On Feb 21, 8:28*am, wrote:
On Feb 21, 9:28*am, "

wrote:
There is always some nut case that wants to push his thoughts.

Global warming will not stand up to scientific scrutiny or time.
My kids were shown "An inconvenient truth" repeatedly in high school.
It will be the "Refer Madness" of the next generation.

That is brilliant. *You deserve Algore's Nobel Peace Prize for that.
Can I quote you?

What does it all mean?
Just ignore global warming, and it will go away.

Better yet, just ignore Algore and TMT.


I am an engineer and make my living by developing dynamic simulations
then verifying them through testing and analysis. Once I have a
simulation validated, then I use it to optimize and design. If one
starts building based on a non validated simulation, one is
guaranteeing a disaster. In my opinion the global climate change
science is far from validated so basing public policy on it is
foolish.

A first order analysis of a stable dynamic system says that to
decrease a long term effect of an input by half one must decrease the
driving input by half. Using this analysis one would expect to
decrease green house gas input by 50% to have a useful change.
Anything less is worthless and one might need much more. The science
has better be very reliable to support this sort of action because it
is going to kill people and cause all kinds of wars. That’s right
India and China, you can't have cars and warm homes; too bad. To
force such a plan we better be very sure about the science: not 95%
sure but 99.999% sure. Additionally, the cure can not be worse than
the disease. For example, if the cure requires killing 3 billon
people might it be better to fund mitigation such as moving food
production to Canada and Russia?

Proof of significant global climate change due to man made green house
gasses is biased on three things. First, the physical phenomena of
atmospheric CO2 increasing a planet’s surface temperature due to
trapping long wave radiation. An example is Venus where CO2 and other
gases increase the surface temperature. The second basis is that
earth atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing. The third basis
is a climate model that predicts significant increase in the earth’s
temperature due to increased greenhouse gases. There is little
disagreement on the first two bases but the third is far from
validated and in my opinion will never be.

From a numerical modeling prospective I can’t think of a more ill
conditioned problem than the earth’s climate. Half the atmosphere
occurs below 18000 ft or about 3.5 miles. Virtually all occupies
altitudes below 35 miles. If one looks at an 18 inch diameter globe
the atmosphere is a thin film covering the earth. Tightly coupled to
the atmosphere is even thinner membrane (sea) with a heat capacity
that dwarfs the air and its viscosity is much different plus it moves
against significant channels (land). A very ugly spatial problem
but it gets worse. Within the film there is a pressure that ranges
from 100 KPa to 1 Pa. further compounding the problem. The physics of
the system make it even worse; mass transport is a function of the
square root of the pressure gradient (love that nonlinearity at zero
pressure) and mass density is a inverse function of temperature where
temperatures of interest ranges from 4 to 300 deg Kelvin. I won’t
even get into viscosity, complex heat adsorption and radiated heat.
My company’s life depends on knowing aerodynamics and we don’t trust
CFD for something relatively simple like lift and drag on a 3
dimensional wing.

If someone where to pose this problem as a research project without
the political baggage every competent engineer I know would tell you
the likely hood of success is extremely low. When I see someone quote
a study that says that a region is going to dry up or the snow pack is
going to go away and we should change policy my BS meter pegs and I
think malpractice.