| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Wrong!!!!!!
|
Wrong!!!!!!
Walt wrote:
Flying Tadpole wrote: Martin Baxter wrote: Well things do change, Galileo was eventually proved correct (more or less): "The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism." Cheers Marty Which is a longer-winded way of saying "of course we have lotsa big computers now, so that's all right, and the predictions must therefore be much more reliable and accurate." To which I add "GIGO" because, quite simply, the modelling is a multiple generation extrapolation (model based on model output based on model output) using a simply inadequate data base. Too short a time scale with reliable data. Agree that the predictive models are not at all reliable. It's what's called a "stiff" problem - small changes in input values produce large changes in output. Weather is that way, and will probably always be that way. It's like trying to predict the exact path of a superball bouncing down a ten story stairwell. Sorry, but the biggest computers in the world and all the sophisticated models won't produce much in the way of predictive accuracy. Anybody who tries to tell you that they can exactly predict the path is putting you on. That said, you can bet your sweet ass that if you give the ball a little shove it's going to go down, not stay where it is. The earth's getting warmer. There is no real debate about that. You can argue "why", if you like, but the data are in. And I think we both agree that predicting exactly what is going to happen as a result of the elevated temperatures is tenuous at best. //Walt Walt, I have no problem with climate changing. Of course it's changing. It's being changing erratically all through the Pleistocene and now! Indeed, Adelaide had a major climate change when the bureau of meteorology observatory was shifted! The rainfall changed and the mean temperatures all changed too! And that was one of the world's longest-running meteorological observatories at the time. One wonders how many others have manifested such a locational/climatic change! Simply, there is not a long enough timeline with sufficient detailed data though to decide whether we are indeed giving (your analogy) that ball a shove. Staying with your analogy, I would suggest that the ball would descend due to gravity, even if we shoved it in the opposite direction. And that is what I suspect is happening: the anthropogenic component is not the "trigger" "last straw" or any of the other fear-laden labels. And, I have to say, working in sandridge deserts that have changed their orientation two or three times in the past 25,000 years in cold, arid episodes (and possibly as recent as 5000 years), I'd much prefer we go warmer than colder. -- Flying Tadpole ---------------------------------- http://www.soundclick.com/flyingtadpole http://music.download.com/timfatchen http://music.download.com/internetopera |
Wrong!!!!!!
Flying Tadpole wrote: Walt, I have no problem with climate changing. Of course it's changing. It's being changing erratically all through the Pleistocene and now! Indeed, Adelaide had a major climate change when the bureau of meteorology observatory was shifted! The rainfall changed and the mean temperatures all changed too! And that was one of the world's longest-running meteorological observatories at the time. One wonders how many others have manifested such a locational/climatic change! Simply, there is not a long enough timeline with sufficient detailed data though to decide whether we are indeed giving (your analogy) that ball a shove. Staying with your analogy, I would suggest that the ball would descend due to gravity, even if we shoved it in the opposite direction. And that is what I suspect is happening: the anthropogenic component is not the "trigger" "last straw" or any of the other fear-laden labels. And, I have to say, working in sandridge deserts that have changed their orientation two or three times in the past 25,000 years in cold, arid episodes (and possibly as recent as 5000 years), I'd much prefer we go warmer than colder. Read somewhere that the (calculated) mass balance of Antarctica is positive. PDW |
Wrong!!!!!!
Peter wrote:
Flying Tadpole wrote: Walt, I have no problem with climate changing. Of course it's changing. It's being changing erratically all through the Pleistocene and now! Indeed, Adelaide had a major climate change when the bureau of meteorology observatory was shifted! The rainfall changed and the mean temperatures all changed too! And that was one of the world's longest-running meteorological observatories at the time. One wonders how many others have manifested such a locational/climatic change! Simply, there is not a long enough timeline with sufficient detailed data though to decide whether we are indeed giving (your analogy) that ball a shove. Staying with your analogy, I would suggest that the ball would descend due to gravity, even if we shoved it in the opposite direction. And that is what I suspect is happening: the anthropogenic component is not the "trigger" "last straw" or any of the other fear-laden labels. And, I have to say, working in sandridge deserts that have changed their orientation two or three times in the past 25,000 years in cold, arid episodes (and possibly as recent as 5000 years), I'd much prefer we go warmer than colder. Read somewhere that the (calculated) mass balance of Antarctica is positive. PDW Heh heh http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1771124 Quick! get more greenhouse gases up there before we all turn into a cold arid desert and the glaciers eat Michigan! -- Flying Tadpole ---------------------------------- http://www.soundclick.com/flyingtadpole http://music.download.com/timfatchen http://music.download.com/internetopera |
Wrong!!!!!!
Peter wrote:
Read somewhere that the (calculated) mass balance of Antarctica is positive. PDW More recent; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002IJCli..22.1197V -- Flying Tadpole ---------------------------------- http://www.soundclick.com/flyingtadpole http://music.download.com/timfatchen http://music.download.com/internetopera |
Wrong!!!!!!
Peter wrote:
Read somewhere that the (calculated) mass balance of Antarctica is positive. PDW Here's a bloggy summary: http://tinyurl.com/yfxgq6 -- Flying Tadpole ---------------------------------- http://www.soundclick.com/flyingtadpole http://music.download.com/timfatchen http://music.download.com/internetopera |
Wrong!!!!!!
Flying Tadpole wrote:
Peter wrote: Flying Tadpole wrote: Walt, I have no problem with climate changing. Of course it's changing. It's being changing erratically all through the Pleistocene and now! Indeed, Adelaide had a major climate change when the bureau of meteorology observatory was shifted! The rainfall changed and the mean temperatures all changed too! And that was one of the world's longest-running meteorological observatories at the time. One wonders how many others have manifested such a locational/climatic change! Simply, there is not a long enough timeline with sufficient detailed data though to decide whether we are indeed giving (your analogy) that ball a shove. Staying with your analogy, I would suggest that the ball would descend due to gravity, even if we shoved it in the opposite direction. And that is what I suspect is happening: the anthropogenic component is not the "trigger" "last straw" or any of the other fear-laden labels. And, I have to say, working in sandridge deserts that have changed their orientation two or three times in the past 25,000 years in cold, arid episodes (and possibly as recent as 5000 years), I'd much prefer we go warmer than colder. Read somewhere that the (calculated) mass balance of Antarctica is positive. PDW Heh heh http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1771124 Quick! get more greenhouse gases up there before we all turn into a cold arid desert and the glaciers eat Michigan! The glaciers can have Michigan.... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com