|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. AGW = world
socialist control, not control of C02. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:20:26 -0500, Rich wrote:
So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. AGW = world socialist control, not control of C02. Revisionist mythology. The climate models 30 years ago did not predict an ice age. No climate model has predicted an upcoming ice age. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message ... On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:20:26 -0500, Rich wrote: So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. AGW = world socialist control, not control of C02. Revisionist mythology. The climate models 30 years ago did not predict an ice age. No climate model has predicted an upcoming ice age. ================================================== ===== I can't decide whether your head is above cloud 9 or buried in the sand, Peterson, but ice ages are cyclic and we are due for another as the ice core data shows. http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...core-petit.png Don't worry, the Sahara won't bloom again in your lifetime, nor can you control Earth's precession. GW yes, AGW bull****. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
On Jul 19, 1:11*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:20:26 -0500, Rich wrote: So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. *AGW = world socialist control, not control of C02. Revisionist mythology. The climate models 30 years ago did not predict an ice age. No climate model has predicted an upcoming ice age. Because the climate models are not designed to do so. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
On Jul 19, 12:20*am, Rich wrote:
*So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. *AGW = world socialist control, not control of C02. Need to predict a warming climate? There's an app for that. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:40:07 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:
I can't decide whether your head is above cloud 9 or buried in the sand, Peterson, but ice ages are cyclic and we are due for another as the ice core data shows. http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...core-petit.png Don't worry, the Sahara won't bloom again in your lifetime, nor can you control Earth's precession. GW yes, AGW bull****. He was talking about the myth promulgated by science deniers that climate scientists believed we were on the verge of a new ice age, which would take hold over a short time period. That was never an accepted idea. Of course, glacial periods are semiperiodic on geological time scales. That's not what was being discussed, and indeed, climate on long time scales is analyzed very differently than on scales of a few centuries. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
On Jul 19, 2:53*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:39:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Revisionist mythology. The climate models 30 years ago did not predict an ice age. No climate model has predicted an upcoming ice age. Because the climate models are not designed to do so. We understand the mechanism behind glacial and interglacial periods precisely because climate models DO treat them effectively. As is typical for those uneducated in the rudiments of climate science, you confuse models intended to study long term climate on the Earth (periods of a few thousand years or longer) with models intended to study the climate of the last few hundred years. Short period models accurately predict temperatures that make it clear no extended period of cooling will occur during the model range of the next few centuries. The models are perfectly capable of showing cooling. I find it amazing,the old ideology is still retained that if the Earth has a 0 degree inclination it would have no seasons whereas in the 21st century this is no longer viable as an assertion as 0 degree inclination represents an equatorial climate where temperature swings are minimal as opposed to a 90 degree inclination where latitudinal temperature fluctuations over the course of an orbit would be extremely large.Hypothetically imposing the inclination of Uranus on the Earth's and its daily/orbital features would result in large areas of the Earth experiencing a polar climate as opposed to its present status as largely equatorial with gentler swings over large areas as the Earth moves along its orbital circumference. The rudiments of climate science indeed !, no society ever to set foot on the planet bar this one ever imagined it could control the planet's temperature by doing or undoing something - pollution,yes,that is a different matter but this idea of temperature control is beyond embarrassment into a type of disorder. What will save climate studies and indeed the connection between astronomy and terrestrial sciences is the reworking of the old 'no tilt/no seasons' ideology into the new perspective of planet's having varying degrees of an equatorial or polar climate. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message ... On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:40:07 +0100, "Androcles" wrote: I can't decide whether your head is above cloud 9 or buried in the sand, Peterson, but ice ages are cyclic and we are due for another as the ice core data shows. http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...core-petit.png Don't worry, the Sahara won't bloom again in your lifetime, nor can you control Earth's precession. GW yes, AGW bull****. He was talking about the myth promulgated by science deniers that climate scientists believed we were on the verge of a new ice age, which would take hold over a short time period. That was never an accepted idea. Of course, glacial periods are semiperiodic on geological time scales. That's not what was being discussed, and indeed, climate on long time scales is analyzed very differently than on scales of a few centuries. ================================================== ====== My apologies for misunderstanding your words. I will point out, though, that the legend of a world wide flood is founded in fact, sea levels rose by 100 metres when the mile high northern ice sheet melted, and did so in a short time period. Artefacts and mammoth ivory are regularly dredged up from the North Sea by trawlers, indicating that land animals and man lived there as recently as 10,000 years ago. The reason the flood was rapid is attributed to the reflectivity of ice. It reflects solar energy back into space, whilst water loaded with blue- green algae absorbs it. The result is once the melt begins it goes rapidly, more water and less ice means more energy is absorbed, which is positive feedback. You can see it happening when the streets turn to slush and the remains of the snowman is sitting in the middle of a green lawn. The opposite happens when the scales tip the other way, more ice means more reflectivity and less solar energy is absorbed. With clouds, however, we get negative feedback. Solar energy evaporates the oceans, the water vapour condenses into clouds, the clouds form a reflective blanket over the ocean and block the sun from the sea, reducing the evaporation. More cloud means less cloud, but more surface ice means more surface ice. It is Earth's great white spot, Antarctica, and precession, that drives the cycle. Currently Antarctica is tilted toward the sun at perihelion where it is reflecting solar energy but melting. At aphelion the North Pole is tilted toward the sun and absorbs more solar energy, but less than Antarctica due to the inverse square law. The result is the planet warms. When Antarctica is facing the sun at aphelion the reverse effect happens and we are in a cold period with positive feedback. But make no mistake, when the ice melts it will go fast and when it comes back that will be fast too. And because warm air rises and cool air sinks the wind patterns will change and the deserts will have water again. This whole CO2 AGW nonsense is is just political baloney and alarmism, man has no effect on the Earth's orbit. That isn't science denying, that is looking at the bigger picture. AGW is algae global warming, not anthropological global warming, and it is the algae that decompose CO2 and H2O to form the oil in the first place, whilst the trees and peat becomes coal. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
How good were climate models 30 years ago?
On Jul 19, 4:03*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
Currently Antarctica is tilted toward the sun at perihelion where it is reflecting solar energy but melting. At aphelion the North Pole is tilted toward the sun and absorbs more solar energy, but less than Antarctica due to the inverse square law. Just another empiricist child with no feeling for orbital dynamics. One of the oldest human clocks is 5200 years old or 20 % through a precession of roughly 25920 years - the Solstice marker using a roofbox still registers the orbital point of the Earth in December just as it has been doing for the last 5000 years .This fact would normally send people adjusting their views to look on orbital precession as a separate issue to the quasi-rotation of the polar coordinates to the Sun each orbital circuit. Use a broom handle to fix your axial inclination in constant alignment throughout an orbital circuit as you walk/orbit a central object and watch in amazement as precession to the central Sun emerges as an orbital trait with only a slight adjustment to consider the ecliptic precession which most people mistake for axial precession. All in a day's work for an astronomer in a world full of mathematicians who don't have a feel for terrestrial effects arising from planetary dynamics. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scientists' Good News: Earth May Survive Sun's Demise in 5 Billion Years? | Jan Panteltje | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 13th 07 11:18 AM |
Telescope Models? | Mean Mr Mustard | Amateur Astronomy | 15 | May 26th 05 06:49 AM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | OM | History | 0 | April 22nd 05 08:37 AM |
NASA's great earth observatory marks five years of climate discoveries | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | February 28th 05 08:25 PM |