Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2009 at 1:39pm:


Wow! - and this takes as its source "Rocket Scientist's Journal"

You don't have to go too far into that article to find inconsistencies:

A computer run, for example, that assumes the natural forces are in equilibrium, and then calculates the effects of a slug of manmade CO2 that dissolves over the years is not valid. The run needs to be made with the natural outgassing process and anthropogenic emissions entering the atmosphere simultaneously to be circulated and absorbed through the process of the solubility of CO2 in water.

Here he's demonstrating that he has absolutely no idea how computer models work.

Total bunkum.

That would not have a hope of getting past peer review because it is unadulterated twaddle.

The worst part is that the author probably knows this but has an agenda, so he works on the premise that bs baffles brains.

The last paragraph is about Cosmic Rays. Work done in 2007 proved that the Cosmic Ray activity has not shown any marked peaks.

In short, this is deliberately obfuscating techno-twaddle. No serious journal would accept it for publication, which is probably why it can only be found in the "Rocket Scientist's Journal" (shades of Wayne's World)

Treat it with the same respect as 'The moon landing was a hoax'  or "Elvis is alive" sites.

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2009 at 1:27pm:


The predictions changed due to new data that showed that the situation was even worse than anticipated.

Guess what? There is work going on right now that will appear in AR5. It's based on the fact that increasing methane emissions from Arctic Tundra are much higher than anticipated due to accelerated thawing.

AR5 will find that AR4 was optimistic. That's how the scientific method works. As you get new information, you apply the new learnings and data.

The basic hypothesis has always been sound. However, it's not like creative accounting where you make contingencies for things you don't know yet.

The basic contention of that site that 'water feedbacks are negative' is farcical. It's the stuff that April Fools jokes are made of.

Grendel wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 9:32pm:


Grendel - What? You didn't realise that methane was an important Greenhouse gas? You seriously need to study the basics. Here's an easy to understand site designed for kids. It has nice pictures and easy to understand text in many different primary colours.

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/air/global.htm

The greenhouse gases

The main gases that cause the greenhouse effect are:

    * water vapor
    * carbon dioxide, or CO2
    * methane (

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG !!!!!!!says Grendel

)
    * nitrous oxide

Some "greenhouse gases" occur naturally in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Mate - The computer you're using now is a refinement of the computer you had previously (I'm guessing that you went for a newer model). The old one worked well perhaps, but the way of the world is to improve as we find out more. It's the same with everything in the world of science.

The IPCC 4th Annual Report did not say that AR3 was invalid. It simply built on it with new data that was available. It did not change the basic conclusion. As we learn more about the magnitude of methane feedbacks, the original predictions will change - for the worse.

It was expected, but you just can't invent data that isn't there yet.

Climate modelling, like any science based discipline is continually adapting.

Contrast that with the Climate Prognosticators like Richard Lindzen.
He has held on to his Iris Effect model despite many studies that demonstrated time and time again that global water feedbacks are positive. There may be localised events which work the other way around, but the data indicates a climate sensitivity of 3 +/- 1.5 Celsius degrees for a doubling of CO2 concentration. The vast majority of papers fall well within that range. Where does Lindzen put it? He doesn't. No published paper on climate sensitivity.

That's not science. It's pure advocacy, and an advocate will generally  adopt a static unchangeable position.

Grendel wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 5:45pm:



Tell you something you don't know?

ok - methane is a greenhouse gas. 
Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas.

and the actual meaning of the word climate - because if you come out with a simplistic statement like that, you obviously don't know that either.

Grendel wrote on May 25^th, 2009 at 9:32pm:


Don't exhale, fart, warm yourself, cool yourself, travel, farm, fish, hunt, reproduce. I can see the headline:

Life - it's killing the planet

muso wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 7:12pm:


"Beethoven liked trees. My dog also likes trees. By your logic, it is obvious that my dog is Beethoven. " (c) muso

If you are confused and don't understand etc...  that's just your normal state FD.

DWMT

You know you have always been a total prick...