Re: Mike Doran, a short critique....
Posted by Mike_Doran on 7/14/2009, 12:36 pm
What you know and how you think are often two different things.  You threw Florida in--I did not.  I only spoke of the two largest storms--Gilbert and Wilma and asked a question about them.  A probabilistic question.  On a larger level, I am asking another more profound question about the order of things. 

I used to debate everyday with an operational meterologist who was a so called skeptic.  One of the things he like to argue was that AGW was bunk because the average temperature had changed so little.  I would argue back that the slight change only proved my point that the climate system was dampened by a living earth.  It seems to me that Occum has a much bigger problem explaining the stability.

My mother used to hold prayer meetings with us children decades ago.  Educated as a nurse, she loved thinking and praying about YEC.  She read from a book written by a Christain scientist one prayer meeting, and he argued that the chance of the first life coming together randomly was the same as a printing press exploding and a fully unabridged dictionary coming from the blast.

The basic problem with atmospherics is that it is like the explosion in terms of order. A thunderstorm can rise in the skies in the morning and by later afternoon is gone, leaving no visible sign of its existance.  But with electrics, that same thunderstorm leaves a mark, which circulats and moves either at the speed of light or very quickly. This is important in a probabilist manner because once you assume that the climate system is dampened there has to be a mechanism for feedbacks that has the ability to work quickly and then feedback--have a memory for what is so that it can react to make what will be.

Assuming that you consider yourself a skeptic, what you know and how you think has not yet produced a meaningful explaination from what the skepticism has found, like, for instances climate stability and hemispheric differences.  It's much, in my view, like the biological sciences haven't discovered all what Crick and Watson found with nucleotides as they debate intelligent design.

I am no looney, but I am not saying you are, either.  And I also do not reject thermodynamics--but electrics is a part of the orders involved.  Without electrics the thermodynamic models are incomplete.
50
In this thread:
Dr Gray wrong on global warming - jimw, 7/13/2009, 7:57 pm
< Return to the front page of the: message board | monthly archive this page is in
Post A Reply
This thread has been archived and can no longer receive replies.