On 29 May 2006 08:13:13 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Jack Goff wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2006 23:41:45 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
Therefore, unlike your circuit
simulator, there is no way to check the output of their climate
simulator against real-world results to verify its accuracy.

So we've apparently misplaced all records of the past?

Of course not. But those records are woefully incomplete to enable an
accurate model to be constructed. How many weather satellites did we
have 100 years ago?

Maybe they didn't have weather satellites then, but they had weather.
They also had people quite competent in keeping data.

They sure did. Unfortunately, the instruments they used were crude
compared to today's, and many measurements needed weren't made because
the science to allow their measurement didn't exist.


You seem to be thinking that climate is like an NPN transistor. It's
not. Think of a black box with 200 inputs and 10 outputs. We know
what the ouputs are, and can measure them. We know what most of the
inputs are, and are pretty sure about the rest. It's reasonable to
assume that there's a few that we don't know about, and may never
know. Of the inputs we understand, we've just recently identified and
have been able to measure many of them (in the climate timeline scheme
of things). We've seen that there is a huge time lag inside of this
box, sometimes years, sometimes decades. Finally, we have virtually
no control of any of the inputs, so we can't change just one and
observe the outputs. Most of the inputs are totally out of our
control, and are constantly changing. So once again, unlike your
simple circuit on the bench, the climate computer model can not be
verified against the real world.

So answer this, Rick. As previously discussed, weather models can't
tell us with any decent accuracy what it will be like in 5 days. Are
you really telling me that you believe a climate model's prediction
for 94 years into the future?

Flawed analogy. Very flawed. the model for recent events (5 days in
your case is much more detailed and refined than the 94 year model. The
more detailed and the more refined a model is, the more instances of
error. Ergo, while a 5 day model might not be accurate in your eyes, if
it were the same detail as the 94 year model, it would be spot on.

No more flawed than the logic you just used. Weather is *simple*
compared to climate. Point is that we can't predict something
relatively simple for a short 5 day window, but you expect to be able
to predict something extremely complex for a 100 YEAR window?

I can predict our climate 5 days from now... barring a huge meteor
impact, it'll be virtually the exact same as today's. The meteor
points out one of the problem with climate prediction... we don't know
what we don't know. No matter how you dress it up, any prediction
from the experts is no better than a guess. Maybe in another hundred
years, we'll get better at it. Or maybe we'll be extinct.

No one knows. :-)

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...


No more flawed than the logic you just used. Weather is *simple*
compared to climate.

Actually, I've read numerous articles about the concept of "complex
systems". In all the things I've read, two examples were used to illustrate:
the weather, and massive computer programming tasks.

On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:06:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
.. .


No more flawed than the logic you just used. Weather is *simple*
compared to climate.

Actually, I've read numerous articles about the concept of "complex
systems". In all the things I've read, two examples were used to illustrate:
the weather, and massive computer programming tasks.


Correct. That's why even 5-day forecasts are often inaccurate. Then
when you realize that "Weather is *simple* compared to climate", it
makes the concept of accurate 100 year climate predictions seem
totally ludicrous!

Jack

This has been fun, but I have to finish cutting the tile for our
master bath. The wife just *had* to have it laid diagonally, and the
tile is 18", and the room is fairly "cut up" with some walls at a 45,
so my hands are full. It was a good excuse to buy a bridge tile saw!

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:06:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. ..


No more flawed than the logic you just used. Weather is *simple*
compared to climate.

Actually, I've read numerous articles about the concept of "complex
systems". In all the things I've read, two examples were used to
illustrate:
the weather, and massive computer programming tasks.


Correct. That's why even 5-day forecasts are often inaccurate. Then
when you realize that "Weather is *simple* compared to climate", it
makes the concept of accurate 100 year climate predictions seem
totally ludicrous!

Jack

In any case, I'm absolutely 100% positive that you are correct. Based on
your research, humans do not, and never will have any effect on the
environment. This has all been a hoax perpetrated on the world by companies
who make green ink, the most popular color in the mass mailing sent out by
environmental groups.

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human
activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a
fanatic?

I don't believe you can explain to me how the thought process which
brought
you to this question is any different from the one used to pass the
PATRIOT
Act and other such "Al-Qaeda-is-under-your-bed" legislation, but it will
be
entertaining for me to watch you try.

Have at it, sir.


Which part of my question do you not understand?

Fruitz like to say that scientists who believe certain global warming
theories are fanatics. (He may even consider them socialists, but I don't
remember. He tosses that word around to describe everything including the
glides attached to the bottom of chair legs). Anyway...onward: If a number
of scientists come up with absolute proof of certain global warming
theories, Fruitz will now need to admit that some of all of the researchers
were NOT fanatics. But, how? Are they fanatics until proof of their theories
exists? Are they fanatics even if they're proven to be correct? Are some of
them still fanatics, but not all? Which ones?

There are other fields of research which Fruitz has no interest in at the
moment. Within those endeavors are scientists who believe strongly in their
theories, whether they involve cancer research or creating a better roof
shingle. If their enthusiasm is precisely equal to that of people studying
global warming, are these scientists also fanatics?

"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:34:36 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Explain the increase in Mars' temperature.

Explain the direct relationship between Martian weather and the
Earth's weather.

Ummm, they share a primary source of heat?

That's right, there is none.

Noone who would start their argument from such a position of ignorance is
worth my time.

Sadly though, as a testament to the poor science/logic/math education
that we have given to many of our students, this is an all too often
repeated talking point.

OK, which of these statements is false:

1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.

2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.


You're correct. Changes in the sun will be seen on both planets, perhaps
even at levels which are proportionate. This proves that humans have no
effect on the environment. Right?

RIGHT? Yes, or no?

Jack Goff wrote:

Of course not. But those records are woefully incomplete to enable an
accurate model to be constructed. How many weather satellites did we
have 100 years ago?

You seem to be thinking that climate is like an NPN transistor. It's
not. Think of a black box with 200 inputs and 10 outputs. We know
what the ouputs are, and can measure them. We know what most of the
inputs are, and are pretty sure about the rest. It's reasonable to
assume that there's a few that we don't know about, and may never
know. Of the inputs we understand, we've just recently identified and
have been able to measure many of them (in the climate timeline scheme
of things). We've seen that there is a huge time lag inside of this
box, sometimes years, sometimes decades. Finally, we have virtually
no control of any of the inputs, so we can't change just one and
observe the outputs. Most of the inputs are totally out of our
control, and are constantly changing. So once again, unlike your
simple circuit on the bench, the climate computer model can not be
verified against the real world.

So answer this, Rick. As previously discussed, weather models can't
tell us with any decent accuracy what it will be like in 5 days. Are
you really telling me that you believe a climate model's prediction
for 94 years into the future?

Jack

While historical data is admittedly incomplete that doesn't
make it useless nor is accurate 94 year extrapolation
necessary for model utility. Obviously the methodology
differs from fields where controlled experiments are
practical, a limitation not unique to climatology.

Where I live the five day forecasts are pretty good these
days, much better than they were a decade ago.

"All models are wrong, some are useful".

-rick-

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for climate
change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further enhances my
statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of mine.

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate
change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further enhances
my
statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

The fact that you don't "believe" this is no concern of mine.

jps


Hang on a minute. Let's say you have a small garden that produces certain
predictable results for a number of years. Now, you build a greenhouse over
that garden, and continue growing the exact same things you did before. Are
you suggesting that things MIGHT go differently with the greenhouse in
place? If that's what you're saying, you'd better be prepared to back it up
with links like crazy.

Sean Corbett wrote:
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...

There is no such evidence that human activity is responsible for
climate change.

Well, I should have known I was talking with a flat earth proponent.

Replying with personal attacks rather than any evidence further
enhances my statement.

The problem for you is that you think we all "believe" when, in fact,
that's not our currency.

Our currency is evidence.

Then present some.

The fact that the sun heats both planets does not preclude that we've
messing with the earth's atmosphere. When you change a system as
integral to the earth's condition as its atmosphere, it's going to
produce change.

Present evidence of the change, and that human activity is causal of that
change.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...489955,00.html
Which starts out:
The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by
human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in
the world's oceans.



The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an
average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be
explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new
research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about
the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study
said yesterday

And he http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm
Which starts out:
Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made
greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The
researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they
describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean
temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within
the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural
phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to
the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said:
"We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a
global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about
it?"