Excellent Post from Mark and Bruno that highlights this Global Warming debate.
But you are spitting against the wind with Jed. There is no reasoning with him
as he has already made up his mind.
In Jed's mind, AGW definitely occurs and it is going to result in a Huge
Environmental Catastrophe. Why how could it not be so - a bunch of "experts"
said so; and these experts definitely do not fudge their data. (Even when they
have been caught red-handed fudging the data.) Why, a bunch of "Experts" on
the web have documented all the bad bad bad effects of global warming, so it
definitely is true. Forget the reality, forget all the facts, the experts have
spoken, therefore it must be true. I have a name for that blind adherence ----
It's called Religion. At least I do not pretend that my beliefs are based on
faith - a religion.. Jed still think he is objective. LOL.....
So Jed, you are so convinced about the truth of Darwinian Evolution. Answer my
question. Have you read Darwin's "The origin of Species" and "The Descent of
Man". Maybe after you read it, you will come to realize the fantasy that
Darwin has foisted on you. LOL...
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 4:35 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I tend to agree with Bruno's statement:
". how do climatologists do this, bearing in mind that the results should
take thousands of years to appear? They test their hypothesis in computer
models, which are not quite the same thing as the reality yet."
During grad school I worked at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the
University of Nevada System under Dr. James W Telford,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&as_sauthors=Telford,+James+W
His expertise was cloud microphysics and atmospheric instrumentation;
although most of his papers were theoretical in nature, he also made
contributions to instrumentation. And the reason for his work on
instrumentation goes to the point of Bruno's statement. Dr. Telford's main
complaint about GCMs (global climate models) is that they were way too
simplistic, and did not have enough real-world data about some key elements at
work in the atmosphere with cloud and surface albedo. There are numerous GCMs,
and many are prone to a very wide range of outcomes depending on very small
'adjustments' in the variables. Just how good the current models are is
definitely a debatable issue. Telford designed, built and then flew his
instrumentation on aircraft thru clouds to get real-world data to help him
validate his theoretical models for cumulus clouds. He always was skeptical of
trying to model things on a global scale. Current science is still working on
understanding enough of what happens in the atmosphere to generate accurate
models. but one is still faced with the fact that Bruno brought up. that all
the models in the world are at best only a guideline when we don't have enough
detailed historical data, AND accurate details of all the processes at work
which affect the atmosphere, AND secondary and tertiary effects which have not
been anticipated, AND accurate data over the relevant timeframe of hundreds or
even thousands of years with which to test the models. Perhaps scientists will
discover ways to tease out some of those details by creative means, like
looking at CO2 levels in ice cores, but there are still very significant
unknowns which make it difficult to build accurate global models.
Point. I just read a recent paper on this topic and nearly every sentence of
the quoted scientists' had at least one variety of weasel-word (like the word
'could', or 'might'). As I have said in a previous post today, and a number
of times over the years, a good scientist is VERY careful about the words they
use. and there's a reason for that.
-Mark
From: Bruno Santos [mailto:besantos1...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I read the literature. That is why I know that what you state is wrong. And
for two reasons:
1 - Insurance companies and epidemiologists have good, reliable data.
Climatologists don't. It is not their fault, is it just impossible to have good
data on the large periods of time required to study planets climates. You see,
just a few decades of reliable data isn't enough when we know that the climate
changes in scale of thousands of years.
2 - When an insurance company gathers all information, they can test their
hypothesis with what happens in the real world and see if it works. That is how
you know that smoking makes a difference in people's lifespans, but other
things don't. Epidemiologists can test on actual living beings how diseases
spread. Now, tell me, how do climatologists do this, bearing in mind that the
results should take thousands of years to appear? They test their hypothesis in
computer models, which are not quite the same thing as the reality yet.
Large, complex phenomena are easier to study when it is based on the law of
the large numbers. That is precisely what happens with insurance and
epidemiology, but not with climate. There is no reality check in climate. Those
predictions based on large number of (bad) data are tested on scenarios that
are in a computer.
I am an economist, and we have the same problem. We do have good prediction
models, they are quite sophisticated, but not totally reliable. Otherwise, one
would not see economic crisis, economic downturns nor unemployment. And I am
pretty sure that economic data is far more accurate than climate ones.
Economists cannot test hypothesis in a lab. Neither can climatologists.
But that was not even my point. I believe that anthropic global warming is
possible, even probable. I just don't care, because the alternative, poverty,
is far worse.
2012/7/30 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Bruno Santos <besantos1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do we have a climatologist here? That would help the debate.
It would help if people would first read a credible, expert account of global
warming theory!
However, I have to say that I have my doubts when it comes to predictions
by these experts. You see, we do not have any credible scientific model for
weather prediction that works for periods longer than a week . . .
I do not like to be harsh, but that is a prime example of a mistake made by
an amateur critic who has not read the literature. You completely misunderstand
the technical issue. What you are saying is similar to this assertion:
"Life insurance companies have actuarial tables predicting how long a person
is likely to live, based on present age, sex, the person's weight, whether he
or she smokes and other factors.
However, a life insurance agent cannot tell me whether I will live another 20
years. I might be run over by a bus tomorrow. I might die of cancer next year.
Therefore, life insurance is a scam. They pretend they can predict the
future, but they cannot."
Needless to say, that is nonsense. You can predict the remaining lifespan of
a large group of people, even though it is impossible to predict the lifespan
of any given individual. Large scale complex events involving many elements are
sometimes more predictable than individual events with fewer causes and less
complex causes. That is counter-intuitive but it happens with many natural
phenomena, including climate, epidemiology and so on.
- Jed
