjects that might affect the health of our nation and the world, lets continue to wage war with public funds so that War Hawks can see more growth in their portfolio!
I'm not arguing that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas... we all know it is...
Water vapor is 50 times more potent a greenhouse gas... are you going to establish 'cap a trade' policies for H2O as well?
Are humans to blame for the fact that the recent volcanic eruption over iceland pumped as much soot, SO2 and CO2 into the atmosphere in just three short weeks than the combined anthropomorphic output has over the past 25-30 years...???
Really? 365-385 ppm = 950,000 ppm ???
The world's oceans store the majority of Earth's CO2 reserves... when solar flux increases, so too does the temperature of the world's oceans... (and again, we can't control the Sun's output...) as oceanic temperature increases, CO2 is released into the atmosphere... which partially increases atmopheric temperatures (on account of the greenhouse effect)... needless to say, the amounts of CO2 reabsorbed by the oceans, and by plant-life for that matter, markedly dwarf man's output every day... how can that daily deficit somehow increase CO2 levels to the point where everyone is running around like chicken little...???
Chicken Little: Exhibit A
So how come we were worried about a global freeze back in the 70's?? Well into the hydrocarbon fuel age no less....
Fact of the matter is that the sun is the dominant factor in this whole issue... phrases like "regardless what the sun does" tell me you've already decided that said factor has less bearing on global climate than your point of emphasis... humans.
We should be environmental conservationists in the true sense of the word... intertwining this issue with taxes, however, is a horrible idea... How is the government going to use that tax money to eliminate "anthropomorphic climate change" anyway??? Are they going to plant more corn? Or spend more money on incentives that are actually more wasteful from an energy standpoint?
Thats exactly my ing problem with climate change idiots.
One ing volcano erupting emits the same amount of greenhouse gas could in 20-30 years time.
God forbid two might go off in the same year. Would their whole model right up.
Should the world find renewable energy sources? Of course. But that comes from incentive to do so. I can see how the government could put in tax-breaks for renewable energy companies, grants for research, etc.
But to create an entire new currency (because thats what cap+trade does, ultimately) is beyond ing moronic.
Water vapor moves through our atmosphere at a constant, fast pace. Carbon takes decades to sequester in nature. Your point here is a complete fail.I'm not arguing that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas... we all know it is...
Water vapor is 50 times more potent a greenhouse gas... are you going to establish 'cap a trade' policies for H2O as well?
Are humans to blame for the fact that the recent volcanic eruption over iceland pumped as much soot, SO2 and CO2 into the atmosphere in just three short weeks than the combined anthropomorphic output has over the past 25-30 years...???
Really? 365-385 ppm = 950,000 ppm ???
Humans are to blame for alot of pollution, but not volcanoes. What is your point?
And the 385+ppm currently is up from 325ppm in the 50s and 60s, thus we are closer to mars than we were. Really.
Youre so going to get raped in this conversation...good luck. Im out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
