Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!

From: ošin (ošin_at_ragnarok.com)
Date: 01/30/05 

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:24:34 -0800

> Note that your previous comment above is concerning climate *models*,
> which have been extensively tested in this way. Their forecasts hardly
> depend on initial conditions, so if their design and construction is at
> all reasonable in the first place, the same must be true of reality.

Amazing... I am wondering where to start in figuring ot the source of your
problem here... Lets start with this question: What do you think initial
conditions mean in any computer model? If a computer model simulates a real
system, it has to start the simulation with data that represents the real
system at a given starting point in time. For example, the current
concentration of CO2 (along with hundreds of others parameters) would have
to be known to allow any greenhouse system simulation to make valid
predictions. If you cannot get that, there is no point in talking about
further.

> Furthermore, (model) climate is fundamentally defined as the statistics of
> an infinite duration integration under steady boundary conditions.

The above is meaningless in any mathematical sense. Yu are trying to sound
like what you think sounds scientific and authoritative, but anyone who
knows anything about this topic can instantly tell that you are blowing
methane out your ass. Can you tell me what on earth you mean by the phrase
"infinite duration integration"? Are you actually talking about an integral
of some sort? And do you have a clue what could possibly be meant by "steady
boundary conditions"? Do you mean boundary conditions that are constant? Or
boundary conditions that are in a steady state? The real boundary conditions
of global climate do not jibe with either of those interpretations. A steady
state system is one in which a specific parameter does not change but
requires energy to be consumed to maintain it's equilibrium. This concept is
typical of living organisms in homeostasis, but I cannot imagine how this
meaning could make sense in your comments above. Another meaning of steady
state is a theory in cosmology that is an alternative to the big bang
theory, but I am sure that can not be what you are referring to. So what do
you mean by that? I can tell you that climate is not steady state.

> For relating the models to the real world, there is always the issue of
> how steady a state we are talking about (eg do we take account of slow
> changes in ice sheets?) as I mentioned in another post. But for the global
> warming questions, the physics of the atmosphere and upper ocean are
> probably the only bits that matter to first order (some might include some
> carbon cycle dynamics in there).

My god you are lost...

Quantcast