Global Co2 Warming? Maybe not so much.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

    Global Co2 Warming? Maybe not so much.

    Maybe alot of really crappy oil and gas extraction pushing soot and methane in to the air over the last 80 years. Check this article, or not. It its a source I trust, but type in the search or the link as you please.
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from AppDev. Show AppDev's posts

    Another prayer-wheel turn

    The key problem with the so-called "science" of global warming has never been the temperature trends. While of course there are still some deniers, the trends are fairly clear for at least the past 60 years. Instead, the main problem is accurately ascribing trends to causes and accurately predicting effects of changes.

    During the 1960s and 1970s, investigators came to appreciate major problems: intrinsically chaotic behaviors in weather and climate that, so far, they have failed to quantify reliably through first principles. Rather than double down on the fledgling science, they opted to cut and run, grafting on technologies adapted from artificial intelligence that lack sound footings in physics, chemistry and mathematics.

    Now an entire generation of so-called "scientists" has grown up as certified gnostics, in the shadow of this unfortunate turn. It has become impossible to credit what they produce with reliability and verifiability in the senses we routinely expect from every genuine science. The work cited here is yet another turn of a prayer wheel from one of the prime sources of the pseudo-scientific religion.

    That would be quite ordinary if it were just a stage in the evolution of some academic pursuit. It becomes a grievance when true believers in a pseudo-scientific religion launch their creeds into politics, expecting that the public might be taxed for enormous sums with no reasonable ability to guarantee what, if anything, would be achieved if those costs were paid. Not surprisingly, most of the public is unwilling to pay much.

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

    Re: Global Co2 Warming? Maybe not so much.

    Dude, all the article said was that other significant pollutants could be easily reduced and make a large impact on global warming as a model trend.
    Global warming is real Boston used to be under +5000ft of ice. 18k years ago. Plus it was nowhere near the water front as the sea level was 400 feet lower. That I believe in.
     But the folk who try to predict the weather and hurricane season more than 6 months in advance still do not understand the dynamic of the global climate. Just 3 months ago the largest fallacy of stellar non influence in earths climate fell hard after careful analysis of the last 11 year solar cycle. Actually the sun does vary its output far more than the computer models allowed for leaving a much lower than predicted temp increase over the ten year period.
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from AppDev. Show AppDev's posts

    In memoriam

    As anyone with authentic scientific background would know, North America has been in recent glacial maxima about each 116-127 ka. Nothing substantially distinguishes the maximum of c. 20 ka past from the ten or so closest predecessors. Founders of the most recent climate-religion were distinguished from their predecessors by confronting a chasm of uncertainty in turbulent fluid flow, first-hand.

    So far, there has emerged no Heisenberg, Fermi or Feinberg to reformulate the mathematics of chaos. The sixth- and seventh-rate founder "scientists" of the most recent, pseudo-scientific climate religion turned out to have more evangelical talent, along lines of the late, former tent-preacher Oral Roberts, than they had scientific talent. Perhaps the reader was not personally acquainted with any of these.

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

    Re: Global Co2 Warming? Maybe not so much.

    Yup know all that been in the buisness. Maybe you would like to talk about numbers and real stuff instead of philisophic hyperbole. The system is proven non chaotic on the last series of cycles but all that work was done on a short term and unfounded study of the sun cycles. Recent work has clearly shown with satellite data and earth data that the sun does vary more than the old models will allow for. So a serious scientist would question the larger 120k cycles, other than the MIK hypothesis.
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from AppDev. Show AppDev's posts

    Is no news bad news?

    Still waiting for reader "topaz978" to post references to scientific articles that bear on claims made. The reference with which this thread started was not a scientific publication but an ad from a university PR shop. There is no point to reviewing "numbers" as though they had some meaning--which is what the PR encourages--when technology used to generate numbers can't be validated.

    Turbulent fluid circulation is intrinsically chaotic, a behavior unaltered by scales of space and time. Likewise, numerical solutions of time-dependent equations describing atmospheric flows diverge uncontrollably. Rather than finding a way to predict long-range trends of circulations from physics, current modelling for climate prediction imbeds learning technologies.

    Outputs of the learning technologies are hypersensitive to information on which they are tuned, leading to a political selection of "correct" data sets. Because there is no analytic theory behind this approach, results lack statistically valid error estimators.

    The dodge used so far in attempts to cope with those fundamental problems has been to subdivide space and time ever more finely and to average increasingly large numbers of model runs, hoping somehow an average might mean something. While it could be "philosophically" interesting, to rescue a word, nature doesn't behave that way.
    Nature makes, in effect, one run. Of the thousands produced in a typical model experiment, which might that be? [ D.A. Stainforth, et al., Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases, Nature 433(1):403-406, January, 2005, available from ]