Wrong!!!!!!
 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek

Wrong!!!!!!
 

Gilligan wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek



Now, also at that time, the SST contrails were supposed to plunge us
into an ice age, which is one of the reasons why Boeing dropped them
and only a pitiful handful of COncordes got built (and if you believe
that I have a nice bridge for sale here).

I recall cruelly setting my systems ecology students a tutorial topic
requiring them to reconcile the imminent ice age, the rising CO2 levels,
the looming nuclear winter, and the role of vulcanism and foraminifera
in biogeochemical homeostasis (about 1979).

The tutorial sessions were great fun. The general student conclusion was
that global climate prediction was not a happy lot, and that the
scientific prophets were all at sea (==mandatory sailing content). But
of course we have lotsa big computers now, so that's all right, and the
predictions must therefore be much more reliable and accurate. GIGO.

--

Flying Tadpole
----------------------------------
www.flyingtadpole.com
http://www.soundclick.com/flyingtadpole
http://music.download.com/timfatchen
http://music.download.com/internetopera

Wrong!!!!!!
 

Flying Tadpole wrote:

Gilligan wrote:
? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek
?
?
. But
of course we have lotsa big computers now, so that's all right, and the
predictions must therefore be much more reliable and accurate. GIGO.

Well things do change, Galileo was eventually proved correct (more or
less):

"The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global
cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus
that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the
tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data,
incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated
mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the
predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph
of communism."

Cheers
Marty

Wrong!!!!!!
 

Martin Baxter wrote:
Flying Tadpole wrote:
Gilligan wrote:
? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek

. But
of course we have lotsa big computers now, so that's all right, and the
predictions must therefore be much more reliable and accurate. GIGO.

Well things do change, Galileo was eventually proved correct (more or
less):


HA HA HA. Remember back in the 70's when scientists thought Pluto was a
planet? I mean, how can you take all this "earth revolves around the
sun" nonsense seriously when even the scientists themselves can't figure
out whether there are 8 or 9 or 11 or 53 planets. C'mon guys!

It's just ridiculous. And until they can get their story straight, I'll
continue to believe that the earth is flat. Stupid stupid stupid
scientists and that stupid liberal media that prints whatever stupid
stuff they say.

Fortunately we have usenet to tell us the truth.

//Walt

Wrong!!!!!!
 

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Martin Baxter wrote:
Flying Tadpole wrote:
Gilligan wrote:
? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek

. But
of course we have lotsa big computers now, so that's all right, and the
predictions must therefore be much more reliable and accurate. GIGO.

Well things do change, Galileo was eventually proved correct (more or
less):


HA HA HA. Remember back in the 70's when scientists thought Pluto was a
planet? I mean, how can you take all this "earth revolves around the sun"
nonsense seriously when even the scientists themselves can't figure out
whether there are 8 or 9 or 11 or 53 planets. C'mon guys!

It's just ridiculous. And until they can get their story straight, I'll
continue to believe that the earth is flat. Stupid stupid stupid
scientists and that stupid liberal media that prints whatever stupid stuff
they say.

Fortunately we have usenet to tell us the truth.

//Walt

Remember back in the 60's when all we had was stoopid slide rules?

Man went to the moon, Saturn V fly successfully every time. Designed with
slide rules and noisy analog computers.

Today, we have tremendous computing power, tremendous knowledge of
aeronautics. The space shuttle can only fly a few miles on earth, has killed
more astronauts than all other space vehicles combined and it sits on the
ground.

Haven't been to the moon since we stopped using slide rules.

It isn't the slide rules that killed space exploration.

It was simply the politization of science.

Unfortunately the politization of Science that feeds and growths the Global
Warming Myth may kill us all.

Wrong!!!!!!
 

Gilligan wrote:

Unfortunately the politization of Science that feeds and growths the Global
Warming Myth may kill us all.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kettle. We will give your opinions on the
politicization of science it's due regard.

//Walt

Wrong!!!!!!
 

Martin Baxter wrote:
Flying Tadpole wrote:
Gilligan wrote:
? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek
?
?
. But
of course we have lotsa big computers now, so that's all right, and the
predictions must therefore be much more reliable and accurate. GIGO.

Well things do change, Galileo was eventually proved correct (more or
less):

"The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global
cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus
that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the
tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data,
incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated
mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the
predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph
of communism."

Cheers
Marty

Which is a longer-winded way of saying "of course we have lotsa big
computers now, so that's all right, and the
predictions must therefore be much more reliable and accurate." To
which I add "GIGO" because, quite simply, the modelling is a multiple
generation extrapolation (model based on model output based on model
output) using a simply inadequate data base. Too short a time scale
with reliable data.

I was always intrigued when a former client demanded we stop using
simple analytical techniques, with confidence tests based on testable
null hypotheses, on their SO2 problem and start using a surface
modeller, where confidence tests were not applied in the strict sense
and where the model was a generator, not a tester of hypotheses. It was
fun, though, tweaking the various model parameters and treatments to
generate the reverse of what (our) independent observations were indicating.

I discovered, earlier this year, that the absolute best coastal models
applied by supposedly the best Oz modelling scientists could not cope
with longshore drift (==mandatory sailing content) because it was too
close to shore. These are the same people making a "significant global
contribution" to current climate modelling. Yeah. GIGO.

--

Flying Tadpole
----------------------------------
www.flyingtadpole.com

http://www.soundclick.com/flyingtadpole
http://music.download.com/timfatchen
http://music.download.com/internetopera

Wrong!!!!!!
 

Flying Tadpole wrote:

Martin Baxter wrote:

Well things do change, Galileo was eventually proved correct (more or
less):

"The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global
cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus
that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the
tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data,
incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated
mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the
predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph
of communism."
Cheers
Marty


Which is a longer-winded way of saying "of course we have lotsa big
computers now, so that's all right, and the
predictions must therefore be much more reliable and accurate." To
which I add "GIGO" because, quite simply, the modelling is a multiple
generation extrapolation (model based on model output based on model
output) using a simply inadequate data base. Too short a time scale
with reliable data.

Agree that the predictive models are not at all reliable. It's what's
called a "stiff" problem - small changes in input values produce large
changes in output. Weather is that way, and will probably always be
that way.

It's like trying to predict the exact path of a superball bouncing down
a ten story stairwell. Sorry, but the biggest computers in the world
and all the sophisticated models won't produce much in the way of
predictive accuracy. Anybody who tries to tell you that they can
exactly predict the path is putting you on.

That said, you can bet your sweet ass that if you give the ball a little
shove it's going to go down, not stay where it is.

The earth's getting warmer. There is no real debate about that. You can
argue "why", if you like, but the data are in. And I think we both
agree that predicting exactly what is going to happen as a result of the
elevated temperatures is tenuous at best.

//Walt

Wrong!!!!!!
 

Flying Tadpole wrote:
Martin Baxter wrote:
Flying Tadpole wrote:
Gilligan wrote:
? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek
?
?
. But
of course we have lotsa big computers now, so that's all right, and the
predictions must therefore be much more reliable and accurate. GIGO.

Well things do change, Galileo was eventually proved correct (more or
less):

"The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global
cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus
that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the
tools scientists have at their disposal now-vastly more data,
incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated
mathematical models-render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the
predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph
of communism."

Cheers
Marty

Which is a longer-winded way of saying "of course we have lotsa big
computers now, so that's all right, and the
predictions must therefore be much more reliable and accurate." To
which I add "GIGO" because, quite simply, the modelling is a multiple
generation extrapolation (model based on model output based on model
output) using a simply inadequate data base. Too short a time scale
with reliable data.

I was always intrigued when a former client demanded we stop using
simple analytical techniques, with confidence tests based on testable
null hypotheses, on their SO2 problem and start using a surface
modeller, where confidence tests were not applied in the strict sense
and where the model was a generator, not a tester of hypotheses. It was
fun, though, tweaking the various model parameters and treatments to
generate the reverse of what (our) independent observations were indicating.

I discovered, earlier this year, that the absolute best coastal models
applied by supposedly the best Oz modelling scientists could not cope
with longshore drift (==mandatory sailing content) because it was too
close to shore. These are the same people making a "significant global
contribution" to current climate modelling. Yeah. GIGO.

Can you send me the ref on that? Hotmail addy works. I'm interested in
this stuff tho I haven't really been following the field in the last 25
years - more interested in dealing with the 'GI' part of the problem.
With qualified success, I might add (modestly).... pity about the sea
surface temps of 99999 I found yesterday in historic data (ie before my
time).

I agree with the GIGO bit and I supply the modellers with data. In fact
I ran a query the other day for one of the ocean modellers extracting
sea surface temperature blocked by 1 deg lat/lon grid by day for a big
chunk of the Southern Ocean. Interesting in that the timeline is waay
too short to show trends, if indeed there are trends to show. Classic
S/N problem. One of these days I'd like to give up my current role and
go back to playing with data but the money & fringe bennies are too
good ATM.

I'm sort of thinking on building an accurate micro scale data set on
the bay where I live. I'm 90% sure there's a gyre trapping nutrients
from a fish farm just north of us. Hard to explain the algal blooms any
other way - very low runoff, not much agriculture and very few people,
all on reasonable bits of land with septic systems. If I ever finish
building I'm gonna have a good look at what's happening. Meanwhile I'm
building an cough unapproved structure blocking the longshore drift
which has the twin benefits of providing me with my own personal beach
and helping keep the creek mouth open, not burying the oyster covered
rocks.

Thankx, PDW

Wrong!!!!!!
 

"Walt" wrote in message
...


The earth's getting warmer. There is no real debate about that. You can
argue "why", if you like, but the data are in. And I think we both agree
that predicting exactly what is going to happen as a result of the
elevated temperatures is tenuous at best.


For how much longer is it going to get warmer?

How does on define "the temperature of the earth"?