No David, and thank you for not regurgitating a FOX news report on global warming. Physics is a very powerful tool for our understanding of the world. We live it every day from the engineering of bridges on a macro-scale to the nano-scale of your home computer's vlsi cpu. The point is PEOPLE KNOW SHIT. Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Engineering, and the vast Biological sciences have give people an immense knowledge base about what is fact and what is fiction. That knowledge base is VAST! Indeed, we Cold Fusioniers are trying to add new knowledge into that expanse material properties and behaviors.
Climate scientists also have vast knowledge in their fields. Sure, one can second guess them but does that make you expert enough to refute their claims? (In this case WARNINGS about a potential extinction event!) Hell no. I hope that everyone on vortex realizes that this thing called "climate change" by rightwingers, is actually slow motion global extinction. Here is why. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels is similar in levels released from major meteor strikes on earth. http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.477.html Bottom line, is there is a lot to be concerned about. Deniers of Global Warming need to be very concerned as life sometimes just doesn't give a shit what you think. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:49 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > I saw where that Atlantic current is the assumed reason for the pause and > it might actually be the culprit. The climatologists also had a number of > other possible factors that they were considering before they finally chose > that particular one. Does it not concern you that this factor was just now > discovered? Surely a really good model of the climate system would have > included that factor previously while at the same time these guys were > making claims that they had great confidence in their earlier predictions. > > This type of situation is the root of my skeptical feeling toward > them. On several occasions, of which this is the latest, the models have > been found to fail to take into consideration very important factors that > were later added when the predictions did not match the measurements. I > can only assume that there are several, or perhaps many other factors that > are waiting for an opportunity to appear. This likely will occur a number > of times in the next 100 years as the models continue to make erroneous > predictions. > > It is entirely possible that these guys now have a perfect model but only > sufficient time will prove that is true. How can we make laws that > encumber our industries and lives based upon this type of prediction that > may likely prove grossly inaccurate? In my opinion it would be much wiser > to wait until the models really show good performance before we act. That > will take at least a 10 year wait to begin to demonstrate > accurate predictions versus merely curve fitting old data. Besides, the > model makers now claim that it will likely be 11 years before the heating > spell returns. The actual turn around point is not known or predicted with > confidence at this time. A throw of dice is about that accurate. > > I would truly love to have faith in those predictive models to make our > tough decisions easier to swallow. Unfortunately, that is a luxury that > is not available to me and I would hope that others realize that the > models do not deserve our respect considering their track record. In time > I am confident that they will improve, but there is no guarantee that they > can ever do a super job of predicting a system with the complexity of our > climate. Only time can answer that question. > > I wonder if these guys are being more humble now that they have been shown > to have serious errors in their models? If not, then the problem will not > go away without finding a new set of actors. > > It is not fun being a skeptic and taking all the heat from the more > trusting guys on this list, but I find it cowardly to silently sit by and > accept what I consider wrong. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: CB Sites <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 6:20 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? > > I was reading last week's Science magazine and they had an paper that > talks about the new finding that the Atlantic ocean was trapping much more > heat than expected. They conclude that the leveling out of temperature > rise is due to this. It's a pretty compelling science finding. > What they found are that currents in the Atlantic are moving much faster > than normal and that was caused by a change in salinity from fresh water > melts. The faster currents are pulling more of the hot surface waters > down to 1000m or more. This gives the appearance of cooling global > temperatures and giving the stair step in land/atmosphere temperature rise. > This current reverses every 30 years, so they expect the shelf to > continue for another 10 years after which the temperatures should rise very > quickly with a very sharp slope. Even though it looks like we are on a > step that doesn't mean global average temperatures have stopped rising. > It's just that they are not rising as quickly as theory predict. Last > year was still the hottest ever recorded in the history of mankind. > http://www.climate.gov. With the new information, about the Atlantic > currents It shouldn't take the atmospheric modelers to long before the > models are corrected. > > One concern that is related has to do with the methane clathrate found > on the Arctic sea floor. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate > > As the Arctic ocean warms and warm currents circulate that heat even > more, is that it could rapidly increase methane levels. Already > scientists have seen more and more methane seepage bubbling up from the > Arctic ocean waters. Methane has 25x the heat trapping ability that CO2 > has so a little goes a long way. There is a lot of methane trapped on the > ocean floor that only needs a 0.1C change to make it sublimate into methane > gas. If enough happens, it could trigger a run-away feedback loop where > methane's contribution adds more to global temperature wise, which heats > the oceans more, which sublimates more methane clathrate. At the same > time, evaporation of surface waters will increase adding more water vapor > (also a potent greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere. > > It's something to think about. > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Axil, There is plenty of reason the believe that the earth is on an >> overall warming cycle. We can be fairly confident that one day it will >> reverse and we will be facing a new ice age since this has happened over >> and over again according to the best historical measurements. No doubt >> that polar ice contributes to the process along with countless other >> natural and man made phenomena. >> >> When the next ice age begins is clearly debatable and I hope that we have >> many years before that devastating event comes upon us. So far I have not >> heard a great deal of noise from the global warming crowd suggesting that >> the current warming period will encourage the return of the cold that is so >> dangerous to our existence. It is only a matter of time before this >> becomes a rallying cry of that group of alarmists. They will get my >> attention at that point provided their models begin to demonstrate accurate >> predictions without needing serious corrections every few years. >> >> We should resist the urge to put our lives and economies into the hands >> of this group until and if their predictions can be shown to be >> trustworthy. It may well turn out that what they are attempting is >> intractable and not subject to accurate modeling. What they contend to be >> caused by man might merely be a natural consequence of the earths response >> to solar and cosmic driving forces. Sometimes it is very difficult to >> separate cause and effect. >> >> The development of LENR systems will come around soon and that will >> rapidly reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels and additional warming gas >> releases needed to supply our energy future demands. Lets reserve our >> concerns about what may or may not happen in 100 years under the current >> conditions and realize that our species has been quite adaptable in the >> past and will find a solution to any problems that arise. The scientific >> understanding that will develop during that period will appear as magic to >> us. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 2:13 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? >> >> Ice is melting and feeding the deep ocean currents that rise every few >> decades to cool off the coasts. >> >> Sea level rise is the simple indicator that marks the point of >> disaster. Coastal cities will flood as the ice melts. When all the ice is >> gone, that is when the climate is in big trouble. The temperature of the >> oceans controls the temperature of the atmosphere. The melting of the ice >> is the factor that introduces the oscillations in the climate. >> >> If you put a glass of ice in an oven, the water in the glass will stay >> at freezing until the ice melts. When all the ice is gone, the water will >> begin to heat on its way to boiling. >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Please note that I pointed out that* I *have not seen one graph >>> predicting the long term pause. Of course I have not reviewed every >>> single model output since that would be a useless exercise. >>> >>> Which predictions should we depend upon? Those of the IPCC likely carry >>> the most weight and they show no pause. I assume that the next versions of >>> their models will be modified to reflect the new data, but you must admit >>> that this is hindsight and not prediction as such. When will the next >>> major error be uncovered? Are you 100% confident that we will not be >>> entering into a cooling period during the next 20 years? >>> >>> I can not blindly and quietly sit by and accept the clearly poor >>> performance of a group of assumed experts that are causing immense damage >>> to our standard of living. They are merely high priests of a new religion >>> that is dangerous and destructive. Everyone has the ability to evaluate >>> their model's output and should realize that it is inaccurate. Why should >>> we not use the good senses that God gave us? >>> >>> Lets put an end to this discussion since it is obvious that we will not >>> come to a resolution that is acceptable to both of us. Everyone is >>> entitled to their beliefs and that is good for science in the long run. >>> >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 12:03 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:36 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Eric, I have seen graphs of the predicted global temperatures from >>>> several different models and they all show a rapid increase during the >>>> questionable period. Not one of them indicate that a pause was >>>> conceivable. >>> >>> >>> The second statement -- "Not one of them indicate that a pause was >>> conceivable" -- this is a hard proposition to evaluate. There are no doubt >>> many hundreds or thousands of climate models that have been proposed over >>> the years. To evaluate whether none of them predicted the absence of a >>> rapid increase, ultimately you will need to have intimate knowledge of >>> statements made in the following publications (and probably others) over a >>> period of decades: >>> >>> http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html >>> >>> You will need to be conversant with units that are very different than >>> ones in other fields and will have to have a solid working knowledge of the >>> relevant physics, chemistry and biology. If you have not personally made >>> the effort to keep on top of the specific models proposed in these journals >>> and the highly technical statements that have been made and debated ad >>> infinitum, you will need to place trust in someone else to do this homework >>> for you. You will be a babe in the woods and will need to call upon >>> someone to get you out of the bind of knowing little about climate science, >>> like all of the rest of us non-specialists. >>> >>> To get yourself out of this bind, you can choose the BBC, or the >>> evening news, or infographics published on a Web site. Some will choose to >>> put their trust in inveterate climate skeptics whose funding is murky and >>> agenda unclear (this is a little like going to Huizenga or Taubes for >>> information about LENR). Back of the envelope arguments about the inherent >>> difficulty of predicting things with such a chaotic system are helpful for >>> getting a zeroth order approximation, but they take us little further than >>> that. >>> >>> You appear to want to defer to the experts a bit too much Eric. >>> >>> >>> It is no doubt true that I have been guilty of putting too much trust >>> in experts at times. I am grateful, though, to be far more skeptical than >>> you or others here in this particular instance. I do not trust the BBC or >>> the New York Times or Fox News to provide more than vague sense of where >>> things are. Ultimately I will only put trust in people who have invested >>> the time and effort to really understand everything that is being said and >>> demonstrated a clear knowledge of the minutiae, whether they are climate >>> scientists or investigative journalists. I am grateful that my position >>> could not be easier to defend in this instance. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >> >
