It does not seem that Dr. Mann answers any tangible questions but I am unsure. Does not a hockey stick curve up for recent warming not imply no or nearly no buffering from the oceans and clouds?
Being that caloric theory is false and we have known this atleast since 1850 why do the GCM’s assume so much past, current and future warming in light of the laws 1 and 2 of thermodynamics. Yes I know the Earth is an open system but increased heat transfer leads to cooling too and not just higher temperatures which is just a statistical field of the average kinetic energy while heat is the actual thermal energy transferred due to temp differences. I am new here so please if you must move this to the appropriate thread and please do not delete.
First off, this post would fit better under General Discussion or Science, since you are not referring to any Point of Inquiry programs.
Beyond that, you presented some leading questions that can best be answered by a website such as SkepticalScience.com and some serious personal research.
Given your questions it seems as though you need to do some basic studying before you should venture into the debate.
First off, this post would fit better under General Discussion or Science, since you are not referring to any Point of Inquiry programs.
Beyond that, you presented some leading questions that can best be answered by a website such as SkepticalScience.com and some serious personal research.
Given your questions it seems as though you need to do some basic studying before you should venture into the debate.
No. I have the background in basic and advanced study. I have already read all of Mann’s papers and listened to the former podcast regarding his work. I do read skepticalscience and realclimate.org and I post in both places as well as: Tamino. That is why I am asking the question. Feel free to move the post to another thread but this is the discussion I am engaged in:
citizenschallenge.pm - 07 October 2010 06:41 PM
jcbmack - 07 October 2010 06:16 PM
I am very interested in global warming research, its uncertainties, tenets and potential ways to improve the data collection and quantitative analysis it employs.
Well, step right up buddy, this forum could use some livening up
Well, here I am stepping up. It is true that short wave radiation gets transduced mostly to long wave from the albedo of the planet making it more difficult to escape the atmosphere and greenhouse gases trap more radiation as they accumulate. However, caloric theory is incorrect. Even in an open system thermodynamics still applies.
It is not that I am accusing Mann of anything like malfeasance. I am not invoking climategate. I do not think C02 cannot rise like many on Watts’ site either. I do not even side with Lindzen and Pieke Sr. that negative feebacks necessarily undo all posiitve feedbacks in an immediate manner, thus positive feedbacks may well still be more potent leading to some warming and certainly in most meteorology textbooks it is stated changing weather patterns help to undo natural and artificial forcings/feedbacks at least in an ephemeral manner and partially. Increasing CO2 and CH4 emissions have, can and will lead to more erratic weather patterns and a changing climate. I have also read all of Spencer Weart as well.
OK jcbmack, I’ll shut up and listen some.
Your remarks are interesting but what point is it you are trying to make.
It isn’t clear from the above.
Let me toss in a little science philosophy - I don’t expect the scientists to be able to supply “final” answers.
I see the pageant of science being one of bringing information into better focus.
Thus, just because 100% a situation isn’t explainable, doesn’t mean the known 85% is invalid.
First off, this post would fit better under General Discussion or Science, since you are not referring to any Point of Inquiry programs.
Beyond that, you presented some leading questions that can best be answered by a website such as SkepticalScience.com and some serious personal research.
Given your questions it seems as though you need to do some basic studying before you should venture into the debate.
No. I have the background in basic and advanced study. I have already read all of Mann’s papers and listened to the former podcast regarding his work. I do read skepticalscience and realclimate.org and I post in both places as well as: Tamino. That is why I am asking the question. Feel free to move the post to another thread but this is the discussion I am engaged in:
citizenschallenge.pm - 07 October 2010 06:41 PM
jcbmack - 07 October 2010 06:16 PM
I am very interested in global warming research, its uncertainties, tenets and potential ways to improve the data collection and quantitative analysis it employs.
Well, step right up buddy, this forum could use some livening up
Well, here I am stepping up. It is true that short wave radiation gets transduced mostly to long wave from the albedo of the planet making it more difficult to escape the atmosphere and greenhouse gases trap more radiation as they accumulate. However, caloric theory is incorrect. Even in an open system thermodynamics still applies.
From a non-scientist, I am disappointed. I trusted my outdoor thermometer over the past 20 years, but if there is no net increase in global temperature over that time, it seems it must be failing.
From a non-scientist, I am disappointed. I trusted my outdoor thermometer over the past 20 years, but if there is no net increase in global temperature over that time, it seems it must be failing.
From a non-scientist, I am disappointed. I trusted my outdoor thermometer over the past 20 years, but if there is no net increase in global temperature over that time, it seems it must be failing.
Write4U, I’m confused. Is this a joke?
The 20 year old thermometer?, yes.
The point I was trying to make in spite of all the thermodynamics, I believe that the scientific measurements (sophisticated thermometers ) clearly show a net increase in global temperature.
The point I was trying to make in spite of all the thermodynamics, I believe that the scientific measurements (sophisticated thermometers ) clearly show a net increase in global temperature.
cool… er, i mean hot.
But, you know the thermometer that’s been impressing me the most is our planet’s ice cube, you know the cryosphere.
What ever happened to jcbmack - hmmm another hollow hit’n run I suppose.
The point I was trying to make in spite of all the thermodynamics, I believe that the scientific measurements (sophisticated thermometers ) clearly show a net increase in global temperature.
cool… er, i mean hot.
But, you know the thermometer that’s been impressing me the most is our planet’s ice cube, you know the cryosphere.
What ever happened to jcbmack - hmmm another hollow hit’n run I suppose.
Yes, but all the ice cubes are disappearing. Soon there won’t be any more of those reliable thermometers. What will we do then? Just learn how to swim again, I guess.
Write4U, you are talking about weather. If you were talking about trends you look at a lot of global indicators. Apologies, my pc didnt load all your comments. Yep, there appear to be far too many changes that can be modelled and reviewed to leave me comfortable with the current world order WRT power and transport.
Who ever wrote about short wavelengths being converted to long wavelengths, could you clarify this? My ChemSpec gland is getting curious..
Write4U, you are talking about weather. If you were talking about trends you look at a lot of global indicators. Apologies, my pc didnt load all your comments. Yep, there appear to be far too many changes that can be modelled and reviewed to leave me comfortable with the current world order WRT power and transport.
Who ever wrote about short wavelengths being converted to long wavelengths, could you clarify this? My ChemSpec gland is getting curious..
Around my house, the fruit trees are blooming earlier and earlier and the heat waves are getting hotter.
you’re lucky to have bees!
Folk here don’t get it, they equate deviations from trends as not having a trend. One joker on local radio said the sea level rises could be fixed up by building sea walls a foot or so high for our local beaches.
Sadly its a game for me, whilst Helen Caldicott is going around with her anti nuclear message, ever coal burner fires uranium and thorium combined with carbon dioxide into the environment. That and of course 10 million tonnes of CO2 per annum per gig of burner Avg. How much mercury? Every breath you take could be as much as a piece of tuna!
The amount of radioactivity that a 1 gig nuclear plant stores very safely per annum is the same as what a coal burner disseminates into the environment. This is using inefficient nuclear technology.
Beware, the Russians are getting the jump on the west. They will be selling mods and waste burners to you soon. That’s how many research and engineering jobs lost to your country?
