|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 2, 2009 22:07:44 GMT
Very reserved socold, didn't take the bait. Maybe you are not in your first year at UNI but now in your secold, sorry I mean second.
Imagine where we would be if we still believed that the sun orbited the earth and the earth was the center of the universe and that mankind reigned supreme!
Or to bring it forward, Imagine that we still believed that mankind controlled the climate and mankind was the center of the climate universe. Mother nature thinks you are taking the P**s and is going to teach us all a lesson in humility. NASA seems to be about the bend over and take their punishment and they are not even in jail (yet).
OF COURSE you would put the sun and the oceans in as a first step as it would be futile not to. If you do not understand them enough to make a viable model then any model is worthless as modeling the sun orbiting the earth.
Hey socold/glc, Were you the one/ones playing the bongos at the climate protest in London?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 2, 2009 22:13:46 GMT
And I initially thought your opening post was serious, that like me you were somewhat interested in climate modelling. Now it turns out you were just trolling all along? Would have been far easier to just go on the Global Cooling thread and tell us the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist. ;D
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 2, 2009 23:14:37 GMT
Socold,
Your reply says it all really. You are only interested in IPCC type climate modeling that ignores solar input. Lets not forget of course that solar input is the ONLY heat input into the climate system. CO2 does not glow in the dark, a cylinder of CO2 does not emit heat so without the sun we are all history. Without CO2 we are also all history as all plant life will die. I'm not really trolling at all, I just think that to exclude variation in the only heat input to a system and then try to model it cannot really be taken seriously. Yes the greenhouse effect exists and CO2 adds a minuscule amount to the overall warming, well done CO2 for your valiant efforts, every small donation helps, but an even bigger thank you goes to water vapour which has saved the planet from becoming snowball earth.
Yes the original post was serious but without including the variability of the only heat input, of course all current climate models are failing and falling like flies.
The reason it's fun to bait you socold is that virtually every other poster imparts a part of their persona into their posts. If you read beyond the propaganda, you can see that these are real people with real jobs, real families, real experiences, real concerns. From you, we just get the AGW handbook. This suggests to me that you either lack real life experience or are not playing yourself on this forum and dare not, as it might get too confusing with your other ID's. Yes you have read the AGW handbook and can produce a viable comeback that might convince the uneducated/uninformed but I have not seen an original idea from you since I joined this forum 6 months ago.
I have a wife, I have 3 under 10's and I worry for their future given the current rapid cooling and the likelihood of a dalton level cooling in the next few years. How about you socold? Want to come clean about how single you are and how your future funding is the most important thing in your life (once you leave UNI of course)
Ah well, never mind socold, back to the single life with those bongos.;
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Apr 3, 2009 0:16:20 GMT
Wow, somebody is really in attack mode here! A bit frustrated?
If we'd all start using personal attacks like you do this forum's ready for the recycle bin.
Mods!?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 3, 2009 0:31:15 GMT
Don't worry I don't consider them personal attacks. It is just a case of obvious troll being obvious. "I baited you but im not a troll"
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 3, 2009 5:34:40 GMT
Don't worry I don't consider them personal attacks. It is just a case of obvious troll being obvious. "I baited you but im not a troll" Socold, just because we don't accept the IPCC explanations of the GreenHouse effect, doesn't mean any of us deny the greenhouse effect. It is a very real effect, calculated by standard thermodynamic equations. You need to realise that you (and the IPCC) do not "own" terminology. The "Greenhouse effect" has many explanations, some quite impossible, others plausible, and the reality may involve a bit of all of them. Not that the Greenhouse effect is the main cause of energy being moved around in the atmosphere. And Socold, I am learning new stuff, and re-learning my physics & physical chemistry. It is now well over 30 years since I was actively involved in University research & lecturing, and over 25 years since I left the science classroom!! But I think we all can learn, and I would genuinely encourage you to think through your basic thermodynamics. I have posted some excellent links (none of them to "skeptic" sites). In spite of the fact you strongly disagree with some of my statements, they are well researched in astrophysics! I do apologize for jumping on some of your most blatant faux pas (such as your stating that gases are not black body emitters - which implied that the Sun couldn't radiate anything!!) We here are NOT your run of the mill red-neck "deniers". I am a natural skeptic - I tend to question everything. (I've learn to shut up around any of my more fundamentalist friends and family! ;D) BTW, I have a son who thinks like you. When I talk about what I post, he calls me a Troll. I've stopped arguing with him for his mother's sake! ;D Take care.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 3, 2009 12:45:36 GMT
Woodstove, That's not ad hominem. It is essentially a negative point to say that someone is right not to bother doing the science because noone will believe them anyway, and misunderstands the fact that many of the people who are criticised for taking oil money are criticised because they say obviously false or misleading things. Nauti did not say "someone is right not to bother doing the science" or anything of the kind, no matter how many times you assert that he did. And the latter part of your assertion above is more ad hominem. Perhaps you could: 1. Quote people or represent their ideas accurately 2. Not make sweeping ad hominem attacks 3. Give a list of the "obviously false or misleading things" that those who question AGW have said with citations You have to stop throwing this "ad hominem" jibe around without providing a bit more justification for it. 1. Making a strong negative statement is often used as a method of destructive criticism that prevents ideas from being taken forward. Eg. Wright brother: "how about seeing if we can build a flying machine". Destructively critical person: "Even if you did, nobody would be interested, you wouldn't make any money and you'd probably die in the process". I've reasonably interpreted Nautonnier's statement in this way. If he didn't mean that then what did he mean? He's got broad enough shoulders to simply correct my misinterpretation. 2. You have referred to "many of the people who are criticised for taking oil money are criticised because they say obviously false or misleading things". That is not ad hominem because in the context it is an observation that counters the claim that people paid by the oil industry will be ignored even if they are doing good science. 3. That is completely off-topic for the reasons given in 2. You will be hard pressed to find me criticising someone without having given reasons, and if I do inadvertently do so, I'm happy to either correct myself or substantiate. If the reason is duff then argue with the reason, not the criticism. For my sins I have read G+T and provided reasons for why I think they are deliberately misleading their audience. I have criticised Miskolczi's paper but never criticised Miskolczi personally - (and I'm pleased to see that Spencer is now helping to close down these ludicrous "disproving the greenhouse theory" debates). I've never criticised McIntyre apart from suggesting that he plays to his audience a bit too much. I've said that I don't like Spencer's apparent links to extremist property rights "we have the god given right to do what we like to the planet, and god will protect us" religious folk. I've criticised Axel-Mörner and Jaworowski for their strong and unjustified accusations of scientific fraud. If you want further discussions on each of these then by all means find the relevant threads and add to them.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 3, 2009 12:49:44 GMT
Kiwi said: Gases are not black body emitters. This doesn't in anyway imply that the Sun cannot radiate anything
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 3, 2009 12:57:27 GMT
Back to the topic: I posted a link to models to show that there are open source models out there, and that it is incorrect to assume that the models are all "black boxes" (or grey boxes if you like ) Models are not fixed entities. A model is constructed from a number of schemes, and you can add, remove or replace schemes to model the aspect that you like. So for a study of how the earth will warm during the 21st century due to anthropogenic changes you take a stable climate model, add the emissions and see what happens. If you think its the Sun what done it then you construct a scheme to model whatever aspect of the Sun's behaviour you think is important and add it to the model. As an example of this, some models are modified to include all the Milankovitch equations to look at the changing distribution of solar energy that occurs through the ice age cycles etc. Alternatively though, you could add in a "parametrisation" that modifies the low cloud amount to correlate with solar cycles (as Svensmark proposes) and see whether you could learn anything from it. In short, models are tools. Whatever they have been used for in the past, they can be adapted to different uses. You don't necessarily have to start from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 3, 2009 19:07:37 GMT
Kiwi said: Gases are not black body emitters. This doesn't in anyway imply that the Sun cannot radiate anything You know I think I just give up. Perhaps from now on I will just ignore the false statements instead of trying to debunk them. The ones issuing the statements don't learn (in fact haven't we even witnessed some regression in that regard?) and it only makes me look like I am fighting everyone. Far easier to just ignore, would save time too.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 3, 2009 19:21:29 GMT
"Wow, somebody is really in attack mode here! A bit frustrated?"
No actually it was a bottle of red, glad I was not at a dinner party. Still It's good fun to play with socold and his absolute belief.
Sorry socold if I was ranting at you.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 3, 2009 20:34:02 GMT
socold "You know I think I just give up. Perhaps from now on I will just ignore the false statements " Can't do that socold else you will have to throw away your AGW handbook and become a realist or coolist if you prefer
|
|
|
Post by ron on Apr 4, 2009 1:37:41 GMT
It's not fun delving into issues like this with an advocate, it's much more fun to investigate issues together and to discuss merits, not pontificate about how one view is clearly right.
Or clearly wrong.
I still wanna understand why people aren't talking about the shape of the bite and overlap. Don't overlap and saturation matter?
|
|