On 11/14/2013 4:20 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Yes.
I proposed myself not to argue against sectarian apocalypticists because that is a waste
of time, but honoring those of you that are not seduced by the
end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movement, I will say something:
Alas, some people just can't be relied on.
Climatic models are bullshit. if you look at how they adjust parameters looking at the
climategate mails you will have no doubt. Starting from that funny way for manufacturing
models, it is no surprise that they predict nothing as Telmo said.
First, the general circulation model developed at East Anglia is only one of a dozen or
more and they all predict increasing temperature - including the pencil and paper
calculation of Arhennius. In fact it's trivially easy to see that increased CO2 will
raise the earth's temperature. CO2 absorbs light energy in infrared bands that are
otherwise transparent. Without CO2 the planet would be too cold for human habitation (as
already realized by Fourier). The difficulty in making accurate predictions of how much
the CO2 we're adding will raise temperatures comes from accounting for the positive
feedback effect of water vapor. Most models assume the world average relative humidity
will stay the same. Some try to model ocean circulation from deep to shallow and assume
water vapor pressure stays in equilibrium with the ocean surface. But these don't make
any difference to the long term conclusion.
There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why? Because it behaves like
the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I believe, dont want to fire up
the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is why it is a good model.
Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching past
data.
What would be a good test of a climatic model?. We know that at the glacial eras started
when North and South America united by the istmus of Panama closed the free water
movement between the atlantic and pacific. That changed the global water flow regimes
and resulted in the two polar ice caps.
It is easy to configure the continents in the climate models and see what happens in
each configuration of the american continents. Why they dont try it?. Because they know
that their models are lacking decades of research to get accurate enough for the
simplest long term prediction.
More obfuscation. If more solar energy is retained by the atmosphere the planet will get
hotter until it can radiate as much as received. Moving continents around can only affect
the local distribution. This is the same tactic as Creationists who point to the clotting
sequence or the flagellum and declare, "Let's see evolution explain THAT."
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
