|
Stu...
If you efforts to enlighten on the global warming debate typified by this...
Quote...
The AGW denier claim re:climate, is that climate is chaotic and inherently unpredictable. My claim, is THAT claim is confusing 'weather' and 'climate'. Climate is not chaotic, and IS much more easily predictable than weather. The fact that a time-averaged chaotic system is a non-chaotic system (on a similar time scale) is not something I'm able to explain on this forum. Any advanced PDE book will detail for you. On a simpler level, a sophmore thermo text will explain how when you add (via global radiative forcing in this case) energy to a system, the temperature of that system will rise. It really IS that simple. Add energy, temp goes up. I'm saying nothing about predicting LOCAL climate shifts. I don't know how hard that is.
And it WAS predicted 'long ago'. Like I wrote earlier, Carl Sagan, at least as far back as Cosmos, talks about it.
...unquote.
You are waffling there man. So the seemingly chaotic "weather", time averaged, becomes your definitioin of "climate". So you mean that temperatures are going up!!!!! That is not often disputed. The Carl Sagan explanation, is manifest every time you go out into your greenhouse!!!! So one again, you have concluded that the cause of global warming is human CO2 emmissions, supposedly proven each time you go into a greenhouse.
Stu, this is DOGMA. This is proof of NOTHING!!!! This is you saying that there is an amplified greenhouse effect, and if it is amplifying, man made it. Proof????... because there is a greenhouse effect (undisputed). Go to Venus... it's there too.
Then you wonder why there are sceptics.
Rockter.
|