Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 9 Dec 2009 13:54 On Dec 2, 9:08 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > Your claim was > > "The AGW contribution alleged from CO2 is, well, not even clear. A > range of estimates from ~0.25 to > 1 W/m^2 out of roughly 300W/m^2 has been offered." > > You can't substantiate this claim, or tell us where you got it, and in > fact it seems to be flat out wrong. > > Do tell us again how much you know about climate modelling, and about > the excellent advice you can get from someone directly involved in the > subject - we need a good laugh. I made a decent estimate of a critical, but ill-defined AGW factor. On your prompting, I adopted a clearly ridiculous calculation 4x in your favor, and showed this still leaves the total influence of man- made CO2 on AGW in the dust when compared to the uncertainty over clouds. Here, here's a cartoon. (Maybe that will help.) It's from that famous denialist Jim Hansen's outfit (NASA). Note the significance of clouds: http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/components2.gif And on models, since you won't read them for yourself, and you want someone to tell you what to think, here on that well-known paid Exonn- Mobil shill-site Nature.com is the head of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis, on the limitations of global climate models: (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/ predictions_of_climate.html) === quote === None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match todays state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized. The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity. It works for global forced variations, but it can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle. For instance, if the current state is one of drought then it is unlikely to get drier, but unrealistic model states and model biases can easily violate such constraints and project drier conditions. Of course one can initialize a climate model, but a biased model will immediately drift back to the model climate and the predicted trends will then be wrong. Therefore the problem of overcoming this shortcoming, and facing up to initializing climate models means not only obtaining sufficient reliable observations of all aspects of the climate system, but also overcoming model biases. So this is a major challenge. Kevin E. Trenberth Head of the Climate Analysis US National Center for Atmospheric Research === end quote === IOW, exactly what I (or any decent programmer would) gleaned from scanning the code. And he too denies that the models are predictive (ibid.), that they're being used to make predictions, or that any one scenario they produce is more credible than another. Yet they are being used as forecasts. They aren't. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Michael A. Terrell on 11 Dec 2009 02:00 JosephKK wrote: > > And believe it or not i like and respect John Fields, Jim Thompson, > Michael Terrell, Vladimir Vassilevsk, Jeorg, Jan P., Don K., James > Arthur, Spehro, Martin Brown, Nico Cosel, Phil Hobbs, Frank Buss, > Dimiter Popov, and many more. I must have slipped up, somewhere. ;-) -- Offworld checks no longer accepted!
From: Muzaffer Kal on 31 Dec 2009 17:07 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:18:54 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >As long as your twitting the master twit. How about the new evidence >of AGW? > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm > >Opps, there never was any. The only thing the article is saying that the percentage of CO2 which stays in the atmosphere is not increasing. If you put X tons 0.4*X tons stay in the atmosphere. Apparently there are some predictions where the constant would be increasing but this is not being observed. Of course here we're ignoring the issue acidification of the oceans (0.6*X tons of CO2 going there). As the author says "rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed." I am curious whether a knee pattern is possible with the absorption where the CO2 stops dissolving in the oceans almost completely and pretty suddenly. -- Muzaffer Kal DSPIA INC. ASIC/FPGA Design Services http://www.dspia.com
From: krw on 31 Dec 2009 18:42
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:07:37 -0800, Muzaffer Kal <kal(a)dspia.com> wrote: >On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:18:54 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>As long as your twitting the master twit. How about the new evidence >>of AGW? >> >>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm >> >>Opps, there never was any. > >The only thing the article is saying that the percentage of CO2 which >stays in the atmosphere is not increasing. If you put X tons 0.4*X >tons stay in the atmosphere. Apparently there are some predictions >where the constant would be increasing but this is not being observed. >Of course here we're ignoring the issue acidification of the oceans >(0.6*X tons of CO2 going there). >As the author says "rather than relying on Nature to provide a free >service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the >proportion being absorbed has not changed." >I am curious whether a knee pattern is possible with the absorption >where the CO2 stops dissolving in the oceans almost completely and >pretty suddenly. You assume there is a knee pattern. You assume positive feedback from some unknown, invisible, hand that will cause the world to end. IOW, you're a religious nutter, like Slowman. |