"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:31:53 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:41:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
wrote in message
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
Funny, not one of the AGWk loonies mentions that paper or any
limitations of modeling in any of their rants.
You haven't been railing against the loonies for the past year or two,
Larry. You've been contradicting the basic science, which you well know.
You've claimed that the IPCC is made up of corrupt scientists who are in it
to get funding, that the logic of the science is all wet (forgive the weak
pun), and that, in general, it's all bad science.
The loonies are always there, on both sides. I haven't seen you correcting
the loonies on the other side, for that matter.
Here's the full report, "Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and
Limitations":
http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...rt/default.htm
135 pages? That'll take 'a minute or two' to peruse, huh?
I didn't put the URL there for you to read. I put it there to keep you from
asking where's the beef. d8-)
The Executive Summary should be plenty.
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
The IPCC continues to backpedal a bit, downsizing their climate rise
figures each time. Some of this is in response to better modeling, I'm
sure, but the continued questioning by deniers (in their field) is
making them less political and more real, I expect.
If you read their reports, you'd know that's all nonsense. But I don't think
you do read their actual reports, do you? You appear to read the critiques
from the deniers ABOUT the reports. Right?
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.
When you, I, or the average person is misquoted, we react. Why would
these scientists NOT? That goes against human behavior (models. 
Because there wouldn't be time left to do anything else. Who is going to
respond to all of them? And there have been plenty of responses to the
deniers with wide readership. For example, I quoted to you from some climate
scientists about their critique of Crichton.
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
So, even with input directly from one of the Three Climateers, you go
with the Algore flow? Interesting.
What's the "Algore flow"? How many times do I have to tell you I haven't
even read Al Gore on the subject? I never saw his movie, nor am I likely to.
I have read the statements and the summaries from the major climate research
organizations. I read one IPCC report all the way through, a few years back.
As I've also mentioned to you before, I tried to read two of the
professional journal articles, similar to the one about the CCM3 model that
I pointed you to, and realized that there's no way I'm going to be able to
evaluate the science itself. I don't have the background to be able to judge
the original sources or the original claims.
I think this is the fourth or fifth time I've explained all of that to you.
I make no claims to understand the science, nor to be able to judge it. I
have frequently pointed out that you probably don't understand it, either,
which gets your hackles up but which has never elicited a response
indicating that you really *do* understand it. Nor has it stopped you from
bashing the science.
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.
So why are we arguing?
Because you keep telling me that it's simple to understand what's wrong with
the science, and I keep telling you that's a load of crap. d8-)
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.
Yabbut, they use some of the same models that the global climate
scientists do. That was my point.
It doesn't matter. They're predicting different things, averaged over vastly
different spans of time.
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.
What? He's one of the leading alarmists (on YOUR side, sir) in the
world! Now whose head is in the sand?
Nobody is "on my side." I have no side. As I've told you umpteen times, all
I can do is judge the scientists and the institutions on both sides of the
issue, and make a bet on what should be done based on that judgment.
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-)
g
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
Right. I've listened to both sides, questioned authority, spent
-considerably- more research time on it than I usually spend, and I'm
convinced that most of the programs and positions nowadays are total
overkill (fixing something which is not broken) and that the sky is
NOT falling. Humans should definitely clean up their act, but we're
not fiddling with Mother Nature nearly as much as the alarmists state.
Oops, we're getting nowhere again. Bye!
--
You can't do anything about the length of your life,
but you _can_ do something about its width and depth.
-- Evan Esar