Comments Posted By Steve WH
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments

'WHY DON'T YOU PASS THE TIME BY WRITING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?'

"However it turns out, the important thing is to follow the scientific method. I will accept any evidence that does that - which is why some evidence is compelling and some is not."

This is my greatest concern regarding the hypothesis of CAGW. The scientific evidence is very weak. Yes, there has been a global warming trend since ~1750. Yes doubling CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere can theoretically increase surface temperatures by ~1.2 deg C all things being equal (they are not). The IPCC hypothesis depends on a water vapour feedback in the model runs to become "catastrophic". There is no data that shows this is happening in any significant way. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist at MIT, has shown the the ERBE satellite's data is in direct conflict with the IPCC models.

Lindzen has stated that the empirical DATA from ERBE would kill the CAGW hypothesis dead if the climate science community were adhering to the scientific method. They are not - it is not about science anymore.

As Lindzen said (paraphrasing) - the consensus was made before the science was done.

We need to get back to the basics of the scientific method that has served us very well in the past. We need to step back, do good science and let the chips fall where they may.

PS another look at the lack of science in paleoclimate is at climate audit.

I agree

Comment Posted By Steve WH On 17.10.2009 @ 20:43

Rick

Here is a link to an article re climate models written by a physicist who has done modeling.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense

I'm skeptical about CAGW but then again all people trained in science should be skeptical- even of their own results.

And be careful of the Arctic/Antarctic. Most references regarding the ice extent/thickness are in reference to the satellite era. This era started at close to the greatest extent of the Arctic ice cycle. A reduction was to be expected. Also we have no comparable ice data with the Arctic in the 1930/40 when arctic temperatures were comparable to today's. The St Roch, a small wooden RCMP ship transversed the NWP several times in the 1940s once by the most northernly route.

Also the global sea ice is normal. The Antarctic sea ice being the highest in 30 years.

It never has be explained to my satisfaction why the warming between ~1910 and 1940s was the same in rate and magnitude to that of ~1976 to 1998. (See climate4you.com for data) Some solar scientists say it could not be the sun. Maybe the current extended solar minimum will throw light on this. I think we will have a much better idea of the magnitude of AGW caused by CO2 in 5 to 10 years. I'm thinking it will be small to insignificant.

However it turns out, the important thing is to follow the scientific method. I will accept any evidence that does that - which is why some evidence is compelling and some is not.

ed.

Comment Posted By Steve WH On 17.10.2009 @ 16:07

THE GOOD AND THE BAD OF OBAMA'S EURO-MISSILE DEFENSE PLAN

I have been reading some history lately. Perceptions, messages, or the lack of them it seems, are historically important. Two or three come to mind. One is the message given to Saddam that the USA was not interested in the relations of Iraq with its neighbours. Saddam took this as an indication that the USA would not intervene if he invaded Kuwait.

Dean Rusk (or some other individual) made a speech about the USA being protective of Asian countries. He left out South Korea. South Korea was invaded shortly thereafter by North Korea.

WWII may have been prevented and Hitler even deposed if France and Britain had resisted the German army's enterance into the Rhineland.

Maybe the world has changed and these lessons are no longer applicable. I sure hope so. If not the future may be far worse the the years since WWII.

And one other thing. The WH and SD sure could have handled this better. The Czechs and Poles could have been kept informed with the changes in missile defense technology and the perhaps all could have been notified that, while the proposed agreement was being changed, the intent was to be maintain by the new system. (Do you really think the Russians would not object to the new system being installed in the Balkans?)

Comment Posted By Steve WH On 18.09.2009 @ 20:57


 


 


Pages (1) : [1]


«« Back To Stats Page