|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Runaway Global Warming Possible!
January 26, 2005
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0501...050124-10.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934 http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7440023 http://www.physorg.com/news2831.html http://www.climateprediction.net Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
[snip crap] Tell it to New England. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message ... January 26, 2005 http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0501...050124-10.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934 http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7440023 http://www.physorg.com/news2831.html http://www.climateprediction.net Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net The time frame is intentionally unclear, BBC says 11 degrees hotter C in about 100 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210629.stm how sensitive is the prediction 0.01 degree C per year? We could simply cool the earth down by covering India with Al foil and reflecting the heat back out to space. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934
"Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an injection of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics could not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the models. There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says. The climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9°C to 11.5°C. "The uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles Allen." Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In sci.physics "o?in" wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934 "Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an injection of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics could not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the models. There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says. The climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9?C to 11.5?C. "The uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles Allen." Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me... If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it makes sense to discard them. (It makes more sense to fix the model) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
January 26, 2005 http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0501...050124-10.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934 http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7440023 http://www.physorg.com/news2831.html http://www.climateprediction.net Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net -- You've got the rotting tundra You've got the loss of albedo from polar ice caps You've got the loss of albedo from high altitude glaciers You've got urbanization and deforestation -gcitagh ------------------- Http://techlobyte.tripod.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The really silly thing is we have a theorized way of drastically
altering our weather patterns to cool off the Earth if absolutely necessary. Living during a nuclear winter might suck, but it beats everything dying. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an
injection of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics could not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the models. There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says. The climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9?C to 11.5?C. "The uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles Allen." Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me... If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it makes sense to discard them. Pffft. Well that is not science. Ever heard of The Michelson-Morley Experiment? The problem most people had with it was that it *seemed* wrong. The strength that Einstein had over others was that he took the experimental result at face value. There were many others as smart or smarter than Einstein, but Einstein was not entrenched in preconceived notions. Others wasted time trying to see how the experiment must be flawed. It was not flawed. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it
makes sense to discard them. (It makes more sense to fix the model) Yes. Fix the broken model. If the model causes you to through out cold results, you should not trust the warm results either. A model should be taken all or nothing. A model that is broken is a waste of CPU cycles. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"ošin" wrote in message ... "Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an injection of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics could not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the models. There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says. The climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9?C to 11.5?C. "The uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles Allen." Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me... If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it makes sense to discard them. Pffft. Well that is not science. Ever heard of The Michelson-Morley Experiment? The problem most people had with it was that it *seemed* wrong. The strength that Einstein had over others was that he took the experimental result at face value. There were many others as smart or smarter than Einstein, but Einstein was not entrenched in preconceived notions. Others wasted time trying to see how the experiment must be flawed. It was not flawed. The problem with these models is they don't include Darwin. Life is becoming a primary driving force for global climate change. Life is the source of change and the source of the solution. Without including all the complexities of life, politics, public opinion etc the models are grossly simplified and incomplete. Number crunching climate change is little different than number crunching a thunderstorm. Far more accurate and insightful information can be gained from simply watching the radar loops. From watching the large scale patterns and behavior of the few primary forces, rather than trying to predict the motion of each air molecule. The butterfly effect clearly demonstrates the folly of long term numerical prediction of a thermodynamic system. A system dominated by geology, impacts etc will tend to display chaotic behavior, with large quick swings from one extreme to the other. Interspersed with long periods of static behavior. A system dominated by life....Darwin....typically moves steadily towards, then oscillates quickly around, the optimum. The primary variable is life...nature. Or how far or close to a naturally evolving system will life on earth become. A Natural society is a full democracy, the most adaptive and powerful force for stability and creativity in the known universe. So it will be through the expansion and dominance of free democracies that global climate problems will be solved. The cure for climate change is political, not scientific. Stop number-crunching, it's a waste of time. Place your faith in Nature and champion the spread of democracy. The cure for /all/ that ails this planet lies there. Jonathan s |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CO2 and global warming | freddo411 | Astronomy Misc | 314 | October 20th 04 09:56 PM |
CO2 and global warming | freddo411 | Policy | 319 | October 20th 04 09:56 PM |
global warming could trigger an ice age at any time | Ian Beardsley | Astronomy Misc | 3 | February 24th 04 10:34 AM |