Re: Precautionary Principle , warming and models

Frogwatch wrote:
OK, here we go.
Arved:
Here is a link to Sea Ice extent.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Note that sea ice is greater in 2009 than in 2008 and 2007.

I note no such thing from that data.

The EPA calls CO2, "A trace gas" in the atmosphere. Water vapor is by
far the major greenhouse gas and even Real Climate acknowledges that
it accounts for at least 70% of all greenhouse effect. Other people
say up to 90%. CO2 is a very minor player in this. You can increase
the amount of something by that causes little effect a lot and it
still causes...........little effect.

Or its effects are amplified by its effect on a major component, say, water vapor...

Note that water vapor's effects are ameliorated by its (water vapor's) tendency to condense, both spontaneously and through the process of seeding onto particulates, such change causing two counter-effects: removal of the water vapor itself and increasing albedo.

On the Precautionary Principle that roughly says that since we do not
know the effects of global warming, we should err on the side of
attempting to minimize it. First, ALL of the models have been wrong
and NONE have been able to be predictive over any reasonable period of
time.

Well, all models [of all kinds] are inherently wrong because, wait for it, they are not designed to be "right," only a useful approximation. The climate change models are indeed useful, and therefore correct enough...

The current cooling is at odds with all AGW models.

Do you have any actual scientific agreement for that assertion? Hell, do you have any actual understanding of what you just stated?

So, without knowing the effect of AGW if any effect, we would be
equally right to consider it to be an infinitesimal effect or a major
effect with powers ranging from minus infinity to several. So far,
the effect is far less than any of the AGW theories predict.
If we were to spend money on completely unknown possibilities as AGW
is (actually it is NOT unknown but is in fact now known to be small)
then you'd have to spend huge amounts of money to combat possible
hostile space aliens, the possibility fo gettign hit by asteroids and
moving people away from Yellowstone.

As far as the phase change goes, you also have to factor in that CO2
is increasing while temp is decreasing. If ths is correct, why is sea
ice currently increasing over the past three years.

It is known from satellite data that the solar spectrum has
fractionally varied far more in short wavelength regions where the
atmosphere is transparent to light than the fractional change in Total
Solar Irradiance. With this measurement, one can account for anywhere
from 30% to 70% of the observed warming (even Real Climate agrees to
the 30% amouint). The rest can be accounted for by a variable
paramater effecting the amount of water vapor (the major greenhouse
gas) the increased temps cause. With such a simple model able to
account for the observed warming, you'd think people would abandon AGW
but AGW is driven entirely by politics.

Data ALWAYS trumps theory which is why we live in a world ruled by
science rather Aristotlean Philosophy where they though truth could be
discovered by pure thought. WRONG, truth can be discovered by
measurements. Give me a measuring tape and I'll give you some truth.
If you just make models, you'll likely end up with BS.

Considering the errors in your opening statements, I didn't even bother to read this last part. Credibility approaching zero means that it would be a waste of my time to even look at the remainder.

Just as with radio talk show hosts: although they speak of matters for which I have little experience, their record on subjects on which I have extensive knowledge indicates the probability they would be correct on other subjects is infinitesimal, and therefore can be discounted to zero absent corroboration, which they conveniently do not provide (just as you provide none).

Dan
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Precautionary Principle , warming and models
    ... Note that sea ice is greater in 2009 than in 2008 and 2007. ... The current cooling is at odds with all AGW models. ... account for the observed warming, you'd think people would abandon AGW ... truth can be discovered by ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Precautionary Principle , warming and models
    ... Note that sea ice is greater in 2009 than in 2008 and 2007. ... The current cooling is at odds with all AGW models. ... account for the observed warming, you'd think people would abandon AGW ... truth can be discovered by ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Precautionary Principle , warming and models
    ... Note that sea ice is greater in 2009 than in 2008 and 2007. ... The current cooling is at odds with all AGW models. ... account for the observed warming, you'd think people would abandon AGW ... truth can be discovered by ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Precautionary Principle , warming and models
    ... Note that sea ice is greater in 2009 than in 2008 and 2007. ... So, without knowing the effect of AGW if any effect, we would be ... is increasing while temp is decreasing. ... account for the observed warming, you'd think people would abandon AGW ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Deer Torrey, Gow, trijcomm, etc RSPW Neo-Cons
    ... > of all the survivors of New Orleans -- than shame on those local ... > their account of what was going on -- I didn't see where it said Dubya ... > because I went after the food and water looters first -- before really ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)