|
Post by socold on Mar 2, 2009 19:56:34 GMT
Which is precisely why all the AGM models fail. Ignoring solar, convection, ocean currents They don't ignore any of these. Take known physics - equations governing the atmosphere and oceans - and run the numbers. It shows significant warming from co2. No matter how you do it, if you follow the physics it shows this.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 2, 2009 20:34:20 GMT
Hello socold. Please provide a list of "established physics" which are enshrined in GCM's that are not tuned (fudged) to match reality. Thanks much. Read any atmospheric physics textbook, although I bet that doesn't contain all of it. I've seen statements by warmers often such as yours or "GCM's contain all the physics". What I have seen referenced in IPCC AR4 doesn't bode well for those unsupported claims, which I believe I posted long ago and will retrieve upon request. This is curious: climatesci.org/2009/01/20/comments-on-real-climates-post-faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/There are many papers available focusing on specific problems with climate models, which apparently float over warmers heads like a lead balloon. I am however willing to look at detailed references if you have them.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 2, 2009 21:10:35 GMT
I argue that if a physical model of climate could be written to show co2 doubling causes insignificant warming then one would have been written by now. That one has not been written indicates that the physics - even when it is constrained by error bars rather than being definitely known - strong supports significant warming from a doubling of co2.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 5, 2009 3:41:53 GMT
I argue that if a physical model of climate could be written to show co2 doubling causes insignificant warming then one would have been written by now. There is a physical model Socold and its the only one that really counts. Its the one proving exactly that and its the one that has proven the IPCC wrong over the past 10 years. That one has not been written indicates that the physics - even when it is constrained by error bars rather than being definitely known - strong supports significant warming from a doubling of co2. The fact that no one can describe it is meaningless. There is plenty of stuff that we don't understand how it works. Perhaps the most dangerous threat to mankind are egos that think they do know.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 5, 2009 16:16:35 GMT
I argue that if a physical model of climate could be written to show co2 doubling causes insignificant warming then one would have been written by now. That one has not been written indicates that the physics - even when it is constrained by error bars rather than being definitely known - strong supports significant warming from a doubling of co2. 1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 2) Absence of evidence is not necessarily due to absence of fact. 3) Absence of evidence may be due to adverse control of its availability (documentation and distribution of evidence). 4) Physics supports minor warming. Various positive feedback model parameters yield significant warming. 5) We do not observe significant warming. 6) We do observe that alternatives such as orbital variation, the Iris Effect, negative feedback, solar grand maxima, galectic cosmic radiation, magnetic field correlation, solar irradiance in wavelengths other than those measured, inter alia, are not well represented by the models. 7) We note that omission of alternatives tends to magnify the effect of CO 2. 8) We may also note that political control of CO 2 (fossil fuels) involves political control of energy, which controls economics, which not only controls citizens but also generates untold revenue for politicians and their friends. ("Brave new world that hath such people in it.")
|
|