Slashdot Mirror

sadly, the hockey stick is true.

No one is doubting Global Warming.

That's simply not true. There's a large contingency of folks who are outright denying even the temp rises. They're typically the mindless followers of Beck & Limbaugh.

By "solar weather theory" are you referring to the false arguments that AGW is caused by cosmic rays and/or temps are increasing on other planets? If so, no problem. Here's 34 different scientific papers that refute each aspect of them. :)

So, you ready to change your business model now?

Not that I expect somebody who resorts to ad hominem attacks to even care, but I can cite Beck (2007) Figure 5: First Reconstruction of Trends in CO2 Atmospheric concentration based on actual measurement. The figure is transposed against the Antarctic ice core samples. You can see it here. My link is free. I did not read your article. If you will copy and paste the relevant part or present it for me in a free manner, I will be happy to review it.

As you cited an article saying that we are going to experience a longer interglacial (you know, the one I can't even read the abstract on), I'm going to shoot you one that says the opposite. This is why I argue for more research to be done on what exactly is happening here, and I applaud this new orbital observatory. Note that I did not once call for continued pollution, which is insane. I think we need to be prepared for an ice age. The authors of these papers somewhere write to prevent advancing glaciers, lots high temperature nuclear reactors must be deployed with enough energy density to cull back the advancing glaciers if the situation arises. Therefore, this is just one reason that to attempt to abandon nuclear energy is insanity for the survival and prosperity of humanity. Read it here.

>They have to point to flaws and holes in the current theory
Ideally with field data.

such as the temperatures recorded at sites that used to be in rural areas, but are now in suburban or urban areas, due to the growth of cities. The global-warming advocates admit that the urbanization itself causes the temperature readings to increase, but that they apply a correction factor to account for that increase. However, if you press them for details on the correction factor, it's based on estimates of how much a given amount of urbanization will increase the temperature -- making the resultant temperature data suspect. There are other 'corrections' that result in the warming being overstated, such as reduction in nighttime cooling due to increased cloudiness and other factors, which results in overstatement of temperature increases. For example, this page shows how improper data collection and adjustment skews the data (in this case, the premise that moving the data collection station can eliminate the urban heat island warming); after applying an empirical correction for the urban heat island, the average temperature at the Sydney station has decreased over the last century. While one data point is functionally useless for projecting an overall trend, it does illustrate the lack of scientific rigor in the collection of temperature data.

This is something else to put on the scorecard then.

Ubelievable, I spent two hours answering this crap, and then firefox closed the wrong tab and it all went poof.

That's a very valid criticism of the climate models of around 1985. Slab oceans are not used in state-of-the-art climate models.

Climateprediction.net uses a slab model of the ocean and will until at least revision three (they are on revision one now). NEC's Earth Simulator got it's first "non-shallow" ocean model in the 2003-2004 timeframe, but it is still at over twice the spatial resolution as the atmosphere is calculated. These are only the two most cited and "modern" models. NASA has a model that does the ocean, or the atmosphere, but not both at once. Your statement is *wholly* false. I had citations for both of these, but 10 seconds on Google will find the NEC Earth Simulator Annual Report for 2003, and Climate Prediction makes no secret of their model's shortcomings on their science page.

Well, nature set things up that way too. It's been known since the 1890s.

But Arrhenius was wrong. This paper is cited prominently by IPCC, and is off by a factor of some 1800%.

um, ever hear of an equation of state?

That would be fine if they included all states, but they don't. Why? It's too complicated to solve. The main items are Pressure, Density, Volume, and Temperature. NEC's Earth Simulator solves for Pressure and Temperature, and ignores the density and volume. Their own paper says the problem is just "too hard" so they treat air as an "incompressible medium". Yikes. The paper I have on this is by the authors of the algorithm. It is, however, located on a laptop at work, and thus inaccessable. It came from the Internet and "Google" is your friend.

Unfortunately, you show no signs of knowing what computer models are in use, why, or how they relate to the science.

Hmm, 20 years in the Computer Science industry, check. Several years working on massively parallel environment simulation models, check. Access to Physicists, Meterologists, Aerodynamic Engineers (the fluid dynamics gurus), and Oceanologists, check. Just because I typed the original message as I was trying to run out the door, doesn't make me what you think I am. Tell me, what is your knowledge of thermal transfer between discrete interhaline countercurrents? How about "meddies"? Do you know their cause, and the effect they have on deep ocean salinity transit? Heck, I'll throw you an easy one, why is ClimatePrediction's "Gravitic Wave" model of precipitation and cloud formation 180 degrees out of sync with actual oragraphic precipitation and formation?

And as for your precious computer models, here's a score card so far. My favorite is the model that says the Medieval Optimum never happened. Damn the History Books, full speed ahead.

Where? The Mars matter is addressed here.

Ahhh, I knew "RealClimate" would make it in here sooner or later. This is one of their better rants: Glacial Melting on Mars = Regional Variation -- Glacial Melting on Earth = Global Warming.

It's right up there with their near hysterical explanation of the historical lag between CO2 levels and warming trends where they claim that it's because the first warming isn't CO2, but then the CO2 causes the rest of the warming. The fact that histrically CO2 increase is a symptom of rising temperatures and not a cause. My favorite line in the comments is "Wow! Are you really saying that we have no idea what starts to warm up our world from an ice age but know with near certainty what has caused the warming of the last three decades? But go ahead, I get a good laugh out of it. If you want, post a note asking what the "Hockey Stick" looks like without the near-treeline Bristlecone Pines included. See if your comment get's censored... something they're notoriou

- Majority of slashdot readers agree with prominent advertising on Slashdot: Switching from Microsoft to Linux is much more expensive than upgrade"
- Climate modelers come clean and admit their models "can't see shit into the future"
- Shock survey shows slashdotters "getting it" on a regular basis.
- Novell release software properly tested and with all features implemented.
- Iraq turns into haven of peace and democratic tranquility thanks to Bush/Blair intervention.
- Israel ditto.
- Randi $1 million prize won by Sylvia Browne after successfully demonstrating power to talk to dead people.