sunsettommy

Hi Jerry, The warming of the surface of the earth should lead to more evaporation, and more precipitation. But it is unlikely to be uniform precipitation, i.e, it will likely be one extreme in one place and the opposite extreme in another. So, in line with the theory and climate models, one should be observing more precipitation in some places and less in others, (based on historical data). That is indeed what we are seeing. Andrew The same thing happened when the planet was cooling. LOL.

They stop using the phrase global warming because since 1998.The warming trend has flattened out. So they went to a new phrase climate change which can mean ANYTHING. You do realize that climate is ALWAYS CHANGING. Do you?

Catchme said at post #7: I say that Climate change is a result of global cooling, and both have been equally in use since at least 1998.

Remember, they cashiered the General running Walter Reed Army Hospital over that episode. Why not answer th esubstance of my post, or can't you? There was substance in your post??? Guthrie runs off at the mouth. You just say nothing.

Details please.

Try the more difficult method of posting by actually saying a true rebuttal.

GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES IRREGULARITIES. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE SAYS WILL HAPPEN. You are out of date dude. It is now called CLIMATE CHANGE. That way they can say anything and always be right!

Well gee you go on and on and on and on. Plus no sources or links. Please make your postings shorter.

HUH? I thought the possible attack was for stopping the Iranian nuclear bomb production. Bombing Iran serves Americas economic needs? Please explain this claim.

From the posted article: What about this part about Engineering Mathematical modeling with CLOSED system versus Planetary climate model with an OPEN system?

Well he is understandably peeved by my saying he was insulting me.I was wrong. But for the rest he never did offer any actual rebuttal of the article I posted. No actual quotes or details from the posted article for me to consider. Just this from him (obsidian): A rambling rant is all it is. LOL.

Obsidian, I made a very bad mistake charging that you have insulted me. I was going back and fourth between 2 forums and people like Cgy-4-a-1st-round-pick in this thread and someone at the other forum who had potty mouths.I somehow lumped you in with them. I am sorry.

This is a rant. What about the posted articles CONTENT?

LOL, You have no idea how little you rebutted anything. It is plain that you lack the skill to discuss civily. You are not worth my time. Pathetic.

I see that you edited your post to add some smears. Whatever happened to the idea of discussing the content of the article I posted? Maybe you just do not care and go the red herring process? Here from another forum this handy quote that now applies to people like you: . What about the posted article?

So you offer no pointed rebuttal of the article itself. Whatever gave you the idea that I was a believer in the myth of global warming?

From American Thinker. Good news source. Sounds reliable. Sounds plausible. You fucking idiot. The uncertainties in climate modelling are KNOWN uncertainties just like with potilical polls, totals right within 3% pts 19 times out of 20, and so forth. The science and physics are even more certain. Honestly, it is nothing but anally retentive Conservatives out on this forum tonight. Their sons fuck eachother and their daughters masturbate with a cross. I dunno how they keep breeding... Judging from your reply. You have no rebuttal to offer. Just be vile is all you offer. The political slurs and the namecalling from you means that you do not know how to debate civily. Sad.

From American Thinker, February 28, 2007 Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory By Jerome J. Schmitt Excerpt: Global warming theory is a prediction based on complex mathematical models developed to explain the dynamics of the atmosphere. These models must account for a myriad of factors, and the resultant equations are so complex they cannot be solved explicitly or "analytically" but rather their solutions must be approximated "numerically" with computers. The mathematics of global warming should not be compared with the explicit calculus used, for example, by Edmund Halley to calculate the orbit of his eponymous comet and predict its return 76 years later. Although based on scientific "first principles", complex numerical models inevitably require simplifications, judgment calls, and correction factors. These subjective measures may be entirely acceptable so long as the model matches the available data -- acceptable because the model is not intended to be internally consistent with all the laws of physics and chemistry, but rather to serve as an expedient means to anticipate behavior of the system in the future. However, problems can arise when R&D funding mechanisms inevitably "reward" exaggerated and alarming claims for the accuracy and implications of these models. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/num...egrated_ci.html

Who cares what political party is doing. The planet is warming slowly. How much of the warming is the fault of mankind is not known. There ya go.

Perhaps that was helped by the CFC ban that Mulroney signed. What do you think? CFC's had a negligible impact.There is so little of it and also O3 is created faster than the chlorine that CFC's release can destroy. The Antartica "hole" ( a media phrase invention) phenomenon is confined to the south pole region and in a limited time frame. There is reports of similar phenomenon being reported back in the late 1950's by Dobson. But you knew that.

Referring to your post # 78, B.Max I did look them up and fail to see how you get the numbers. You will have to elaborate since it is not apparent to me. Just a long column of numbers without an explanation is not a good idea anyway. Meanwhile when will you admit that Bob Cook was wrong in using a source that in no way supports his claim of a cooling since 1998?

They ultra right wing here will disagree. They'll say ice has never been thicker, polar bears never thrived so much and how it is colder than usual this year. Just more rebuttaless postings from you. Try Democrat Underground instead where such shibboleths are welcomed. Shoggoth,I can respect despite not seeing the same picture as he does about the issues of Global warming. You after being corrected several times in other threads have allegedly put me on ignore. That alone says alot. Please dump the retorical B.S. and either discuss the topic itself or just stay quiet.

I just provided some links showing that the Sun is CURRENTLY well above the average in solar irradiance of the past 1000 year and even up to 8000 years.

These links are junk: Try better ones.

Data gathering from ships based on highly variable collection methods at erratic times and of irregular depths. Irregular temperature data coverage and highly variable temperature data quality of monitoring stations are well known.That is why it is a mistake to say they are a reliable indicator of global temperatures. Gosh if you pass aside your dislike of Junkscience long enough to see just how variable the temperature data is: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm LOL. Urban Heating Island effect is NOT being fully accounted for by various researchers.Warwick Hughes has been exposing some of the problems on his website. The Scientific Community allegedly thinks so but they can still be wrong. They have been many times before.