VERY GOOD post, Dogtor. I'm in total 100% agreement. Keep up the excellent work!Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
|
|
|
|
|
VERY GOOD post, Dogtor. I'm in total 100% agreement. Keep up the excellent work!
Wow. I had no idea this topic would go here. Assuming arguendo that "God" designed this process you would have thought that he would have thought about the effects of man's use of fossil fuels. Are you saying "God" is is smart enough to design many different cycles to "regulate" a climate but is too stupid to take into account what man was likely to do when he discovered the utility of fossil fuels?
Does anyone else get the feeling that Salty is not actually reading Dogtor's posts?
From the article:
"Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.
"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.
Dogtor, you should know that Antarctic is frozen mountain, the elevation and location of which means that the place never gets above 32F. AGW is not going to change that.. in a hundred years Antarctic will still be a frozen ice cube, but if it did melt expect sea level increases of about 100 meters..
You mean it is possible to date the carbon. So assuming a starting point (a reasonable one being 99.99% C12, 0.01% C14, and no C13 in "new" carbon), you can date your carbon using a standard decay relationship (half-lifes, for example, only here you are adding neutrons instead of LOSING mass). So this technique can give you a
I'm not sure that we are capable of establishing that starting point for all sources of carbon that enter the atmosphere, and I'm 99.99% confident that we cannot differentiate CO2 from different sources emitted at the same time in this manner. The 0.01% is to account for the case where one of your emitters has an isotopic composition that is distinct from the others. So say you can provide evidence that because oil has been sitting under the earth for many times longer than other sources of CO2 (which I find very hard to believe, especially if you say all other CO2 sources are identical).
Even here, to make the argument that there's a greater contribution from fossil fuels than other sources, you've got to assume an average cycle time of CO2 in the atmosphere. You see - you've now got to consider the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere and the composition of the CO2 from different sources. The problem is UNDERDEFINED, which makes it very easy for political hand-waving.
A better argument is that they are sustaining funds for themselves as an organization. The threat of global warming translates directly into funding and job security for certain groups within the NOAA, EPA, DOE, etc.Uh, like GWB or Cheney is putting pressure on the scientists at NOAA to come out with conclusions that show that AGW is happening.
Which means you agree that the planet has been going through natural temperature cycles for at least the last 400,000 years and that these temperature cycles are FOLLOWED by corresponding increases/decreases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
The largest increase in temperature in "recent history" (10 deg C) started approximately 15,000 years ago, well before man-made CO2 emissions.
15,000 years ago - those damn chinese and their "novel" pottery furnaces...
You are leaving out the two most important elements:
(1) God gave Man FREE WILL so we can choose between Right and Wrong and to be responsible for our actions.
(2) the power of that Great Magician, Satan, to confuse and mislead Man.
I know what Antartica is. And yes, you are correct that the temperature there will NEVER get above 32 deg F. The Antartica makes up 90% of the worlds ice. The average temperature there is -37 degrees F.
However, you never hear this data when you hear "the polar ice caps are melting".
They could very well be growing:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp
I was pretty sure you would quote this section....
These global models are inaccurate. Period. They don't accurately predict local or global tendencies. They are simply approximations based on how the programmer sets the extrapolations.
Current climatic models (based on much more accurate data) don't accurately predict what your local weather will be tomorrow. How can you expect a global model to accurately predict future, long-term global climatic trends when you can't get an accurate prediction of tomorrow for your home-town?
randerizer, 2 additional facts for you.
(1) ten kilograms of C14 are produced each year in the atmosphere by the action of particle radiation, half of this will decay into nitrogen over a period of 5,370 years (the half life of C14).
(2) fossil fuel has zero C14.
BTW, C12 makes up 98.9% of all carbon. C13 is in 1.1%
I guess that would render "God" either non-omnipotent or non-omniscient.
What percentage of NOAA budget goes to support AGW research?
Obviously, their business is the weather so they are collecting weather data as a matter of the core mission of the agency. Long-term climate forecasts are not their bread and butter.
So, which one is it for you?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
