"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:41:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
wrote in message
...
On Mar 31, 5:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On Mar 31, 2:56 pm, cavelamb wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
This should start a few arguments. And Dyson knows full well what
the
reaction will be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
Cover article of the New York Times Magazine, 29 March 2009 issue.
Joe Gwinn
I read that whole article last weekend.
No way I'd even try to second guess Dyson.
But the Greens (koomkaya) ?
I've never heard of one in his class.
(or who TOOK his class! 
)
Well, would YOU, Mr Cavelamb, be likely to hear of anyone who took
one of his classes - and you spelt "Kumbaya" wrong, your credibility
lies in tatters.........
And it doesn't matter anyway - even if global warming is real, the
planet will not get off its collective arse to do anything about it.
And if its wrong, same end result, ie nothing has changed. The
wingers
and lefties will have to find something else to argue about....
So, it was a nice essay, good colour piece about a 85 year old
physicist who is getting cranky and doesn't like groups of other
scientists agreeing with each other....(my 3yo granddaughter does
that, she will grow out of it....)
Andrew VK3BFA.
Well, as Bender would say, "Kiss my shiny metal ass".
Crank up Google Earth and go look at South America.
Clear a continent of rain forest - that used to soak up CO2
like crazy - and give off O2 at the same time -
What would you get, Andrew?
More CO2?
And what would YOU get, Richard? Numbers, please. With the complete
chemical
equations. d8-)
Between you and Larry, I'm thinking I must have missed my opportunity to
learn global-scale organic chemistry and atmospheric fluid dynamics.
You,
of
all people, who knows about aircraft engineering and who doubtless has
stared at one or more mathematical models of turbulent flow, in
wonder...
--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I write dynamic models for a living. Anyone who says a climate model
can predict global temperature with reasonable certainty is guilty of
engineering malpractice.
I don't think anyone has done so -- at least, not any of the major
scientific organizations.
THUD Ed, what do you think -most- of the AGWk alarmists base their
Chicken Little voodoo on?
Do you READ the reports from the major agencies, or do you just read ABOUT
them from opposition sources, the way Gunner reads political history?
Here's a two-page summary of the current state of modelling from NSA, NASA,
and NOAA. As they explain, the typical global temperature predictions from
major models show a 3:1 range of predicted temperatures with similar
assumptions:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...1-brochure.pdf
Here's the full report, "Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and
Limitations":
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...rt/default.htm
The IPCC reports don't try to "predict global temperature with reasonable
certainty," either. Their predictions for each of many situational scenarios
also are each in the range of 2.5:1 to 3:1, and they make clear those are
averages of multiple model predictions: (See table about 2/3 of the way down
the page)
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...-fourth-2.html
And if the major scientific organizations
disagreed with the alarmists, wouldn't they speak out against it?
Why would they? They've made their own statements. The trouble is, most
people don't read them. They just read ABOUT them from cranks and quacks.
Who is this writing models? Is he a AGWk believer or denier, Ed? I
didn't see the original post.
Denier. He's one of yours. g
All any of us have to go on is the reputation of the scientists making the
claims, in both directions. The rest is a lot of hubris and
presumptuousness. Anyone here who says he can judge the actual science
behind the claims has yet to show any evidence that he knows what he's
talking about.
What most of us (we deniers) dispute is that the science backs the
AGWk alarmists' claims.
Most deniers, and most non-deniers, couldn't read the science if they had a
brain transplant.
Here's one. This is pretty straightforward, a description of the CCM3 model,
which is the primary model -- one of the best, say the people who really
know these things -- used by the NCAR (a government agency). Can you read
it? Can you evaluate it? If not, how do you know if the "science" backs ANY
scientist's claims, let alone the second- and third-hand accounts you're
probably reading?
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/15...-11-6-1131.pdf
Much of that lies in the fact that even the
w(h)eather men can't predict the environment for a couple days, let
alone 100 freakin' years.
Just bringing that up tells me (as little as I know) that you don't
understand the issue at all. That's like saying that Casinos can't predict
how much money they'll make on a given volume of gambling because you can't
predict the flip of a coin. Weathermen don't predict the "environment." They
predict short-term patterns of weather; little individual cusps and curls on
the vast Mandlebrot diagram of climate.
Your Nobel Prize winning Algore can't, with
his hockey stick figures, either. Feh!
I have no idea what you're talking about. I never read or heard anything he
says about climate.
I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, but I wouldn't take Al
Gore any more seriously on the issue of climate than I would take you
seriously on the same subject. d8-)
If you can't read the original data and models -- and neither of us can --
all you can do is decide whom you'll believe. You've chosen to believe some
sci-fi novelists, contrarions, and sensationalist book authors. Oh, and an
85-year-old physicist. g
--
Ed Huntress