Posted on 02/16/2007 11:23:52 PM PST by neverdem
To finish your thought, I think you were trying to to imply, Increased greenhouse gas = Increased temperature.
How about, Increased water vapor = Increased clouds = Increased albedo affect = Increased cooling. Concurrent with Increased precipitation.
First and foremost, if, in fact, we are experiencing global warming, then I believe that the trend is the result of natural climatic changes rather than human activities, and that temperatures might even be warming to the norm rather than above the norm. Nevertheless, using records from the 10th through 13th Centuries to prove global warming or cooling seems as unreliable and stupid as anything that Al G(wh)ore has done.
Why? The thermometer or what was known as a "thermoscope" was not invented until the end of the 16th Century and even then, the accuracy and reliability of the data was less than perfect due to the limited availability of measuring devices, the inherent inaccuracy of the measuring devices, the subjectiveness of human observation. Today, in contrast, we have dozens of weather satellite circling the globe, thousands of weather buoys bobbing in the oceans and seas around the world, and thousands of weather observation posts dotting the Continents that collect and record the data and then transmit the information to supercomputers for quantification and analysis. I will never be convinced that the world is getting warmer or colder based upon records that are more than 40 years old. The best that can be done is to take the little bit of information that we have from past centuries and try to extrapolate that information to the present. The end result is a mere hypothesis or perhaps a theory that can never be proven right or wrong.
BTW, does anyone know of a study that attempts to plug information from the past into the global warming models to determine how accurately those models predict the future? In other words, has anyone used the limited information available from the last half of the 19th Century and/or first half of the 20th Century to see how well the models predict actual global temperatures, weather patterns, and climatic changes observed over the last 20 years or so?
Can you provide an example of a hypothesis whose predictions are accurate, and the hypothesis isn't supported?
His conflation of special and general relativity is another howler. I didn't bother to read further.
While your implication that the Author was incorrect in stating that Einstein presented, General Relativity in 1905 (he presented Special Relativity) is true, the example is representative of General Relativity and congruent conflation is an apt method of conveying accurate ideas.
This guy never heard from Rudi who thinks that Al Gore didn't go far enough on global warming.
Hmmm, I have the exact opposite impression. They are making 'Laws' without any evidence to back them up. Global warming being a prime example.
Sure looks purdy.
No reason to ask you further. You clearly are not one of the brightest bulbs in the human race if you are capable of such drivel.
If you were to do some actual calculations of the type of detection and analysis capability, and the power required to effect a lessening of a comet or meteor event, and then the cost-effectiveness to construct and maintain a "planetary defense" against such a rare event, you might not make such a sweeping comment. This problem is not trivial, and the cost of acquiring and maintaining such a system right now is simply out of reach. I wish that were not the case, but that is the truth.
The energy of a such a mass rushing toward Earth in some such event is equivalent to billions or even trillions of H-bombs. It might well require the power of thousands of such engines to sufficiently deflect such a moving body. NASA gets flak for contemplating the launch of extremely small reactors for powering experiments, yet you wish to propose launching the equivalent of hundreds or many thousands of H-Bombs with some of the most powerful and untested rocketry, and maintaining that in pristine condition for hundreds of years or even millenia?!
God/Nature is much more powerful than most humans imagine.
Even a simple thunderstorm moves millions of tons of mass... we, though we are so proud of our "high-technology", are not even in the same league.
I think you're saying the same thing Dunn was regarding disease. During the LCO it was lower than during the colder period that followed.
Very simple answer: The GCM's fail to replicate previous temperature data.
With the number of parameters they "tune" to even get close, they could just as well model the price of General Electric stock.
No, Dunn is saying there were "few" outbreaks of disease during this period. Which is untrue, even without very poor records for this time.
He also implies that black plague was common in Europe previously, went away during the LCO and then returned with colder weather.
While epidmiologists argue about it, most agree that the black plague showed up in Europe for the very first time in 1347, brought by the Mongols from Central Asia.
Dunn also states that the contact between Mongols and Europeans did not result in disease transfer, which it most certainly did, specifically the black plague, and probably others which were less devastating.
BTTT
You do understand the difference between proved and supported, right? I should hope so. So why did you change the former to the latter?
An example of a theory whose predictions were accurate but which we now know to be false is Newton's theory of gravity. In a similar vein, the hypothesis, accepted for over 2000 years, that space is flat and which was consistent with all observation until the 20th century is also now known false.
congruent conflation is an apt method of conveying accurate ideas
Well, I know what congruent means and I know what conflation means but I don't have a clue what congruent conflation means. Conflate is to mix together different things but congruence implies sameness. So, what does that mean to you?
But my point was that Dunn doesn't understand the two theories and doesn't even understand that they're different.
What "drivel" are you talking about? I didn't notice you'd asked me anything. Had you thought you'd posted to me? Probably are you confusing me with someone else.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.