View Full Version : "runaway warming" impossible ????

Spartacus

03-21-08, 09:05 PM

I don't think this has been posted on iTulip

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wron g/article10973.htm

Just found it myself, don't know the full implications ...

Starving Steve

03-21-08, 11:38 PM

I don't think this has been posted on iTulip

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wron g/article10973.htm

Just found it myself, don't know the full implications ...

Dear Spartacus in Toronto:

I wasn't able to down-load the article; my computer wasn't fast enough because I have dial-up service only. So, could you tell me what the article said.

If you hang here at itulip, you know what I think of the eco-nuts to-day. Their whole science is junk. Yet they have the ear of government and get the grants.

One of the junk sciences of the eco-frauds is phenology (spelling?) which studies the dates that plants bloom or the dates that robins appear in spring. The problem with this science is that nothing can be easily measured, and it is easy rig the measurements.

For example, how do you determine the date that robins appear? Or how do you determine the date that an orchard blooms? Even worse, you can make the orchard bloom earlier by watering it, or by fertilizing it.

Phenology and bogus equations about a so-called global warming crisis. This is what we have gotten from the eco-nuts. And from the fundamentalists, we have gotten creation science and the teaching of abstanence (sp?) in place of a sex-education curriculum.

Then from the education-idiots, we get bogus standardized testing, the doctoring of test scores to make the results look good, the bogus miracle of phonics, English-only, and the back-to-basics take-over of the schools by the idiots in the religious-right.

Anyway, I won't rant. But the point that I want to make is that the schools have failed to teach critical thinking. And so now we have the decline of science in the US and the insertion of junk science, non-science, and garbage in its place.

No wonder the U.S. is in decline. How could it not be?

Drinking water from fog-drip, wind-power farms, solar roofs, solar-powered cars, junk economics in the universities, now a phenology studies department at Stanford University, the phonics crap and standardized testing from the educrats, and now junk equations about run-away global warming on Earth, on and on.

Well, I won't rant further. You get the point.

Spartacus

03-22-08, 12:18 AM

The new, re-done models and equations have a feedback element. This feedback element grows as warming grows, and the feedback eventually grows enough to prevent the worst runaway warming predictions based on the original models/equations.

As an engineer or a scientist you write equations to describe the system you're studying.

Many of these equations are just too hard to solve using any known methods, so you simplify the equation.

Lots of times as an engineer you can look at the equations you've written and say "this thing is putting in one watt, this other thing is putting in 5,000 watts, so to make my life easier I'll ignore the 1 watt for now". It's standard practice - you have no mathematical technique to solve the thing with paper and pencil, and your computers can't brute force the equations, so you simplify.

Something like this happened with the equations describing atmospheric warming - simplifications were made (by physicists and mathematicians and I assume by engineers and programmers and oceanographers and weather modelers - in other words, everyone who did the work and everyone who reviewed it afterward). The original equations they came up with had assumptions and dropped a few terms that either were deemed unimportant at the time or were too hard to deal with

This Hungarian physicist, Miklós Zágoni, went back and re-did the equations, this time keeping all the terms, and dropping a few assumptions that were necessary originally. They (Arthur Milne did the original derivations in 1922) originally assumed the atmosphere extends infinitely out into space - this seems to be the critical piece.

Zágoni claims that using the correct boundary condition (not assuming an infinitely thick atmosphere) makes runaway warming go away. His model works for the Earth and for Mars.

It's early going. He could be wrong (could have made his own bad assumption or programming error)

Dear Spartacus in Toronto:

I wasn't able to down-load the article; my computer wasn't fast enough because I have dial-up service only. So, could you tell me what the article said.

.....

Verrocchio

03-22-08, 12:50 AM

Anyway, I won't rant.

Well, I won't rant further. You get the point.

Thanks for not ranting, SS.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.