Re: More Gore

On Tue, 27 May 2008 06:59:49 -0700 (PDT), "J.A. Legris"
<jalegris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 27, 9:05 am, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 05:55:48 -0700 (PDT), "J.A. Legris"



<jaleg...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 27, 6:45 am, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 27 mei, 01:50, John Fields <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 26 May 2008 15:46:01 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 26 mei, 18:48, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Bob Eld wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:
Al Gore is not the issue.

He's a significant part of it. By popularising outright lies, many people
now have
an entirely false idea of what's going on with climate.

Graham

Tell us Eeyore, what is going on with the climate. You seem to be the
expert.

What's going on with climate ?

It's in a state of continual natural change. Pure and simple. CO2 is a
sideshow.

Graham hasn't a clue, so he is convinced that nobody else has a clue
either.

---
PKB?

Probably not. Amongst the subjects that I had to study on the way to
getting my Ph.D. in physical chemistry were infra-red spectroscopy and
elementary quantum mechanics, so I do have some understanding of what
greenhouse gases do, and how they do it, and what "pressure
broadening" is and why it is important.

There are - of course - whole areas of climate science where I am
probably nearly as clueless as Eeyore, but at least I do know what CO2
does and how it does it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

And this is the crux of the matter. The only way to estimate the
effects of CO2 is through scientific investigation, and that is what's
being done, with some alarming results.

What's alarming is not scientific investigations, it's simulations,
and not very good ones. A bad simulation of a wildly chaotic system,
with unknown factors, and no experimental confirmation, is nonsense.
But it can be self-serving.

And even if humans are causing GW, it's not necessarily an unmitigated
disaster, and we're not going to do much about it. So relax.

John

Then why don't you impugn the rest of science and its methods?

Real science, with solid mathematical theory and experimental
verification, can't be impugned. GW sure can, because it's based on
unsupported simulations that, I've been told, don't even include the
effects of clouds.


Computer simulation is ubiquitous. Chaotic systems are everywhere.
What's so special about climate change?

Nothing special. Climate change simulation is just as chaotic as any
other poorly specified, energetic, strongly nonlinear system. Why
would it be special?



How is it that you, as an outsider to the relevant scientific
community (I presume), are qualified to comment on the quality of the
research? If your opinion rises above mere rhetoric then why haven't
you communicated it to the relevant journals? I guarantee that a
blanket indictment of their methods, inferences and conclusions would
be very big news - if you could support it.

The scientific community seems to be much more worried about GW that
you are. Who should we trust: a disorganized, more-or-less ignorant
subculture with various political axes to grind or a scientific
community that is professionally committed to scholarship, objectivity
and open discourse? Of course they're only human, and individually may
be as weak and corruptible as anyone else, but collectively they're
our best shot at getting to the truth.

There's too much money, too much power, and too much politics, and far
too little science, for the GW predictions not to be suspect.

Since, with uncooked data, there's been no warming for the last 10
years, and since now there's some prediction of a shift in ocean
currents causing more cooling in the next 10 years, we'll just have to
wait a while longer for the GW apocalypse. I suspect that the public
and political attention span will be exhausted long before then, and
some new cash cow will take over.


It's not necessarily an unmitigated disaster?? Forgive me if I'm not
necessarily mollified. This inspires a variation on Pascal's wager -
instead of believing in God because the possibility of eternal
punishment in hell outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise,
let's believe that GW is a lie because if we're right we can continue
trashing the environment without significant consequences and if we're
wrong there will be no one around to regret it.

Have you ever seen a single predicted consequence of GW that isn't a
disaster? They are extremely rare. So, why?

John


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How science is not done
    ... I looked through this voluminous report, which contains haundreds of graphs of measuerements of various temperatures and similar data, usually with trend lines usefully added, but not one of the graphs or tables showed the prediction of any model at all, and nor could I find any data whatsoever on the predictions of various models anywhere in the report. ... If you imagine a sphere around the Earth then by accounting for everything that comes in or goes out through that sphere you can compute the average temperature of the Earth. ... so climate science adheres to the first law of thermodynamics. ... Nevertheless, the earth warms and cools even without anthropogenic CO2; I haven't seen a climate science model that seems to work for the 19th Century, its not clear to me at all that climate science models the earth's climate even in the absence of anthropogenic CO2. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: How science is not done
    ... and not on the internet. ... successful predictions of climate science on the internet, ... SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE HAD AN ERROR OF +- 0.06 ... predictions of climate science with subsequent experimental results. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
    ... but that doesn't say anythihg about global warming. ... consistent relaible record of global temperatures over the last 100 years.. ... initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the ... They are useless because there is no evidence that their predictions are ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Climatological models was: More proof that global warming is a hoax ...
    ... had no electronics; I was working on an Interdata 70 with 32k of ... advanced but you are still under the impression that climate models ... enough computer power you make accurate predictions is naive to the ... inability to predict the already known is an act of faith, not science. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
    ... consistent relaible record of global temperatures over the last 100 years. ... initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the ... simplification chosen is a little too easy to be persuasive. ... They are useless because there is no evidence that their predictions are ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
Quantcast