The Right Question (or, I Thought You'd Never Ask)
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
In another thread on this NG Eric Swanson, to his credit, asked the
following questions (which I will paraphrase): 'You (Jim McGinn) have
repeatedly annoyed us with the questions about the, "level of confidence,"
that, "should," have been included with the results of the computer models.
What sort of answer do you expect from this line of inquiry? Why "should"
there be any such "level"?'
My response:
Firstly I'd like to, once again, thank Eric for asking such an intelligent
question. I'm going to do some research on the internet (using keyword
searches eg. confidence, statistics, verification of computer models etc.)
to see if I can formulate an intelligent response. In the meantime I
thought I'd open the floor to anybody else that might like to address this
important issue. Anybody?
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com
You suddenly appeared quoting the ORGANIZED CRIME RING CATO INSTITUTE
OF FELONY FRAUDS. What is your relationship to them?
You next quoted CATO FELLOW FRED SINGER, a notorious whore and science
hoaxer who is outcast from science for life because of crimes more
shameful than the Korea Stem Cell Hoax. What is your relationship to
the Whore Fred Singer?
Following immediately, you posted a quote from the CATO Whore FRED
SINGER's website SEPPtic Tank, which for a long time shared offices
with CATO co-founder Charles G. Koch Summer Fellows Program that steers
gullible interns into spamming usenet for minimum wage.
Are you getting minimum wage for spamming usenet from a windowless
boiler room next to the trash dumpster in CATO's basement, or are you
getting less. [Hint: for a big pay increase cop some of the
confidential papers from the shredder bag and blackmail them to get out
of intern hell.]
Jim McGinn
Jim McGinn
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
"The climate system is too complex," Mosley-Thompson said. "Even the most
complex climate model doesn't get it right. And why is that? Because who
writes the climate models? Humans. What is a climate model? It's a set of
equations that describes what we think we know. If you're not cognizant of a
particular phenomenon, then how can you incorporate it into a climate
model?"
The fact that different computer models often produce different forecasts
doesn't offer much reassurance. For example, one model predicted that the
Southeastern U.S. would become more jungle-like in the next century, while
another model predicted the same region would become a dried-out savanna,
according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Jim McGinn
" . . . taking polls on the opinion of people who's income is tied to the
existence of a problem is not science."
"Real science is humble. Some things are unknowable. It is human nature not
to accept the idea that some things are beyond our reach of knowing, but it
is often the case."
"Climate science is often reported as if a 'run' of a computer model is an
experiment."
'Supporters will further say, "Many of these scientists are established,
world-renowned, tenured professors who do research in numerous areas and
whose jobs are certainly not dependent on the existence of global warming".'
"But let us consider the peers of Copernicus; did their being "established,
world-renowned, tenured professors" make them right? Would publication of
balanced papers with out dire conclusions insure their research grants?"
'I am told that, "... meteorologists I know that are skeptical about global
warming are weather forecasters (not researchers) and have little expertise
in the science of climate change -- their jobs do not require it." Well if
changing weather isn't climate change what is it? Meteorologists are
trained to look at numbers trends and graphs and form conclusions about the
probability of future events. They know that seeing patterns in data can be
the playground of fools (are there any fool-proof computer programs that
accurately predict the stock market?) More importantly, a meteorologist's
experience will have taught them to be very careful about making claims
about the future with limited data. Perhaps this experience has given them a
better feel for what is knowable than the global climate researchers? The
"science of climate change" has been quite wrong before when they were
predicting a "new Ice age". Real science requires something that is beyond
the combinations of a bunch of estimates plugged into human choice tainted
computer models.'
The great computer models used to predict the dire consequences don't have
clouds, and for good reasons. Clouds are extremely complicated to simulate.
Water vapor tends to condense into water droplets at nucleation sites. These
sites can be a spec of dust, but are also caused by cosmic rays, nuetrenos,
and even agitation of air. Nuetrenos and cosmic rays are not constant, they
vary with solar storms and the position of solar storms on the sun. They
are also non linear. The lack of clouds in the model reduces this to a
political campaign - one I would tend to support - but not at the expense of
misleading the public.
Eric Swanson
jimm...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>
>
>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
>
>"The climate system is too complex," Mosley-Thompson said. "Even the most
>complex climate model doesn't get it right. And why is that? Because who
>writes the climate models? Humans. What is a climate model? It's a set of
>equations that describes what we think we know. If you're not cognizant of a
>particular phenomenon, then how can you incorporate it into a climate
>model?"
This piece was written in 2000 and you cut most of the discussion.
The climate modelers have been improving their models for 30 years.
They've reached the stage where they can model past climate rather well.
>The fact that different computer models often produce different forecasts
>doesn't offer much reassurance. For example, one model predicted that the
>Southeastern U.S. would become more jungle-like in the next century, while
>another model predicted the same region would become a dried-out savanna,
>according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the
>University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Spencer (and Christy) have had to admit to errors in their satellite analysis
twice since then and there are still problems which they want to ignore.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
>>
>>"The climate system is too complex," Mosley-Thompson said. "Even the most
>>complex climate model doesn't get it right. And why is that? Because who
>>writes the climate models? Humans. What is a climate model? It's a set of
>>equations that describes what we think we know. If you're not cognizant of
>>a
>>particular phenomenon, then how can you incorporate it into a climate
>>model?"
>
> This piece was written in 2000 and you cut most of the discussion.
> The climate modelers have been improving their models for 30 years.
> They've reached the stage where they can model past climate rather well.
Wishful thinking.
>
>>The fact that different computer models often produce different forecasts
>>doesn't offer much reassurance. For example, one model predicted that the
>>Southeastern U.S. would become more jungle-like in the next century, while
>>another model predicted the same region would become a dried-out savanna,
>>according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the
>>University of Alabama in Huntsville.
>
> Spencer (and Christy) have had to admit to errors in their satellite
> analysis
> twice since then and there are still problems which they want to ignore.
So?
Eric Swanson
>
>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm
An unsigned personal description of one person's lack of scientific understanding.
>"Climate science is often reported as if a 'run' of a computer model is an
>experiment."
that's because they are the only experiments possible.
>'I am told that, "... meteorologists I know that are skeptical about global
>warming are weather forecasters (not researchers) and have little expertise
>in the science of climate change -- their jobs do not require it." Well if
>changing weather isn't climate change what is it? Meteorologists are
>trained to look at numbers trends and graphs and form conclusions about the
>probability of future events. They know that seeing patterns in data can be
>the playground of fools (are there any fool-proof computer programs that
>accurately predict the stock market?) More importantly, a meteorologist's
>experience will have taught them to be very careful about making claims
>about the future with limited data. Perhaps this experience has given them a
>better feel for what is knowable than the global climate researchers? The
>"science of climate change" has been quite wrong before when they were
>predicting a "new Ice age". Real science requires something that is beyond
>the combinations of a bunch of estimates plugged into human choice tainted
>computer models.'
So many errors, so little time.
Modern meteorologists use models every day. Besides, weather is not climate.
>The great computer models used to predict the dire consequences don't have
>clouds, and for good reasons.
Dead wrong.. All ACOGCM's have clouds.
>...Clouds are extremely complicated to simulate.
>Water vapor tends to condense into water droplets at nucleation sites. These
>sites can be a spec of dust, but are also caused by cosmic rays, nuetrenos,
>and even agitation of air. Nuetrenos and cosmic rays are not constant, they
>vary with solar storms and the position of solar storms on the sun. They
>are also non linear. The lack of clouds in the model reduces this to a
>political campaign - one I would tend to support - but not at the expense of
>misleading the public.
Pure bullshit. The notion that "cosmic rays" influence cluds is an unproven
hypothesis, if that. The rest is pure crap, as the models do include clouds
and the hydrological cycle. They have also been forced with solar variability
and volcanic effects, the latter which the Soon & Baliunas graph ignores.
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>>"Climate science is often reported as if a 'run' of a computer model is an
>>experiment."
>
> that's because they are the only experiments possible.
The point is that they are not expriments.
>
>>'I am told that, "... meteorologists I know that are skeptical about
>>global
>>warming are weather forecasters (not researchers) and have little
>>expertise
>>in the science of climate change -- their jobs do not require it." Well if
>>changing weather isn't climate change what is it? Meteorologists are
>>trained to look at numbers trends and graphs and form conclusions about
>>the
>>probability of future events. They know that seeing patterns in data can
>>be
>>the playground of fools (are there any fool-proof computer programs that
>>accurately predict the stock market?) More importantly, a meteorologist's
>>experience will have taught them to be very careful about making claims
>>about the future with limited data. Perhaps this experience has given them
>>a
>>better feel for what is knowable than the global climate researchers?
>>The
>>"science of climate change" has been quite wrong before when they were
>>predicting a "new Ice age". Real science requires something that is beyond
>>the combinations of a bunch of estimates plugged into human choice tainted
>>computer models.'
>
> So many errors, so little time.
> Modern meteorologists use models every day. Besides, weather is not
> climate.
Yes, and they are humbled by the limitations of their model's predictive
power on a daily basis. Climatologists don't have this. The lack of
testability of their longer term models inspires arrogance.
>
>>The great computer models used to predict the dire consequences don't have
>>clouds, and for good reasons.
>
> Dead wrong.. All ACOGCM's have clouds.
How accurate is their representation of the effects of clouds?
>
>>...Clouds are extremely complicated to simulate.
>>Water vapor tends to condense into water droplets at nucleation sites.
>>These
>>sites can be a spec of dust, but are also caused by cosmic rays,
>>nuetrenos,
>>and even agitation of air. Nuetrenos and cosmic rays are not constant,
>>they
>>vary with solar storms and the position of solar storms on the sun. They
>>are also non linear. The lack of clouds in the model reduces this to a
>>political campaign - one I would tend to support - but not at the expense
>>of
>>misleading the public.
>
> Pure bullshit. The notion that "cosmic rays" influence cluds is an
> unproven
> hypothesis, if that. The rest is pure crap, as the models do include
> clouds
> and the hydrological cycle. They have also been forced with solar
> variability
> and volcanic effects, the latter which the Soon & Baliunas graph ignores.
Would you agree, however, that confidence estimates of model predictions
should be published with the results?
Jim
Coby Beck
news:fsgZf.45263$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Would you agree, however, that confidence estimates of model predictions
> should be published with the results?
There is indeed a lot of uncertainty in what the future will be, but this is
not all because of an imperfect understanding of how the climate works. A
large part of it is simply not knowing how the human race will react to this
danger and/or how the world economy will develope. Since these factors
control what emissions of CO2 will accumulate in the atmosphere, which in
turn influences the temperature, there is really no way for a climate model
to predict what the future will be.
What modelers can do, however, is talk about and estimate the climate's
sensitivity to CO2, usually in terms of how high the temperature will rise
given a doubling of CO2. See the Real Climate glossary entry for climate
sensitivity.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/climate-sensitivity/
So how much certainty is there? This varies from model to model but
typically a projection is given as a most likely temperature together with a
range that encompasses all the likely values. In the IPCC report "likely" is
defined as a 70% probability. If you want a specific number and range, you
must chose a specific scenario of emissions over time and a specific model.
The IPCC does note that:
"The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4
to 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100. These results are for the full range
of 35 SRES scenarios, based on a number of climate models."
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm
But what about the certainty of this summary of model predictions? Well, a
recent paper by James Annan et al. (
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf ) has
attempted to clarify this question by statistically combining the
certainties of a wide variety of models in a variety of situations. Focusing
on climate sensitivity, they conclude that in terms of the climate's
response to a doubling of CO2, the model's say:
"The resulting distribution can be represented by (1.7,2.9,4.9) in the
format used throughout this paper. That is to say, it has a maximum
likelihood value of 2.9oC, and, using the IPCC terminology for confidence
levels, we find a likely range of 2.2-3.9oC (70% confidence) and a very
likely range of 1.7-4.9oC (95%). We can also state that climate sensitivity
is very likely to lie below 4.5oC(95%). These results represent a
substantial decrease in uncertainty over those originally presented in NAS
[1979] and in subsequent research. They also imply that the sensitivity
range of modern GCMs (2.1-4.4oC) is likely to include the correct value
(with greater than 80% confidence)"
So, most likely value is 2.9oC with a 95% probability of falling between
1.7oC and 4.9oC.
There is a summary and discussion of this paper at Real Climate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Eric Swanson
jimm...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>
>>>"Climate science is often reported as if a 'run' of a computer model is an
>>>experiment."
>>
>> that's because they are the only experiments possible.
>
>The point is that they are not expriments.
Sure they are. They are the only game in town. Or, do you have another Earth
to experiment on hidden far, far away?
Look, idiot, they are tested against time series of previous historical
measurements. They match reality rather well, given the LARGE forces and areas
involved. But, you are intent on ignoring this, so continue your troll rants.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>
>>>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
>>>
>>>"The climate system is too complex," Mosley-Thompson said. "Even the most
>>>complex climate model doesn't get it right. And why is that? Because who
>>>writes the climate models? Humans. What is a climate model? It's a set of
>>>equations that describes what we think we know. If you're not cognizant of
>>>a
>>>particular phenomenon, then how can you incorporate it into a climate
>>>model?"
>>
>> This piece was written in 2000 and you cut most of the discussion.
>> The climate modelers have been improving their models for 30 years.
>> They've reached the stage where they can model past climate rather well.
>
>Wishful thinking.
You got another answer to the question: "What's going to happen?"......
>>>The fact that different computer models often produce different forecasts
>>>doesn't offer much reassurance. For example, one model predicted that the
>>>Southeastern U.S. would become more jungle-like in the next century, while
>>>another model predicted the same region would become a dried-out savanna,
>>>according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the
>>>University of Alabama in Huntsville.
>>
>> Spencer (and Christy) have had to admit to errors in their satellite
>> analysis
>> twice since then and there are still problems which they want to ignore.
>
>So?
So, don't quote Christy's old bullshit as if it has any relevance today.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> doesn't offer much reassurance. For example, one model predicted that the
> Southeastern U.S. would become more jungle-like in the next century, while
> another model predicted the same region would become a dried-out savanna,
> according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the
> University of Alabama in Huntsville.
In 2002 John Christy participated in an ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD
SCIENCE HOAX.
http://www.climatesearch.com/newsDetail.cfm?nwsId=54
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
APCO ASSociates is a known criminal organization. Anybody ASSociated
with it is involved in organized crime. John Christy participated with
numerous known science hoaxers and felony frauds at the noted event.
There's all kinds of strange things on the internet -- some of them are
even true... Should one properly investigate reports or just take a
stranger's word that these things are the truth just because they are
reported on the internet?
http://snipurl.com/otre
Results 1 - 3 of 3 for Jim McGinn Shaves Legs
Sparky @zig-zag.net wrote:
> http://snipurl.com/opq6
> Google Results "Jim McGinn" arrest warrant issued.
> http://snipurl.com/oppy
> Google Results: "Jim McGinn" arrested for fraud.
> Does anybody know if this is the same McGinn that used to post on
> sci.environment? I always knew he would turn up bad in the end, all his
> association with organized crime figures.
> http://snipurl.com/opqb
> Google Results "Jim McGinn" connected to organized crime.
It looks like there are reports that Jim McGinn has been arrested for
fraud.
http://snipurl.com/oqp1
Google Results for "Jim McGinn" arrested for fraud
I looked up some other keywords on a hunch based on his displayed
morality. This is what I found...
http://snipurl.com/oqpb
Results for "Jim McGinn" arrest child pornography.
http://snipurl.com/oqph
Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR "Koch-Sucker"
http://snipurl.com/oqpk
Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized Crime.
http://snipurl.com/oqpp
Results for "Jim McGinn" Accomplice to Crime.
http://snipurl.com/otrn
Results for "Jim McGinn" convicted of child molesting | pedophila |
incest.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Would you agree, however, that confidence estimates of model predictions
> should be published with the results?
Jim McGinn begin to spin the mortal sin of lies worn thin, his din of
has-been tactics herein a siamese twin of crooks, kissing kin of
pigskin, gets his foreskin pinned in a tailspin to his chagrin. He'll
never win, sad, play the violin, he cops it on the chin.
Sparky @zig-zag.net wrote:
> http://snipurl.com/opq6
> Google Results "Jim McGinn" arrest warrant issued.
> http://snipurl.com/oppy
> Google Results: "Jim McGinn" arrested for fraud.
> Does anybody know if this is the same McGinn that used to post on
> sci.environment? I always knew he would turn up bad in the end, all his
> association with organized crime figures.
> http://snipurl.com/opqb
> Google Results "Jim McGinn" connected to organized crime.
It looks like there are reports that Jim McGinn has been arrested for
fraud.
http://snipurl.com/oqp1
Google Results for "Jim McGinn" arrested for fraud
I looked up some other keywords on a hunch based on his displayed
morality. This is what I found...
http://snipurl.com/oqpb
Results for "Jim McGinn" arrest child pornography.
http://snipurl.com/oqph
Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR "Koch-Sucker"
http://snipurl.com/oqpk
Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized Crime.
http://snipurl.com/oqpp
Results for "Jim McGinn" Accomplice to Crime.
http://snipurl.com/otsk
Results about 237 for After many reports of Jim McGinn collecting sperm
samples in park men's rooms.
http://snipurl.com/otsn
Jim McGinn loses lawsuit for child abandonment and non-support.
http://snipurl.com/otsq
Notorious usenet newsgroup spammer Jim McGinn was finally unmasked as
http://snipurl.com/otss
Usenet newsgroup spammer Jim McGinn busted on wire-fraud charges
http://snipurl.com/otsv
Thorough investigation of Jim McGinn's connections to Cato Institute as
a paid spammer
http://snipurl.com/otsz
former cellmate of Jim McGinn gave details on the career criminal
behaviors
http://snipurl.com/ott2
It was Jim McGinn's weakness for jailbait that finally caught up
http://snipurl.com/ott4
Results about 97 for the unnamed 12 year old girl identified Jim McGinn
in a line-up
http://snipurl.com/ottb
The evidence was discovered after a search warrant of Jim McGinn's Cato
desk and employee locker
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
>
Notice the denialists always cite out of date stuff?
According to the National Enquirer, a woman gave birth to a space alien.
Raymond Arritt
> The great computer models used to predict the dire consequences don't have
> clouds, and for good reasons.
[etc.]
I've seen this claim that climate models don't have clouds on several
occasions. Does anyone have an idea of the origin for this legend? The
claim apparently has taken on a life of its own, despite having no basis
in fact.
H2-PV NOW
http://snipurl.com/ovk0
Results 1 - 100 of about 3,600,000 for computer climate models do not
have clouds.
This is the soft underbelly vulnerable to attack. Never mind the fact
that computers need not exist anywhere on the planet and there are
still six independent trails of evidence confirming without shadow of
doubt that Global Warming is Real, it is happening NOW (not in a
century from now), and it is a serious threat.
The enemies of humanity keep turning the entire Global Warming thing
into an argument over climate models on computers. By the time you ever
win that argument the rest of us will all be dead already from severe
inhospitable climate change.
Don't argue on their turf. When you know you have a troll, arguments
serve only to "create an illusion of an ongoing controversy", go to the
indisputable evidence that the trolls are not equipped to deal with.
A person who allows suicide-terrorists to destroy his world is not very
smart no matter what IQ he has or degrees from places of learning.
There are suicide-psychopaths, or don't you read the headlines?
Reason [contolled by Koch Oilmen]
Clouds in the Climate Models. Do the tropics hold the secret to a
cooler world? ... Indeed, current assessments of global climate change
have found clouds ...
www.reason.com/rb/rb020602.shtml - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
A Climate Change Primer: Computer Models and the Need for More ...
[Koch-Exxon controlled]
Computer simulations of the Earth's climate are not accurate, as they
do not ... the coming century are based on developing models of climate
that have so ...
www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12406 - 30k - Cached - Similar
pages
US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
[Exxon-Inhofe controlled]
Thousands of climate change studies rely on computer models. ... This
problem stems from the fact that "these [climate] models do not
necessarily span the ...
epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=238162 - 25k - Cached -
Similar pages
Eric Swanson
>
>
>Raymond Arritt wrote:
>> Jim McGinn wrote:
>>
>> > The great computer models used to predict the dire consequences don't have
>> > clouds, and for good reasons.
>> [etc.]
>>
>> I've seen this claim that climate models don't have clouds on several
>> occasions. Does anyone have an idea of the origin for this legend? The
>> claim apparently has taken on a life of its own, despite having no basis
>> in fact.
>
>US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
>[Exxon-Inhofe controlled]
>Thousands of climate change studies rely on computer models. ... This
>problem stems from the fact that "these [climate] models do not
>necessarily span the ...
>epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=238162
Actually, there is a considerable truth in Inhofe's speech. That's the
problem, as the "truthiness" makes it seem his conclusions are correct.
Sure, there are some areas where the models are weak. That doesn't mean
that all model results may thus be ignored.
BTW, he didn't claim that the GCM's "don't have clouds"...
Raymond Arritt
> In article <1144482961.9...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, H2...@zig-zag.net says...
>>US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
>>[Exxon-Inhofe controlled]
>>Thousands of climate change studies rely on computer models. ... This
>>problem stems from the fact that "these [climate] models do not
>>necessarily span the ...
>>epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=238162
>
> Actually, there is a considerable truth in Inhofe's speech. That's the
> problem, as the "truthiness" makes it seem his conclusions are correct.
> Sure, there are some areas where the models are weak. That doesn't mean
> that all model results may thus be ignored.
My favorite name for the type of argument Inhofe uses is "because we
don't know everything, we don't know anything".
> BTW, he didn't claim that the GCM's "don't have clouds"...
:-)
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
> There is indeed a lot of uncertainty in what the future will be, but this
> is not all because of an imperfect understanding of how the climate works.
I can't make sense of this statement. If our understanding of climate was
perfect would we not have a higher degree of certainty about the future?
<snip>
> there is really no way for a climate model to predict what the future will
> be.
I agree. Or, at least, not with 100% accuracy. The question is how much
confidence should we attribute the models.
<snip>
> So how much certainty is there? This varies from model to model but
> typically a projection is given as a most likely temperature together with
> a range that encompasses all the likely values. In the IPCC report
> "likely" is defined as a 70% probability.
This is kind of an underhanded (intentionally deceptive) way of pretending
to claim that the confidence associated with these models is 70%. The
"likely" in the IPCC report applies to the various scenarios of consequences
*if* AGW projections are true (and even then it focusses on the most
dramatic).
> If you want a specific number and range, you must chose a specific
> scenario of emissions over time and a specific model. The IPCC does note
> that:
>
> "The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4
> to 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100.
With what degree of accuracy?
These results are for the full range
> of 35 SRES scenarios, based on a number of climate models."
Accuracy? (A hundred different models can say the same thing but if they
all incorporate an unknown bias then they all have a low degree of
accuracy.)
>
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm
>
> But what about the certainty of this summary of model predictions? Well, a
> recent paper by James Annan et al. (
> http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf )
> has attempted to clarify this question by statistically combining the
> certainties of a wide variety of models in a variety of situations.
> Focusing on climate sensitivity, they conclude that in terms of the
> climate's response to a doubling of CO2, the model's say:
>
> "The resulting distribution can be represented by (1.7,2.9,4.9) in the
> format used throughout this paper. That is to say, it has a maximum
> likelihood value of 2.9oC, and, using the IPCC terminology for confidence
> levels,
You are confusing confidence with range.
we find a likely range of 2.2-3.9oC (70% confidence) and a very
> likely range of 1.7-4.9oC (95%).
This (95%) is not the confidence of the model results. This indicates ONLY
that 95% of the data points in the various runs of the model fall between
1.7-4.9oC. You could have a hundred differerent models and each of them can
produce a narrow range of data and all of them can be wrong if they all
carry the same erroneous bias in their assumptions. Keep in mind that the
assumptions that are put in one model are likely to be the same assumptions
put in another model.
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>> There is indeed a lot of uncertainty in what the future will be, but this
>> is not all because of an imperfect understanding of how the climate
>> works.
>
> I can't make sense of this statement. If our understanding of climate was
> perfect would we not have a higher degree of certainty about the future?
I think future human behaviour is arguably the largest uncertainty in the
equation. This is why there are so many scenarios in the IPCC projections.
You can not make a climate model prediction of temperature in 2050 or 2100
without knowing how much CO2 we will continue to emit year by year. There
are also natural forcings such as volcanic action and solar variations that
alter any projection as soon as it happens.
>> there is really no way for a climate model to predict what the future
>> will
>> be.
>
> I agree. Or, at least, not with 100% accuracy. The question is how much
> confidence should we attribute the models.
The basic conclusion that continued emissions absent massive volcanic action
or thermo-nuclear war will result in continued warming is a virtual
certainty.
>> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm
>>
>> But what about the certainty of this summary of model predictions? Well,
>> a
>> recent paper by James Annan et al. (
>> http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf )
>> has attempted to clarify this question by statistically combining the
>> certainties of a wide variety of models in a variety of situations.
>> Focusing on climate sensitivity, they conclude that in terms of the
>> climate's response to a doubling of CO2, the model's say:
>>
>> "The resulting distribution can be represented by (1.7,2.9,4.9) in the
>> format used throughout this paper. That is to say, it has a maximum
>> likelihood value of 2.9oC, and, using the IPCC terminology for confidence
>> levels,
>
> You are confusing confidence with range.
Keep reading. You are the one confused.
> we find a likely range of 2.2-3.9oC (70% confidence) and a very
>> likely range of 1.7-4.9oC (95%).
>
> This (95%) is not the confidence of the model results. This indicates
> ONLY
> that 95% of the data points in the various runs of the model fall between
> 1.7-4.9oC.
I don't think you are correct. Maybe James will pipe in, I am not
interested in rereading the real climate discussion and trying to explain
things to you. You can read that and link to the paper here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/
> You could have a hundred differerent models and each of them can
> produce a narrow range of data and all of them can be wrong if they all
> carry the same erroneous bias in their assumptions. Keep in mind that the
> assumptions that are put in one model are likely to be the same
> assumptions
> put in another model.
References?
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>>> "The resulting distribution can be represented by (1.7,2.9,4.9) in the
>>> format used throughout this paper. That is to say, it has a maximum
>>> likelihood value of 2.9oC, and, using the IPCC terminology for
>>> confidence
>>> levels,
>>
>> You are confusing confidence with range.
>
> Keep reading. You are the one confused.
>
>> we find a likely range of 2.2-3.9oC (70% confidence) and a very
>>> likely range of 1.7-4.9oC (95%).
>>
>> This (95%) is not the confidence of the model results. This indicates
>> ONLY
>> that 95% of the data points in the various runs of the model fall between
>> 1.7-4.9oC.
>
> I don't think you are correct.
I suspect that this is the source of 95% of the hysteria regarding GW. I
suspect that Hansen is *fully* aware of this. (How could he not be, being a
NASA scientists.) The actual, statistically determinable,
accuracy/confidence of *any* climate model projected out more than even *one
year* doesn't even amount to 1%. Think about that. And this is empirically
demonstrable. Beyond dispute.
Why do you think it is that Hansen refuses to discuss this subject?
> Maybe James will pipe in, I am not interested in rereading the real
> climate discussion and trying to explain things to you. You can read that
> and link to the paper here:
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/
>
>> You could have a hundred differerent models and each of them can
>> produce a narrow range of data and all of them can be wrong if they all
>> carry the same erroneous bias in their assumptions. Keep in mind that
>> the
>> assumptions that are put in one model are likely to be the same
>> assumptions
>> put in another model.
>
> References?
The difference between the sensitivity/range of a computer model (which is
typically determined by way of multiple runs of a computer model using
slightly different starting conditions) and the confidence/accuracy of the
end result of any particular run of the model is, to use Mark Twain's words,
like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.
Jim
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> The difference between the sensitivity/range of a computer model (which is
> typically determined by way of multiple runs of a computer model using
> slightly different starting conditions) and the confidence/accuracy of the
> end result of any particular run of the model is, to use Mark Twain's words,
> like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.
McGinn -- you manufacture arguments to smear professional scientists
who are working hard to understand complicated science far beyond your
capacities.
Is it WRONG to manufacture a smear campaign? Is it WRONG to aid the Oil
Billionaires Killer Koch Brothers and their ORGANIZED CRIME henchmen,
McGinn?
Think it over.
Meanwhile I asked Google A QUESTION ABOUT AS SERIOUS AS YOU ASK.
Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR "Koch-Sucker"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/856f329856ee0b31?hl=en&
The Right Question "How many times was Jim McGinn Arrested for ...
... http://snipurl.com/oqph Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR
"Koch-Sucker"
http://snipurl.com/oqpk Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized
Crime. ...
sci.environment - Apr 7, 1:53 am - 17 messages - 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/6dd0c87de0a73e2b?hl=en&
Ms Jim McGinn to be lingerie model on cellblock number nine if ...
... http://snipurl.com/oqph Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR
"Koch-Sucker"
http://snipurl.com/oqpk Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized
Crime. ...
sci.environment - Apr 5, 3:23 pm - 45 messages - 10 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/4fbf637131183983?hl=en&
Google Results: "Jim McGinn" arrested for fraud.
... http://snipurl.com/oqph Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR
"Koch-Sucker"
http://snipurl.com/oqpk Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized
Crime. ...
sci.environment - Apr 5, 2:50 pm - 2 messages - 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/fb800ed1bb30223b?hl=en&
Cato Employee Jim McGinn's opinions are given by his employer
... http://snipurl.com/oqph Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR
"Koch-Sucker"
http://snipurl.com/oqpk Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized
Crime. ...
alt.global-warming - Apr 7, 2:32 pm - 10 messages - 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/ee649ababcc135f5?hl=en&
Jim McGinn Admitting you have a problem is the first step
... http://snipurl.com/oqph Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR
"Koch-Sucker"
http://snipurl.com/oqpk Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized
Crime. ...
sci.environment - Apr 8, 1:24 am - 10 messages - 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/2ff7515af61d1a74?hl=en&
Useful Models or "How many epicycles is that"
... http://snipurl.com/ots1 Jim McGinn child molester fellatio
Koch-Sucker
http://snipurl.com/ots5 Numerous reports of Jim McGinn child molester
fellatio Koch ...
sci.environment - Apr 7, 2:09 am - 49 messages - 17 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/f9a8dbd9a38b5ef8?hl=en&
There is no "debate", just organized crime creation of "appearance ...
... http://snipurl.com/oqph Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR
"Koch-Sucker"
http://snipurl.com/oqpk Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized
Crime. ...
alt.global-warming - Apr 7, 2:50 pm - 23 messages - 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/a41c58b3a9654bf1?hl=en&
criticism of ice core data
... http://snipurl.com/oqph Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR
"Koch-Sucker"
http://snipurl.com/oqpk Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized
Crime. ...
sci.environment - Apr 5, 4:02 pm - 20 messages - 10 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/2a85510584353acd?hl=en&
Anti-Global warming Frauds need to cool off
... http://snipurl.com/oqph Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR
"Koch-Sucker"
http://snipurl.com/oqpk Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized
Crime. ...
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh - Apr 5, 3:40 pm - 124 messages - 24 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/55540ccd0a64aab3?hl=en&
Is This True? That Jim McGinn is a Koch-Sucker. Yes, that's ...
No it's a lie. Lying is the Cato Institute's stock and trade. That's
how they
stay in business. Lying for profit. Isn't it true, though ...
sci.environment - Mar 27, 11:56 pm - 208 messages - 19 authors
http://snipurl.com/owk3
Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR "Koch-Sucker".
James Annan
>
>>>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm
>>>
>>>But what about the certainty of this summary of model predictions? Well,
>>>a
>>>recent paper by James Annan et al. (
>>>http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf )
>>>has attempted to clarify this question by statistically combining the
>>>certainties of a wide variety of models in a variety of situations.
>>>Focusing on climate sensitivity, they conclude that in terms of the
>>>climate's response to a doubling of CO2, the model's say:
>>>
>>>"The resulting distribution can be represented by (1.7,2.9,4.9) in the
>>>format used throughout this paper. That is to say, it has a maximum
>>>likelihood value of 2.9oC, and, using the IPCC terminology for confidence
>>>levels,
>>
>>You are confusing confidence with range.
>
>
> Keep reading. You are the one confused.
>
>
>>we find a likely range of 2.2-3.9oC (70% confidence) and a very
>>
>>>likely range of 1.7-4.9oC (95%).
>>
>>This (95%) is not the confidence of the model results. This indicates
>>ONLY
>>that 95% of the data points in the various runs of the model fall between
>>1.7-4.9oC.
>
>
> I don't think you are correct. Maybe James will pipe in
Thanks, but the person you are attempting to debate with is already in
my killfile, so I'll pass on that for now :-)
James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
Jonathan Kirwan
Mine, too.
Jon
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>>>> "The resulting distribution can be represented by (1.7,2.9,4.9) in the
>>>> format used throughout this paper. That is to say, it has a maximum
>>>> likelihood value of 2.9oC, and, using the IPCC terminology for
>>>> confidence
>>>> levels,
>>>
>>> You are confusing confidence with range.
>>
>> Keep reading. You are the one confused.
>>
>>> we find a likely range of 2.2-3.9oC (70% confidence) and a very
>>>> likely range of 1.7-4.9oC (95%).
>>>
>>> This (95%) is not the confidence of the model results. This indicates
>>> ONLY
>>> that 95% of the data points in the various runs of the model fall
>>> between
>>> 1.7-4.9oC.
>>
>> I don't think you are correct.
>
> I suspect that this is the source of 95% of the hysteria regarding GW. I
> suspect that Hansen is *fully* aware of this. (How could he not be, being
> a NASA scientists.) The actual, statistically determinable,
> accuracy/confidence of *any* climate model projected out more than even
> *one year* doesn't even amount to 1%. Think about that. And this is
> empirically demonstrable. Beyond dispute.
>
> Why do you think it is that Hansen refuses to discuss this subject?
I'm sure for precisely the same reason you refuse to stop beating your wife.
Michael Tobis
> >> This (95%) is not the confidence of the model results. This indicates
> >> ONLY
> >> that 95% of the data points in the various runs of the model fall between
> >> 1.7-4.9oC.
Not by any sensible definition of "data point", no.
> I
> suspect that Hansen is *fully* aware of this. (How could he not be, being a
> NASA scientists.) The actual, statistically determinable,
> accuracy/confidence of *any* climate model projected out more than even *one
> year* doesn't even amount to 1%.
No.
Errors in climate models do not accumulate geometrically. No. In steady
state forcing a climate model produces a stable climate.
> Think about that.
I think I see what you are thinking. It is wrong.
> And this is empirically
> demonstrable. Beyond dispute.
No. You are confusing weather and climate. Climate models with steady
forcing have a steady climate. They have seasons, storms, and droughts,
but the likelihood of such events does not change from model year to
model year. Therefore, there are demonstrably cases where the error
does not accumulate.
You can't wheel out elementary arguments and expect an entire
scientific discipline to have missed the point. That's completely
silly. Stuff that can be refuted with a pocket calculator doesn't make
it into Science and Nature for twentyfive years. Sorry. There are a lot
of broken institutions in this world, but science is not that broken
yet.
> Why do you think it is that Hansen refuses to discuss this subject?
Because he is an important man and can't spend time refuting every
half-baked theory of every amateur.
mt
Coby Beck
>
>> The great computer models used to predict the dire consequences don't
>> have
>> clouds, and for good reasons.
That's not true. All of the Atmospheric Global Climate Models used for the
kind of climate projections reported on by the IPCC take the effects of
clouds into account. You can read a discussion about cloud processes and
feedbacks in the IPCC TAR.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/271.htm
It is true that clouds are one of the largest remaining uncertainties in the
GCM's. They are very complicated to model because they have both positive
feedbacks by preventing IR from escaping to space and negative feedbacks by
reflecting incoming sun light before it can even reach the surface. The
precise balance of these effects depends on the time of day, the time of the
year, the cloud's altitude, the size of water droplets and/or ice particles,
the lattitude, the air temperature and the cloud's size and shape. Different
types of clouds will also interact as they co-exist in different layers of
the atmosphere. There are also latent heat considerations as water condenses
during cloud formation and evaporates as clouds dissolve.
The ultimate contribution to global temperature trends is very uncertain,
but likely to be positive over the coming century.
Comments?
Jim McGinn
could ever serve as a crystal ball to future climate. The complexity of the
factors involved is orders of magnitude higher than be effectively modeled
to serve as a source of prediction for anything more than, at best, a week.
Jim
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Why does "Jim McGinn" name pop up when searching Cato Institute
"Organized Crime"?
How did search terms: Cato Institute "Organized Crime" become synomous
with "Jim McGinn"?
Easy. Practice, practice, practice. In the few short weeks that agent
McGinn has attempted to be a disrupter of usenet environmental groups
he has associated himself with Killer Koch Brothers Organized Crime
operations, including Cato Institute, so strongly that GOOGLE.COM
automatically pops Jim McGinn up to the top of the list if you look up
Cato Institute "Organized Crime".
Looking up "Fred Singer" "Organized Crime" also puts Jim McGinn at the
top of the list.
http://snipurl.com/owo7
Results 1 - 100 of 116 for "Fred Singer" "Organized Crime"
But CATO INSTITUTE has far more Organized Crime links on record...
... In fact, Cato co-founder Charles G. Koch, and David Koch director
of Cato were both called ORGANIZED CRIME by David Koch's twin-brother
Bill on CBS national television...
http://snipurl.com/owoc
Results for "Bill Koch" "Organized Crime"
http://snipurl.com/owok
Results about 81 for "Bill Koch" "Organized Crime".
Here's the Jim McGinn links to Cato Institute "Organized Crime"
http://snipurl.com/ownc
Results 1 - 100 of 1,700 for Cato Institute "Organized Crime"
News
Also, The Koch Pipeline Co., LP, another subsidiary of Koch Industries,
had agreed to pay some $35 million in fines and penalties for
violations of the ...
http://waternet.com/news.asp?mode=4&N_ID=14430 - 16k
News
Koch hit with record Clean Water Act fine. HOUSTON - The Koch
Pipeline Co., ... of Koch Industries, Inc. in Wichita, KS, has agreed
to pay some $35 million ...
http://waternet.com/news.asp?mode=4&N_ID=11149 - 16k
Forbes.com: Forbes Faces: The Koch Brothers
In September 1999, Koch Industries paid $8 million in damages after a
... It was forced to pay a $35 million settlement for 300 separate oil
spills in six ...
http://www.forbes.com/2001/01/04/0104faces.html - 27k
Forbes.com: Forbes World's Richest People 2001
Brothers Charles and David run Koch Industries, the $35 billion oil
... mishap in its Corpus Christi refinery; the company agreed to pay a
$20 million fine. ...
StealthPacs.org | Overview of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE ...
CSE co-founder David H. Koch is a member of Cato's board of
directors.13 Koch ... of Koch Industries, an oil and gas company that
paid a $35 million fine in ...
http://www.stealthpacs.org/profile.cfm?Org_ID=162 - 31k
July/August 2002 - Sierra Magazine - Sierra Club
In January, Koch Industries agreed to pay about $35 million for
violations of the Clean ... but also to pay a $1 million fine for
air-pollution violations. ...
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200207/thinktank.asp - 41k
David H. Koch - SourceWatch
Koch Industries received a $30000000.00 criminal fine in March 2000:
... for more than 300 oil spills in five states, prompting a penalty of
$35 million. ...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_H._Koch - 14k
The Center for Public Integrity
The owners of Koch Industries, the nation's second wealthiest privately
owned business, the brothers were recently given a $35 million federal
fine in ...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=508 - 35k
The Center for Public Integrity
The brothers own Koch Industries, the nation's second wealthiest
privately owned business, which was recently given a $35 million
federal fine in connection ...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=537 - 61k
[ More results from www.publicintegrity.org ]
Endgame Directory of Transnational Corporations
A federal judge in Austin, TX, has approved a record $35 million civil
fine against Kansas-based Koch Industries, ending lawsuits involving
about 300 oil ...
http://www.endgame.org/dtc/k.html - 47k
EMS Pipeline Services - Regulatory Compliance
Those who fail to comply face penalties, which are already reaching
record highs, including a $35 million fine for Koch Industries. ...
http://www.emspipeline.net/compliance/index.asp - 19k
The Clear and Present Danger of the Sociopathic Insanity of David ...
The owners of KOCH INDUSTRIES, the nation's second wealthiest privately
owned business, the brothers were recently given a $35 million federal
fine in ...
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Killer_David_Koch.html - 71k
Organized Crime Ring - Killer Koch's Citizens for a Sound Economy
Not surprisingly, the industry has lavished more than $440 million
over the past six ... and Koch and Ashcroft settled the lawsuit for a
$20 million fine, ...
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/CSE_Organized_Crime.html - 67k
Environmental Defense - Press Release: Environmental Defense Says ...
Today's proposed fine compares unfavorably to the $35 million fine the
US Environmental Protection Agency levied against Koch Industries, Inc.
in January of ...
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?ContentID=1230 -
23k
Coby Beck
LOL! And yet your puny brian can predict with 99% certainty that next year
global mean temp will be within .5 of this year.
Retief
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>The point is that they are not expriments.
>
>Sure they are. They are the only game in town.
No they aren't, even if they are the only game in town...
> Or, do you have another Earth to experiment on hidden far, far away?
Irrelevant. They are not "true" experiments, they are computer
models. The quality of the model depends on the quality of the data
that was used to build the model, and the knowledge and ability of the
programmer.
If the programmer makes an error, the code doesn't run correctly. If
the programmer uses the HITRAN database, and HITRAN is shown to be in
error regarding the absorption spectra of water vapor, then the model
doesn't work correctly... For example, you might discover that you
underestimated the water vapor feedback mechanism by 3-4 Watts/m^2:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/wcollins/papers/newrad.pdf
(2005)
And where would your models be then? Are you sure that there are no
other errors in the HITRAN database?
>measurements. They match reality rather well,
Matching "rather well" isn't sufficient, in most cases.
It's not the places where they predict that are interesting, it's the
places they don't predict. Why did they not reproduce historical
records? Find out! Don't ignore it! There is science there --
something to be learned there!
Retief
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com
Retief wrote:
> There is science there --
> something to be learned there!
Models do not verify Global Warming -- Physical Evidence does.
There is science there and CORALS NEVER LIE.
There are six main trails of conclusive evidence which make
anthropogenic (Man-Made) definate beyond any reasonable doubt.
Each one of these trails confirms all of the others.
+++ Coral Bleaching in 1998. It never was worse than that during any
time since apes stood upright. There would be massive fossil beds of
corals to testify to higher sea temperatures. The best fossils are all
within 6,000 years old and they are clear and unambiguous. There never
was a worse coral bleaching event in the last 6,000 years than 1998.
1998 came within two degrees of killing 90% of all the nurseries of the
ocean. Any event which ever killed 90% of the nurseries of the ocean
are recorded in fossil beds -- it happened five times in global
history, and the last time was 65,000,000 years ago, when the Alverez
Asteroid struck near Yucatan.
So we have established without doubt that 1998 is as hot as it can get
with higher oceanic life surviving. Fortunately for the oceans, vicious
storms have been relieving the heat content of the seas sufficiently so
that oceanic life is continuing, although 2002 was also a bad year for
coral bleaching. We have to pray for hurricanes to save us from death
of higher life in the seas.
+++ Another trail leading to the inescapable conclusion of Man-Made
global warming is the flooding rate in Bangladesh. This one is far more
complex, and has plenty of superficial confounding-appearance data.
First, there was a massive earthquake in the 1950s which changed river
course and land elevations. Second there was a political change when
"east" Pakistan became independent. Govt records are likely confused
and may still reside physically divided between countries. Third, the
generalized poverty means that good science and good archives are hard
to maintain.
Despite these illusions of confounding, the history of the area is not
a blank. It has been highly densely populated for centuries. India has
kept better records of the area. It has always had some flooding of
intermittant amounts and intervals. The poorest population gets the
floodplains because nobody else wanted them -- they adapted to short
flooding of mild levels of localized nature and could move out of the
way.
The cultures celebrate the changes of the seasons in various traditions
and festivals. The melting of the Himalaya snows is fairly predictable
and steady, just like the monsoons arrive within days of a calendar
date each year. Deforestation below the treeline does not completely
explain earlier dates of annual melting above the treeline.
Severe flooding began after 1954. It first occurred an average of ten
year intervals. In the recent time span it has progressively increased
in frequency, secondly to about every 6 years, now to every other year.
Blame Game has put the cause on upstream deforestation, but there is
earlier snowmelt each year.
That snowmelt was separated from the monsoons by time, and the two peak
water flows were separated by time. Now the snowmelt coincides by date
with the monsoons and record-breaking historically severe flooding is
the result. Nothing this severe is known for hundreds of years, and the
frequency of repetition is a physical impact requiring a physical
explanation.
The flooding is confirmed by the greenhouse gases causing Global
Warming. One must provide an alternate explanation for the trapped heat
to escape the system. Unless one can do that, the provisional
explanation, Man-Made Global Warming, stands unchallenged.
+++ Massive retreats of glaciers and icepacks. One must explain the the
sudden rate of increased meltaway. Global Warming explains this effect
without sweeping any data under the rug. Greenhouse Gases are trapping
heat in the system.
+++ Increased temperatures recorded across the globe by every measuring
means available on the planet. Records are broken with regularity. The
coral bleaching limit shows these are not representative of cyclic
heating events, but are anomalous in the geological record. Nothing
like this has happened in 65,000,000 years of fossil evidence. All the
direct and proxy temperature measures agree within acceptable errors
ranges.
+++ El Nino is a direct effect of sea surface heat accumulation. While
El Nino leaves poor records in the fossil archives, the known observed
rate was averaging 7 years between El Nino events. With greater recent
measured thermal storage in the sea surface, the El Nino events have
been forced to 2-3 year intervals. Physical events require physical
exlanations. The explanation which fits the measurements is Global
Warming from Man-Made Greenhouse Gases.
+++ Storm intensity and frequency is directly related to heat fuel
stored in the tropical oceans. Currently there is peak for all
recorded history of 25% more total hurricanes, more severe hurricanes
and closer frequency of hurricane-level storms. Add that to 500
tornadoes on land in the USA in May 2003 and you see tangible proof of
heat-engines at work disposing of surplus heat according to the best
modern physics theories.
NOBODY has a comprehensive alternate explanation which explains ALL of
this data, and any explanation which fails to explain ALL of the data
may be downrated as attempted Leprechans at work.
Besides the main trails there are many minor trails of evidence, all
confirming, none positively disconfirming the Man-Made Greenhouse Gases
Explanation.
All of the attempted counter-explanations deal with one trail at a
time, such as land-use changes and deforestation upstream from
Bangladesh. All they prove of a certainty is there are piggish humans
who care nothing about the downstream misery of those less fortunate,
thereby strengthening the case against the organized crime rings
falsifying science and committing felony frauds to piggishly injure
downstream less-fortunates. That evidence confirms criminal psychology,
but does not injure the measured recorded and reliable evidence of
increased frequency beyond the power of deforestation only to cause.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>> There is indeed a lot of uncertainty in what the future will be, but this
>> is not all because of an imperfect understanding of how the climate works.
>
>I can't make sense of this statement. If our understanding of climate was
>perfect would we not have a higher degree of certainty about the future?
>
><snip>
No, not unless you have a high degree of certainty about things like human
emission of CO2 for the next 100 years.