Recommended Posts
Two things:
First: our climate predictions, I allege, are not taking something into account. Something as important as air resistance to an apple dropping. This explains why the models are so far off right now. No matter what, the models of apples dropping will not get more accurate as time goes on, regardless of the iterations, until such factor is accounted for.
Second: you have proven a point. After ten attempts of dropping that apple you can be fairly reasonable that the predicted average for 5000 attempts won't be met.
You realize that your assumptions failed to include atmospheric drag. Your model is invalidated.
That's my point. Greenhouse Warming does not exist in a vacuum. The past ten years demonstrates it. Right now. Unpredicted means unaccounted for. And that means results WILL be skewed.
[Reply]The fact that my models don't predict everything that happens to the apple doesn't mean that the models are useless.
Of course. The models show the limitations of knowledge because they are predictions.
[Reply] It just means they need improvement. For the same reason, climate models that don't predict small scale events are not useless, they just need improvement.
You are talking both sides. If small scales don't matter, then there is no need for improvement. If they do matter, then the model predictions must be scrapped and redone with newer assumptions.
Waiting 100 years is foolhardy.
[Reply]So when a respected scientist like the one referenced in the OP makes a new prediction based on a new model, you can't say that he didn't know what he was talking about before.
Sure I can. He knew a lot, but he didn't account for some pretty important stuff.
[Reply]The apple is still accelerating and its velocity is increasing. Maybe it's accelerating a little slower than we initially thought, but it's still going to hit the ground.
Or maybe the apple stopped accelerating. Perhaps it hit a point when gravitational acceleration could not overcome atmospheric drag.
A model that predicts consistent accelleration through an atmosphere based upon the assumption that it will continue to accelerate could mean the model's predictions can be shown untrustworthy. "The apple is not going nearly as quickly as it should. I've accounted for the effect of air, but it's like it stops accelerating."
If a model doesn't account for terminal velocity, must we wait another 80 years before we scrap its predictions?
That's the point. We are outside the trend. Consistently. And I don't accept as fact this new prediction, either. Because he's given 20 years before it can be validated.
But it can be invalidated in ten years.
p.s. Thanks for the discussion!!
My wife is hotter than your wife.
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
In the first paragraph there are two links. The first link is to a PDF of the original article and the second is to an article on how often there have been warnings of a global temperature trend.
Now I will concede that our measurement techniques and overall technology have improved over the years, but to me, it seems that the weather is not the only thing that goes in cycles.
It really reminds me of advertising. Advertising has been around forever, and the number one selling method is fear. Look at how long religion has been using it. Go to church, pay your tithe, or go to hell. There is a reason the saying is “No news is good news!” That’s because you see a happy story and then you change the channel, they tell you your kids are being exposed to Dihydrogen Monoxide, and you are glued to the screen. There are so many ads out there designed to make you think you need their product.
Side Note, it is really funny to me is how a good majority of them are designed around fear of not getting laid. Buy our clothes, our cars, our male enhancement products, etc …, or you will never have sex again!!
Back to the topic, so what is wrong with them advertising “Global Climate Change”? At least they are preaching for responsibility, surly that can’t be a bad thing. When proponents agree that they do not have the means to understand the entire process why in the hell would you close discussion? Why would you limit your research to only greenhouse gasses? I believe it is because that is what people are currently afraid of and that is going to make it easier to get your research funded. Even PETA joined the bandwagon and was trying to create a tax on dairy and beef farms that would make it almost impossible to operate because of all Methane emissions.
I will admit that methane is a more effective greenhouse gas then CO2 but I also submit the following:
“As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmoshere contains 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/4 of one percent.” -- Marc Jeric MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer
Now this is only comparing Water and CO2. Just remember this when someone talks about hydrogen powered cars.
“I thought the Sun caused Global Warming?!”
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites