 | Gary PlylerUsername: NucEngineer |
Location
USA
Role
AcademicComments
* indicates an article that was submitted directly to this Web site by the supplier, and was not handled by the Greener Package editorial staff.
Greener Package may share your contact information with our sponsors, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. Greener Package will not share your information with a sponsor whose content you have not reviewed. The members of the Advisory Board and Expert Network do not review, approve or endorse advertisements on this Web site.
Jeff, By looking carefully at
Jeff, By looking carefully at Dr. Manic's words you can see he does not have a clue. Dr. manic said: "The "cool" temperatures that we are currently enjoying may be the side effect of melting glaciers cooling the oceans, etc. However, if the oceans are infused with too much fresh water, then the Gulf Stream Current's inversion may fail. After which, Northern Europe and North East America would lose the warm waters they enjoy. The ultimate result could be new glaciers covering New York state and England." Give me a break. He clearly does not understand the orders of magnitude differences between the volume and heat content of existing glacial melting vs. the volume and heat content of the oceans. He read Allan Folsoms novel The Day After Tomorrow (or more likely saw the movie version) and now is an expert. His ideas are right out of the book or movie. He probably is certain that the Younger Dryas event 14,000 years ago was caused by the sudden drainage of the Great Lakes region disrupting the thermohaline circulation of the North Atlantic. That hypothesis can explain the cooling at the start of the YD event, a cooling of nearly 20-degrees F in less than 50 years as measured using O-18 in the Greenland ice cores. However, that HYPOTHESIS does not explain why or how temperatures remained low for 1,100 years and then suddenly reversed with 20-degrees F warming in 50 years. A current cannot just start up like that, all of a sudden having that kind of momentum is not reasonable. Clearly, from the beloved ice cores, the YD event was not caused by CO2. However, the amount of cosmogenically generated Be-10 isotope in the ice cores during the 1,100 year YD event is startling. Clearly, the Svensmark hypothesis has the potential to explain all 3 parts of the YD event, the initial cooling, the 1,100 year duration, and the sudden warming at the end. Also, the science is progressing, have you seen: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1180849 But, I should know better, take my own advice, and quit this silly thread fight with Dr. Manic. Nice reading you Jeff. You must be an engineer or scientist. Your grasp of this issue (and the potential cost of overreaction) is very good. Gary Plyler (aka NucEngineer) BSME, MSNE
Jeff, I think that discussing
Jeff, I think that discussing man-caused climate change (formerly called anthropogenic global warming but renamed for obvious reasons) with Dr Manic is futile. He freely uses ad hominem attacks rather than listening to valid points. Dr. Manic assumes, without any knowledge, that anyone that doesn't agree with him is paid off by the petroleum industry. He has a bad case of cognitive dissonance that cannot be cured this week on this blog.
There has been atmospheric
There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. None of the computer models replicate this fact. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved. The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements. The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication. The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.
There has been atmospheric
There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. You may find it interesting what the head of the IPCC said 1-1/2 years ago concerning the lack of new annual high global temperatures: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1171501720080111 Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said (1-1/2 years ago) that he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century. "One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters 1-1/2 years ago, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities. Also in this article from 1-1/2 years ago, Amir Delju, senior scientific coordinator of the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) climate program, said temperatures would have to be flat for several more years before a lack of new record years became significant. Well, we are 3/4 of the way to being significant.