Earth's Climate Change

This is yet another topic that is a victum of modeling. The science is all well and good but what is being presented to the press and public is modeling not science. The models all predict the sky is falling because they all have been programed by jurks. There is not a lot of science in models.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />This is yet another topic that is a victum of modeling. The science is all well and good but what is being presented to the press and public is modeling not science. The models all predict the sky is falling because they all have been programed by jurks. There is not a lot of science in models.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

These models assume only radiative heat loss from dry, still air. They do not consider overall convection, water vapor, clouds, etc. And quite obviously, they completely ignore any change in the Sun's thermal output. There is said to be a 90% correlation between Earth's average global temperature and the population of sunspots. Which brings us back to astronomy....


Gregg Wilson

Gregg, Those models also ignore all the geothermal heat such as volcanos undersea vents, black smokers and all the tectonic plate energy. It can easily determined the overall accounting of the energy flux well underestimated by applying blackbody law. The modelers seem to have no interest in real stuff in that they refuse to even consider any of these details and you posted above.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Gregg, Those models also ignore all the geothermal heat such as volcanos undersea vents, black smokers and all the tectonic plate energy. It can easily determined the overall accounting of the energy flux well underestimated by applying blackbody law. The modelers seem to have no interest in real stuff in that they refuse to even consider any of these details and you posted above.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is not my field, Jim, but I have wondered if the El Nino, etc, is caused by heat release - or lack of it - on the ocean floor of the Pacific. And not to change the subject but how do they know that polar bears are drowning? Are there special spotter teams keeping track of each bear?

Michael Crichton gave a humorous paper in which he proposed that global warming is caused by UFOs, which is as valid as the current "theory".


Gregg Wilson

All you need is a understanding of blackbodies. They radiate in a very exact manner and using that understanding and evaporation rate of seawater you can get a good estimate of how much energy is needed to keep the ocean at warm as it is. If only the solar radiation was available the ocean would be frozen solid and it takes a whole lot of energy to keep the ocean at 70F degrees or so which is in fact the temperature of half of the ocean area. The modeling does not know anything about these details-its the old don't try to confuse a made up mind with facts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Michael Crichton gave a humorous paper in which he proposed that global warming is caused by UFOs, which is as valid as the current "theory". [Gregg]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is one we agree on.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The global temperature stasis between 1998 and 2006 occurred despite continuing rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide over that period. Consistent with this Karner (2002) showed from an analysis of global temperature series that:

<i>antipersistance in the lower tropospheric temperature increments does not support the science of global warming developed by IPCC. Negative long-range correlation of increments during the last 22 years means that negative feedback has been dominating in the earth climate system during the period.</i>

These facts, and the lack of a discernable human greenhouse effect in the late 20th century (MSU satellite) temperature records, are consistent with Khilyuk and Chilingers (2006) estimate that the human greenhouse forcing is four to five orders of magnitude less than the major natural forcing agents. [from "The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change," RM Carter]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">