http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/10/08/oceans-drive-climate/ Ambit Gambit Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:01:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/10/08/oceans-drive-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2744 Arjay Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:51:47 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3407#comment-2744 Examinator,the world has been cooling since 1998.Would you define a 10 yr period,a climate pattern or a weather pattern?I thought weather was a daily or seasonal term. Surely if there is expodential growth in the prime evil contrubutor CO2,then temps must increase at a corresponding rate,or are there other forces at play here? Examinator,the world has been cooling since 1998.Would you define a 10 yr period,a climate pattern or a weather pattern?I thought weather was a daily or seasonal term.
Surely if there is expodential growth in the prime evil contrubutor CO2,then temps must increase at a corresponding rate,or are there other forces at play here?

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/10/08/oceans-drive-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2745 examinator Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:27:20 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3407#comment-2745 Arjay, What you appear to be focusing on is weather V Climate. The problems we face aren't year by year issues or even sun cycles but the long term issues. The time lag is the the 4 tonne Diprototon in the corner. Arjay,
What you appear to be focusing on is weather V Climate. The problems we face aren’t year by year issues or even sun cycles but the long term issues.
The time lag is the the 4 tonne Diprototon in the corner.

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/10/08/oceans-drive-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2746 Arjay Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:33:14 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3407#comment-2746 Just look at the reality,the world has been cooling in times of expodential CO2 emitions.Is there a disconnect here between the scientific method and tax payer funding or heaven forbid,a direct correlation? Just look at the reality,the world has been cooling in times of expodential CO2 emitions.Is there a disconnect here between the scientific method and tax payer funding or heaven forbid,a direct correlation?

]]> http://www.ambitgambit.com/2008/10/08/oceans-drive-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2747 examinator Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:20:51 +0000 http://localhost/ambit/?p=3407#comment-2747 Graham, As I said in the late post (8/10) to your 6/10 response about the flawed state of climate modelling, I think it’s a foregone conclusion that the models are indeed flawed. Indications are from my reading are that the complexity of climate dynamics is like the search for TOE, GUT worthwhile but beyond our currently existing science. Therefore all predictions are still based on incomplete/imprecise information. • Logically one can’t prove a negative (something doesn’t exist) only a positive. It is however valid to suggest that the explanation doesn’t fit the facts/observations/science. Then comes the argument what then does fit the facts etc. Some nay sayers simply point to natural causes and if true there isn’t a case to answer. Where this falters is that while there is precedence in geologic history for similar events what is new is that there is no definitive evidence for all factors happening at the same time? The answer to that is at best unclear. Therefore the nay argument is as flawed as ACC. Prudence then dictates that (as previously stated) “business as usual” is not an option until a more plausible alternative can be demonstrated. Especially in the light of current observations. • The article is eight years old at the current rate of technological change (knowledge) I find it hard to believe that someone else hasn’t already considered its implied impact. Again it isn’t a law of science only a paper. How definitive is it? • My reading of the article doesn’t sufficiently offer a plausible alternative explanation for all the events or can it say that there is no link i.e. that both the water heat absorption potential should be included in an improved model. The big provisor and my big worry is again the statistical aggregate methodology as they do say there are gaps in continuity the measurement series.(inbuilt flaw) Graham,
As I said in the late post (8/10) to your 6/10 response about the flawed state of climate modelling, I think it’s a foregone conclusion that the models are indeed flawed. Indications are from my reading are that the complexity of climate dynamics is like the search for TOE, GUT worthwhile but beyond our currently existing science.
Therefore all predictions are still based on incomplete/imprecise information.
• Logically one can’t prove a negative (something doesn’t exist) only a positive. It is however valid to suggest that the explanation doesn’t fit the facts/observations/science. Then comes the argument what then does fit the facts etc. Some nay sayers simply point to natural causes and if true there isn’t a case to answer. Where this falters is that while there is precedence in geologic history for similar events what is new is that there is no definitive evidence for all factors happening at the same time? The answer to that is at best unclear. Therefore the nay argument is as flawed as ACC. Prudence then dictates that (as previously stated) “business as usual” is not an option until a more plausible alternative can be demonstrated. Especially in the light of current observations.
• The article is eight years old at the current rate of technological change (knowledge) I find it hard to believe that someone else hasn’t already considered its implied impact. Again it isn’t a law of science only a paper. How definitive is it?
• My reading of the article doesn’t sufficiently offer a plausible alternative explanation for all the events or can it say that there is no link i.e. that both the water heat absorption potential should be included in an improved model. The big provisor and my big worry is again the statistical aggregate methodology as they do say there are gaps in continuity the measurement series.(inbuilt flaw)

]]>