|
Post by FineWino on Jun 18, 2013 12:35:05 GMT
FWIW, my vote in the poll was 4.3. Now I think it will be considerably higher.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Oct 1, 2012 2:44:42 GMT
Jumping into the discussion, just a few comments. First, the increase in maximum Antarctic Sea Extent is small in contrast with the observed decrease in minimum Arctic Sea Ice Extent. Also, keep in mind that the physics in the southern hemisphere is quite different than the physics in the north.Then, various alternative lines of evidence show warming/melting in Antarctica. In addition, it does not appear that the Antarctic Sea Ice Minimum Extent is changing; just the Maximum Extent. The interesting question is 'what physical processes are producing this effect?' Pray tell thermostat, how do the physics of the NH differ from those of the SH. And how would those differ from the physics of the moon? or Saturn? or our sun? or Andromeda? Comments like these display your ignorance for all to see. I do not understand why anyone even responds to your posts. This one was just to far out to let it go.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Oct 10, 2011 3:29:46 GMT
Exactly what the proponents of AGW have done. I guess that makes them the original "denialists." it's impossible for them to accept the fact that man cannot trump the forces of nature. Finewino, Well, now you tread on thin ice. In particular, asserting that denialist proponents have established scientific substance. Blah, blah, blah. Are you ever going to actually say something?
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Oct 10, 2011 3:13:16 GMT
Denialism and how it works: In no particular order: Create a strawman; Cherry pick; Obfuscate; Attack the character of opponents; The point is to promote an ideological position. Figuring out how nature works is irrelevant. Exactly what the proponents of AGW have done. I guess that makes them the original "denialists." it's impossible for them to accept the fact that man cannot trump the forces of nature.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 30, 2009 16:16:58 GMT
What a bunch of Hooey.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 30, 2009 16:00:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 29, 2009 15:50:54 GMT
If you plot the ln(Ck/280) over time, where Ck is CO2 ppm from the Keeling curve, you get something that is quite close to a straight line. Whether that is any more relevant than your point, I don't know. If you take a sufficiently small segment of any continuous function you can make a so-called "linear approximation." That does not make it linear. Speaking of the Keeling Curve, how do you explain the approximately +/- 3.5 ppm variation on an annual basis of the measured CO2 concentration?
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 28, 2009 3:48:11 GMT
Omigosh! I made two three posts in a row . Think I'd better avoid certain people for awhile (if you know what I mean ).
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 28, 2009 3:45:17 GMT
FinoWino, you're right, evidence is piling on that the models are wrong. BUT, in keeping with my philosophy that we really don't know XXXX about all the interactions that determine the climate, the models being wrong does not mean that AGW isn't happening. My personal hypothesis is that any AGW is small, if any, but I could be as wrong as the models are. The one thing about such experiments as the one being discussed is that it can be done repeatedly. We might not know all the variables, but if we can be somewhat certain that the same conditions are maintained while CO2 is being changed, then we can have some degree of confidence that any changes we see are effects of CO2. If we can replicate the experiment several times and get essentially the same results, then we have learned something about CO2 and the climate. What it does mean is that CO2 is not so important as the AGW crowd would have you believe. If they were honest scientists, they would be working on new models that better matched reality. The problem is that can't be done with a model based on CO2 being the primary forcing agent (as the models to date have demonstrated.) They are the kind of people John Kenneth Galbraith spoke of (see sig line below.)
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 28, 2009 3:40:01 GMT
Perhaps we could put a roof over a 10 mile square area of land to see what the effects of a deep solar minimum would be like. This way we will learn something about the sun and the climate. I wonder why scientists don't do this. Too caught up with their "computer models" I bet. This is the kind of real science that was done in yesteryear - like dumping 1000 tons of sea water onto a forest to get a better understanding about forests and the sea.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 27, 2009 20:41:23 GMT
What I find so silly about all of this is that there is an experiment going on as we speak.
CO2 levels continue to rise. Global temperatures are not rising as predicted.
Instead of sucking it up and accepting the fact that the hypothesis of AGW due to increasing levels of CO2 (which may or may not be due to human activity) has been disproved by the actual data before us, they continue to hold on to their belief that humankind is on the path of destroying the planet.
They say that the models have not failed, that there are other factors that have simply "delayed the warming."
This is not science. The models are inconsistent with reality. Scientists base their belief on observations of reality. AGWism is religion.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 27, 2009 4:05:01 GMT
Socold, Why wouldn't the experimental data of warming or not be more important than the modeling? Surely, experiments are more important than models. IWylie There's no reason to do the experiment if climate models don't find such a crater environment will produce any significant warming. Assuming that the whole point of the experiment is to test the models. Do I infer from this that experimental data is meaningless unless it is consistent with the model?
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 20, 2009 3:26:52 GMT
Apparently it escaped you that the dog fart (perhaps I should have said "canine flatulence") analogy was intended to be ridiculous. I know it was meant to be ridiculous. The problem was that it undermined the rest of your argument that was possibly much better! No, there is a physical reason for the "greenhouse" effect. There is observational evidence that matches the reducing amount of longwave radiation as CO2 increases. There is proxy evidence that suggests that over geological time that CO2 and temperature usually correlate reasonably well (NB this is a separate argument as to what drives CO2 and temperature in the relatively rapid glacial cycles.) Well Gore is a politician. But the scientists debate their positions non-stop in the scientific literature. As to whether I ought to be "sceptical", how do you know how sceptical I am? You've never asked! There is a big difference between on the one hand pointing out flaws in arguments that claim that the greenhouse theory is "untenable", that the surface station record is not fit for purpose, that models are next to useless, that the greenhouse theories are self-inconsistent etc., and on the other, discussing what faults do exist in the surface station record, what models are capable of, and what questions have the scientists not answered. While I do actually believe that the most reasonable position is to plan now for the possibility of a >3C temperature rise this century, that is not the same as having "faith" that such a temperature rise will occur. It's "skeptical", not "sceptical".
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 19, 2009 14:01:55 GMT
Central England Temperature shows some of the last few days have been below average so disactivate your conspiracy theory modules. "disactivate"? Is that a new word? I cannot find it in the dictionary.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 19, 2009 13:56:22 GMT
A senior, and somewhat contrarian scientist (in astronomy) told me when I was a young postgrad that I should never accept this sort of attitude from anyone, no matter whether they have a major scientific finding to their name or not. Your ridiculous dog farts analogy totally undermines your argument. CO2 is a strong driver for valid physical reasons. Furthermore, there is plenty of empirical evidence backing up the findings in the models that the climate feedbacks to a physically known forcing are likely to be positive. There are discussions to be had about model sensitivity and forcings from other uncertain elements in models such as aerosols, but as socold said, the best explanation for the last 50 years of warming is still CO2. Apparently it escaped you that the dog fart (perhaps I should have said "canine flatulence") analogy was intended to be ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as your argument above. The only "evidence" that CO2 forcing is driving climate change are the projections of models that have failed to accurately predict global temperatures. When they fail to predict accurately you try tell us this is "variation". That is not science. You, socold and others have AGW religion. I do not know what your postgrad work was in, but if you were a scientist you would be as skepical of those who refuse to debate their position (Gore, Hansen, the IPCC et al.) as you present yourself to be in the first paragraph above. Instead, you support their scientifically untenable positions.
|
|