GW takes a blow

This is what I have been attempting to point out , Most models have left vapor out of the equasion.....

For most research they omit vapor and it shows that man is the major contributor when the other side of the coin shows natures the major contributor... :wacko:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 12:35 PM) [snapback]400902[/snapback]</div>

dberman,

That's your jump to conclusion, not that of scientists. To assert that scientists have not considered precipitation is a falsehood. An experiment to test how a cosmic ray interacts with a raindrop is hardly equivalent to saying "WOW! GW DOESN'T INCLUDE PRECIPITATION!"

Assuming government funding isn't cut off, the machine in question should be built by about 2010. From the same article in Nature:

Again, climate scientists disagree. They think that the history of Earth's glaciations is pretty well accounted for by changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And in this instance, too, the climatologists contend that the astrophysicists' claims, specifically Shaviv's, are unfounded and even misleading. A paper11 coauthored by Shaviv and Ján Veizer, now an emeritus professor at the University of Ottowa in Canada, was dressed down by no less than 11 scientists led by Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. The scientists contended among other things that Shaviv and Veizer had misinterpreted the cosmic-ray data derived from their meteorite samples.

Rahmstorf, who led the charge against Shaviv and Veizer, agrees that solar variability has an influence on climate, but he is adamant that galactic cosmic rays cannot explain the global warming of the past decades. "We know that the observed climate response is the sum of several forcing factors, including the Sun, which is probably responsible for some part of the warming up to about 1940, but not for warming after that. The Sun simply shows no trend there, and neither does the cosmic-ray flux."

Perhaps the irony here is that the current emphasis on global warming is encouraging people from outside the field of climate studies to try out ideas, perhaps exaggerating their promise. At the same time those within the climate community are mindful of lobbies that seek to discredit their work, and believe enough doubt has been cast on the cosmic-ray theory to discredit it, if not ignore it completely.

Yet for a connection between cosmic rays and climate to be interesting, it does not have to account for the already well-explained climate history of the past 100 years. Even a small effect, to which Earth is only sensitive under some conditions, would be an exciting find. The CLOUD experiment does not have to overturn the consensus of the world's climatologists to be a success; it just has to throw a little light on some physics.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 12:55 PM) [snapback]400912[/snapback]</div>

Dude, you're jumping the shark to the wrong conclusion. How does a study of cosmic rays equal no consideration of precipitation? There's simply no evidence of that exclusion in global warming science.

A Comparative Study of Precipitation in Global Circulation Models
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/project_det...bproject_id=600

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html
While the scientific community is divided over many aspects of the global warming theory, the effect of global warming on precipitation levels is not one of them: Global warming would mean more condensation and more evaporation, producing more and/or heavier rains.

From the recent IPCC conference: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70202085036.htm
• It is “very likely” that precipitation will increase at high latitudes and “likely” it will decrease over most subtropical land regions. The pattern of these changes is similar to what has been observed during the 20th century
Three years in the making, the report is based on a thorough review of the most-up-to-date, peer-reviewed scientific literature available worldwide. It describes an accelerating transition to a warmer world marked by more extreme temperatures including heat waves, new wind patterns, worsening drought in some regions, heavier precipitation in others, melting glaciers and Arctic ice and rising global average sea levels. For the first time, the report provides evidence that the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland are slowly losing mass and contributing to sea level rise.

 

I'll add this to the discussion. It's an interesting article that gives some insight into modern climate models.

From Physics Today

For the naysayers, I think this is a particularly interesting article because it lays out in a pretty accessible format what, in a nutshell, climate modeling is about.

 

Doberman, put up or shut up.

Either cite a source for your claim or stop making it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Mar 6 2007, 12:36 PM) [snapback]400951[/snapback]</div>

What did I do? I'm a good boy. Right? Huh? I'm a good boy!!

 

[

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 10:29 AM) [snapback]400996[/snapback]</div>

Roy Spencer? Exxonsecrets.org?

Evolution is fact, not faith
Bob Dylan was obviously right that you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Weatherman Roy W. Spencer, until now mostly known as a global warming skeptic, has decided to throw science to the four winds and take on evolution, using arguments and assertions you can read off the back of a typical creationist pamphlet. Such arguments no doubt play well to his religious lay audience, but anyone having a smattering of knowledge about biology will be infuriated at what Dr Spencer tries to pass off as science and facts.

Sideshow Roy Spencer

There are a lot more of those types of links I could provide but there could be just as many good links so I won't pass judgement till I can have a look at those.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]400996[/snapback]</div>

Roy Spencers work refuted:
Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/...and&emc=rss

and his ties to Exxon-funded foundations
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397

and his report, An Evangelical Response to Global Warming
http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/CalltoTruth.pdf

So pardon me if I take Roy Spencer with a grain of salt. His frequent co-Author and co-faculty member of U A Huntsville, John Christy, is also specifically recommended for government appointment by Exxon to help debunk global warming in a memo visible at (page 55): http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/glo...xxon_report.pdf

I also love your "the current model" presupposing there is ONE climate model. The point about the scientific consensus on global warming is that many scientist are working with many different models and arriving at similar conclusions. One description of climate models is described at http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/2/3/1
Climate modellers deal with such sub-resolution processes using a technique called parametrization, whereby small-scale processes are represented by average values over one grid box that have been worked out using observations, theory and case studies from high-resolution models. Examples of cloud parametrization include "convective" schemes that describe the heavy tropical rainfall that dries the atmosphere through condensation and warms it through the release of latent heat; and "cloud" schemes that use the winds, temperatures and humidity calculated by the model to simulate the formation and decay of the clouds and their effect on radiation.

 

So THAT'S who my father's been listening to!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]400996[/snapback]</div>

Global Warming is a bit of a misnomer. It does not mean that every place on Earth is going to get warmer. Some will, but some will get colder, some drier, and some wetter. Climate Change would be a more accurate and descriptive name. And weather is not climate. Long term trends and averages are much easier to predict than the precise daily weather in any specific location. It's entirely possible for the winter and summer extremes to change significantly without affecting the average at all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]401083[/snapback]</div>

ok, what part of the below paragraph did you not understand? or perhaps you didn't bother to read it?
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/2/3/1
Climate modellers deal with such sub-resolution processes using a technique called parametrization, whereby small-scale processes are represented by average values over one grid box that have been worked out using observations, theory and case studies from high-resolution models. Examples of cloud parametrization include "convective" schemes that describe the heavy tropical rainfall that dries the atmosphere through condensation and warms it through the release of latent heat; and "cloud" schemes that use the winds, temperatures and humidity calculated by the model to simulate the formation and decay of the clouds and their effect on radiation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 04:14 PM) [snapback]401083[/snapback]</div>

So now you want to confuse the issue from climate modelling to weather forecasting? The climate models show the trends in global climate. Your analogy is like looking at a survey of breast cancer rates for women over 45 and pointing to a woman in a crowd and saying: Tell me, does she have cancer! The lack of a specific instance of prediction does not invalidate the science.

 

obviously he didn't read the link I posted.

In terms of the models' predictive abilities here's an example from the article:

Here's another snippet worth noting:

So, yet another reference to precipitation in the models...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Mar 6 2007, 05:09 AM) [snapback]400795[/snapback]</div>

I'm not talking about the Biblical passages but specifically about the part in italics. If he is trying to lend credence to his own words by placing them in a quote box that is deceptive to say the least. If they are not his own words by the rules of this site he must supply a source. I would truly like to know who would use these passages in the Bible as proof that it teaches a "Flat Earth" becuase one can't see all the kingdoms of the world from a tall mountain. Especially since no scholar/researcher worth his salt would support that statement and indeed most take the part about the "circle of the earth" to prove that the Bible actually teaches a spherical earth and 'Astromical' (sic) bodies.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 12:29 PM) [snapback]400996[/snapback]</div>

I would like to debate you on these matters, but obviously you are not reading (or at least not retaining) what people have already said, so I'm not sure what the point is. I already pointed out (as have others since then) that precipitation is included in many climate models, there is more than a single model, and weather is different than climate. For your most recent question, global warming indicates that there is more energy in the system, and more violent storms, which will cause extremes of heat/cold and drought/precipitation. Yes, extremes of cold will happen, but the average will be towards warmer weather. This information is readily available in much of the literature about global warming. When you can show that you have read and understood current scientific literature on the matter, then it will be worth debating you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 03:14 PM) [snapback]401083[/snapback]</div>

The newer models show water vapor as almost non existant, I find that hard to believe.

Face it, theres no amount of proof, anyone can provide to change their minds about GW.
If you post data or links that go against the grain, its wrong or that scientist has been discredited because they chose to state the facts as they saw/research it.... Kinda like the kerry election. :lol:

If its proven to be a big Hoax, then hey we are just out Billions & Billions of dollars, no big deal, right?

Too bad they dont just take those Billions of dollars and put it to good use like creating Bio-Fuels to replace petrolium products, ie alternate fuels...