Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Scott Keith, Oct 18, 2007.
See avatar and read signature below!!
it just keeps gettin' better:
"The researchers blamed that reduction on changes in wind circulation"
the one thing a greenhouse has the earth doesn't.
I did a little surfing in a spare moment this afternoon and ran across a climatologists'/weather geeks' forum. The most interesting thing I came across was the statement that the modeling being done doesn't explain the spike in temperatures over the Arctic area. Many on that site will say that anthropogenic warming is to blame, but then, in the same breath say that what they're seeing isn't explained by the model they use to verify anthropogenic warming...can you say "Something else is responsible?" boys and girls? Don't know if that IS the case, but then, neither do the weather geeks.
Another interesting facet is the loss of Arctic ice. The model shows the Arctic warming enough to be ice free during the summer months in 50 years. However, some of the geeks feel that five years is more accurate based on what they've seen while up there, while others think 10 or 20. Supposedly, there was something like 1 million square kilometers less ice this year than in recent past years. The model couldn't or didn't predict that, either.
At least one scientist says that if it happens as quickly as some predict, then there is the strong possibility of a cold-weather "snap" in North America and Europe, a mini-ice age...which would then reverse the Arctic ice cap melting. However, if the cap does melt, just as fast as Mars' ice cap is disappearing, by the way, then the switch in albedo will accelerate the warming as the dark ocean waters will act as a heat sink instead of reflecting solar energy back into space as ice would.
What this boils down to for me is that the current models (used to substantiate global warming) aren't able to forecast what is currently happening to the climate. And making claims with so little accurate data is premature.
Much like my sexual performance... And just like Al Gore, I still manage to enjoy myself
This thread has now turned into...........
Its plainly obvious to me, after reading this thread, that many people here refering to the ipcc report or the current "models" haven't actually read the ipcc report, especially chapter 8.
the models were built on the premise that they could "recreate" the current climate. then they excluded natural forces (volcanic aerosols/solar variability). then they say things like, the models underestimate natural forcings (see page 512 of chapter 8). underestimating natural forcings is an underestimation of the problem. the "sceintific concenses" LEFT IT OUT. :beathead:
here is the bottom line. the earth is a heat pump. its a molten ball of rock that averages 3000 degrees celcius. it sits in a vacuum at absolute zero. thermodynaic laws tells us heat moves in one direction. the earth is loosing heat its not getting warmer. co2 gas is not a 100% effeceint insulator. if it was, your home would have co2 bags instead of fiberglass. in the 4.5 BILLION years of earth climate data, the earth has cycled between 12 and 22 degrees celcius. now we're around 14 and all of a sudden its our fault. the global warmists have selectively picked the data to trend their cause.
humans are good at several things. one, blaming others. two, thinking we are larger than the earth. three, perpetuating errors.
and yes, its true, i live in san francisco. and there is this dnc guy who looks like a cross between micheal moore and harpo marx. he has been in front of my house for a few days now. anyone know him?
sorry if i "flaunted my ego". i need a drink. to follow up on the homebrew post-that pumpkin beer is going to ready just in time for halloween :beer1:
It didn't work, don't work, don't ride
yup. He's harmless... http://www.wavygravy.net/
BFK, your reading of that forum and your interpretation of their conclusions is one side of the coin. when you build a computer model of any event, you try and include the known variables first. by changing values and running your model, you begin to see if you can approximate what has been observed. its about as close as you can come. the current models are all built using this sort of iterative strategy.
now enter what we don't know and the models fall apart. that is, they stop predicting. what that does not mean is that climate change has stopped, is actually nothing more than a 'natural cycle' or whatever else any talking head wants to spin it to be.
what it means is there are variables that the science community does not know about and has therefore not included in their modelling. the accelerated melting of the poles is a great example of an event that is happenning that no one predicted in this short a time frame. why?? throw a dart if you choose, your speculation is as good as the next guys.
the bottom line, however, is climate change is accelerating at a pace that is not only unprecidented but has NEVER happened through the time this planet has been warming or cooling. the simple bottom line is mankind IS having an impact on the climate, much of which is not understood, and if we as a race of folks walking this planet don't start doing something to curb the known parts of this equation, well who knows the outcome.........
Great to hear that intelligent people live in CA. The IPCC report is political and based on faulty science. Ever wonder why Canada dropped out of the Kyoto Accord? McIntyre and McKitrick are two Canadians who evaluated Mann's data and debunked the hockey stick.
you are correct sashjo about the IPCC having politics involved. that is exactly why the report is so conservative in it's estimates. as we are beginning to see, the group of scientists who objected to the low p values in the report appear to be correct in that climate change is moving at an accelerated rate hereto unheard of!
Well... that is if you discount the ending of the "Little Ice Age" in the first half of the 19th century. That was a total reversal in a time frame of approximately 10 years!
deleted. what was i thinking......?