A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Runaway Global Warming Possible!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 26th 05, 10:00 PM
Thomas Lee Elifritz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 26th 05, 11:04 PM
Uncle Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 26th 05, 11:16 PM
relay61:13:214:23
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 26th 05, 11:26 PM
ošin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 27th 05, 01:10 AM
Ian Stirling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 27th 05, 01:12 AM
G_cowboy_is_that_a_Gnu_Hurd?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 27th 05, 01:22 AM
Arthur Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 27th 05, 01:24 AM
ošin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old January 27th 05, 01:38 AM
ošin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 27th 05, 04:13 AM
jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 11:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.