That's exactly backwards. If anybody could come up with a convincing falsification of anthropogenic global warning, the world would be their oyster.
Einstein got famous in large part because he falsified Newton's Law of gravity.
"
That not how it works. People keep on trying to measure the speed of light more and more accurately. The guys whose figures agree mostly closely have a great many more votes that guys whose figures look less accurate. Every now and then someone finds a bad correction that everybody has been getting wrong, but this is rare. It does encourage people to think up new ways of measuring the speed of light or whatever - it gives you a different set of corrections, and - at worst
This is - in part - a reaction to the denialist nitwits who tried to explain all of the recent warming as due to variation in the suns output. We know enough about the variation in the sun's output to know that that claim was rubbish, but the small variations in output with the sunspot cycle did turn out to be perceptible, if not all that significant.
So, show us. Since you seem to have such superior knowledge, and know more than anybody else on the planet, why not start educating us in the ACTUAL physics and cosmology of the phenomenon, rather than just yelling and screaming that we're all going to die if we don't pay Al Gore billions and billions of tax dollars?
SHOW ME THE "PHYSICS" that you claim to have such superior knowledge of.
But the speed of light is repeatable, and verifiable by experiment. Successive generations of measurement just tightened the error bars. Even the old experiments with rotating mirrors and tuning forks hit within 1%.
Climate and weather are not repeatable and are not subject to experiment. There's no way to know if the climate models are any good, or if fancier ones are better. Their predictive value, so far, has been worse than guessing. Where are all those hurricanes? Why are we having record cold winters? Why is there 8 feet of snow at Sugar Bowl, when the west coast is supposed to be drying out?
Historically, all sciences that are not subject to experiment have been wrong.
You keep on repeating this fallacious idea that observational science isn't falsifiable or subject to test.
Sure there is. The atmosphere is running tests all the time, and you can compare how your model develops from a known starting conditon with the way the real atmosphere develops.
And your evidence for this bizarre claim is?
There's a new predictive model for hurricanes. We don't yet know how well it will do predicting future hurricanes, but it does pretty well using old data to predict what happened the following year or two.
formatting link
"Record cold"? Since when?
formatting link
Those reports that do include this data are pretty much all thirty year lows.
It is supposed to be drying out over the next few decades. Global warming means warmer air over the oceans and more water vapour in the air when it comes inland, which is to say, more snow when you get an on-shore wind. Drought involves less frequent on-shore winds, not less snow when it does fall.
Like astronomy and the theory of evolution. But of course modern evolutionary theory doesn't agree with your ideas on the subject, so it is wrong ...
Sure it is. The denialist press had lots of fun with the conflict between the predicted temperature profiles going up through the atmosphere and the apparent satellite readings, until the University of Alabama at Huntsville got its act together and found the error in their satellite data.
Roy Spencer and John Christy do appear to have taken their time in responding to doubts expressed by other groups. The 5.2 version of their data analysis program - when they finally got around to upgrading from 5.1 in 2005 - resolved a lot of the conflcts.
formatting link
Roy Spencer is one of the few experts in climate science who isn't convinced by the evidence for anthropogenic global warming, but then again, he also believes in intelligent design.
formatting link
formatting link
John Christy is also seen as sceptical
formatting link
There is a lot of observational data about what the earth's atmosphere is actually doing, and if the computational models don't fit the observations, the computational models have been falsified.
The complicating factor is - of course - that the computational models are a coarse-grained approximation to a fine-grained reality. The models that are being used to simulate the globe as a whole use discrete cell around 50 kilometres across, so they don't - for example
- model individual clouds, but rather the plug in factors representing the precentoage of cloud cover and the naute of the cloud that is present. This kind of built-in error complicates the testing, but if you get too much of the wrong kind of error, you've falsified that model.
Go the the AIP web-site on the history of global warming and start reading
formatting link
This isn't the first time that I've pointed out this resource. I very much doubt if you have the attention span required to learn much from this site, which does allow you to drill down to the basic phsyics, if you want to.
I have posted chunks of this kind of information here, from time to time, but people like Ravinghorde and John Larkin seem incapable of absorbing the information, and both of them seem to have a rather deeper - if still inadequate - basic understanding of the subject than you do.
From your post of November 30, at 10.29 pm (Dutch time)
"Nial Stewart wrote:
He's got The Faith."
No, but you are claiming that my support for anthropogenic global warming is based on an irrational enthusiasm for a proposition that I treat as a revelation, rather than a rational conviction based on having studied the evidence. This strikes me as an ad hominem attack.
You are asserting that my position is irrational - and that - by impication - I am also irrational. Since you seem to be proud of your irrational attitudes, you may not see this as an attack, but I certainly do.
My immediate response was
"Rich lacks the wit to imagine any other basis for belief, though in fact what I've got isn't so much belief as a judgement that anthropogenic global warming is a better supported hypothesis than anything else available."
John Larkin proceeded to remind me that I should have said "is a better supported hypothesis than anything else available to explain the global warming that we have seen over the last hundred years" which I would have thought was obvious from the context, but doesn't seem to have been - for John at least.
Yer a wild man for playing the man and not the ball (as they'd say back home).
"We just know way too little about the various factors that influence climate and cannot possibly make any reliable prognoses?, says the managing director of Donnerwetter.de _and_climatologist_Karsten Brandt_
"Donnerwetter.de is a private and successful weather forecasting service in Germany."
He's running a private company which depends on _correct_ weather forecasting to stay in business, and _it's_sucessful_.
So there's a good chance he knows what he's talking about, I think I'd trust him more than any 'climateologist' who has to toe the party line to get work published. (And in Academia Papers make funding!).
You don't know much, so presumably you didn't know about the work that has already been done
formatting link
I'm better informed - though obviously no expert. The collaboration you pointed to will obviously find out more than we know already, but it is unlikely to revolutionise our understanding of what is going on.
If there are divine relevations available on the subject I don't seem to be on the distribution list.
That's weather forecasting, not climate forecasting. He couldn't care less about long term variations in solar output, which is why he didn't know that people are already working on how that infliences climate - not all that much as it happens - and he's not fussed about how oceans currents shift heat from the equator to the poles, which is why he didn't know about the Argo buoy project.
He'd get interested in ocean currents if the Gulf Stream turned off - as it did some 12,000 yeara ago - but right now its just part of the background and his forecasting business doesn't have to worry about it.
I did explain this in the part of my response which you've removed with an - unmarked - snip.
Here's what I said in the part of my post which you don't seem to have bothered to read.
-----
"modellers just do not take lots of factors like solar activity and ocean currents into account, and overestimate CO2=E2=80=B2s impact"
If he knew what he was talking about he'd be aware that the latest climate models do figure in the - small - contribution from variations in solar activity (which correlates with sun-spot number) and that the climate models are starting to incorporate the cocean current data that we have been getting from the Argo buoy project over the past few years.
formatting link
----
ust him
He obviously didn't know what he was talking about - as I explained in my response. You ignored what I said and have chosen to explain why you originally - and foolishly - thought that his of-the-wall comments were worth listening to.
You are free to trust anybody you like. Trusting the wrong people for the wrong reasons does make you look stupid, but you don't seem to mind that.
No, it's a proposition based on scientific reasearch.
Scientific research does study reality. If you can't get that connetion, you are much too dim to take seriously.
Since your "evidence" that I'm a fool is based on your own hopeless ignorance, it isn't a well-founded claim. And calling someone a fool is an "ad hominem" attack, even if it is based on evidence. Debating etiquette requires you to demonstrate that someone's arguments are foolish without actually calling them a fool. It's a subtle idea, and probably beyond your comprehension.
The tests are called "weather", and you keep repeating the absurd concept that we can't model weather but we can model climate.
The cut line between "weather" and "climate" seems to be that anything so far out in time that we can't verify the models is "climate." Or, to put it another way, whan a model fails, the time frame is "weather."
Hurricane predictions, temperature predictions, precipitation, juat about anything you can actually measure now. I already have three days of superb skiing this season on top of 8 feet of snow that were predicted, 10 years ago, of not being there. The reservoirs are way above normal, in spite of predicted drought.
Yup. The old one was an embarassment.
We don't yet know how
That's tuning the model, in retrospect, to fit the old data. Sure, you can do that to arbitrary accuracy, but it's really just curve fitting. The predictive value remains zero. Weather and climate are chaotic.
That prediction is at least a decade old now. See comments above.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.