tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post1164482503408857469..comments2024-03-28T00:54:34.206-04:00Comments on BigCityLib Strikes Back: Climate Modelling Breakthrough?bigcitylibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-91351585684291398492008-02-28T00:49:00.000-05:002008-02-28T00:49:00.000-05:00I would much appreciate a copy of that pdf. TShait...I would much appreciate a copy of that pdf. <BR/>TShaitanaku-at-comcast-dot-net<BR/>Thank-youAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-86195707752493435152008-02-26T12:04:00.000-05:002008-02-26T12:04:00.000-05:00So, have they now been able to model the fact that...So, have they now been able to model the fact that Kilimanjaro now has snow on it again? Or that hurricanes aren't linked to global warming (NOAA)? Or that the predicted sea level increase from 2004 hasn't materialised? <BR/><BR/>Oh wait, that's REALITY. The GCMs can't quite do that yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-86486428405507137682008-02-24T20:37:00.000-05:002008-02-24T20:37:00.000-05:00Well, that the science is settled enough for stron...Well, that the science is settled enough for strong policy action has been a defensible statement for at least ten years.<BR/><BR/>BCL, please send: spbloom at earthlink dot net<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-53987767358037032602008-02-24T17:20:00.000-05:002008-02-24T17:20:00.000-05:00Anonymous: I know what the word breakthrough mean...Anonymous: I know what the word breakthrough means but do you know what the word strawman means? What about context? <BR/><BR/>Here is an exercise for you: I know of no documented case of the phrase "the science is settled" being actually used by proponents of AGW. There have been phrases used in the context that we now know that humans are responsible for at least part of the current rise in temperatures. For example President Clinton said "The science is clear and compelling. We humans are changing the global climate."<BR/><BR/>So, I throw a challenge to you to actually come up with a documented source (i.e. not a skeptical agency saying that so and so said this) for the quote you used!<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>John CrossAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-16233851944894316992008-02-24T16:37:00.000-05:002008-02-24T16:37:00.000-05:00=="The nature of the feedback remains mysterious, ...=="<I>The nature of the feedback remains mysterious,</I><B> but if it’s positive,</B> it would decrease global cloud cover."== <BR/><BR/>The science is so "settled" that they seem to imply they do not even know the answer to the fundamental question of whether clouds clouds are a positive feedback or not.<BR/><BR/>Reading an article like this reaffirms to me why I am indeed a skeptic.<BR/><BR/>- Paul SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-8157468251776096672008-02-24T13:32:00.000-05:002008-02-24T13:32:00.000-05:00It's a "BREAKTHROUGH!"but just on a little detail,...It's a "BREAKTHROUGH!"<BR/><BR/>but just on a little detail, cuz just the little stuff needs to be sorted out, but<BR/><BR/>IT'S A BREAKTHROUGH!<BR/><BR/>All kidding aside, John, do you know what a breakthrough means?<BR/><BR/>Or are we at the point where we have to gymnastic word redefinition to make up for the lack of logic and reason with the AGW cultists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-89810843912953398222008-02-24T09:30:00.000-05:002008-02-24T09:30:00.000-05:00To the various Anonymouses ( Anonymoumi?? - hey, I...To the various Anonymouses ( Anonymoumi?? - hey, I'm an engineer what do you expect). The idea that the statement "the science is settled" means that all the details are settled is a strawman. In fact, I would not attach much meaning to the statement, but I would be willing to discuss the science.<BR/><BR/>Big City Lib: Yes, I would like a copy of the article john dot croix at hot mail dot com<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>John CrossAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-44677177759121605452008-02-23T21:27:00.000-05:002008-02-23T21:27:00.000-05:00Something that can't be questioned, a science whic...Something that can't be questioned, a science which has no major vexing issues, nothing left for debate, because it is settled beyond a doubt,<BR/><BR/>experiences a "breakthrough!!"<BR/><BR/><BR/>You know there's something wrong with a movement when it lacks even basic rationality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-52053630305227909452008-02-23T20:59:00.000-05:002008-02-23T20:59:00.000-05:00But we're always told: "The science is settled". ;...But we're always told: <I>"The science is settled".</I> ;) Wait, I forgot. Only accredited warmers may question any aspect of AGW orthodoxy. My bad.<BR/><BR/>I like this quote:<BR/><BR/><B>". . . <I>model</I> clouds, at least, can respond quickly to added carbon dioxide—in months, not decades. In most of the <I>models</I> examined, the classic cloud feedback driven by change at the surface played only a minor role."</B><BR/><BR/>OK, so we've got a disagreement between models. Any advancement in the knowledge of how <B><I>real</I></B> clouds behave?<BR/><BR/>- Paul SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-62282666021624075452008-02-23T14:29:00.000-05:002008-02-23T14:29:00.000-05:00And it just so happens to fit so nicely with your ...And it just so happens to fit so nicely with your intented results!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com