| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Greenland Facts
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| 0BZN0 |
 Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Earl Evleth" <evleth@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:C43F45B9.12249F%evleth@wanadoo.fr...
Quote: On 1/05/08 8:44, in article 481966e3$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au, "0BZN0"
0BZN0@ddo.com> wrote:
"Every year they recalibrate their computer model and put in the
observed temperature. So, as they go along, the curve that trails
behind
is perfect. It's like predicting the morning's weather at six-o'clock
in
the evening.." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology,
Western Washington University
I don't find on Easterbrook's publication list
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/pubs.htm
any mention of computer modeling on his part.
He obviously avoids taking part in the junk science of modelling!
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
: "They don't tell you, that, in their computer models, it's assumed
that CO2 drives global warming. In other words, you assume the result
and say the computer model proves we were right. It's garbage in,
garbage out. If you don't program the computers to cause temperatures to
rise with CO2, then you have nothing." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor
Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Whata Fool |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Earl Evleth <evleth@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Quote: Precisely, due to man's dumping large amounts of CO2 into the air we are NOT
in a period where we can anticipate that "cycles (will) continue as in the
past". Over the long term, if the CO2 had not increased we could indeed be
in a long descent.
But I am unfamiliar with cycles as Easterbrook claims, like
"global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about
0.5? C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."
It sounds wacky to me, is there any clarification on this claim?
Of course it's wacky, but it is not any more wacky than the
IPCC predictions of future global climate.
It might be a lot easier to get a better handle on any changes
that might be expected in some local regions, and perhaps that would
be useful in planning to reduce mitigation needs.
But it is silly to average for the globe, then say the tropics
won't change much because temperatures rarely exceed 90 degrees in the
presence of freely evaporating moisture.
And there is so much more ocean area in the Southern Hemisphere
that it can't change much, fast.
So that leaves a few areas in the Northern Hemisphere and the
Arctic, and it is obvious the Arctic is warming with the Gulf Stream
pushing northward.
But it would not fit the international socialist agenda to just
financially support moving people from areas where any local climate
change is almost certain, no new laws, taxes, or international take over
of sovereign rights would come of that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"0BZN0" <0BZN0@ddo.com> wrote
Quote: The effect of additional atmospheric CO2 is too small to register.
And yet it is being measured. .74'C rise so far.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
Here are the figures for the last decade.
1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
2007 14.57 *****************************
Showing a warming of roughly 2'C per century... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 11:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote
Quote: Easterbrook's career spans 45 years (from 1963 to present). In that time,
his h-index (measure of scientific productivity) is 12. Scientists of
average productivity should see their h-index rise one unit for each year
in their career (therefore, his should be around 45!). Easterbrook's
average increase in h-index is 0.27, or about 1/4 what it should be. (The
average increase in h-index for the scientists at realclimate.org (IPCC
supporters) is 1.5, the average h-index increase for Worldclimatereport
(Skeptics) is 0.56) (All numbers taken from ISI Web of Science.) The
cold
hard numbers do not lie.
Bottom line: Easterbrook, like nearly all professional climate skeptics,
is a scientist of marginal impact and relatively minor standing. The only
reason he gets "airtime" is because he is a climate skeptic.
That is <VERY> damning. indeed.
Excellent stat. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon May 12, 2008 3:08 am
|
|
