Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle
Looks like a new & contentious debate on the topic in any regard.
|
Definitely new, but not very contentious... nor accurate.
Despite the articles claims, "boundary conditions" of all types are already greatly considered in models. Further our current knowledge of climate change comes from much more than just a set of differential equations, as is also implied in the article.
I repeat that, in addition to the logical fallacies abundant in the presentation, there is also nothing more than a bunch of hand waving.
One of the best questions I've seen asked in this thread bears repeating:
What is it exactly that causes you to disregard all of those other studies and cling to ones with such apparent deficits? It makes absolutely zero sense unless you are clinging to a world view and cherry picking presentations which seem to support it.
Here's some more for those of you more curious about the article itself:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by From the Article
It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.
|
That's false, as most current models tend to
under predict actual warming.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by From the Article
The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past.
|
Here's a theory as to why... no species in the Earth's history were actively removing carbon compounds from the ground and burning them, thus releasing them into the atmosphere.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by From the Article
The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.
|
At what other time in history were carbon sinks being actively emptied into the atmosphere by physical processes at the rate they are presently?
It's not even comparing apples to oranges... It's comparing earphones to orgasms...
The article is crap.
