It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mgmirkin
So, is everyone who questions the science behind GHG necessarily a "sophist" in your view, or is it possible that some people actually have legitimate considered scientific opinions on the matter?
Please don't over-generalize.
I might also point out that "predictive ability" is a cornerstone of science. If the AGW alarmists say "temperatures are just going to keep rising due to GHG emissions," but the bottom falls out on the temperature charts. That's a violated prediction, meaning the prediction was wrong.
I'm not promoting any particular position here, just trying to make sure that science stays science and doesn't turn into a "modern religion" where those who "question the faith" or "question proclamations from on high" are burned as heretics (or more subtly / derisively / over-broadly called "sophists" thus marginalizing their input into the discussion).
It'll be interesting to see what the climate ACTUALLY does over the next few years...
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
Originally posted by mbkennel
Who the hell is "Space and Science Research Center"?
It's something ascientific and bogus. They barnacled themselves to keyword searches with NASA (like flaky dot-coms did) but there is no actual science there.
Here is the "theory".
www.spaceandscience.net...
It's just plain nonsense.
Here is what NASA actually said:
science.nasa.gov...
There's nothing about "global cooling" whatsoever.
In any case, it is irrelevant: a solar cycle is a cycle and if you get extra cool on one side you will get extra warm on the other side. All of it will just add to the longer term trend from greenhouse forcing, and you will eventually end up in the same place (damn hot) no matter what.
The interaction between solar cycles and climate is much more complicated than people think. (Firstly, higher solar activity means more sunspots, and this means LESS optical radiation emitted for the simple reason that sunspots are darker and lower temperature than the rest of the photosphere. )
And yes, people who actually work on climate have already taken the Sun into account using actual quantitative measurements.
Let's make sure to be able to distinguish puffery from a self-styled baloney "institute" from actual science done by actual scientists.
Originally posted by TheAvenger
If the global cooling that the article states will happen does occur, all models designed so far are proven false, because they did not predict it.
Originally posted by TheAvenger
The biggest problem with models is that they are designed to yield an expected result, thus you get that result. A scientist stating their opinion mathematically, which is what a model does, is still just stating their opinion, no matter how elegant the method used to express
Originally posted by Indy
A model isn't going to say "whoa! you know if this condition is met is it possible that something else happens?" T
Originally posted by stumason
You could actually, and I am sure they do, make a model that does exactly that. It isn't that far fetched to have a complex model which incorporates many variables. As each variable changes, so does the output, depending on the interactions between all the variables.
Originally posted by melatonin
[
I'm surprised at your comments, Avenger.
The models give predictions using current knowledge of what GHGs will do. And that is sufficient. If all else stays equal, increasing GHGs will induce increasing warming.
Originally posted by melatonin
So, what do you expect climate modellers to do?
Consult a crystal ball?
They use the knowledge we have to make predictions. Just like solar modellers do.
But, yeah, we know - solar models good; climate models bad.
Originally posted by Wing-nut
As far as global warming / cooling goes there are may different camps with different opinions. My belief is that there is some warming, are we causing it no. Are we accelerating it maybe! The last ice age was about 20,000 years ago.
Originally posted by TheAvenger
I expect them to stop making predictions that they cannot substantiate with hard data. Reverse engineering a model to achieve the desired result is not science. I can come up with a model to prove anything I want to. I'm sure you've seen the chart that ties global temperature increases over the years to the prevalence of pirates in the world.
If it doesn't work, then don't use a model. A crystal ball might work better.
By the way, I have no love for solar models either, and mistrust them too.
looks like one of those bloody environmental activist sites have popped me with another keylogger program