General Climate Discussion

[Angus]

So, I guess you guys can predict precicely where a bubble in a water pot will first rise at boiling level right?
After all, it should be simple under controlled cirkumstances, and 2 pints of water are not complicated if you compare with the earths weathersystem.
Oh, and as far as I know, Metreology is all about weather science. We may have some spelling problems here though....and definately that will influence GW.

[pallero]

I still think its the sun.

Like my words:

I’ve never understood why, when asked what might have an impact on global temperatures, a) evil Western capitalism or b) a gigantic ball of fire hundreds of times larger than our planet itself, people choose “a”. Hasn’t anyone noticed the simple fact that when the sun goes down at night, the temperature drops 30+ degrees immediately? Is that just from all those mean CO2 plants shutting down for the evening?

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/

[Angus]

Oh, I noticed the night....
It hasn't really been getting shorter over the years, and actually it's a bit of a forgotten fact that in Jurassic times the night was shorter...so was the day...the earth is slowing in the spin you see....
However the solar activity does not seem to have a finger in our GW, and without the humble effect of greenhouse gases we actually would be smiling at the sun from a frozen planet....

[Holden McGroin]

   

So are you saying that by my breathing, I am depleting carbon? 

Only if your are breathing coal dust.

The theory is that we increasing (not depleating) the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle by releasing the carbon from coal and oil that has been out of the loop for million of years.

[Jackal1]

So, Jackal, what we are doing is ...screwing up....

So........you firmly believe we are screwing up, but you just can`t quite put your finger on what we are doing to do so.
I see. 

Tell me, as things are going, what do you see here in 250 years????????

I never graduated from Soothsayer U. 
Like I have stated many times, there is absolutely no way to predict what things will be like in 250 years or even a hundred years with anything
remotely resembling accuracy, especially climate.
There are way to many unknown factors that cannot be predicted. Read that totally unpredictable.
That`s the point. Anyone or any group that says they are able to predict such things are glaringly either total fools ........or having some ulterior motive backing them.

[lazs2]

given the fact that we can't even predict next weeks weather with the tech we have today...

Only a fool or a religious nut would try to predict it for the next 50 years.

lazs

[Angus]

So,we cannot predict seasons.
You cannot predict where the bubbles start in your kettle when you boil up, but I'll predict boiling.
You do not seem to realize that the equation is to big to be able to predict everything precicely.
BTW the weather forecast is still better than your guess.....

[lazs2]

You can't predict if the pot will boil or not.   You can only predict that if it is left on the fire it will eventually boil.. if the fire stays at the same temp.    You have no idea if any of that will happen.

lazs

[Angus]

And that's how I cook every day...
I'd say I'm 99.9% accurate with the fact, the only thing left to doubt is power shortage or mechanical failiure.
I think you're stuck on a straw Lazs, and your argument is basically ridiculous.

[Jackal1]

I believe the opposite Angus.
I believe your idea is way beyond ridiculous.
You are depending on constants ,to support your theory ,where there are none.

[Angus]

Feel as you like, but your logic fails.
It is simply easier to predict something big and simple than something local and small, based on infinate factors.
The shape of a snowflake vs a blizzard....

[Jackal1]

My logic is just fine Angus.
You simply cannot predict something that is totally unpredictable.
It`s really a pretty simple concept.

As for your boiling pot of water theory. (From the minds of Minolta )
I can assure you of one thing. The water will only boil in the pot, not the whole kitchen. 

[Angus]

So why can the weatherman do it better than you?
And sometimes the kitchen will cross the boiling point,,,,if you don't turn of the boiler 

And here is a nice speculation on predicting....
I had some tourists torch the house this summer by placing a candle in the toiletpaper shelf. The distance from the candleflame to the wood was some mere 10 cm. And loads of fuel nearby...
The paper and shelf went up in flames, and the temp went up to some unknown number, but enough to melt electric cables behind insulation and hard plastics that were close by.
If you break this up a bit....since things MIGHT happen....
1. Prediction. I could not have predicted this to happen since I did not have any information. However, had I known about a burning candle THERE, I'd have said...well it's going to catch fire.
2. Precaution. Well, I had a smoke detector. And it went BEEP.
3. Countermeasure. Well, I had the house manned and an estinguisher ready at hand.
4. Results. Some smoke, soot, and jobs to be done.

Lesson learned: There is always an unexpected parameter that can start of something bad. So it pays of to have an open mind to possibilities so problems can be countered.
I could not have predicted a fire there and then, but however fires are common. So, there were some things ready just in case, as well as the accomodation being relatively fire-proof. (plaster, stone-wool, and not much fuel).
Same goes with GW. Here I find myself debating with the pair of you, while remembering one being against spending money on researches, as well as being devotedly against safety precautions if they were bound in law. (that's partially why mine were in place). I wonder why I waste time on it, but I guess it is the fun factor.
So, tell me again that if you put your teapot on the full fire that a boil is totally unpredictable. I would counter your logic with a more correct statement, - a boil is highly predictable.

[MORAY37]

You can't predict if the pot will boil or not.   You can only predict that if it is left on the fire it will eventually boil.. if the fire stays at the same temp.    You have no idea if any of that will happen.

lazs

Actually...the funny thing is, Lazs, that that is exactly one of the things that freshman chemistry students do:  Predict when state changes will occur in water, and calculate delta sub h.  My undergrads can tell the exact amount of Kcals involved, the exact amount of time involved, and the exact curve involved should the temperature move up or down. 

This quote above again proves that you really have zero idea about what you are talking, and have little to no understanding about any of the real topics, and therefore believe that nobody could possibly have a grasp on them.

You consistently rely upon the words from websites out there that you have no understanding of, and only support them because they agree with your preconceived notion of what is going on.  In short, you made up your mind, then went out and found another dufus that wrote about it on the internet, and voila!, there's your argument.

While I will not say that Angus has an angle for simplifying this debate down to a tea kettle (even though the earth is a closed thermodynamic system heated by an exterior source) by any means, I assure you that your argument back to him is moronic in idealogy, and bereft of intelligent thought.  Boiling point is easily calculated accurately and measured quantitatively.

[Angus]

Amen to that.
I just tried to make it simple. And it wasn't even simple enough!