Posted on January 8 at 6:22 a.m.

keep reading your realimaginaryclimate report further down edna. i have to leave and dont have time to cut and paste it here for you. if you insist however i will do it late today after work. the data is not included in the models.

On Letters to the Editor: Jan. 8, 2009

Posted on January 8 at 6:17 a.m.

here is the report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg...

i knew i would be labeled a cherry picker. it is a very large report. but i could not find any graphs that say temps will fall. the graph supplied is from the executive summary. it is temp predictions. one must assume the 80 years are from the time the report was published in 2001 since the report maker did not include the start date. important omission? sort of how they program their computers eh? a lot of assumptions. the other statement is just further proof that important parameters are not included in their modeling. i must work now.

On Letters to the Editor: Jan. 8, 2009

Posted on January 8 at 5:52 a.m.

here are the temp predictions of the ipcc 2001 report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg...

"Studies of �missing� processes are often carried out, for instance of the effect of aerosols on cloud lifetimes, but until the results are well-founded, of appreciable magnitude, and robust in a range of models, they are considered to be studies of sensitivity rather than projections of climate change." from the same report.

On Letters to the Editor: Jan. 8, 2009

Posted on January 8 at 5:26 a.m.

thanks for the link edna, as i said the parameterisations arent included in the computer models if you read the article. they are not there yet with cloud data. substantial uncertainties remain over forcings data. impact of galactic rays still not being done. and back to what i said yesterday, how can they program something into the model they dont understand as was evidenced by the press release of the hole in the atmosphere? why arent the computer models showing any signs of a downward trending of temperatures if they are remotely reliable? this is a 6 year trend, not a 1 year anomaly. read the first response to the first question there.

"Are the assumptions/unknowns the cause for many climate models to be more conservative in their predictions and causing them to fall short of the actual occurrences with the climate?"

"if we knew why models were not perfect we'd fix them." gavin. thanks gavin.

the models arent just conservative, they are completely wrong.

On Letters to the Editor: Jan. 8, 2009

Posted on January 7 at 5:25 p.m.

looks like he was finally on the right track. thanks mom.

On Deputies: 45-year-old stole car from mom

Posted on January 7 at 4:58 p.m.

realname, 9-26-1984 is his dob, that would make him 24 like the article states. crimes were committed between 05-08.

On Parking lot dispute leads to battery arrest

Posted on January 7 at 2:36 p.m.

tee, this is what happens to idiots like mr walsh sooner or later.

http://www.wftv.com/news/18419272/det...

On Parking lot dispute leads to battery arrest

Posted on January 7 at 2 p.m.

titan, have you been involved at the change.gov site? they have many ways to participate and put intelligent thought to good use regardless of party affiliation. there is a forum called open for questions as well as many others. there is also a health care issues site there that i am not sure if they are still taking compelling stories at now as they were a few weeks back. i submitted one as well as results from a health forum i held at my home. i am not in as bad of shape as you but have major spine issues and have gone under several times and need more. i stay as active as i can still working and running several bizzes. debating is good. tone the confrontation down a little. there are quite a few intelligent regulars at this site who enjoy good conversation and debate. like anywhere else it takes a little time for people to figure out where you are coming from.

On Letters to the Editor: Jan. 6, 2009

Posted on January 7 at 11:21 a.m.

ruf, well stated. i do not have an advanced science degree. you hit the nail on the head. the computer model is only as good as it is programmed to be which is the crux of my basic argument. garbage in garbage out. a computer cannot legitimately pinpoint man as the cause of agw if there are still unknown variables such as the upper atmospheric issues that i linked to, previously unknown under ocean volcanic activity, huge unforseen increases in methane etc. i too would hope that our tax money isnt squandered. the regular folks here debating this only want to see any future policy based on sound scientific evidence. thanks for your input and please share your enlightened opinion often.

On Letters to the Editor: Jan. 7, 2009

Posted on January 7 at 7:01 a.m.

i take it then you are saying that the upper layers of the atmosphere have no bearing on earths climate or temperatures? is that how the theory goes this week? nothing fishy about a need to understand what you profess knowledge of when using scientific methods in formulating theories. im off to work.

On Letters to the Editor: Jan. 7, 2009