| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2005 03:00:21 PM |
| Object: |
Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
January 26, 2005
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050124/full/050124-10.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=7440023
http://www.physorg.com/news2831.html
http://www.climateprediction.net
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
.
|
|
| User: "relay61:13:214:23" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
26 Jan 2005 04:16:46 PM |
|
|
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <crackpots@everywhere.net> wrote in message
news:41F80464.6D13C55F@everywhere.net...
January 26, 2005
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050124/full/050124-10.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=7440023
http://www.physorg.com/news2831.html
http://www.climateprediction.net
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
The time frame is intentionally unclear, BBC says 11 degrees hotter C in
about 100 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210629.stm
how sensitive is the prediction 0.01 degree C per year?
We could simply cool the earth down by covering India with Al foil and
reflecting the heat back out to space.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Blay" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
27 Jan 2005 04:02:36 AM |
|
|
"relay61:13:214:23" wrote ...
We could simply cool the earth down by covering India with Al foil and
reflecting the heat back out to space.
'simply' huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
27 Jan 2005 07:06:11 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics Paul Blay <ranma@saotome.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"relay61:13:214:23" wrote ...
We could simply cool the earth down by covering India with Al foil and
reflecting the heat back out to space.
'simply' huh?
Yes.
There are a number of ways to cool the earth that would cost less than
an 11C uncontrolled climate change.
From orbiting sun-shades on down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Blay" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
27 Jan 2005 07:45:40 AM |
|
|
"Ian Stirling" wrote ...
In sci.physics Paul Blay <ranma@saotome.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"relay61:13:214:23" wrote ...
We could simply cool the earth down by covering India with Al foil and
reflecting the heat back out to space.
'simply' huh?
Yes.
There are a number of ways to cool the earth that would cost less than
an 11C uncontrolled climate change.
From orbiting sun-shades on down.
None of which get the adjective 'simple' particularly if the way chosen
is covering India with Al foil. Simple-minded I'll grant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
29 Jan 2005 05:05:18 PM |
|
|
"Paul Blay" <ranma@saotome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ctara4$l7a$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
None of which get the adjective 'simple' particularly if the way chosen
is covering India with Al foil. Simple-minded I'll grant.
Lets not forget John McCarthy's (Hoover Institution) suggestion of covering
all of Europe with Saran Wrap as a means of reducing the impact of UV damage
caused by Ozone depletion.
Republican minds are truly a thing to laugh at.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
26 Jan 2005 04:26:39 PM |
|
|
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934
"Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an injection
of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says
Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics could
not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the
models.
There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says. The
climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9°C to 11.5°C. "The
uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles Allen."
Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
26 Jan 2005 06:10:40 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics "o?in" <o?in@ragnarok.com> wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934
"Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an injection
of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says
Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics could
not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the
models.
There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says. The
climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9?C to 11.5?C. "The
uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles Allen."
Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me...
If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it makes
sense to discard them.
(It makes more sense to fix the model)
.
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
26 Jan 2005 06:38:14 PM |
|
|
If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it
makes
sense to discard them.
(It makes more sense to fix the model)
Yes. Fix the broken model. If the model causes you to through out cold
results, you should not trust the warm results either. A model should be
taken all or nothing. A model that is broken is a waste of CPU cycles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
30 Jan 2005 12:15:49 PM |
|
|
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:jZOdnUpyGeFpqmXcRVn-jA@whidbeytel.com...
Yes. Fix the broken model. If the model causes you to through out cold
results, you should not trust the warm results either. A model should be
taken all or nothing. A model that is broken is a waste of CPU cycles.
So a model of say... The uniform Keplerian orbits of the planets should be
thrown out becuase we know there are perturbations caused by interplanetary
attractions?
Keplerian mechanics is quite sufficient to send spacecraft through the
solar system thank you very much...
Is it also your view that the model clockpiece on the wall beside me
should be thrown out because the minute hand does not move linearly over the
face and can be off by up to 1 minute? Or that it should be discarded
because it doesn't tell the correct time for objects that are moving
relative to itself? Or because it doesn't tell the correct time for India?
Ultimately all modern science is statistical modeling and therfore subject
to variance from reality in specific measurement regimes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
30 Jan 2005 05:35:22 PM |
|
|
Yes. Fix the broken model. If the model causes you to through out cold
results, you should not trust the warm results either. A model should be
taken all or nothing. A model that is broken is a waste of CPU cycles.
So a model of say... The uniform Keplerian orbits of the planets should
be
thrown out becuase we know there are perturbations caused by
interplanetary
attractions?
No. Kepler is good. Perturbations, as you point out, and mercury is a bit
off, due to relativity considerations. But for the most part, it all fits
close enough to actual use. The same cannot be said for global warming, and
you know it.
Is it also your view that the model clockpiece on the wall beside me
should be thrown out because the minute hand does not move linearly over
the
face and can be off by up to 1 minute? Or that it should be discarded
because it doesn't tell the correct time for objects that are moving
relative to itself? Or because it doesn't tell the correct time for
India?
No. Your clock is just fine. IPCC models are not as good as your clock yet!
I said "If the model causes you to through out cold results, you should not
trust the warm results either." So using your analogy, if I had a clock that
sometimes went backwards in time (i.e. cold results) and sometimes went
slowly forward in time (i.e. 1 or 2 C warmer over 100 years), and other
times it went very fast (10 or 11 C warmer) then I would throw out the model
(clock). See? If I had a clock that was as erratic and untested as IPPC
climate models, I would trash it.
Ultimately all modern science is statistical modeling and therfore
subject
to variance from reality in specific measurement regimes.
Variation is fine, if it is moderate. I am not asking for perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
30 Jan 2005 11:03:43 PM |
|
|
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:Q4idnUI_1Zis8mDcRVn-iQ@whidbeytel.com...
Yes. Fix the broken model. If the model causes you to through out cold
results, you should not trust the warm results either. A model should
be
taken all or nothing. A model that is broken is a waste of CPU cycles.
So a model of say... The uniform Keplerian orbits of the planets should
be
thrown out becuase we know there are perturbations caused by
interplanetary
attractions?
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:Q4idnUI_1Zis8mDcRVn-iQ@whidbeytel.com...
No. Kepler is good. Perturbations, as you point out, and mercury is a bit
off, due to relativity considerations. But for the most part, it all fits
close enough to actual use.
So you are contradicting your earlier statement already. That statement
being if the results of a model fail in a specific measurement regime, the
model must be thrown out.
Well they fail for Kepler, and you contradict yourself by now claiming
that Kepler is ok.
Pathetic....
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:Q4idnUI_1Zis8mDcRVn-iQ@whidbeytel.com...
The same cannot be said for global warming, and you know it.
I see, so now your claim is apparently that the model results are not
sufficiently accurate for you. Yet your complaint was not that they are
inaccurate, but that they failed in some specific regime and as a
consequence all results are invalid.
Changing your story so soon Ooin?
By the way, using Kepler's laws one can't predict an accurate position of
the planets even as close as 1000 years from now. Newtonian gravitation
can, but not Keplerian.
So Ooin who died and made you the arbitor of what is and is not acceptable
accuracy?
Is it also your view that the model clockpiece on the wall beside me
should be thrown out because the minute hand does not move linearly over
the
face and can be off by up to 1 minute? Or that it should be discarded
because it doesn't tell the correct time for objects that are moving
relative to itself? Or because it doesn't tell the correct time for
India?
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:Q4idnUI_1Zis8mDcRVn-iQ@whidbeytel.com...
No. Your clock is just fine.
It is? Yet it fails to tell the time in India, and hence fails in that
measurement regime. By your own earlier admission, all measurements by my
clock are therfore invalid and another model timepiece must be used even
when measuring local time.
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:Q4idnUI_1Zis8mDcRVn-iQ@whidbeytel.com...
IPCC models are not as good as your clock yet!
How would you know Ooin? In order to make that statement you would have
to know how accurate they are. Are their results accurate within .5
standard devaitions Ooin? 1 standard deviation? 2? Which is it?
Please provide evidence to support your answer.
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:Q4idnUI_1Zis8mDcRVn-iQ@whidbeytel.com...
I said "If the model causes you to through out cold results, you should
not
trust the warm results either."
Which generalizes to <if the model fails in a specific measurement regime,
you can not trust it in any measurement regime.>
I guess you can't even grasp what you are really saying.
Pathetic....
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:Q4idnUI_1Zis8mDcRVn-iQ@whidbeytel.com...
So using your analogy, if I had a clock that
sometimes went backwards in time (i.e. cold results) and sometimes went
slowly forward in time (i.e. 1 or 2 C warmer over 100 years), and other
times it went very fast (10 or 11 C warmer) then I would throw out the
model
(clock). See?
I see, so you think that cold results are negative, and warm results
positive.
Well that depends on your zero point now doesn't it Ooin. You know, in
Science we typically use the Kelvin scale for measurement where temperatures
are always positive and zero represents the coldest temperature possible.
So in science there are no negative temperatures Ooin, just as there is
no going back in time.
You silly little poof you.
Ultimately all modern science is statistical modeling and therfore
subject
to variance from reality in specific measurement regimes.
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:Q4idnUI_1Zis8mDcRVn-iQ@whidbeytel.com...
Variation is fine, if it is moderate. I am not asking for perfection.
Good, you have gotten what you asked for. So stop whining and jabbering
nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
30 Jan 2005 11:43:18 PM |
|
|
No. Kepler is good. Perturbations, as you point out, and mercury is a bit
off, due to relativity considerations. But for the most part, it all fits
close enough to actual use.
So you are contradicting your earlier statement already. That statement
being if the results of a model fail in a specific measurement regime, the
model must be thrown out.
I did not say that. Celestial mechanics are well understood and for many
requirements, they accuracy model using 17th century concepts in physics.
In another regime, such as cases where velocities are a significant fraction
of the speed of light, etc. those models become too inaccurate in many
cases. I would not through out a perfectly good aproximative model in one
regime just because it leads you astray in another regime. Relativity is
over kill and unnecessarily complex in the mundane world. But what does that
have to do with the IPCC models? I am not throwing them out in one regime
just because they are unreliable in another. I am rejecting them across the
board because I lack confidence in them.
I see, so now your claim is apparently that the model results are not
sufficiently accurate for you.
Yes.
Yet your complaint was not that they are
inaccurate, but that they failed in some specific regime and as a
consequence all results are invalid.
No.
Changing your story so soon Ooin?
No.
So Ooin who died and made you the arbitor of what is and is not
acceptable
accuracy?
Of course, it is up to me to arbitrate what is acceptable accuracy in
determining my own degree of confidence in any particular theory. I am thus
skeptical of global warming theories.
No. Your clock is just fine.
It is? Yet it fails to tell the time in India, and hence fails in that
measurement regime. By your own earlier admission, all measurements by my
clock are therfore invalid and another model timepiece must be used even
when measuring local time.
Idiot.
Well that depends on your zero point now doesn't it Ooin. You know, in
Science we typically use the Kelvin scale for measurement where
temperatures
are always positive and zero represents the coldest temperature possible.
So in science there are no negative temperatures Ooin, just as there is
no going back in time.
A delta in temp is what global warming is talking about. Even in Kelvin, an
increase is positive, and a decrease is negative.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
31 Jan 2005 01:39:08 AM |
|
|
So you are contradicting your earlier statement already. That
statement
being if the results of a model fail in a specific measurement regime,
the
model must be thrown out.
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
I did not say that.
Actually you did.
"Yes. Fix the broken model. If the model causes you to through out cold
results, you should not trust the warm results either. A model should be
taken all or nothing. A model that is broken is a waste of CPU cycles."
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
Celestial mechanics are well understood and for many
requirements, they accuracy model using 17th century concepts in physics.
In another regime, such as cases where velocities are a significant
fraction
of the speed of light, etc. those models become too inaccurate in many
cases.
"A model should be taken all or nothing. A model that is broken is a waste
of CPU cycles." - Ooin.
Keplerian mechanics is quite wrong, and does not model the solar system
accurately even over relatively short periods. Hence it is a broken model,
and should therefore be not taken according to your original statement Ooin.
Yet once this was pointed out to you, you changed your mind.
Laughable....
I see, so now your claim is apparently that the model results are not
sufficiently accurate for you.
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
Yes.
Well then you must have an estimate of their accuracy. Please provide
it.
Yet your complaint was not that they are
inaccurate, but that they failed in some specific regime and as a
consequence all results are invalid.
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
No.
Is your claim now that global climate models do not fail in specific
regimes? That would be hard to believe since you were complaining about
model results that are discounted because they are considered outside the
range of possibility.
Changing your story so soon Ooin?
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
No.
And yet you have been caught changing your story on two occasions in this
short thread. And now denying it.
Pathetic....
So Ooin who died and made you the arbitor of what is and is not
acceptable accuracy?
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
Of course, it is up to me to arbitrate what is acceptable accuracy in
determining my own degree of confidence in any particular theory. I am
thus
skeptical of global warming theories.
Really? Now that would be hard to do given that you don't seem capable of
telling us what the accuracies of the models are. Without a number how do
you claim to know the magnitude of their error?
Snicker...
No. Your clock is just fine.
It is? Yet it fails to tell the time in India, and hence fails in that
measurement regime. By your own earlier admission, all measurements by
my
clock are therfore invalid and another model timepiece must be used even
when measuring local time.
Ooin wrote:
Idiot.
Your response is unclear to me Ooin. Are you saying that my clock tells
the time in India or that it doesn't and even though it's results must be
thrown out in that measurement regime, it can still be kept, in violation of
your initial statement?
Please be clear in your response....
Snicker....
Well that depends on your zero point now doesn't it Ooin. You know, in
Science we typically use the Kelvin scale for measurement where
temperatures
are always positive and zero represents the coldest temperature
possible.
So in science there are no negative temperatures Ooin, just as there
is
no going back in time.
Ooin wrote:
A delta in temp is what global warming is talking about. Even in Kelvin,
an
increase is positive, and a decrease is negative.
The models don't compute a change in temperature Ooin. They compute
absolute temperatures, and inferr a change from those absolute values.
Who do you think you are fooling?
Snicker...
.
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
31 Jan 2005 01:40:54 AM |
|
|
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
I did not say that.
Actually you did.
"Yes. Fix the broken model. If the model causes you to through out cold
results, you should not trust the warm results either. A model should be
taken all or nothing. A model that is broken is a waste of CPU cycles."
What you quote is what I said. But you seem to misunderstand it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
31 Jan 2005 01:43:05 AM |
|
|
You are wasting your time in this thread.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sander Vesik" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
31 Jan 2005 11:56:38 AM |
|
|
In sci.space.policy "o?in" <o?in@ragnarok.com> wrote:
No. Kepler is good. Perturbations, as you point out, and mercury is a bit
off, due to relativity considerations. But for the most part, it all fits
close enough to actual use.
So you are contradicting your earlier statement already. That statement
being if the results of a model fail in a specific measurement regime, the
model must be thrown out.
I did not say that. Celestial mechanics are well understood and for many
requirements, they accuracy model using 17th century concepts in physics.
In another regime, such as cases where velocities are a significant fraction
of the speed of light, etc. those models become too inaccurate in many
cases. I would not through out a perfectly good aproximative model in one
regime just because it leads you astray in another regime. Relativity is
over kill and unnecessarily complex in the mundane world. But what does that
have to do with the IPCC models? I am not throwing them out in one regime
just because they are unreliable in another. I am rejecting them across the
board because I lack confidence in them.
So the orbit of Mercury is not in the mundane world for you? Or not part of
celestial mechanics?
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
.
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
31 Jan 2005 03:05:06 PM |
|
|
So the orbit of Mercury is not in the mundane world for you? Or not part
of
celestial mechanics?
Correct. I think most people would think of golf or bumper cars as mundane.
But how many people would actually say that mercury's orbit (actually, the
small deviation of mercury's orbit that is due to relativistic effects)
could be a mundane part of an average person's day?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
01 Feb 2005 05:32:54 PM |
|
|
So the orbit of Mercury is not in the mundane world for you? Or not part
of celestial mechanics?
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:ZJ-dndjNiOXkAGPcRVn-gw@whidbeytel.com...
Correct. I think most people would think of golf or bumper cars as
mundane.
But how many people would actually say that mercury's orbit (actually, the
small deviation of mercury's orbit that is due to relativistic effects)
could be a mundane part of an average person's day?
You are on record as stating when a model fails in one measurement regime
it must be thrown out in all regimes - I.E. abandoned.
Kepler's mechanics does not only fail to predict the position of Mercury
with reasonable accuracy, it also fails to predict the position of the
planets very well over even a period as short as several hundred years.
Throw it out?
It worked well enough to get man to the moon didn't it? It worked well
enough to get the early space probes to the inner planets didn't it?
Sadly you keep thinking about Newtonian gravitation rather than Keplerian
mechanics, and yes that too fails when predicting the position of mercury.
Throw it out?
It works well enough to get all modern space probes to their destinations
doesn't it?
It works well enough to simulate the interaction of galaxies doesn't it?
Snicker....
Your assertion that a models results must be thrown out entirely if the
model fails in any specific regime is clearly a foolish assertion.
Your choice is to retract your assertion or continue to illustrate your
foolishness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
02 Feb 2005 12:53:47 AM |
|
|
You are on record as stating when a model fails in one measurement regime
it must be thrown out in all regimes - I.E. abandoned.
No. You said that I said that. But I never did say that. I did say that is a
model gives you conflicting results (in the same regime!) then you should
nit trust the model. You went on to say a bunch of nonsense about "failing
in one measurement regime" nonsense, and blather about a clock in india,
etc. I have already abandoned a thread you started with such sillyness. I am
not going to resume it here again!
Kepler's mechanics does not only fail to predict the position of Mercury
with reasonable accuracy, it also fails to predict the position of the
planets very well over even a period as short as several hundred years.
Throw it out?
No. If it is useful in some cases, keep it.
Sadly you keep thinking about Newtonian gravitation rather than Keplerian
mechanics, and yes that too fails when predicting the position of mercury.
I never said to abandon either. If you find it fits your needs, use it.
Throw it out?
Again, No.
Your assertion that a models results must be thrown out entirely if the
model fails in any specific regime is clearly a foolish assertion.
You are foolish to keep uinsisting that I said such a thing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
26 Jan 2005 06:24:10 PM |
|
|
"Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an
injection
of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says
Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics
could
not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the
models.
There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says.
The
climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9?C to 11.5?C.
"The
uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles
Allen."
Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me...
If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it
makes
sense to discard them.
Pffft. Well that is not science. Ever heard of The Michelson-Morley
Experiment? The problem most people had with it was that it *seemed* wrong.
The strength that Einstein had over others was that he took the experimental
result at face value. There were many others as smart or smarter than
Einstein, but Einstein was not entrenched in preconceived notions. Others
wasted time trying to see how the experiment must be flawed. It was not
flawed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jonathan" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
26 Jan 2005 09:13:00 PM |
|
|
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:eJ-dnQvqH5E1qWXcRVn-jA@whidbeytel.com...
"Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an
injection
of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says
Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics
could
not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the
models.
There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says.
The
climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9?C to 11.5?C.
"The
uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles
Allen."
Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me...
If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it
makes
sense to discard them.
Pffft. Well that is not science. Ever heard of The Michelson-Morley
Experiment? The problem most people had with it was that it *seemed* wrong.
The strength that Einstein had over others was that he took the experimental
result at face value. There were many others as smart or smarter than
Einstein, but Einstein was not entrenched in preconceived notions. Others
wasted time trying to see how the experiment must be flawed. It was not
flawed.
The problem with these models is they don't include
Darwin. Life is becoming a primary driving force
for global climate change. Life is the source of change
and the source of the solution. Without including all the
complexities of life, politics, public opinion etc
the models are grossly simplified and
incomplete.
Number crunching climate change is little different
than number crunching a thunderstorm. Far more
accurate and insightful information can be gained
from simply watching the radar loops. From watching
the large scale patterns and behavior of the few
primary forces, rather than trying to predict the
motion of each air molecule. The butterfly effect
clearly demonstrates the folly of long term numerical
prediction of a thermodynamic system.
A system dominated by geology, impacts etc will
tend to display chaotic behavior, with large quick swings
from one extreme to the other. Interspersed with long
periods of static behavior.
A system dominated by life....Darwin....typically moves
steadily towards, then oscillates quickly around, the
optimum.
The primary variable is life...nature. Or how far or close
to a naturally evolving system will life on earth become.
A Natural society is a full democracy, the most adaptive
and powerful force for stability and creativity in the
known universe.
So it will be through the expansion and dominance of free
democracies that global climate problems will be solved.
The cure for climate change is political, not scientific.
Stop number-crunching, it's a waste of time. Place your faith
in Nature and champion the spread of democracy. The cure
for /all/ that ails this planet lies there.
Jonathan
s
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midtown" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
26 Jan 2005 11:06:39 PM |
|
|
"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message news:41f86006_5@127.0.0.1...
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:eJ-dnQvqH5E1qWXcRVn-jA@whidbeytel.com...
"Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an
injection
of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism,
says
The equation the used
Increase in temperature in 100 years = 25 C + (1+a) ^ 100
where a = 0.001 +- 0.1 the growth rate per year with "statistical noise"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
26 Jan 2005 11:42:14 PM |
|
|
"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message news:41f86006_5@127.0.0.1...
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:eJ-dnQvqH5E1qWXcRVn-jA@whidbeytel.com...
"Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an
injection
of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says
Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics
could
not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the
models.
There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says.
The
climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9?C to 11.5?C.
"The
uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles
Allen."
Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me...
If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it
makes
sense to discard them.
Pffft. Well that is not science. Ever heard of The Michelson-Morley
Experiment? The problem most people had with it was that it *seemed* wrong.
The strength that Einstein had over others was that he took the experimental
result at face value. There were many others as smart or smarter than
Einstein, but Einstein was not entrenched in preconceived notions. Others
wasted time trying to see how the experiment must be flawed. It was not
flawed.
The problem with these models is they don't include
Darwin. Life is becoming a primary driving force
for global climate change.
What the ***** are you babbling about now, Jonathan? Becoming? Life has been
changing the global climate, the ocean chemistry, and the very ground you walk
on since the fist microbe released it's first puff of gas into the atmosphere at
least 3.5 billiob years ago. Becoming? Life has been a primary driving force
on the planet nearly since it first coalesced into a planet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jonathan" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
27 Jan 2005 10:54:56 PM |
|
|
"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:Wa%Jd.22673$yY6.10868@attbi_s02...
"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message news:41f86006_5@127.0.0.1...
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:eJ-dnQvqH5E1qWXcRVn-jA@whidbeytel.com...
"Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an
injection
of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says
Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics
could
not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the
models.
There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says.
The
climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9?C to 11.5?C.
"The
uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles
Allen."
Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me...
If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it
makes
sense to discard them.
Pffft. Well that is not science. Ever heard of The Michelson-Morley
Experiment? The problem most people had with it was that it *seemed* wrong.
The strength that Einstein had over others was that he took the experimental
result at face value. There were many others as smart or smarter than
Einstein, but Einstein was not entrenched in preconceived notions. Others
wasted time trying to see how the experiment must be flawed. It was not
flawed.
The problem with these models is they don't include
Darwin. Life is becoming a primary driving force
for global climate change.
What the ***** are you babbling about now, Jonathan? Becoming? Life has been
changing the global climate, the ocean chemistry, and the very ground you walk
on since the fist microbe released it's first puff of gas into the atmosphere at
least 3.5 billiob years ago. Becoming? Life has been a primary driving force
on the planet nearly since it first coalesced into a planet.
This just shows you don't understand the orders of magnitude greater
effect and influence the emergent property of intelligence has on
this planet. The effect life has is related to the level of niche filling
that has taken place. Life is a far larger variable, by leaps and
bounds, than ever before and is becoming the primary force
for change.
That is a good thing, since it means we are ever more being
placed into the steady hands of Nature.
Jonathan
s
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
28 Jan 2005 03:14:04 AM |
|
|
"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message news:41f9c968_4@127.0.0.1...
"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:Wa%Jd.22673$yY6.10868@attbi_s02...
"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message news:41f86006_5@127.0.0.1...
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:eJ-dnQvqH5E1qWXcRVn-jA@whidbeytel.com...
"Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an
injection
of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says
Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics
could
not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from
the
models.
There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he
says.
The
climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9?C to 11.5?C.
"The
uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles
Allen."
Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me...
If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it
makes
sense to discard them.
Pffft. Well that is not science. Ever heard of The Michelson-Morley
Experiment? The problem most people had with it was that it *seemed*
wrong.
The strength that Einstein had over others was that he took the
experimental
result at face value. There were many others as smart or smarter than
Einstein, but Einstein was not entrenched in preconceived notions. Others
wasted time trying to see how the experiment must be flawed. It was not
flawed.
The problem with these models is they don't include
Darwin. Life is becoming a primary driving force
for global climate change.
What the ***** are you babbling about now, Jonathan? Becoming? Life has been
changing the global climate, the ocean chemistry, and the very ground you
walk
on since the fist microbe released it's first puff of gas into the atmosphere
at
least 3.5 billiob years ago. Becoming? Life has been a primary driving
force
on the planet nearly since it first coalesced into a planet.
This just shows you don't understand the orders of magnitude greater
effect and influence the emergent property of intelligence has on
this planet. The effect life has is related to the level of niche filling
that has taken place. Life is a far larger variable, by leaps and
bounds, than ever before and is becoming the primary force
for change.
That is a good thing, since it means we are ever more being
placed into the steady hands of Nature.
Jonathan
s
No, it just means that you have no clue as to how much "non-intelligent life"
has affected the planet. For instance, there was very little, if any,
atmospheric oxygen until the advent of photosynthetic life, between 2-3 billion
years ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Palm" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
28 Jan 2005 04:26:00 AM |
|
|
"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in
news:wnnKd.23982$P04.7559@attbi_s03:
No, it just means that you have no clue as to how much
"non-intelligent life" has affected the planet. For instance, there
was very little, if any, atmospheric oxygen until the advent of
photosynthetic life, between 2-3 billion years ago.
And how long did it take life to create the current oxygen levels in the
atmosphere? The problem now isn't so much that CO2 levels change but the
speed at which they do so. Had this increase taken place over several
thousand years rather than a century it would have been a lot less
disruptive as everything would be given more time to adapt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
28 Jan 2005 06:11:00 AM |
|
|
"Thomas Palm" <Thomas.Palm@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message
news:Xns95EC744F032E8ThomasPalmchellose@212.83.64.229...
"George" <george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in
news:wnnKd.23982$P04.7559@attbi_s03:
No, it just means that you have no clue as to how much
"non-intelligent life" has affected the planet. For instance, there
was very little, if any, atmospheric oxygen until the advent of
photosynthetic life, between 2-3 billion years ago.
And how long did it take life to create the current oxygen levels in the
atmosphere? The problem now isn't so much that CO2 levels change but the
speed at which they do so. Had this increase taken place over several
thousand years rather than a century it would have been a lot less
disruptive as everything would be given more time to adapt.
I was discussing O2 levels, not CO2 levels. O2 levels have fluxuated throughout
geologic time. Having said that, there is ample evidence (such as the formation
of the iron belt around the Great Lakes) for a huge increase in O2 levels about
2-3 billion years ago (from nearly zero levels), levels that have remained high
(with fluxuations) ever since. This increase is directly associated with the
evolution of photsynthetic species. Life has had a great impact on the planet
since it's inception. We owe the existence of O2 in the atmosphere to life. We
owe the existence of the ozone layer in the atmosphere to life. Life has
created the conditions on the planet that are primarily responsible for it's
perpetuation. And while it is certainly true that man's activities have
resulted in a huge increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is
also true that life has attenuated the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphre for
at least the last 500 million years (as evidenced by the huge paleozoic
limestone deposits that sequestered huge volumes of CO2). It is also true that
the increase in CO2 emission are associated with the rise in global
temperatures, it is also true that the earth has been much warmer in the past
(as evidenced by the fact that there was realtively little polar ice during the
mesozoic) than it currently is, and warmer even than it is forcast to become.
So to me the question is not why is the earth warming, but why it became cold in
the first place.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Landy" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
27 Jan 2005 04:49:58 PM |
|
|
"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message news:41f86006_5@127.0.0.1...
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:eJ-dnQvqH5E1qWXcRVn-jA@whidbeytel.com...
snip
Number crunching climate change is little different
than number crunching a thunderstorm.
What a wonderful analogy! Can I use that or is it copyrighted?
cheers
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "jonathan" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
27 Jan 2005 10:56:14 PM |
|
|
"Landy" <noone@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ctbr6o$d07$1@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message news:41f86006_5@127.0.0.1...
"ošin" <ošin@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:eJ-dnQvqH5E1qWXcRVn-jA@whidbeytel.com...
snip
Number crunching climate change is little different
than number crunching a thunderstorm.
What a wonderful analogy! Can I use that or is it copyrighted?
Sheez~
cheers
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alain Fournier" |
|
| Title: Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible! |
29 Jan 2005 01:15:16 AM |
|
|
jonathan wrote:
Number crunching climate change is little different
than number crunching a thunderstorm.
Yes, but both are possible to do. You do get different
types of results.
Far more
accurate and insightful information can be gained
from simply watching the radar loops. From watching
the large scale patterns and behavior of the few
primary forces, rather than trying to predict the
motion of each air molecule. The butterfly effect
clearly demonstrates the folly of long term numerical
prediction of a thermodynamic system.
The butterfly effect clearly demonstrates the
folly of trying to predict the weather at a
given location on a given day far in the future.
It doesn't demonstrate the folly of predicting
global trends in weather patterns. That can be
done and has been done. Humans did increase the
CO2 and other greenhouse gases content in the
atmosphere enough to have a significant effect
on global climate.
Alain Fournier
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
