Man Made Global Warming

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Walshy

Well I'd probably have a better all round conversation with said chimp, and not have to listen to someone trying to insult me or my intelligence or another human beings for that matter. You're a very small souled individual mate ................

Sorry, but I thought when you called me a chimp that meant it was ok for me to start insulting you.

[AndyJWest]

Our opinions regarding the chimp-like attributes of each other are also irrelevant...

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Our opinions regarding the chimp-like attributes of each other are also irrelevant...

I was just providing an example of primates who know as much about climatology as Mr. Dyson.

[Walshy]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Sorry, but I thought when you called me a chimp that meant it was ok for me to start insulting you.

Well YOU had just insulted a world renowned physicist ..................

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Walshy

Well YOU had just insulted a world renowned physicist ..................

No, I provided some perspective on his understanding of climatology.

[Walshy]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

No, I provided some perspective on his understanding of climatology.

And to quote him further from Andy's article ...............

"Syukuro Manabe, right here in Princeton, was the first person who did climate models with enhanced carbon dioxide and they were excellent models. And he used to say very firmly that these models are very good tools for understanding climate, but they are not good tools for predicting climate. I think that’s absolutely right. They are models, but they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.

What’s wrong with the models. I mean, I haven’t examined them in detail, (but) I know roughly what’s in them. And the basic problem is that in the case of climate, very small structures, like clouds, dominate. And you cannot model them in any realistic way. They are far too small and too diverse.

So they say, ‘We represent cloudiness by a parameter,’ but I call it a fudge factor. So then you have a formula, which tells you if you have so much cloudiness and so much humidity, and so much temperature, and so much pressure, what will be the result... But if you are using it for a different climate, when you have twice as much carbon dioxide, there is no guarantee that that’s right. There is no way to test it.

We know that plants do react very strongly to enhanced carbon dioxide. At Oak Ridge, they did lots of experiments with enhanced carbon dioxide and it has a drastic effect on plants because it is the main food source for the plants... So if you change the carbon dioxide drastically by a factor of two, the whole behavior of the plant is different. Anyway, that’s so typical of the things they ignore. They are totally missing the biological side, which is probably more than half of the real system."

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Walshy

And to quote him further from Andy's article ...............

I'm still still just as interested in what the chimps have to say on the subject

[Walshy]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

I'm still still just as interested in what the chimps have to say on the subject

I think I'm feeding a troll .........................

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Walshy

I think I'm feeding a troll .........................

Walshy, the man is NOT a climatologist. He's NOT an expert. YOU are the one who is trolling.

[chantaje]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTHsT...feature=relmfu

of course they "inflate" some predictions, and be a bit alarmists. but imo it has no comparisson with the lobbyng of "the dark, crude side" , and the problem is real, maybe earth will not be mars in 100 years but the way the society is managing resources is extremely destructive and cannot last indefenitly

if "we" dont change our sons or grandsons will be forced to