|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 5, 2010 16:08:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 22, 2010 15:54:02 GMT -8
If all the "evidence" of AGW was presented today as new research...the scientist would never pass peer review. Everything they "knew" about climate change in the beginning has fallen apart. 1. CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas is logarithmic. 2. CO2 historically follows temperature rise. 3. Temperatures have been cooling. 4. The, "what else could it be" question has been answered by solar research, ocean research, and simply answered by "nothing is changing. It is just the results of a change that happened around 1850". When an oven is turned on does it immediately jump to the temperature selected? No, it rises slowly. If one slowed down time and lived inside the oven, one would be asking what is changing to cause the temperature rise? The answer is nothing is changing. The oven is simply moving to a new point of equilibrium. The basic science of AGW relies almost exclusively on a positive feedback. There is no proof of a positive feedback in the climate system. All indications are there is a negative feedback. If the feedback was as strongly positive as climatologists guessed, there would be a run away change in temperature. It hasn't happened. What has happened strongly indicates a negative feedback. That is why climatologists won't allow themselves to be in a situation where they have to defend their views (science) in an open forum with an informed questioner/opponent. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 23, 2010 7:31:48 GMT -8
One thing that I try to remember and add to this kind of discussion is that the real model is so complex that all of the elements are not known nor can the effects of these unkown elements be known. When something goes out of balance, mother nature acts to bring it back into balance. It is cycles superimposed on other cycles and so complicated that all the parts and the interaction of those parts can not be known and understood.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jan 26, 2010 10:57:25 GMT -8
One thing that I try to remember and add to this kind of discussion is that the real model is so complex that all of the elements are not known nor can the effects of these unkown elements be known. When something goes out of balance, mother nature acts to bring it back into balance. It is cycles superimposed on other cycles and so complicated that all the parts and the interaction of those parts can not be known and understood. But their models assume that other things have little or no effect on the global climate. They ignore the cycles. They assume everything is Greenhouse gases. That is why they pushed so hard to get Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph as gospel. If the temperature went along for 1,000 years without change and then suddenly spiked, they could justify their approach. The problem is: the Medieval warm period and the little ice age are hard to extinguish with sleight of hand. |
|
