Rumours of concensus on GW greatly exaggerated
Jim McGinn
John Christy, University of Alabama Climatologist
Last fall, the Senate debated a bill that would have created regulations to
combat global warming. Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK] led the opposition, and went
so far as to call global warming a hoax. He based that statement, in part,
on the work of John Christy, a professor and director of the Earth System
Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Christy is a respected climatologist, but he's also a maverick who argues
that global warming isn't a problem worth worrying about. His major
contribution has been to analyze millions of measurements from weather
satellites, looking for a global temperature trend. He's found almost no
sign of global warming in the satellite data, and is confident that
forecasts of warming up to 10 degrees in the next century are wrong.
"If dealing with [climate change] causes wealthy countries to lose wealth
because of higher costs for energy, then the Third World would find itself
in worse shape."
John Christy
Coby Beck
news:2KhXf.65019$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1893089&sourceCode=gaw
>
> John Christy, University of Alabama Climatologist
> Last fall, the Senate debated a bill that would have created regulations
> to combat global warming. Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK] led the opposition, and
> went so far as to call global warming a hoax. He based that statement, in
> part, on the work of John Christy, a professor and director of the Earth
> System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
>
> Christy is a respected climatologist, but he's also a maverick who argues
> that global warming isn't a problem worth worrying about. His major
> contribution has been to analyze millions of measurements from weather
> satellites, looking for a global temperature trend. He's found almost no
> sign of global warming in the satellite data, and is confident that
> forecasts of warming up to 10 degrees in the next century are wrong.
Jim, you were already corrected on the satellites show cooling myth...could
it be...no! Are you saying you are NOT here to learn??!!
Anyway, for the archives...
Actually, it is already many years since the satellite analysis showed
actual cooling. Until recently though, one of the analyses of tropospheric
temperatures did show very little warming and was in direct contradiction of
model predictions.
However, it turns out that some (more) errors were uncovered and the MSU
Satellite ( http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html ) temperature
analysis now shows warming (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements )well in
line with model expectations. This was a validation of the models and the
death knell of the "earth is not warming" crowd. Beware of zombies!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Roger Coppock
researchers found an error in Christy's MSU analysis.
Christy and his partner Spenser have corrected their
MSU analysis. That correct analysis shows warming.
The Spenser and Christy team at the University of
Alabama, Huntsville publish data monthly. Here is
my graph of their latest data:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
Jim
Interesting. This has three views of global warming, but Jim only
posted one of them. Apparently one out of threee is now "consensus."
The other jim
Scott Nudds
> that global warming isn't a problem worth worrying about. His major
> contribution has been to analyze millions of measurements from weather
> satellites, looking for a global temperature trend. He's found almost no
> sign of global warming in the satellite data, and is confident that
> forecasts of warming up to 10 degrees in the next century are wrong.
Christy was also equally convinced that the satellite data showed a cooling
effect. It turns out that he didn't perform a competent analysis of the
satellite data.
For example, he <forgot> that satellites drop to lower orbits over time.
Snicker....
Here is the most recent analysis of the satellite data. Note the warming
trend that Christy was certain was actually a cooling trend.... Snicker...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png
You do know how to interpret a plot don't you Jimbo?
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:g5iXf.14904$B_1.8663@edtnps89...
You seem to not be understanding my position in this argument. I am not
denying (and have never denied) the role of anthropogenetic CO2 in causing
global warming. Moreover we both agree on the data. I'm perfectly happy
with your supposition that the increase in CO2 underlies the 0.8 C increase
from 1900 to 2000. The difference is that whereas you see the 0.8 degree
discrepancy as dramatic I see it as within the normal range of variation.
(Statistically insignificant.)
So, you and I agree on the data. But you and I have many differences. We
differ our underlying understanding (and/or assumptions) about the inherent
nature of the biosphere. It seems that, firstly, you assume that the role
that CO2 plays in the various factors that determine mean global temperature
is much larger than the role that I think it plays. And, secondly, you
think the atmosphere is inherently less stable than I think it is. So, in
order for me to come to your side on this argument I'd have to be convinced
that the biosphere is inherently less stable than I currrently consider it
to be and/or I'd have to be convinced that CO2 plays a larger role in
determining global mean temperature than I consider it to play.
And then there's the differences in our intellectual methods. You trust the
computer models. I'm highly skeptical of computer models. (You can "prove"
anything with a computer model.")
My skepticism of computer models is based partly on my understanding of
statistics and partly on a theoretical understanding of the limits of
real-time computation. (If your interested, let me give you some terms to
search: Complexity theory, Chaos Theory, Computer Theory, Butterfly Effect).
Jim
Coby Beck
> And then there's the differences in our intellectual methods. You trust
> the computer models. I'm highly skeptical of computer models. (You can
> "prove" anything with a computer model.")
Of course, given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some really
large time machines, how can we hope to test a 100 year temperature
projection? Well, we can't, but does this mean what you would like to imply,
that the models can not be validated without waiting 100 years? I don't
think so.
The climate is a very complex system and our observations of it are by no
means complete even for what is going on today. This represents both a
shortfall of knowledge and an oppurtunity for validating model predictions.
But before getting into that, there are actually some global temperature
predictions that have indeed been validated. We can start with one of the
pioneers in climate science. Over 100 years ago, in 1896 Svante Arrhenius
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
predicted that human emisions of CO2 would warm the climate. He used a much
simpler model than current Ocean Atmosphere Coupled Global Climate models
that run on super computers and he hugely underestimated the degree of
warming (how could he have ever predicted the emissions that the future
held!) but this is still a pretty impressive very early success.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png
In 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted that the temperature would
climb over the next 12 years, with a brief episode of cooling in the event
of a large volcanic eruption.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf
He made this prediction in a landmark paper
and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the
general public of the dangers of Anthropogenic Global Warming. 12 years
later, he was remarkably correct, requiring an adjustment only for the
timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the
actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
And let's face it, every year that goes by with an ever increasing global
mean temperature is one more year of success for the climate models that
tell us this will continue to happen. As well, the predicted acceleration of
the rise is also apparent, though decades will need to pass before success
is unarguable.
But putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other
significant predictions that have been made and confirmed:
a.. under modeled greenhouse gas warming, the warming at the surface
should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere and this has indeed
been observed
b.. as well as surface temperatures warming, models have long predicted
warming of the lower, mid and upper troposphere even as satellite readings
seemed to disagree. But it turns out the satellite analysis was full of
errors and on correction, this warming has been observed
c.. models expect warming of ocean surface waters as is now observed
d.. models predict an energy imbalance between incoming SW and outgoing LW
radiation. This has been detected
e.. models predict sharp and short lived cooling of a few tenths of a
degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions and Mount Pinatubo confirmed
this.
f.. models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region
and this is happening
And, to get back to global temperatures, where we started, models predict
continuing and accelerating warming of the surface and so far they are
correct. It is only this last item that needs the passage of time, but
frankly we don't have that time at our disposal, action is required in the
very near term. We must take the successes we have seen as the validation
that it is and choose prudence over recklessness considering what is at
stake.
There is another way to test a model's "predictive" power over a long time
period and that is called hindcasting. By starting the model at some time in
the past, say the turn of the 20th century, and running it forward from that
point, all the while feeding it the data about how GHG and aerosol and solar
and volcanic and albedo forcing all did play out according to observation,
we can directly compare modeled behaviour with actual observations. This of
course has been done many times. Have a look at this page
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm and judge for
yourself how they did. Would a prediction of temperature for year 2000 made
in 1900 have been validated? Would politicians in 1900 have been wise to
heed the warnings of science had science been able to do this at that time?
Clearly, yes.
How will people in 2100 judge our foresight when they will have the benefit
of hindsight? Will history judge our leaders wise to have waited for proof
of danger and agree that "they couldn't have known what was coming"? I don't
think so.
> My skepticism of computer models is based partly on my understanding of
> statistics and partly on a theoretical understanding of the limits of
> real-time computation. (If your interested, let me give you some terms to
> search: Complexity theory, Chaos Theory, Computer Theory, Butterfly
> Effect).
I know that quite a few people believe that climate is a chaotic system, and
maybe on some large scale levels, it is. But it is not, in my opinion,
chaotic on anything approaching the kinds of time scales humans need to be
mindful of. Frankly, I have never heard any objective argument supporting
that notion, only arguments that take that as a given. Certainly the march
of the seasons is nice and regular, and determined directly by the orbital
inclination of the earth. If a large volcanic eruption occurs, the global
temperature drops for a few years quite predictably. Diurnal cycles show the
very direct influence of insolation. Clearly, if you turn down the sun, the
temperature drops. Clearly, if you throw a bunch of SO2 into the
stratosphere, the temperature drops. Clearly, if you turn the surface
completely white, the temperature drops. And clearly, if you double the
amount of an important GHG in the atmosphere, the temperature rises.
What about longer timeframes? One can also look at the glacial/interglacial
cycles, not perfectly regular but far from random, and also determined by
orbital variations.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm
I will grant you that the data is quite chaotic on the
multi-century time scale even as it clearly follows a 120Kyr cycle, but who
is to say that had we enough data and understanding, these spikes and dips
could not be thoroughly explained by solar infuences, volcanic eruptions,
greenhouse gas changes, ice sheet dynamics etc?
The ocean-atmosphere climate system is indeed a complex system and is
capable of some surprising behaviours, but I don't see it as chaotic and I
see no problem with speaking in a meaningful way about future expectations.
Model outputs do in fact produce specific year to year flucuations,
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
flucuations that are not hindcasted well, but I don't think anyone is that
interested in knowing the exact temperature of any particular year, it is
the decadal and century trends that we want to anticipate. It is the broadly
deterministic response to forcings that are of interest and a chaotic system
would not exhibit such determinism.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> You seem to not be understanding my position in this argument.
Your position is well understood. Global Warming is proved by six
independent trails of evidence. Each one by itself proves Global
Warming is real, it is here now, it is damaging.
Arguments about computer models is only to bamboozle the gullible.
Corals are incapable of lying. When the sea waters reach their heat
death temperature then they die. Coral colonies dated to be over 800
years old have been dying from heat stress this past year. No
temperatures in over 800 years ever reached their heat death
temperatures before, or they would have already gone extinct back then.
No models necessary. No cloud cover ambiguity needed. The corals
worldwide have announced global warming in terms which cannot be
denied.
Jim McGinn keeps arguing from CATO, from SEPP, from FRED SINGER, all
known ORGANIZED CRIME OPERATIONS SERVING ENERGY FOSSIL FUEL CLIENTS.
The goal is to create illusion that there is an "ongoing controversy",
but the only controversy comes from ORGANIZED CRIME sites and known
science hoaxers.
Arguing the details with McGinn only creates an illusion that some
scientific debate continues, which is the goal of ORGANIZED CRIME.
There are SIX TRAILS of evidence, and any doubt theory on Global
Warming must provide alternative explanations for all six
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
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.
Raymond Arritt
> My skepticism of computer models is based partly on my understanding of
> statistics and partly on a theoretical understanding of the limits of
> real-time computation. (If your interested, let me give you some terms to
> search: Complexity theory, Chaos Theory, Computer Theory, Butterfly Effect).
Tell me, what's your understanding of the basic methodology behind
global climate models -- that is, how do you think they go about
producing their results (deferring, for the moment, questions of accuracy)?
Jim McGinn
"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VPnXf.902301$xm3.333094@attbi_s21...
I don't understand. Can you be more specific?
Raymond Arritt
It's a simple question -- if you know the answer.
How do the models work? How do they derive an answer for future state
of the climate from our knowledge of the past and present?
No cut-and-paste, please.
There will be a second part to the question after (if) you respond to
this part.
Jim McGinn
"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Tell me, what's your understanding of the basic methodology behind
>>> global climate models -- that is, how do you think they go about
>>> producing their results (deferring, for the moment, questions of
>>> accuracy)?
>>
>> I don't understand. Can you be more specific?
>
> It's a simple question -- if you know the answer.
It's a vague questions.
>
> How do the models work? How do they derive an answer for future state
> of the climate from our knowledge of the past and present?
Mathematics.
>
> No cut-and-paste, please.
>
> There will be a second part to the question after (if) you respond to
> this part.
Is there a door prize?
Raymond Arritt
> "Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> Tell me, what's your understanding of the basic methodology behind
>>>> global climate models -- that is, how do you think they go about
>>>> producing their results (deferring, for the moment, questions of
>>>> accuracy)?
>>>
>>> I don't understand. Can you be more specific?
>>
>> It's a simple question -- if you know the answer.
>
> It's a vague questions.
Not if you know the answer.
>> How do the models work? How do they derive an answer for future state
>> of the climate from our knowledge of the past and present?
>
> Mathematics.
Very good. But there are lots of sub-fields of math. Can you narrow it
down to the specific mathematical method(s) used in global climate
models, and how models implement the method(s)?
It's not a hard question -- it can be answered in one sentence, or maybe
two or three sentences if you want to fill in details.
>> There will be a second part to the question after (if) you respond to
>> this part.
>
> Is there a door prize?
I'll let you know when (if) you answer the question.
H2-PV NOW
his messages with the intent of creating an illusion that there is an
"ONGOING SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY".
BY you replying with his false headline attached to your reply, YOU ARE
THE ONE SPREADING THE FALSE HEADLINE this time.
It takes only a second to change the headline to one that actually fits
the situation, as I just did. You are SEEN aiding and abetting
ORGANIZED CRIME spread frauds on the internet.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enterprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Singer is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known felon
convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Koch and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/981d17e5ab07246f8525686500621079?OpenDocument
Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).
http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"
http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".
http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".
Jim McGinn
I want to know the prize first.
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> I want to know the prize first.
The prize for not breaking the laws is not becoming Mrs Bubba to the
300 pound weight-lifter cellmate in prison.
Raymond Arritt
Nah. Taking the Fifth Amendment would be fine, but I'm not going to go
along with changing the subject.
At any rate, your repeated dodging of the question gives us a good idea
of the answer.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> "Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:zDlXf.43762$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> And then there's the differences in our intellectual methods. You trust
>> the computer models. I'm highly skeptical of computer models. (You can
>> "prove" anything with a computer model.")
>
> Of course, given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some really
> large time machines, how can we hope to test a 100 year temperature
> projection? Well, we can't, but does this mean what you would like to
> imply,
> that the models can not be validated without waiting 100 years? I don't
> think so.
It's really not a matter of what you think or I think. It has to do with
the fact that the authors of the model results have failed to disclose or
even consider these issues. It's a great big black hole in the GW argument.
And until this hole is filled there's no cause for alarm. And I think
this hole will never be filled. It's an impossible dream. The butterfly
rules.
SiCKO is SOCKO Says Time Magazine
> "Coby Beck" <c...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:G8mXf.16310$B_1.10633@edtnps89...
>
> > "Jim McGinn" <jimmcg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:zDlXf.43762$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >> And then there's the differences in our intellectual methods. You trust
> >> the computer models. I'm highly skeptical of computer models. (You can
> >> "prove" anything with a computer model.")
>
> > Of course, given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some really
> > large time machines, how can we hope to test a 100 year temperature
> > projection? Well, we can't, but does this mean what you would like to
> > imply,
> > that the models can not be validated without waiting 100 years? I don't
> > think so.
>
> It's really not a matter of what you think or I think.
Good point. You should have stopped there.
>. And I think
> this hole will never be filled. It's an impossible dream. The
butterfly
> rules.
But you didn't. Raving lunacy you must!