[Bluesman]

Headline!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Study: Part of Global-Warming Model May Be Wrong
Thursday, December 13, 2007

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html

Click it and read it

You Climate change geeks are losing it day by day

Bluesman

[Baketech]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...nggreenlandice

[Bluesman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...nggreenlandice

So how will they figure out a way to blame thin crust and magma flow on all of mankind????


Bluesman

[Baketech]

It's been a Bush plot for years...finally the truth will be revealed...

[vger]

Well shoot, I guess the GW model needs refining... If part of it is wrong, we need to just throw the whole thing out, right ?

[HapSmo19]

Headline!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Study: Part of Global-Warming Model May Be Wrong
Thursday, December 13, 2007

Click it and read it

You Climate change geeks are losing it day by day

Bluesman

Earth shattering!!!

It's hard to even imagine.....the republican news channel calling the libs liars.

[fizzissist]

Well shoot, I guess the GW model needs refining... If part of it is wrong, we need to just throw the whole thing out, right ?

If the part that is wrong is rendering the result useless, then the obvious answer is yes.

If you have to include a variable into your program that you don't know anything about (like water vapor and clouds), and not including it makes the program useless, then you blame it on what????

[Geof]

fizzissist!!!!!!!!

Where have you been hiding???? I missed you.

[mxtras]

Stalker!

[fizzissist]

Stalker!

LOL!!! Yup, that's me. One of the VERY first people to jump on this bandwagon.

See what happens when you're busy doing other things? Like work? Yeah, I've been busy creating CO2, the world's deadliest gas, and just haven't had time to be part of the current fracas.

Geoff, ...Glad you missed me. To be honest, I have missed the discourse, and as time permits I'll be back. Have some great stuff to share compliments of our resident atmospheric physicist.

Dust and aerosol effects, new cloud discoveries, galactic cosmic rays, antarctic volcanoes, cosmic ray effects on lightning,....all kinds of neat stuff coming to light....stuff you probably won't see much of in AP or Reuters!!

Have you been following Anthony Watt's weather station audit? Absolutely hysterical!! Gee, I wonder why the temperature has been rising!!

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

[Geof]

ANd also the fact that the Younger Dryas cooling may have been due to an airburst of glaciated North America somewhere around 12,000 years ago. Not sure whether the timeing does match but?

And I finally did see another comment somewhere that the driving force behind northward Gulf Stream flow is wind, not temperature gradients...fancy that?

And yes just possibly an under ice volcan could accelerrate ice cap movement.

[Geof]

I forgot.

Have you seen the Press Release describing how Craig Venter of Human Genome fame is going to save the world?

By genetically engineering synthetic microorganisms that eat CO2 and produce hydrocarbons. Reported in all seriousness by our local newspaper! Maybe February 29 is the new April 1st?

He does acknowledge that the big problem is the low atmospheric concentration of CO2; it is necessary to concentrate it for the bugs.

I was under the impression Mother Nature had already designed the organisms and run up against the same problem...but, live and learn.

[phil c]

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=002...OR-enlargePage

Interesting article by Daniel Rothman of the MIT Earth sciences program. In summary, "the resulting C02 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales"

In other words, over the past 500 million years the amount of C02 in the atmoshpere has varied widely while global temperatures have varied widely, and they don't correlate with each other. At times the earth was hot and C02 low, at other times the earth was cold and C02 was high.

The only solid fact I can find on "global warming" is that the earth's temperature has very likely gone up approx. .8 deg. F in the last 100 years.

Regarding computer models- any computer model that has been adjusted to fit the historical data is suspect. If the model cannot produce correct results without adjustment it is useless for predictions. A model that is based on, or corrected by, empirical data is only good within the limits of the data. So if you make the model fit the period 1900-2000 it is only useful in estimating temperatures during that period. To make useful predictions the model has to be based on basic scientific principles and has to reproduce historical data correctly, without any adjustments or parameters.

Einstein's photovoltaic theory is a good example. He derived an equation that explains the photovoltaic effect correctly, with no fudge factors, working from basic principles. Fortunately for Alfred he was working with a very simple system. Climate modelling is so complex that no one has been able to do the same thing for the atmosphere. The models are all filled with empirically derived fudge factors.

[fizzissist]

Computer models? GCMs?? Playstation Science???

"New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center....."
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+...ticle10973.htm