http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_monsoon-2012-is-it-the-worst-in-six-decades_1722413
Monsoon 2012: Is it the worst in six decades? This is a predicted result of global warming. Then this is a secondary consequence of global warming… 10% of the world’s populations lose power, water, and transportation for days. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?_r=1&hp *2nd Day of Power Failures Cripples Wide Swath of India* Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Good post Mark. > > I have heard that the global climate models have a multitude of variables > that are not defined by real life processes or that assume clearly > inaccurate initial values when tied to know processes. Most of us have > used curve fitting programs in the past and know that you can get a perfect > fit with enough variables to work with. We can then brag about how well > our curve matches the data. > > The problem occurs when we attempt to project this perfect curve fitted > function into the future. It is not uncommon at all for the inaccuracies > to build up exponentially with time since our model is not based > correctly. It is my understanding that this is what occurs when the > climate models are projected. I read somewhere that they intentionally > limit the time frames and rerun the models after a moderately short time > lapse to keep its projections within reason. Apparently we have been > experiencing a modest cooling period worldwide (relative to expectations) > that could not be explained by the models but the guys running them tend > to keep that quiet. > > Also, the effect of clouds has been a dog for them to incorporate into the > models in a way that makes sense. Further complicate this by the results > of the Cloud experiment performed by CERN and you realize that these models > are toys. > > We need to think long and hard about our response to the warming trend > before we condemn many of the worlds poor to harsh conditions and prevent > them from achieving an acceptable life stile. I am not ready to accept the > verdict of scientists that depend upon government funds for support without > far stronger proof. The statement that the science is settled should > ruffle everyone's feathers. This is total nonsense and any scientist that > makes such a statement is ignorant. Just consider how many of the laws of > physics have been modified and over turned over the years. > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 4:36 am > 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<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 > > >
