Al Gore's Private Jet

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ps.com...

I claim to understand the _modeling_ process, not the
details of their models. Modeling any phenomena is a
complex business. Models that are over-parameterized can
fit just about anything. Models that extrapolate, especially
time series phenomena, are doubly suspect. Models that
deliberately choose sub-sets of data to fit and ignore the
entire data available to them better have a good justification
if they're not to be dismissed as a put-up job.

I'd say the GW models are over parameterized, attempt
ambitious extrapolation, and have a track record of
dismissing data that they can't account for (like that in
the medieval warming period).

In all the GW models, none, zero, zilch, nada... when run in reverse even
remotely models the present or past.

That's a standard test of a model.

Not one GW "scientist" has ever done a public test in that manner.

One dude, though, threw a fit when asked to show his data nad methods, that
was paid for by the taxpayer. Oddly, THAT form of politicalization is never
mentioned in the MSM.

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

politicalization

http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzz...ve-2007#item01

BTW, Tony, what about this post from Barrow?

============================

Regarding the environmentalists' concern over CO2, here are some facts
nobody argues with:


1. Atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi (pounds/in./in.).


2. Earth's radius is about 4,000 miles.


3. CO2 constituted about 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere in 1950--.


4. CO2 now constitutes more like 0.06 per cent of the atmosphere.


From #2 we calculate that the Earth's surface area is 0.8 billion billion

square inches. And from #1 that the atmosphere weighs 11.9 billion billion
pounds. This is 6 million billion tons. Now take fact #3; 0.04 per cent is
2,400 billion tons of CO2. Half (the change since 1950) is 1,200 billion
tons. Let's call this fact #5:



5. There were 2,400 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950; 3,600
billion tons now, give or take a psi or two--.



6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.

[eh?]

7. Non-human activity (oceans, trees, Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.) releases
200 billion tons of CO2 per year--.



Now compare fact #5 with fact #6. Simple division tells you that if every
molecule of human-released CO2 at the current rate of production stayed in
the atmosphere, it would take another 200 years for the post-1950 change to
be matched. Or looking at it backward, since minus 200 years takes us back
to before the Industrial Revolution, it means that if every CO2 molecule
from every factory, car, steam engine, barbecue, campfire, and weenie roast
that ever was since the first liberal climbed down out of a tree right up
until today was still in the atmosphere. It still wouldn't account for the
change in CO2 since 1950.



Fact #7 has been going on for a long time, a lot longer than any piddling
200 years. Comparing #5 and #7 means it takes about 12 yearsfor the average
CO2 molecule to be recycled back out of the atmosphere.



Given the above, here are some conclusions that nobody can argue with and
still claim to be a reasoning creatu



8. Human activity, carried out at the present rate indefinately (more than
12 years) cannot possibly account for more than 6 per cent of the observed
change in CO2 levels.



9. Entirely shutting off civilizationor even killing everybodycould only
have a tiny effect on global warming, if there is any such thing--.



That leaves two questions that no one knows how to answer:



Q-1. Why do all these supposedly educated, supposedly sane people want to
end civilization?



Q-2. Since humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up, isn't
it time to start wondering about what is?



L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

========================

On 9 Apr 2007 20:21:55 -0700, "Tony Cox" wrote:

Well, the warming in Northern Europe during the 13th century is
very well documented. It is hard to imagine this phenomena
being localized. You're saying it couldn't be global because the
sea level didn't rise? That seems to be a reach.

Sea levels did not rise much during the Medieval Warming because we
have pretty much run out of potential rise. Even if all the glaciers
other than the central Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets melt, plus
the expansion we could get from thermal expansion of the oceans with
the IPCC worst case 11 degree F temperature air temperature rise,
seas could rise by only about a meter. That's all there is, at that
point the rise would stop.

The Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets could add another 7 and 65
meters respectively, but are all above the snow line and will never
melt at the predicted temperatures. Melting them would require a
temperature rise of 68 degrees F. No model predicts that, and if it
should happen, rising seas would be the least of our worries.

Both actually GAIN ice at current and predicted temperatures and
after we run out of rise, sea levels will gradually fall as ice
accumulates in Antarctica.

Don

"Dan Luke" wrote:
BTW, Tony, what about this post from Barrow?

============================

Regarding the environmentalists' concern over CO2, here are some facts
nobody argues with:
[...]
5. There were 2,400 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950;
3,600 billion tons now, give or take a psi or two--.

6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.

7. Non-human activity (oceans, trees, Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.)
releases 200 billion tons of CO2 per year--.

Now compare fact #5 with fact #6. Simple division tells you that if
every molecule of human-released CO2 at the current rate of production
stayed in the atmosphere, it would take another 200 years for the
post-1950 change to be matched.

The evidence is clear that something is wrong with the above claims.

The ratio of carbon isotopes C-12, C-13, and C-14 found in fossil fuels and
the ocean are known and provide tell-tale "signatures". The ratio of those
carbon isotopes in the atmosphere have been measured with respect to time
and the isotopic evidence indicates the increase of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is most probably due to the burning of fossil fuels.

(The first person to use isotopic ratios to determine the source of
atmospheric carbon dioxide was Hans Suess as far back as 1955. In
particular, the dilution of C-14 due to fossil fuels is known as the Suess
Effect.)

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .


The evidence is clear that something is wrong with the above claims.

Some girls came to my door last night selling candy to save the Panda's from
Global Warming. (true)

Should I have bought some?

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
"Tony Cox" wrote:
I'd say the GW models are over parameterized, attempt
ambitious extrapolation, and have a track record of
dismissing data that they can't account for (like that in
the medieval warming period).

In all the GW models, none, zero, zilch, nada... when run in reverse
even remotely models the present or past.

That's a standard test of a model.

Which models are you claiming fail this test?

Not one GW "scientist" has ever done a public test in that manner.

Male bovine fecal matter. Not only do they try to run tests with historical
initial conditions and compare with historical observations, but Hansen ran
his climate models 20 years ago and within the range of experimental error
the temperatures observed over that period are rising as his model
predicted:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf

By the way, Hansen's 1988 source code (along with newer versions) is
available by following the links from this page:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/

One dude, though, threw a fit when asked to show his data nad methods,
that was paid for by the taxpayer. Oddly, THAT form of
politicalization is never mentioned in the MSM.

I presume you mean Micheal Mann, co-author of the paper "Global-scale
temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries.
Nature 392:779–87" by Mann, Hughes and Bradley. The source code for that
was eventually released. Several problems were found with the code.

And if you do a Google search for "source code" and "climate" "model" you
should find enough hits to keep you busy for a while.

"Tony Cox" wrote:
I claim to understand the _modeling_ process, not the
details of their models. Modeling any phenomena is a
complex business.

If you know the difference between an initial-value problem and a boundary-
value problem then you understand the difference between climate modeling
and weather modeling. If not, then it is because you have not had training
in a physical science, differential equations, and numerical analysis.

To make an analogy using aviation content, predicting weather is like
predicting the details of the formation of turbulent flow over an airframe.
It's very sensitive to initial conditions. On the other hand, predicting
climate is like predicting the stall angle of a wing. The specific details
of the turbulent flow are not vital to determining the answer - because the
stall angle is a macro averaged effect.

Another analogy sometimes used is boiling a pot of water over a fire.
Predicting weather is like predicting when and where a bubble will form in
that pot. Predicting climate is like predicting how long the water will
take to boil off - or (trivially) what the average temperature of the water
is during the boil.

A good model makes predictions that can be tested.
One that I know of -- predicting increasing temperatures
in the stratosphere -- it has apparently failed. The others involve
climate variation which can't be measured until after
the proponents have conveniently retired. This
doesn't give one much confidence.

Um, Dr. James Hansen is not yet retired. How do you account for the
correlation between observations and the temperature changes his model
predicted some 20 years ago?

"Steve Foley" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .


The evidence is clear that something is wrong with the above claims.

Some girls came to my door last night selling candy to save the
Panda's from Global Warming. (true)

Should I have bought some?

Only if you like that candy and the price is reasonable.

Just beware pan-handling pandas who try to bamboozle you.
;-)

Some girls came to my door last night selling candy to save the Panda's from
Global Warming. (true)

Should I have bought some?

Maybe you could have traded the superfluous apostrophe for some candy.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.