On 11/14/2013 4:20 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

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 

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."


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.

Reply via email to