FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Likely a repost
Posted on 04/06/2008 7:41:23 AM PDT by Need4Truth
That's the beauty of Global Warming Theory, it's extremely robust with respect to data - all observations confirm it with probability 1.0.
Rain, snow, drought, hail, heat wave, cold snap, temperate or harsh weather, it matters not. All are triumphant "confirmations" of Global Warming. (Currently being rebranded as "Climate Change".)
If that's the case, then why can't the Pacific's El Nino current, which played a large part in the warm reading for 1998, simply been seen as a "variability" and not part of a greater warming trend? Because it doesn't fit the agenda?
Good one!
The Heat is on The Tennessee 2 x 4.
Music to read this thread by...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJtEzSCa13A&feature=related
Allah Gorey needs to find a new religion.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
As it turns out global warming also causes global cooling haha, thus the necessity of a new catch phrase. One thing we can be sure of is that the climate will always change, thus the enviro-socialists win either way. This junk works on John Q Public because a)Everybody has been stuck in traffic behind an exhaust spewing truck. b)It’s a secular religion that fills a void in the live of Hollywood celebrities and failed Presidential candidates.
What did the IPCC climate computer models of 30, or 20, or 10 years ago predict the temps would be in 2008? The article says the predictions “don’t match well” with what actually happened.
Ohh WOE is me... whys everybody pickin on me???
I can verify that global warming is a hoax. I was in Texas last week and froze my arse off....as evidenced by Bender wearing a fur coat.
Allegra....are you missing a fur coat?
Interesting. INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY.
It's OK... you just keep changing the models each year to allow for what actually happened... get the terms right, and you can still predict upcoming disaster.
That's the nice thing about the “garbage-in, what-you-want-out” approach.
The criteria of “correct” is “do I get next years grant?”.
Exactly, Republicans are not going to get the global warming vote anyway. They should come right out and say there is not a consensus among scientists and we will not usurp the liberty of our countrymen over a theory. At least some on the fence would appreciate the candor.
I don’t understand your answer. The computer models of 30, 20 and 10 years ago must have reached conclusions of what the temps would be in the “future”. Well, the “future” is here - were the predictions correct? The article seems to suggest they were not. What were the predictions? It they have been consistently wrong, that should be powerful evidence that one can’t model climate. Thanks
I thought this was settled. Why do we keep seeing these stories put out by the oil industry? /sarc
The History Channel, which I used to love, had a “Global Warning?” special on yesterday. What a load of crap. It was full of all the misconceptions and flat out lies about Global Warming. Also there is a new ad being shown in Northern CA, don’t know if it is being shown elsewhere, about how Polar Bears are facing extinction, etc.. They, the enviros, are pushing hard now that the climate change scam is falling apart, they need to get new restrictive money grabbing laws passed before the stupid electorate realizes what a scam is being perpetrated on them.
There is a slight difference...McPain doesn’t believe one word of this
Don’t worry about it. It’s over.
It's not necessary to use the older models, they could take their latest and best model and just load in the data up to thirty years ago and have the computer calculate a "projection" of the "next" thirty years. The projection could then be compared to the actual data from available records. I fully expect that such "calibration" runs have in fact been made as part of the modeling process. Since they have never been made public, I expect they would revel a lack of correlation sufficient to invalidate the model.
There are some problems that are considered to be "computationally unsolvable". That is, the math is not all that difficult but a solution requires such a vast number of simple calculations that the time required starts to approach the expected life of the sun or some equally daunting interval. One such problem is factoring very large prime numbers, that simple fact gives an unbreakable cipher system which is in use everyday to secure everything from email to bank and credit card transactions. The protection being the vast amount of time it would take to decipher the code.
I expect that modeling the earth's climate accurately may be such a problem. If true the only way to get a model to work in a reasonable amount of time would be to simplify the model by plugging various dimensionless coefficients into the equations and tweak them until the results matched the historical record to the desired accuracy. The problem with this approach is that the model is only accurate within the time interval you used to establish the values of the coefficients (sometimes known as "Fudge Factors"). A Case in point:
A person could take the Dow Jones closing averages for every Friday in 2006 and fit a sixth order polynomial equation with excellent accuracy. Such an equation would allow you to come up with reasonable estimates for the DGA at any date within the year 2006 but would be wildly in error either before or after that year. The same would be true for climate modeling.
Regards,
GtG
While I never tried to model the Earth's atmosphere and climate, I do have a Master's degree in Mechanical Engineering, concentrating on thermodynamics and momentum, heat, and mass transfer in solids and fluids. In other words, the fundamentals you need to begin to attempt climate modeling, since atmospheric processes are just giant problems in thermodynamics and mass, momentum, and heat transfer.
I would tell you that modeling the earth's climate accurately is *exactly* that class of problem, and anyone telling you they have for-sure solved it is either lying to you, lying to themselves, or both. The differential equations involved are of the sort discussed for a popular audience in James Gleidk's Chaos: Making a New Science.
One of the better technical articles I've come across that speaks to the physical fundamentals of supposed CO2-driven global warming is here:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (pdf warning)
This article pretty well shreds the concept that CO2 concentrations could be the driving force behind any warming.
Thanks, but somewhere some such results must have been published or IBD wouldn’t have written that they were not predictive. If no such results, how did Kyoto ever get off the ground?
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.