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

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! )

Please don't let the newspapers ever die.

But if they must, let a newspaper who can employ a writer like this one be
the last.

Tom Dacon

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
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

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.

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?

On Mar 31, 4:55*pm, cavelamb wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 31, 2:56 pm, cavelamb wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:


Well, as Bender would say, "Kiss my shiny metal ass".

Bender would probably offer a workable, if brutal, solution to the
problem. Cartoon characters make more sense than humans sometimes

Well, see my previous post - it doesn't matter if global warming is
real or not, and no debate here will ever influence anyones opinion.
The human race will/is incapable of co-operating enough to deal with
little things like wars, peace, cheap machine tools, balance of trade,
the economy, what model of car to buy etc etc etc etc....so, if its
true, then the planet is stuffed. Hopefully I will be dead before the
air becomes unbreathable. Worry a bit about my grandchildren though -
if the climate change deniers are proven wrong, they are going to
curse our memory for what we have left them.

Andrew VK3BFA.

"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

wrote in message
...
On Mar 31, 4:55 pm, cavelamb wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 31, 2:56 pm, cavelamb wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:


Well, as Bender would say, "Kiss my shiny metal ass".

Bender would probably offer a workable, if brutal, solution to the
problem. Cartoon characters make more sense than humans sometimes

Well, see my previous post - it doesn't matter if global warming is
real or not, and no debate here will ever influence anyones opinion.
The human race will/is incapable of co-operating enough to deal with
little things like wars, peace, cheap machine tools, balance of trade,
the economy, what model of car to buy etc etc etc etc....so, if its
true, then the planet is stuffed. Hopefully I will be dead before the
air becomes unbreathable. Worry a bit about my grandchildren though -
if the climate change deniers are proven wrong, they are going to
curse our memory for what we have left them.

Andrew VK3BFA.

Don't worry, be happy, Andrew. The Earth's climate will never go off the
deep end. Heck, it's never happened before...

Nothing is really happening to the planet's climate -- carbon dioxide is
plant food. And the housing market will never collapse -- those derivatives
that are hedging your pension fund are as solid as a rock. America will
never elect a black man as president, and General Motors is too big to fail,
just like the investment banks that dominate Wall Street.

And the check is in the mail. Really. Honest.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:39:55 -0700, the infamous "Tom Dacon"
scrawled the following:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
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.

Please don't let the newspapers ever die.

But if they must, let a newspaper who can employ a writer like this one be
the last.

Hear, hear!

It must irk Ed to no end that Dyson is in my corner, a fellow
disbeliever in the extreme horrors of AGWk. (You DID read this, didn't
you, Ed?)

--
You can't do anything about the length of your life,
but you _can_ do something about its width and depth.
-- Evan Esar

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:39:55 -0700, the infamous "Tom Dacon"
scrawled the following:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
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.

Please don't let the newspapers ever die.

But if they must, let a newspaper who can employ a writer like this one be
the last.

Hear, hear!

It must irk Ed to no end that Dyson is in my corner, a fellow
disbeliever in the extreme horrors of AGWk. (You DID read this, didn't
you, Ed?)

Yes, I read it last Saturday and knew it would only be a matter of time
before you added that to your inventory of Denier testimonials. d8-)

"I find Dr. Jaques paper, ' A Two-equation Boussinesq Hypothesis Explanation
for Counterclockwise Toilet-Bowl Swirling in the Southern Hemisphere', to be
a compelling metaphor for the katabatic winds and their confounding of the
standard model for aerosol distribution in our own atmosphere. Dr. Jaques
and I apparently share a recognition that we do our best thinking while
sitting on the can."

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 31, 7:59*am, wrote:
On Mar 31, 4:55*pm, cavelamb wrote:

wrote:
On Mar 31, 2:56 pm, cavelamb wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Well, as Bender would say, "Kiss my shiny metal ass".

Bender would probably offer a workable, if brutal, solution to the
problem. Cartoon characters make more sense than humans sometimes

Well, see my previous post - it doesn't matter if global warming is
real or not, and no debate here will ever influence anyones opinion.
The human race will/is incapable of co-operating enough to deal with
little things like wars, peace, cheap machine tools, balance of trade,
the economy, what model of car to buy etc etc *etc etc....so, if its
true, then the planet is stuffed. Hopefully I will be dead before the
air becomes unbreathable. Worry a bit about my grandchildren though -
if the climate change deniers are proven wrong, they are going to
curse our memory for what we have left them.

Andrew VK3BFA.

"I'm good for 300 degrees, so what's the problem? Oh, yeah, sorry
meatbag, you're not gonna like it too much. Can't say as I'll miss
ya."

Bender's not much of a solution kind of guy, heh.


Dave

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.

The whole issue has turned into a religion. Replace climate change
with booze and sex and it sounds just like a sermon from a a hell and
brimstone preacher.

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




Cheap lumber for the housing boom/bubble!

Ed Huntress wrote:
snippage to avoid redundant repetition...

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




Oh man! I almost forgot!

LOTS of cheap toilet paper...

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.

The whole issue has turned into a religion. Replace climate change
with booze and sex and it sounds just like a sermon from a a hell and
brimstone preacher.

Try replacing it with "evolution." I think the religion you're referring to
has more in common with that one: there are always some naysayers who will
deny it.

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.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

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.

--
Ed Huntress




Actually, Ed, I agree with you more than you suspect.
(my ex-wife is a PHD organic chemist. She can tell you all about it)

But the simple bottom line deal is - there is nothing I can do about it.

Those decisions are made WAY above my pay grade.

Recall the Serenity Prayer?

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

On Mar 31, 1:41*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 31, 5:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:





"cavelamb" wrote in message

om...

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.

The whole issue has turned into a religion. * Replace climate change
with booze and sex and it sounds just like a sermon from a a hell and
brimstone preacher.

Try replacing it with "evolution." I think the religion you're referring to
has more in common with that one: there are always some naysayers who will
deny it.

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.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



I have a well developed BS meter and it is pegged.

he climate models are based on numeric solutions to partial
differential equations. These equations involve multiple energy
domains including chemical, thermal, chemical and fluidic. The system
is about the worst numerically conditioned possible with pressures
that range from 0 to 100Kpa, densities that range from 0 to 1000 Kg/
(m*m*m) with horrible geometry. If the world was a billiard ball the
surface features and most of the atmosphere reside within
manufacturing tolerances. The first thing I do when modeling a
dynamic system is determining the energy resides. For the atmosphere
system energy by far resides in the ocean where geology features have
a large influence on flow and temperature differences are even
smaller. That the physics is nonlinear, time varying and lightly
damped. I can't think of a worse problem.

I have some of the world’s best Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
experts available to me and they have a rough time reliably modeling
turbulent flow reacting to moving structure on a wing. A recent
project with turbulent airflow over a simple 2 D wing had 10 million
nodes. The Godard climate model has 28 air/ water vertical layers.

"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

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.

--
Ed Huntress




Actually, Ed, I agree with you more than you suspect.
(my ex-wife is a PHD organic chemist. She can tell you all about it)

But the simple bottom line deal is - there is nothing I can do about it.

Those decisions are made WAY above my pay grade.

Recall the Serenity Prayer?

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

That one's appropriate. Beyond that, we put our money down on the ones we
find most believable. Then we wait.

--
Ed Huntress

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? And if the major scientific organizations
disagreed with the alarmists, wouldn't they speak out against it?

Who is this writing models? Is he a AGWk believer or denier, Ed? I
didn't see the original post.


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. 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. Your Nobel Prize winning Algore can't, with
his hockey stick figures, either. Feh!

--
You can't do anything about the length of your life,
but you _can_ do something about its width and depth.
-- Evan Esar

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
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.

--
Ed Huntress



Actually, Ed, I agree with you more than you suspect.
(my ex-wife is a PHD organic chemist. She can tell you all about it)

But the simple bottom line deal is - there is nothing I can do about it.

Those decisions are made WAY above my pay grade.

Recall the Serenity Prayer?

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

That one's appropriate. Beyond that, we put our money down on the ones we
find most believable. Then we wait.

--
Ed Huntress



Yep.
It's hard sometimes to get what you want to say across correctly.

Instead of saying "I agree...", I should have said "I believe..."
Because I'm in no position to agree or disagree.
Only pick my belief system - as you said...

I just don't want them to stop making toilet paper yet!

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:41:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"

Who is this writing models? Is he a AGWk believer or denier, Ed? I
didn't see the original post.


Are those the only choices?

On Apr 1, 11:20 am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:41:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:



What most of us (we deniers) dispute is that the science backs the
AGWk alarmists' claims. 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. Your Nobel Prize winning Algore can't, with
his hockey stick figures, either. Feh!


Actually Larry, your wrong. The weather people can consistently get in
right, but your local weather events get a bit iffy after 7 days. This
is easy to prove by jotting down the forecasts every night for a week
and then comparing them with what actually happens.
Sadly, no one does this, so the old myths prevail.........

And long term..- well, they predict it will get hot in summer and cold
in winter - and they have been right for a long time now.....

And ED H. is correct- I don't have the skills or knowledge to evaluate
the knowledge. But when the MAJORITY of scientists, working in THEIR
specific feld of climatology, say it is so, then the odds are pretty
good it is so. And is some other scientist with a degree in some other
discipline says it is not so,.......draw your own conclusions.

And here in Southern Oz - worst bushfires on record, nearly 200 dead,
hottest recorded day ever (47 degrees C), longest run of days over 40
degrees C, 11th year of drought (another record) our major river
systems are turning into toxic sewers - yes, each individual event can
be explained in some "not climate change" way. But all of
them?.....and, it does match the models the scientists have worked out
re climate zones moving south and more extreme weather events (another
Katrina, anyone?)

And it would be totally presumptuous of me, as a blue collar high
school graduate, to say I know what is really going on, all I can
judge it by is the Scientific Model of Evaluation I learn in science
class a LONG time ago. (I constantly get amazed when people show me
new buttons on the calculator, and what they can do - far out!-
theres a button that does trig functions, wow, used to take ages with
paper tables - you can now get the wrong answer so much more quickly)
(This was in working out taper angles BTW)

Andrew VK3BFA.

"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

wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 11:20 am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:41:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:



What most of us (we deniers) dispute is that the science backs the
AGWk alarmists' claims. 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. Your Nobel Prize winning Algore can't, with
his hockey stick figures, either. Feh!


Actually Larry, your wrong. The weather people can consistently get in
right, but your local weather events get a bit iffy after 7 days. This
is easy to prove by jotting down the forecasts every night for a week
and then comparing them with what actually happens.
Sadly, no one does this, so the old myths prevail.........

And long term..- well, they predict it will get hot in summer and cold
in winter - and they have been right for a long time now.....

And ED H. is correct- I don't have the skills or knowledge to evaluate
the knowledge.

Er, that wasn't what I was suggesting, actually. My tongue-in-cheek was
agreeing with you very strongly, and pointing out that the naysayers who say
everything is OK, not to worry, are demonstrating the same kind of thinking
that told us our financial system was sound a couple of years ago.

But when the MAJORITY of scientists, working in THEIR
specific feld of climatology, say it is so, then the odds are pretty
good it is so. And is some other scientist with a degree in some other
discipline says it is not so,.......draw your own conclusions.

Exactly.


And here in Southern Oz - worst bushfires on record, nearly 200 dead,
hottest recorded day ever (47 degrees C), longest run of days over 40
degrees C, 11th year of drought (another record) our major river
systems are turning into toxic sewers - yes, each individual event can
be explained in some "not climate change" way. But all of
them?.....and, it does match the models the scientists have worked out
re climate zones moving south and more extreme weather events (another
Katrina, anyone?)

And it would be totally presumptuous of me, as a blue collar high
school graduate, to say I know what is really going on, all I can
judge it by is the Scientific Model of Evaluation I learn in science
class a LONG time ago. (I constantly get amazed when people show me
new buttons on the calculator, and what they can do - far out!-
theres a button that does trig functions, wow, used to take ages with
paper tables - you can now get the wrong answer so much more quickly)
(This was in working out taper angles BTW)

Andrew VK3BFA.

It sounds to me like you got the essential part of science education down
pat.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Mar 31, 1:41 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 31, 5:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:





"cavelamb" wrote in message

om...

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.

The whole issue has turned into a religion. Replace climate change
with booze and sex and it sounds just like a sermon from a a hell and
brimstone preacher.

Try replacing it with "evolution." I think the religion you're referring
to
has more in common with that one: there are always some naysayers who will
deny it.

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.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have a well developed BS meter and it is pegged.

he climate models are based on numeric solutions to partial
differential equations. These equations involve multiple energy
domains including chemical, thermal, chemical and fluidic. The system
is about the worst numerically conditioned possible with pressures
that range from 0 to 100Kpa, densities that range from 0 to 1000 Kg/
(m*m*m) with horrible geometry. If the world was a billiard ball the
surface features and most of the atmosphere reside within
manufacturing tolerances. The first thing I do when modeling a
dynamic system is determining the energy resides. For the atmosphere
system energy by far resides in the ocean where geology features have
a large influence on flow and temperature differences are even
smaller. That the physics is nonlinear, time varying and lightly
damped. I can't think of a worse problem.

I have some of the world’s best Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
experts available to me and they have a rough time reliably modeling
turbulent flow reacting to moving structure on a wing. A recent
project with turbulent airflow over a simple 2 D wing had 10 million
nodes. The Godard climate model has 28 air/ water vertical layers.

================================================== ======

Well, that's good. So we'll put you down as one of those who doesn't think
the models are useful. Most climatologists do.

Why don't you go straighten them out at NOAA?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, ya lost me there.

It LOOKS like you are replying to yourself, replying to yourself,
replying to me...(?)

But the text seems to indict Andrew VK3BFA.
???

"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed, ya lost me there.

It LOOKS like you are replying to yourself, replying to yourself,
replying to me...(?)

But the text seems to indict Andrew VK3BFA.
???

Maybe I messed up a reply. I'm not indicting anybody. I think Andrew got it
exactly right -- he knows what we don't know. And your position seems
entirely reasonable.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 1, 2:45 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message

m...

Ed, ya lost me there.

It LOOKS like you are replying to yourself, replying to yourself,
replying to me...(?)

But the text seems to indict Andrew VK3BFA.
???

Maybe I messed up a reply. I'm not indicting anybody. I think Andrew got it
exactly right -- he knows what we don't know. And your position seems
entirely reasonable.

--
Ed Huntress

Sorry Ed, Cavelamb, Larry - I got the cut/delete/ be rational/ follow
the thread thingy mixed up. Apologies for the confusion. Put it down
as being to far South and close to the sun...

Andrew VK3BFA.

Let the Record show that cavelamb on or about
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:11:14 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Ed Huntress wrote:
snippage to avoid redundant repetition...

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...


Oh man! I almost forgot!

LOTS of cheap toilet paper...

Actually, part of the Brazilian rainforest deforestation was
"incentivized" by Brazil's rush to alternative fuels, specifically,
alcohol to replace petroleum. Hectares were logged off to open up
more area for sugar cane.
Save the planet, collect the whole set.

tschus
pyotr

-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Mar 31, 10:53*pm, wrote:

Actually Larry, your wrong. The weather people can consistently get in
right, but your local weather events get a bit iffy after 7 days. This
is easy to prove by jotting down the forecasts every night for a week
and then comparing them with what actually happens.
Sadly, no one does this, so the old myths prevail.........

Andrew VK3BFA.

The weathermen here freely admit that they try to find a consensus
among several models which have proven themselves useful, and
sometimes they show the range of variations. Some weather patterns are
predictable 5 days ahead, others fool them right up until the event.
The ice storm we had in December that took out electricity for a week
over half the state is a good example of that. I still have the
traditional Yankee weather-predicting string hanging outside,
vertical=calm, horizontal=windy, wet=rainy, dry=sunny, gone=hurricane.

Jim Wilkins in NH

On Mar 31, 8:54*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 31, 1:41 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:





wrote in message

....
On Mar 31, 5:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"cavelamb" wrote in message

om...

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.

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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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?


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

wrote in message
...
On Mar 31, 8:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 31, 1:41 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Mar 31, 5:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"cavelamb" wrote in message

om...

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.

The whole issue has turned into a religion. Replace climate change
with booze and sex and it sounds just like a sermon from a a hell and
brimstone preacher.

Try replacing it with "evolution." I think the religion you're referring
to
has more in common with that one: there are always some naysayers who
will
deny it.

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.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have a well developed BS meter and it is pegged.

he climate models are based on numeric solutions to partial
differential equations. These equations involve multiple energy
domains including chemical, thermal, chemical and fluidic. The system
is about the worst numerically conditioned possible with pressures
that range from 0 to 100Kpa, densities that range from 0 to 1000 Kg/
(m*m*m) with horrible geometry. If the world was a billiard ball the
surface features and most of the atmosphere reside within
manufacturing tolerances. The first thing I do when modeling a
dynamic system is determining the energy resides. For the atmosphere
system energy by far resides in the ocean where geology features have
a large influence on flow and temperature differences are even
smaller. That the physics is nonlinear, time varying and lightly
damped. I can't think of a worse problem.

I have some of the world’s best Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
experts available to me and they have a rough time reliably modeling
turbulent flow reacting to moving structure on a wing. A recent
project with turbulent airflow over a simple 2 D wing had 10 million
nodes. The Godard climate model has 28 air/ water vertical layers.

================================================== ======

Well, that's good. So we'll put you down as one of those who doesn't think
the models are useful. Most climatologists do.

Why don't you go straighten them out at NOAA?

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Talking to NOAA and NASA would be like ****ing in the wind. When
someone publishes anything contrary to the GCC party line one is
branded as a kook or an oil company charlatan. It would cost me my
career. Talk about a religious fervor.

I don’t trust zealots of any persuasion and we have zealots making
policy. My state is making economic decisions based on model
predictions twenty years in the future.

It scares me that most climatologists think the models are useful. It
must be some kind of group think.

==============================================

It's possible. It's also possible that they know what they're talking about.
And, based on the historical record of science and scientific organizations,
I'll go with them over any individual, any political party, any ideologue,
any religious leader, and any writer of popular non-fiction books that make
the best-sellers lists.

We all judge these things from our own experiences and prejudices. And we
judge others' judgments based on our assessments of them. I never got
involved in modeling, in engineering, biological science, economics, or
otherwise, but I've worked with experts in all of those fields. Often I've
had to interview them, prod and probe them, and analyze as best I could what
they were saying, what their biases and blindnesses appear to be, and so on.

Based on that, and for the record, I fully recognize what you're saying
about fluid dynamics. I've studied it -- or tried to -- and I regularly use
it as an example to Larry and some others about how far over *most* of our
heads the actual science of climatology really is. I've seen the models and
the math. Based on what I've seen through my limited exposure, I know that
there is no way am I qualified to judge the science itself. And, as a writer
and researcher, I'm not inclined to accept what any third parties say about
the science, either, because those people tend to have their own biases and
blindnesses. My career discipline forces me to go to original sources, or
not to draw conclusions if I can get only secondary source information. And
I don't like to write "he said, she said" interviews.

Also for the record, I believe you know about modeling. I also can see
you're doing it in an engineering environment. Having worked with engineers
for most of my life, I have a good detector for the engineer's dismissal of
other sciences, and I know some of the reasons why. You have to produce
concrete and quantitative certainties -- or results as close to certain as
science and technology allow -- and you know where the modeling enterprise's
strengths and weaknesses are in that regard.

Likely you would tear your hair out over medical and bioscience models,
which I was exposed to over most of the past five years. As an editor, I
corrected the writing, the logic, and sometimes the statistics of medical
researchers for peer-reviewed professional articles. One thing you learn
when you have had one foot in the physical sciences for a few decades, and
switch to life sciences or social sciences, is that they're looking for a
different type of conclusion. Their worlds are subsets of vast, often
unknown sets of variables. When a mechanical engineer is exposed to fluid
dynamics at a high level, he gets a taste of that, and it frustrates the
hell out of many of them. Engineers don't like working with environments
that contain large variables that sometimes can't even be identified. They
also don't like to work with competing, unresolved theories. Neither one
fits their deductive-logic mindset. Fluid dynamics is full of partial and
competing theories -- submodels of the models they have to construct. But
you still have to come up with a quantitative result that fits within a
narrow range of certainties, one that is much narrower than the windows of
uncertainty that most other science-based intellectual endeavors have to
deal with. The mental attitude that flourishes in engineering is
antithetical to moderate correlation coefficients, modest p-values,
metaphorical abstractions, and close-call go/no-go decision making in
general.

So I will remain skeptical that you're characterizing the state of climate
modeling in a way that's useful for policy purposes. It may be an *accurate*
way, from your perspective about what accuracy is, and how well defined it
must be to satisfy your engineering ethic. But it's dismissive in a way that
suggests you'd be dismissive about life science or social science modeling
because they can't achieve the levels of certainty that you work with.

In a way, the decision making climatologists are facing is a lot like the
ones that doctors have to face when they're deciding on a course of
treatment in a life-threatening situation and the clinical research
indicates there is no alternative that shows more than a 60% probability of
success. It's probably better than that in climatology, actually, but I
wouldn't venture what degree of certainty they're actually working with.
Based on what I said about science and scientific organizations at the top
of this rant, I'll accept that they're probably doing the best they can, and
much better than anyone else can do, in a situation that can not accept a
"no conclusion" response.

We can note that the typical engineer's response to the data would be "don't
build it." Unfortunately, it's already been built.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:55:30 -0700, the infamous pyotr filipivich
scrawled the following:

Let the Record show that cavelamb on or about
Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:11:14 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Ed Huntress wrote:
snippage to avoid redundant repetition...

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...


Oh man! I almost forgot!

LOTS of cheap toilet paper...

Actually, part of the Brazilian rainforest deforestation was
"incentivized" by Brazil's rush to alternative fuels, specifically,
alcohol to replace petroleum. Hectares were logged off to open up
more area for sugar cane.
Save the planet, collect the whole set.

I can't help but think that it would be cheaper to dredge their rivers
and put the silt/topsoil back on already dead land than to slash,
burn, fertilize, and grow. And I'm surprised that Greenies everywhere
aren't exporting topsoil to the rainforest countries to prevent more
slash and burn.

--
You can't do anything about the length of your life,
but you _can_ do something about its width and depth.
-- Evan Esar

On Apr 1, 8:11*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 31, 8:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Mar 31, 1:41 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Mar 31, 5:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"cavelamb" wrote in message

om...

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.

The whole issue has turned into a religion. Replace climate change
with booze and sex and it sounds just like a sermon from a a hell and
brimstone preacher.

Try replacing it with "evolution." I think the religion you're referring
to
has more in common with that one: there are always some naysayers who
will
deny it.

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.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have a well developed BS meter and it is pegged.

he climate models are based on numeric solutions to partial
differential equations. These equations involve multiple energy
domains including chemical, thermal, chemical and fluidic. The system
is about the worst numerically conditioned possible with pressures
that range from 0 to 100Kpa, densities that range from 0 to 1000 Kg/
(m*m*m) with horrible geometry. If the world was a billiard ball the
surface features and most of the atmosphere reside within
manufacturing tolerances. The first thing I do when modeling a
dynamic system is determining the energy resides. For the atmosphere
system energy by far resides in the ocean where geology features have
a large influence on flow and temperature differences are even
smaller. That the physics is nonlinear, time varying and lightly
damped. I can't think of a worse problem.

I have some of the world’s best Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
experts available to me and they have a rough time reliably modeling
turbulent flow reacting to moving structure on a wing. A recent
project with turbulent airflow over a simple 2 D wing had 10 million
nodes. The Godard climate model has 28 air/ water vertical layers.

================================================== ======

Well, that's good. So we'll put you down as one of those who doesn't think
the models are useful. Most climatologists do.

Why don't you go straighten them out at NOAA?

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Talking to NOAA and NASA would be like ****ing in the wind. *When
someone publishes anything contrary to the GCC party line one is
branded as a kook or an oil company charlatan. * It would cost me my
career. *Talk about a religious fervor.

I don’t trust zealots of any persuasion and we have zealots making
policy. My state is making economic decisions based on model
predictions twenty years in the future.

It scares me that most climatologists think the models are useful. *It
must be some kind of group think.

==============================================

It's possible. It's also possible that they know what they're talking about.
And, based on the historical record of science and scientific organizations,
I'll go with them over any individual, any political party, any ideologue,
any religious leader, and any writer of popular non-fiction books that make
the best-sellers lists.

We all judge these things from our own experiences and prejudices. And we
judge others' judgments based on our assessments of them. I never got
involved in modeling, in engineering, biological science, economics, or
otherwise, but I've worked with experts in all of those fields. Often I've
had to interview them, prod and probe them, and analyze as best I could what
they were saying, what their biases and blindnesses appear to be, and so on.

Based on that, and for the record, I fully recognize what you're saying
about fluid dynamics. I've studied it -- or tried to -- and I regularly use
it as an example to Larry and some others about how far over *most* of our
heads the actual science of climatology really is. I've seen the models and
the math. Based on what I've seen through my limited exposure, I know that
there is no way am I qualified to judge the science itself. And, as a writer
and researcher, I'm not inclined to accept what any third parties say about
the science, either, because those people tend to have their own biases and
blindnesses. My career discipline forces me to go to original sources, or
not to draw conclusions if I can get only secondary source information. And
I don't like to write "he said, she said" interviews.

Also for the record, I believe you know about modeling. I also can see
you're doing it in an engineering environment. Having worked with engineers
for most of my life, I have a good detector for the engineer's dismissal of
other sciences, and I know some of the reasons why. You have to produce
concrete and quantitative certainties -- or results as close to certain as
science and technology allow -- and you know where the modeling enterprise's
strengths and weaknesses are in that regard.

Likely you would tear your hair out over medical and bioscience models,
which I was exposed to over most of the past five years. As an editor, I
corrected the writing, the logic, and sometimes the statistics of medical
researchers for peer-reviewed professional articles. One thing you learn
when you have had one foot in the physical sciences for a few decades, and
switch to life sciences or social sciences, is that they're looking for a
different type of conclusion. Their worlds are subsets of vast, often
unknown sets of variables. When a mechanical engineer is exposed to fluid
dynamics at a high level, he gets a taste of that, and it frustrates the
hell out of many of them. Engineers don't like working with environments
that contain large variables that sometimes can't even be identified. They
also don't like to work with competing, unresolved theories. Neither one
fits their deductive-logic mindset. Fluid dynamics is full of partial and
competing theories -- submodels of the models they have to construct. But
you still have to come up with a quantitative result that fits within a
narrow range of certainties, one that is much narrower than the windows of
uncertainty that most other science-based intellectual endeavors have to
deal with. The mental attitude that flourishes in engineering is
antithetical to moderate correlation coefficients, modest p-values,
metaphorical abstractions, and close-call go/no-go decision making in
general.

So I will remain skeptical that you're characterizing the state of climate
modeling in a way that's useful for policy purposes. It may be an *accurate*
way, from your perspective about what accuracy is, and how well defined it
must be to satisfy your engineering ethic. But it's dismissive in a way that
suggests you'd be dismissive about life science or social science modeling
because they can't achieve the levels of certainty that you work with.

In a way, the decision making climatologists are facing is a lot like the
ones that doctors have to face when they're deciding on a course of
treatment in a life-threatening situation and the clinical research
indicates there is no alternative that shows more than a 60% probability of
success. It's probably better than that in climatology, actually, but I
wouldn't venture what degree of certainty they're actually working with.
Based on what I said about science and scientific organizations at the top
of this rant, I'll accept that they're probably doing the best they can, and
much better than anyone else can do, in a situation that can not accept a
"no conclusion" response.

We can note that the typical engineer's response to the data would be "don't
build it." Unfortunately, it's already been built.

--
Ed Huntress

The FDA requires a medication be proven safe and effective before it
is approved for use. For the most part I agree with this high
standard because we are dealing with human life. GCC is also dealing
with human life at a much larger scale. If greenhouse gasses are
indeed causing significant climate change, then reducing them to
significant levels is going to kill a lot of people. First order
analysis says that if one wants to reduce the output by 80% one must
decrease the input by 80%. I can see wars over this because we will
have to tell the second and third world they have no hope of achieving
our life style.

We need to be FDA sure before we act or we will cause major harm
without helping. Dubos climate models won’t do that. I would like
to see the topic pulled away from the political world into a frank
discussion of our options. For example mitigation strategies like
not building on flood plains and moving food production might be more
effective then cutting energy consumption.

It doesn’t give me confidence when we have NASA’s chief climatologist
is acting like a zealot and anyone who disagrees is branded a heretic.

"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

wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 8:11 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Mar 31, 8:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

wrote in message


snip


I have a well developed BS meter and it is pegged.

he climate models are based on numeric solutions to partial
differential equations. These equations involve multiple energy
domains including chemical, thermal, chemical and fluidic. The system
is about the worst numerically conditioned possible with pressures
that range from 0 to 100Kpa, densities that range from 0 to 1000 Kg/
(m*m*m) with horrible geometry. If the world was a billiard ball the
surface features and most of the atmosphere reside within
manufacturing tolerances. The first thing I do when modeling a
dynamic system is determining the energy resides. For the atmosphere
system energy by far resides in the ocean where geology features have
a large influence on flow and temperature differences are even
smaller. That the physics is nonlinear, time varying and lightly
damped. I can't think of a worse problem.

I have some of the world’s best Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
experts available to me and they have a rough time reliably modeling
turbulent flow reacting to moving structure on a wing. A recent
project with turbulent airflow over a simple 2 D wing had 10 million
nodes. The Godard climate model has 28 air/ water vertical layers.

================================================== ======

Well, that's good. So we'll put you down as one of those who doesn't
think
the models are useful. Most climatologists do.

Why don't you go straighten them out at NOAA?

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Talking to NOAA and NASA would be like ****ing in the wind. When
someone publishes anything contrary to the GCC party line one is
branded as a kook or an oil company charlatan. It would cost me my
career. Talk about a religious fervor.

I don’t trust zealots of any persuasion and we have zealots making
policy. My state is making economic decisions based on model
predictions twenty years in the future.

It scares me that most climatologists think the models are useful. It
must be some kind of group think.

==============================================

It's possible. It's also possible that they know what they're talking
about.
And, based on the historical record of science and scientific
organizations,
I'll go with them over any individual, any political party, any ideologue,
any religious leader, and any writer of popular non-fiction books that
make
the best-sellers lists.

We all judge these things from our own experiences and prejudices. And we
judge others' judgments based on our assessments of them. I never got
involved in modeling, in engineering, biological science, economics, or
otherwise, but I've worked with experts in all of those fields. Often I've
had to interview them, prod and probe them, and analyze as best I could
what
they were saying, what their biases and blindnesses appear to be, and so
on.

Based on that, and for the record, I fully recognize what you're saying
about fluid dynamics. I've studied it -- or tried to -- and I regularly
use
it as an example to Larry and some others about how far over *most* of our
heads the actual science of climatology really is. I've seen the models
and
the math. Based on what I've seen through my limited exposure, I know that
there is no way am I qualified to judge the science itself. And, as a
writer
and researcher, I'm not inclined to accept what any third parties say
about
the science, either, because those people tend to have their own biases
and
blindnesses. My career discipline forces me to go to original sources, or
not to draw conclusions if I can get only secondary source information.
And
I don't like to write "he said, she said" interviews.

Also for the record, I believe you know about modeling. I also can see
you're doing it in an engineering environment. Having worked with
engineers
for most of my life, I have a good detector for the engineer's dismissal
of
other sciences, and I know some of the reasons why. You have to produce
concrete and quantitative certainties -- or results as close to certain as
science and technology allow -- and you know where the modeling
enterprise's
strengths and weaknesses are in that regard.

Likely you would tear your hair out over medical and bioscience models,
which I was exposed to over most of the past five years. As an editor, I
corrected the writing, the logic, and sometimes the statistics of medical
researchers for peer-reviewed professional articles. One thing you learn
when you have had one foot in the physical sciences for a few decades, and
switch to life sciences or social sciences, is that they're looking for a
different type of conclusion. Their worlds are subsets of vast, often
unknown sets of variables. When a mechanical engineer is exposed to fluid
dynamics at a high level, he gets a taste of that, and it frustrates the
hell out of many of them. Engineers don't like working with environments
that contain large variables that sometimes can't even be identified. They
also don't like to work with competing, unresolved theories. Neither one
fits their deductive-logic mindset. Fluid dynamics is full of partial and
competing theories -- submodels of the models they have to construct. But
you still have to come up with a quantitative result that fits within a
narrow range of certainties, one that is much narrower than the windows of
uncertainty that most other science-based intellectual endeavors have to
deal with. The mental attitude that flourishes in engineering is
antithetical to moderate correlation coefficients, modest p-values,
metaphorical abstractions, and close-call go/no-go decision making in
general.

So I will remain skeptical that you're characterizing the state of climate
modeling in a way that's useful for policy purposes. It may be an
*accurate*
way, from your perspective about what accuracy is, and how well defined it
must be to satisfy your engineering ethic. But it's dismissive in a way
that
suggests you'd be dismissive about life science or social science modeling
because they can't achieve the levels of certainty that you work with.

In a way, the decision making climatologists are facing is a lot like the
ones that doctors have to face when they're deciding on a course of
treatment in a life-threatening situation and the clinical research
indicates there is no alternative that shows more than a 60% probability
of
success. It's probably better than that in climatology, actually, but I
wouldn't venture what degree of certainty they're actually working with.
Based on what I said about science and scientific organizations at the top
of this rant, I'll accept that they're probably doing the best they can,
and
much better than anyone else can do, in a situation that can not accept a
"no conclusion" response.

We can note that the typical engineer's response to the data would be
"don't
build it." Unfortunately, it's already been built.

--
Ed Huntress

The FDA requires a medication be proven safe and effective before it
is approved for use. For the most part I agree with this high
standard because we are dealing with human life.

It's a sliding scale, not an absolute. If you're trying to get a fat pill
approved and it winds up driving one person in 5,000 - 10,000 to suicide
(rimonabant, marketed as Acomplia in Europe), the FDA won't approve it. If
it's a cancer drug that extends the life of late-stage terminal patients,
but it kills one person in 20, they'll probably approve it.

And that's based on a clinical study of a few dozen people with p = 0.1 or
so. Lousy accuracy. Lousy "proof."

That's much less precise than the stats on CO2's involvement in global
warming.

GCC is also dealing
with human life at a much larger scale. If greenhouse gasses are
indeed causing significant climate change, then reducing them to
significant levels is going to kill a lot of people. First order
analysis says that if one wants to reduce the output by 80% one must
decrease the input by 80%. I can see wars over this because we will
have to tell the second and third world they have no hope of achieving
our life style.

I think your imagination is running away with you. The relationship in the
models is not linear. There is feedback all over the place, mostly positive
but some negative, at different thresholds. It looks like a lumpy curve.

We need to be FDA sure before we act or we will cause major harm
without helping.

Most of the world of science, and most of the world's people, seem to think
you have the Pascal's Wager part of this upside-down. The consequences of
serious global warming are more likely to lead to conflict, not to mention
that they're more likely to lead to physical hardship.
That's why governments and other institutions are worried about global
warming.

Dubos climate models won’t do that. I would like
to see the topic pulled away from the political world into a frank
discussion of our options. For example mitigation strategies like
not building on flood plains and moving food production might be more
effective then cutting energy consumption.

It might be. And if you follow the professional literature, you'll see that
those subjects have been discussed and analyzed endlessly.

I'm getting the feeling that you haven't done a survey of what the various
organizations have been doing. Natural Resources Canada has done work on
mitigation, as have Japan's Center for Global Environmental Research; the US
EPA; the Illinois Global Climate Change Project; the OECD; and many others.

It doesn’t give me confidence when we have NASA’s chief climatologist
is acting like a zealot and anyone who disagrees is branded a heretic.

He's a special case. g He is also generally recognizes as one of the
world's top experts on the subject. But the science is the point. How deeply
have you dug into the reports, summaries, white papers, and position papers
of the dozen or so top scientific and political organizations that are
involved?

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:49:39 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


wrote in message
...

It doesn’t give me confidence when we have NASA’s chief climatologist
is acting like a zealot and anyone who disagrees is branded a heretic.

He's a special case. g He is also generally recognizes as one of the
world's top experts on the subject. But the science is the point. How deeply
have you dug into the reports, summaries, white papers, and position papers
of the dozen or so top scientific and political organizations that are
involved?

Hansen is top Climateer.

Algore is recognized by (far too much of) the world as a Nobel Prize
winner on Climatology.

Thompson's Water Seal is the top selling deck waterproofer.

These are perfect proof of the Peter Principle, politics, and savvy
marketing in action, are they not?

P.S: I find your discussion with piezoguy -quite- interesting. It
appears that you and I are not nearly as far apart as it would seem
when you're railing against my posts, Ed. Very interesting.

--
You can't do anything about the length of your life,
but you _can_ do something about its width and depth.
-- Evan Esar

On Apr 1, 2:49*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Apr 1, 8:11 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Mar 31, 8:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

wrote in message

snip







I have a well developed BS meter and it is pegged.

he climate models are based on numeric solutions to partial
differential equations. These equations involve multiple energy
domains including chemical, thermal, chemical and fluidic. The system
is about the worst numerically conditioned possible with pressures
that range from 0 to 100Kpa, densities that range from 0 to 1000 Kg/
(m*m*m) with horrible geometry. If the world was a billiard ball the
surface features and most of the atmosphere reside within
manufacturing tolerances. The first thing I do when modeling a
dynamic system is determining the energy resides. For the atmosphere
system energy by far resides in the ocean where geology features have
a large influence on flow and temperature differences are even
smaller. That the physics is nonlinear, time varying and lightly
damped. I can't think of a worse problem.

I have some of the world’s best Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
experts available to me and they have a rough time reliably modeling
turbulent flow reacting to moving structure on a wing. A recent
project with turbulent airflow over a simple 2 D wing had 10 million
nodes. The Godard climate model has 28 air/ water vertical layers.

================================================== ======

Well, that's good. So we'll put you down as one of those who doesn't
think
the models are useful. Most climatologists do.

Why don't you go straighten them out at NOAA?

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Talking to NOAA and NASA would be like ****ing in the wind. When
someone publishes anything contrary to the GCC party line one is
branded as a kook or an oil company charlatan. It would cost me my
career. Talk about a religious fervor.

I don’t trust zealots of any persuasion and we have zealots making
policy. My state is making economic decisions based on model
predictions twenty years in the future.

It scares me that most climatologists think the models are useful. It
must be some kind of group think.

==============================================

It's possible. It's also possible that they know what they're talking
about.
And, based on the historical record of science and scientific
organizations,
I'll go with them over any individual, any political party, any ideologue,
any religious leader, and any writer of popular non-fiction books that
make
the best-sellers lists.

We all judge these things from our own experiences and prejudices. And we
judge others' judgments based on our assessments of them. I never got
involved in modeling, in engineering, biological science, economics, or
otherwise, but I've worked with experts in all of those fields. Often I've
had to interview them, prod and probe them, and analyze as best I could
what
they were saying, what their biases and blindnesses appear to be, and so
on.

Based on that, and for the record, I fully recognize what you're saying
about fluid dynamics. I've studied it -- or tried to -- and I regularly
use
it as an example to Larry and some others about how far over *most* of our
heads the actual science of climatology really is. I've seen the models
and
the math. Based on what I've seen through my limited exposure, I know that
there is no way am I qualified to judge the science itself. And, as a
writer
and researcher, I'm not inclined to accept what any third parties say
about
the science, either, because those people tend to have their own biases
and
blindnesses. My career discipline forces me to go to original sources, or
not to draw conclusions if I can get only secondary source information.
And
I don't like to write "he said, she said" interviews.

Also for the record, I believe you know about modeling. I also can see
you're doing it in an engineering environment. Having worked with
engineers
for most of my life, I have a good detector for the engineer's dismissal
of
other sciences, and I know some of the reasons why. You have to produce
concrete and quantitative certainties -- or results as close to certain as
science and technology allow -- and you know where the modeling
enterprise's
strengths and weaknesses are in that regard.

Likely you would tear your hair out over medical and bioscience models,
which I was exposed to over most of the past five years. As an editor, I
corrected the writing, the logic, and sometimes the statistics of medical
researchers for peer-reviewed professional articles. One thing you learn
when you have had one foot in the physical sciences for a few decades, and
switch to life sciences or social sciences, is that they're looking for a
different type of conclusion. Their worlds are subsets of vast, often
unknown sets of variables. When a mechanical engineer is exposed to fluid
dynamics at a high level, he gets a taste of that, and it frustrates the
hell out of many of them. Engineers don't like working with environments
that contain large variables that sometimes can't even be identified. They
also don't like to work with competing, unresolved theories. Neither one
fits their deductive-logic mindset. Fluid dynamics is full of partial and
competing theories -- submodels of the models they have to construct. But
you still have to come up with a quantitative result that fits within a
narrow range of certainties, one that is much narrower than the windows of
uncertainty that most other science-based intellectual endeavors have to
deal with. The mental attitude that flourishes in engineering is
antithetical to moderate correlation coefficients, modest p-values,
metaphorical abstractions, and close-call go/no-go decision making in
general.

So I will remain skeptical that you're characterizing the state of climate
modeling in a way that's useful for policy purposes. It may be an
*accurate*
way, from your perspective about what accuracy is, and how well defined it
must be to satisfy your engineering ethic. But it's dismissive in a way
that
suggests you'd be dismissive about life science or social science modeling
because they can't achieve the levels of certainty that you work with.

In a way, the decision making climatologists are facing is a lot like the
ones that doctors have to face when they're deciding on a course of
treatment in a life-threatening situation and the clinical research
indicates there is no alternative that shows more than a 60% probability
of
success. It's probably better than that in climatology, actually, but I
wouldn't venture what degree of certainty they're actually working with..
Based on what I said about science and scientific organizations at the top
of this rant, I'll accept that they're probably doing the best they can,
and
much better than anyone else can do, in a situation that can not accept a
"no conclusion" response.

We can note that the typical engineer's response to the data would be
"don't
build it." Unfortunately, it's already been built.

--
Ed Huntress
The FDA requires a medication be proven safe and effective before it
is approved for use. * * For the most part I agree with this high
standard because we are dealing with human life.

It's a sliding scale, not an absolute. If you're trying to get a fat pill
approved and it winds up driving one person in 5,000 - 10,000 to suicide
(rimonabant, marketed as Acomplia in Europe), the FDA won't approve it. If
it's a cancer drug that extends the life of late-stage terminal patients,
but it kills one person in 20, they'll probably approve it.

And that's based on a clinical study of a few dozen people with p = 0.1 or
so. Lousy accuracy. Lousy "proof."

That's much less precise than the stats on CO2's involvement in global
warming.

GCC is also dealing
with human life at a much larger scale. * If greenhouse gasses are
indeed causing significant climate change, then reducing them to
significant levels is going to kill a lot of people. * First order
analysis says that if one wants to reduce the output by 80% one must
decrease the input by 80%. *I can see wars over this because we will
have to tell the second and third world they have no hope of achieving
our life style.

I think your imagination is running away with you. The relationship in the
models is not linear. There is feedback all over the place, mostly positive
but some negative, at different thresholds. It looks like a lumpy curve.

We need to be FDA sure before we act or we will cause major harm
without helping.

Most of the world of science, and most of the world's people, seem to think
you have the Pascal's Wager part of this upside-down. The consequences of
serious global warming are more likely to lead to conflict, not to mention
that they're more likely to lead to physical hardship.
That's why governments and other institutions are worried about global
warming.

Dubos climate models won’t do that. * I would like
to see the topic pulled away from the political world into a frank
discussion of our options. * For example mitigation strategies like
not building on flood plains and moving food production might be more
effective then cutting energy consumption.

It might be. And if you follow the professional literature, you'll see that
those subjects have been discussed and analyzed endlessly.

I'm getting the feeling ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It works with the FDA because it can evaluate the product with tests
against people. Get enough tests and one can generate meaningful
statistics. It is hard to get similar climate statistics because we
don’t have 1000 earths. If the FDA worked like the climatologists it
would simulate a human, evaluate the model against a human, and
generate statistics based on the model then teat the same human.
When I develop a dynamic simulation I never trust it until I evaluate
it against actual data. The desert is scattered with reasons why one
should verify every simulation. Bottom line: If a model hasn’t been
verified against real time varying data I don’t trust it.

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:44:05 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:49:39 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


wrote in message
...

It doesn't give me confidence when we have NASA's chief climatologist
is acting like a zealot and anyone who disagrees is branded a heretic.

He's a special case. g He is also generally recognizes as one of the
world's top experts on the subject. But the science is the point. How
deeply
have you dug into the reports, summaries, white papers, and position
papers
of the dozen or so top scientific and political organizations that are
involved?

Hansen is top Climateer.

Algore is recognized by (far too much of) the world as a Nobel Prize
winner on Climatology.

Thompson's Water Seal is the top selling deck waterproofer.

These are perfect proof of the Peter Principle, politics, and savvy
marketing in action, are they not?

They reaffirm that your focus is on the extremes, which is fine for dealing
with the politics but not very good for dealing with the science, unless
you're an expert and can truly evaluate the claims.

My focus is on the mainstream science, because I want to see what I can
learn about that, before I start making claims about any of it. And I'm
convinced that I won't be able to evaluate original sources, which means I'm
unlikely ever to have an opinion that goes beyond my judgments about whether
mainstream science is being reflected in the claims made by the advocates.

Ed, I think my largest mistake was to take the easy way out (avoiding
long discussions after even longer research episodes) and NOT stop you
from thinking that the only gripe I had was with science. It's not.

I should have corrected you when you thought that I knew nothing about
basic Global Warming theory, but I was too angry at you for that at
the time.

In any case, my frustration with the world over AGWk is that the scare
mongers are skewing scientific data, politicians are again padding it,
then basing their policies on that. This is already costing lives
daily.

Scientists state Dataset A, with a + or - 3% variance, using a
modeling program (which is improved monthly and still has a long way
to go. After all, it's only a tool, not Crom's own instruction
manual.)

Politicians or activists (Gore, Hansen, etc.) take the worst case
scenario from that statement and omit the range (maybe adding 10 or
25% for good measure) then repeat the horrors via the media until it's
believed.

CO2 is killing the world, according to these folks, but they're still
backing the use of coal-fired electrical production at a cost of
billions of tons of CO2 annually. (Or was that weekly?)


In other words, people like you and me are stuck with evaluating secondary
sources. That runs against my grain, but there are many subjects about which
we can't do anything else. So now it becomes a matter of what experience we
have with different types of secondary sources.

We're likely to have only secondary sourcing to -most- things in life,
Ed. Sest lavvy, wot?

-- big snip--


In any case, the action, as far as I'm concerned, is in the mainstream
science. It's much more cautious and equivocal than you imply, although,
when it's boiled down to a single policy position and recommendations, it
falls strongly on the side of fairly high levels of danger resulting from
human-produced CO2. That's one of the problems with basing policy on
science: you only see the simplified conclusions, unless you make an effort
to see what they're saying when they have more space and time to discuss
their work.

Right, and that's why I've attempted to find and watch every video by
these scientists that I can find online during my research. The one I
won't watch is Algore's complete bull****, and it's one of the heavies
in the policymaking. Do you know how much he stands to earn in the
carbon credit scheme it it's introduced? Gee, I wonder if he thought
about that before making the movie...

But look at my example above and ask yourself "Is this policy being
based upon solid science, or is it politicized (being based upon a
trumped up scare derived from filtering science out and padding
figures, as in the specific examples by Hansen and our ex VP)?"


P.S: I find your discussion with piezoguy -quite- interesting. It
appears that you and I are not nearly as far apart as it would seem
when you're railing against my posts, Ed. Very interesting.

I'm not sure what parts you're focusing on but he's probably the only one
here who has a real understanding of modern, computer-based modelling, and
the vagueries of applying numerical values and mathematical equations to
complex events. Unfortunately he's an engineer and they tend to dismiss
anything that doesn't fall neatly within engineering parameters. d8-)

So I dismiss all scientists and you dismiss all engineers? What a
pair we are.

--
You can't do anything about the length of your life,
but you _can_ do something about its width and depth.
-- Evan Esar