GW takes a blow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 5 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]400380[/snapback]</div>

Well, first the big news is, there's more than one model. Multiple scientists are modeling various things, running computer models based on various inputs. Including precipitation, cloud formation, ocean intake of CO2, heat transfer from storm systems, glacier lifecycles (snowfall, movement, calving), etc.

So you probably won't like this in your black-and-white world, but there isn't a simple yes or no answer. It's mostly yes, by far, but I am sure some scientists do not include precipitation in their models. I obviously can't speak for every scientist out there. It depends in part on what aspect of the climate they're studying.

The IPCC then gathers scientists from the various fields, they review all the research that's been done, and combine it into a coherent whole. Which is not somehow much less dire than the one in 2001, in fact it is a much more serious problem than we knew then. Not sure what paragraph of the report was pulled out for you to look at and decide things are suddenly better now than 6 years ago.

(And nuclear fall-out would not produce global warming - it would produce nuclear winter, if done in large enough scale, just like volcanos or asteroid impact would do...but I agree, Iran with nukes is a very scary proposition...remember also, they control a large part of the Strait of Hormuz, through which passes 20% of the world's petroleum).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Mar 5 2007, 09:42 AM) [snapback]400388[/snapback]</div>

A curious example of this mistreatment of the past for the purpose of slandering Christians is a widespread historical error, an error that the Historical Society of Britain some years back listed as number one in its short compendium of the ten most common historical illusions. It is the notion that people used to believe that the earth was flat--especially medieval Christians.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods46.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 5 2007, 09:37 AM) [snapback]400380[/snapback]</div>

I looked at the climate model we are using, and it includes precipitation (an "aqueous reaction" - scientists are such funny creatures!). Ooops, did I use too many words? Simple answer: Yes.

Where are you getting the idea that the models don't include this?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 5 2007, 07:12 PM) [snapback]400653[/snapback]</div>

My meaning may have been too broad. I was speaking of those who take too literal the words of the bible and promoted the idea of a flat earth. Like the Flat Earth Society and their biblical interpretations. To think that the church has not tried to hide scientific data in the past seems a bit unthinkable though. Thank you for the links.

 

No, there is a quote in the Bible that "justifies" the flat-earth nonsense. Don't bother paying attention to the "religiously correct."

 

I've been away for a while, and imagine my disappointment on seeing a thread called GW Takes a Blow and finding out it has nothing to do with Jeff Gannon's visits to a certain Washington DC residence...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Mar 5 2007, 06:04 PM) [snapback]400585[/snapback]</div>

I do not understand why nerfer, F8L and the other GW believers on this forum insist on clouding the issue with facts from reputable scientists. Just because the evidence is so overwhelming that even the current administration concedes that that there just might be "sumptin to this global warming after all" is NO reason to employ dirty tactics like using facts. You all need to cease this reckless application of logic immediately and fight fair!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Mar 5 2007, 09:02 PM) [snapback]400726[/snapback]</div>

LOL. You're right. I'm going to go the opposite and diametrically opposed route and start using neurolinguistic programing like Newt Gingrich proposed for the other side.

anti-AGW people are proponents of Decay... failure (fail)... collapse(ing)... deeper... crisis... urgent(cy)... destructive... destroy... sick... pathetic... lie... liberal... they/them... unionized bureaucracy... ‘compassion’ is not enough... betray... consequences... limit(s)... shallow... traitors... sensationalists...endanger... coercion... hypocrisy... radical... threaten... devour... waste... corruption... incompetent... permissive attitudes... destructive... impose... self-serving... greed... ideological... insecure... anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs... pessimistic... excuses... intolerant... stagnation... welfare... corrupt... selfish... insensitive... status quo... mandate(s)... taxes... spend(ing)... shame... disgrace... punish (poor...)... bizarre... cynicism... cheat... steal... abuse of power... machine... bosses... obsolete... criminal rights... red tape... patronage Burn them at the stake the dirty hippies!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Mar 5 2007, 08:34 PM) [snapback]400702[/snapback]</div>

How about paying attention to the rules and citing the source for this :lol: quote?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 5 2007, 09:14 PM) [snapback]400736[/snapback]</div>

? He cited the Bible as the source.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Mar 5 2007, 11:39 PM) [snapback]400710[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 05:01 AM) [snapback]400793[/snapback]</div>

Again - where are you getting this idea??? It's not true.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Mar 6 2007, 06:40 AM) [snapback]400834[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. Cite the source.

Here is some info on that paper:

Taking Cosmic Rays for a Spin

I'm looking for something positive on a reputable site but I don't have any more time. If someone finds one please post it up. I'd like to check it out. Any info is good info even if it doesn't support my ideas.

Are you seriously considering you might have found a flaw in the calculations used by thousands of climatologists of which millions and millions of dollars have been spent to try and denounce?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 11:20 AM) [snapback]400854[/snapback]</div>

Scientists don't just miss something like precipitation. They argue about it, and eventually, do more experiments. One project underway concerning this topic is CLOUD (for Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets). The protoype machine to test this is currently under construction.

Described in an Article in Nature, Sept 2006.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/...ll/443141a.html

This cosmic-ray connection drew a lot of media attention for several years, but never found favour with the mainstream of climate science, which holds that the twentieth century's global warming was caused by people, not particles. To many in the community, the attention paid to Svensmark and Friis-Christensen seemed to be at best a diversion, at worst a counter-attack. The connection with the Sun was played on by organizations with connections to oil companies, such as the right-wing George C. Marshall Institute in Washington DC.

Among several flaws, including arithmetical errors, they noted that the cloud data that had been used originally did not represent total global cloud cover, and that when the correct data were used the correlation broke down. Svensmark began to use a different measure of cloudiness, justifying this by arguing that the new measure made more sense than the original one as something that the cosmic rays might be influencing.

CLOUD, which Kirkby has been trying to get off the ground for years, is an attempt to move beyond such arguments. It is not a completely neutral attempt — Kirkby gives talks that put a strong emphasis on the cosmic-ray interpretation of climate history, and Svensmark is a member of the CERN team. But it will produce fresh data. "CLOUD can compare processes when the 'cosmic-ray' beam is present and when it is not," says Kirkby, " and all experimental parameters can be controlled and measured."