On 26 May 2006 10:47:52 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Now, remember, I never said that human activity is wholly responsible
for global warming.



That the earth is currently experiencing a small upswing in temps is
pretty much an undeniable fact.

What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts"
trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell,
the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from
now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to
*climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions?

Jack

Jack Goff wrote:
On 26 May 2006 10:47:52 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:



Now, remember, I never said that human activity is wholly responsible
for global warming.




That the earth is currently experiencing a small upswing in temps is
pretty much an undeniable fact.

What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts"
trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell,
the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from
now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to
*climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions?

Jack


It bothers me that people who are refered to as "scientists" (I don't
know if they call themselves that) treat the results of modelling
experiments like they were real data.

I bothers me that people with political agendas can ignore the simple
fact that the sun is responsible for pretty much all of climate
everywhere in the solar system (there are ecosystems in deep sea vents
that do not rely on the sun but they don't really have anything you
would call climate). So an overactive sun at a time when you'd expect
sunspots to at a minimum might be interesting to look at - but anyone
who tries is mocked and accused of being in bed with Exxon or Mobile.

It bothers me that some Australian "Environmentalist", with a book to
sell, comes to my country and tells us that the polar bears are drowning
and will be extinct in 25 years and he makes the front page of every
paper and "no polar bears in 25 years" becomes an accepted fact and a
greenie mantra. When a polar bear biologist from Iqualuit says the
Aussie is full of beans, his words only make the Op Ed page.

I attended my first lecture on global warming in my second year
university in 1985 (back then we called it "the greenhouse effect").
The learned professor displayed the results of the models in graphs and
maps. The predictions he made then haven't changed much in 26 years,
but the dates that these events are to happen sure has. Back then,
there would be no Maldives by 1997 (the Maldives did almost vanish in
2004 but the tsunami was NOT caused by climate change). Much of the
Eastern Seaboard was gone by now. The millions of people displaced by
rising sea levels have started numerous conflicts by now. Forgive me if
I'm a little cynical, but in 26 years NOTHING he predicted has happened.

I'm not saying we should go around polluting as much as possible. I'm
just saying that that there's a lot of bull**** passing itself off a
science these days. My theory is that it is caused by too many people
being university educated (and thus call themselves "scientists")
without being really smart.

On a happier on topic note, I think we are FINALLY going to launch the
boat tomorrow. Whew!

Stella

"Black Dog" wrote in message
.. .

I bothers me that people with political agendas can ignore the simple fact
that the sun is responsible for pretty much all of climate everywhere in
the solar system......

That's an interesting comment. Are you referring to non-politicians and
non-scientists who have simply chosen to believe one theory or another?

Black Dog wrote:
On a happier on topic note, I think we are FINALLY going to launch the
boat tomorrow. Whew!

Stella


That's my plan too!

Black Dog wrote:

It bothers me that people who are refered to as "scientists" (I don't
know if they call themselves that) treat the results of modelling
experiments like they were real data.

That's not at all accurate in my experience. Having spent
most of a career designing circuits by simulation I can
assure you it is obvious that simulations are only as good
as the associated models. Models are developed and
qualified by comparing their behavior to actual
measurements. There is even an old saying that serves as a
warning "simulation is a lot like masturbation, if you do it
enough it starts to feel like the real thing."

-rick-

On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:38:28 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Black Dog wrote:

It bothers me that people who are refered to as "scientists" (I don't
know if they call themselves that) treat the results of modelling
experiments like they were real data.

That's not at all accurate in my experience. Having spent
most of a career designing circuits by simulation I can
assure you it is obvious that simulations are only as good
as the associated models. Models are developed and
qualified by comparing their behavior to actual
measurements. There is even an old saying that serves as a
warning "simulation is a lot like masturbation, if you do it
enough it starts to feel like the real thing."

-rick-

If by "circuits" you mean electronic circuits, that's a whole
different kettle of fish. Electronic circuit simulators are a
well-developed, fairly mature technology. Even RF circuits can be
modeled fairly accurately. These simulators have the advantage that
you point out... "Models are developed and qualified by comparing
their behavior to actual measurements."

Simulating and modeling climate change 94 years in the future does not
have that advantage. Scientist have no test climate that they can
introduce variables into, and no time machine to travel 94 years into
the future to measure the results. 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.

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 for 94 years into the future?

Jack

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?

"-rick-" wrote in message
...
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?

If that's convenient, then yes.

If you push hard enough, you'll find that behind some peoples'
interpretation of the science we have at the moment, there's something
unscientific that you can't do anything about. You have to just wait for
these people to drop dead, in the same way the South had to wait (and is
still waiting) for racists to drop dead already. The "something" is fear of
having to change their behavior. These people believe that the two
statements below are exactly identical:

1) As your president, I'm telling you that we all need to think more
carefully about how our choices affect the earth.

2) Effective immediately, there will be a $1500.00 federal surcharge on any
vehicle which gets lets than 28 mpg. We will control you.

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?

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

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.

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.