Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?


<fredfighter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1181323708.196880.85710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 4, 1:49 am, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


How can youcalibratethe models without data?

You cannot.

Hmmm.

Nor can you calibrate a model with data from outside the
range of applicability of the model.

And how do you know the the applicability of the model is valid? That is,
how do you know the design of the model isn't being driven by the available
data?

We have good data going back for about a century and
fair data for a century before that. Farther back, conditions
become considerably less certain, and what is known
indicates that there were pretty different.

Just as important is the quality of the data. For example, what happened to
a lot of the monitoring stations, particularly those in cold areas, that
were paid for by the Soviet Union? They shut down, of course. I've seen a
nice graph recently that shows a correlation between increasing global
temperatures and the *decreasing* number of monitoring stations. For those
On A Mission to promote global warming hysteria, a simple average of the
temperatures taken from all the stations would show an increase in average
temperature. While the data is valid, of course, the conclusion would not
be, because of the inherent bias of the data. To get good data would require
money and time, and the True Believers don't want to spend either because
they already Know The Truth and don't need any evidence.

Also, while obviously if you go back in geological time, climate would be
substantially different. We don't need data from the time of the first
anaerobic bacteria to make valid conclusions for today's climate. But the
last few thousand years? The climate can't be all that different. In order
to determine change, you need to set a baseline. I can show that the Earth
is currently *cooling*, if I choose the right base year. In fact, a few
decades ago the True Believers were trying to scare us about the coming *ice
age*, due in part to excess carbon dioxide emissions.

What do you infer from that?

You've been thinking.

All along. You only just now paid attention.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: explain this
    ... The Warming Earth Blows Hot, Cold and Chaotic - Subtle Rises in Temperature ... to rank 2008 based on world-wide land and sea-surface temperatures through ... The U.S. Climate Change Science Program analyzed North America's climate ... climate records for the last 56 years and, in a report released last month, ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: Global warming test
    ... When temperatures rise, air is able to absorb MORE moisture, ... Why yes they do.....not much Co2 action going on in the ... We are discussing CLIMATE here. ... You are buying into this 'global temp' ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: OT: Bushs War
    ... Presents a graph tracking CO2 levels and global temperatures during the ... Never confronts a key implication of its assumption that climate is highly ... Neglects to mention that global warming could reduce the severity of ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
    ... global temperatures have actually fallen in the last few years? ... So how do you explain that the global warming model makers had to tweak ... relevant ocean currents and temperatures to nail down exactly what is ... initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Six Steps to Hell (or Happy Fucking Earth Day)
    ... according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ... Six thousand years ago, when temperatures were ... As global warming bites, the western US ... globally warming methane and carbon dioxide in immense quantities. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
Quantcast