Where is all the carbon? - Page 3

Anon · 01-03-2006, 17:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ballguy

I think you have far overstepped your bounds in questioning science. Until you can remotely understand the fact of global warming, don't make yourself look like a fool.

Thank Dalem for challenging the above contention before i saw it, because i'd have been far, far less polite.

Anon · 01-03-2006, 17:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ballguy

And another quote from the EPA:

"Once, all climate changes occurred naturally. However, during the Industrial Revolution, we began altering our climate and environment through changing agricultural and industrial practices. Before the Industrial Revolution, human activity released very few gases into the atmosphere, but now through population growth, fossil fuel burning, and deforestation, we are affecting the mixture of gases in the atmosphere. "

Hearsay.

dalem · 01-03-2006, 19:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ballguy

You guys have already lost. Now let me streamline my info.

Geez, at least Barrow, even though I vehemently disagree with his position, sees the topic in terms of a scientific argument and not a pissing contest.

Little Ballguy, please see the following thread:

Old WAB thread RE: global warming.

It contains a decent amount of facts that answer your position.

-dale

dalem · 06-14-2007, 13:35 PM

For nightsoil.

-dale

**Parihaka** · 06-30-2007, 04:35 AM

Quote:

"None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.

"The state of the oceans, sea ice and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

"There is neither an El Nino sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond . . . the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors" and "regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialised".

GCMs "assume linearity" which "works for global forced variations, but it cannot work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle . . . the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate".

KEVIN Trenberth is head of the large US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory high priests of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Source

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Global Warming, A Good Thing?	brokensickle	Science & Tech	388	06-30-2007 04:33 AM
Opposition parties join forces on Kyoto	ZFBoxcar	Political Discussions	23	02-15-2007 22:27 PM
Evolution: Violates law of thermodynamics	Anon	Science & Tech	184	12-20-2006 11:23 AM
Why use force when talk works so well?	Leader	International Defense Topics	54	12-05-2005 04:29 AM
The Kyoto Protocol is Dead	Gio	Current Affairs	48	01-07-2005 03:53 AM

06-14-2007, 13:35 PM	#34 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,323 Country:	For nightsoil. -dale

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)