Useful Models or "How many epicycles is that"

dbo...@mindspring.com

unread,

Apr 2, 2006, 11:03:12 PM4/2/06

to

There was another thread discussing climate models and whether or not
they were any good. I believe it was Coby Beck who said that the
models had been tested by using them to predict the past climate data
with good results. I do not know the details of this but this is of
course what any good modeller would do. However, experience shows that
it is easy to have a very good model that is very good at predicting
past behavior and is................wrong.

The geocentric model of the universe was well established with the
planets following complicated "epicycles" to account for their motion,
including the apparent retrograde motion of Mars. No matter how
complex the observed motions became, it was always possible to add more
epicycles to make the model "predictive" of past observations. In the
end, it was its own complexity that doomed the geocntric theory as
anyone could see that the heliocentric theory made for a far simple
model.
The preference for simple theories is closely related the concept of
Occams Razor in which we are advised to always choose the theory that
has the least number of assumptions that explains the observations. A
simpler theory ussually has fewer assumptions.
Like the geocentric model, it would be entirely possible to produce a
climate model that is erroneous but can be made past predictive and
short term future predictive by adding more "epicycles". I am not
saying this is the case but I am biased because of my past work with
erroneous atmospheric models.
I am concerned that some people here put enormous faith in such models
when experience shows that they should be used with great caution.

H2-PV NOW

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 12:06:23 AM4/3/06

to

dbo...@mindspring.com wrote:
> There was another thread discussing climate models and whether or not
> they were any good. I believe it was Coby Beck who said that the
> models had been tested by using them to predict the past climate data
> with good results. I do not know the details of this but this is of
> course what any good modeller would do. However, experience shows that
> it is easy to have a very good model that is very good at predicting
> past behavior and is................wrong.

Models are only part of the global knowledgebase. There are six main
trals of evidence proving Global Warming dangers without a shadow of
doubt left. Models only are part of one of them -- not the complete
evidence of that trail. The FELONY FRAUDSTERS are looking for the
weakest evidence to try to distract "if this one can be shaken, then
trust us, the rest can be shaken too".

CORALS DO NOT LIE. They do not take political sides in debates. The
only die when the tempperatures in the seas get hot enough to reach
their heat death point, and they bleach and partially die when it gets
very close.

http://snipurl.com/ol5v
GOOGLE NEWS Results for Coral-Bleaching.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-03-30-caribbean-coral_x.htm
Caribbean coral suffers record bleaching, death
WASHINGTON (AP) - A one-two punch of bleaching from record hot water
followed by disease has killed ancient and delicate coral in the
biggest loss of reefs scientists have ever seen in Caribbean waters.

Researchers from around the globe are scrambling to figure out the
extent of the loss. Early conservative estimates from Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands find that about one-third of the coral in
official monitoring sites has recently died.

"It's an unprecedented die-off," said National Park Service fisheries
biologist Jeff Miller, who last week checked 40 stations in the Virgin
Islands. "The mortality that we're seeing now is of the extremely
slow-growing reef-building corals. These are corals that are the
foundation of the reef ... We're talking colonies that were here when
Columbus came by have died in the past three to four months."

Some of the devastated coral can never be replaced because it only
grows the width of one dime a year, Miller said.

Coral reefs are the basis for a multibillion-dollar tourism and
commercial fishing economy in the Caribbean. Key fish species use coral
as habitat and feeding grounds. Reefs limit the damage from hurricanes
and tsunamis. More recently they are being touted as possible sources
for new medicines.

If coral reefs die "you lose the goose with golden eggs" that are key
parts of small island economies, said Edwin Hernandez-Delgado, a
University of Puerto Rico biology researcher.

On Sunday, Hernandez-Delgado found a colony of 800-year-old star coral
- more than 13 feet high - that had just died in the waters off
Puerto Rico.

"We did lose entire colonies," he said. "This is something we have
never seen before."

On Wednesday, Tyler Smith, coordinator of the U.S. Virgin Islands Coral
Reef Monitoring program, dived at a popular spot for tourists in St.
Thomas and saw an old chunk of brain coral, about 3 feet in diameter,
that was at least 90% dead from the disease called "white plague."

"We haven't seen an event of this magnitude in the Caribbean before,"
said Mark Eakin, coordinator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Coral Reef Watch.

The Caribbean is actually better off than areas of the Indian and
Pacific ocean where mortality rates - mostly from warming waters -
have been in the 90% range in past years, said Tom Goreau of the Global
Coral Reef Alliance. Goreau called what's happening worldwide "an
underwater holocaust."

And with global warming, scientists are pessimistic about the future of
coral reefs.

"The prognosis is not good," said biochemistry professor M. James
Crabbe of the University of Luton near London. In early April, he will
investigate coral reef mortality in Jamaica. "If you want to see a
coral reef, go now, because they just won't survive in their current
state."

For the Caribbean, it all started with hot sea temperatures, first in
Panama in the spring and early summer, and it got worse from there.

New NOAA sea surface temperature figures show the sustained heating in
the Caribbean last summer and fall was by far the worst in 21 years of
satellite monitoring, Eakin said.

"The 2005 event is bigger than all the previous 20 years combined," he
said.

Coby Beck

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 12:25:22 AM4/3/06

to

<dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1144033392.5...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

> There was another thread discussing climate models and whether or not
> they were any good. I believe it was Coby Beck who said that the
> models had been tested by using them to predict the past climate data
> with good results. I do not know the details of this but this is of
> course what any good modeller would do. However, experience shows that
> it is easy to have a very good model that is very good at predicting
> past behavior and is................wrong.
>
> The geocentric model of the universe was well established with the
> planets following complicated "epicycles" to account for their motion,
> including the apparent retrograde motion of Mars. No matter how
> complex the observed motions became, it was always possible to add more
> epicycles to make the model "predictive" of past observations. In the

The difference is there were no physical principles behind the notion of
epicycles whereas today GCM are based on physical principles and also have
been tested against vast amounts of widely varied data. It is not just
temperature predictions that are made and tested.

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
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.
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. 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.

> The preference for simple theories is closely related the concept of
> Occams Razor in which we are advised to always choose the theory that
> has the least number of assumptions that explains the observations. A
> simpler theory ussually has fewer assumptions.

Occam's Razor says CO2 is a GHG, we are increasing the concentration of CO2,
the temperature is going up. CO2 is driving the temperature up. What is
complicated about that?

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Jim McGinn

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 12:39:08 AM4/3/06

to

"H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote

> Models are only part of the global knowledgebase.

No duh.

There are six main
> trails of evidence proving Global Warming dangers without a shadow of
> doubt

Really? Six main trails? Where are these trails? Are they in a secret box
under your bed?

How often do they let you out of the basement?

H2-PV NOW

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 1:16:58 AM4/3/06

to

Jim McGinn wrote:
> "H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote
>
> > Models are only part of the global knowledgebase.
>
> No duh.
>
> There are six main
> > trails of evidence proving Global Warming dangers without a shadow of
> > doubt
>
> Really? Six main trails? Where are these trails? Are they in a secret box
> under your bed?

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.

Jim McGinn

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 2:03:00 AM4/3/06

to

<dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote

> There was another thread discussing climate models and whether or not
> they were any good. I believe it was Coby Beck who said that the
> models had been tested by using them to predict the past climate data

> with good results. I do not know the details of this . . .

I don't know the details of this either. I suspect Coby doesn't know the
details of this. Moreover, I suspect that nobody knows the details of this
except maybe the modelers themselves. And I suspect they really don't know
either and are hoping that nobody broaches the subject.

However, experience shows that
> it is easy to have a very good model that is very good at predicting
> past behavior and is................wrong.
>
> The geocentric model of the universe was well established with the
> planets following complicated "epicycles" to account for their motion,
> including the apparent retrograde motion of Mars. No matter how
> complex the observed motions became, it was always possible to add more
> epicycles to make the model "predictive" of past observations. In the
> end, it was its own complexity that doomed the geocntric theory as
> anyone could see that the heliocentric theory made for a far simple
> model.

Well stated.

> The preference for simple theories is closely related the concept of
> Occams Razor in which we are advised to always choose the theory that
> has the least number of assumptions that explains the observations. A
> simpler theory ussually has fewer assumptions.
> Like the geocentric model, it would be entirely possible to produce a
> climate model that is erroneous but can be made past predictive and
> short term future predictive by adding more "epicycles". I am not
> saying this is the case but I am biased because of my past work with
> erroneous atmospheric models.
> I am concerned that some people here put enormous faith in such models
> when experience shows that they should be used with great caution.
>

Your concern is, I'm sure, well founded. The confidence level on these
models could only be very very low. So low, in fact, that they really
shouldn't even be mentioned.

Jim McGinn

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 2:11:19 AM4/3/06

to

"H2-PV NOW" <H2...@zig-zag.net> wrote in message
news:1144041418.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

You're whacked.

Roger Coppock

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 2:34:39 AM4/3/06

to

How many climate models have you run Mr. Ohara?
Have you even taken a look at how a GCM operates,
or cracked a textbook on the subject? You say no;
I thought so.

Jim McGinn

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 2:59:45 AM4/3/06

to

"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:Ss1Yf.29848$%H.16238@clgrps13...

> <dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:1144033392.5...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>> There was another thread discussing climate models and whether or not
>> they were any good. I believe it was Coby Beck who said that the
>> models had been tested by using them to predict the past climate data
>> with good results. I do not know the details of this but this is of
>> course what any good modeller would do. However, experience shows that
>> it is easy to have a very good model that is very good at predicting
>> past behavior and is................wrong.
>>
>> The geocentric model of the universe was well established with the
>> planets following complicated "epicycles" to account for their motion,
>> including the apparent retrograde motion of Mars. No matter how
>> complex the observed motions became, it was always possible to add more
>> epicycles to make the model "predictive" of past observations. In the
>
> The difference is there were no physical principles behind the notion of
> epicycles

Yes there was. There was a principle that planets path was in a perfect
circle.

> whereas today GCM are based on physical principles

Irrelevant, all of science is based on physical principles.

> and also have been tested against vast amounts of widely varied data.

What are the results of these tests? Why have they not been made public?
Do you have anything that would allow us to put some kind of quantitative
indication on how much confidence we should put in these climatic models?
Or are you just talking out your ass?

Let me guess, you give us your personal guarantee that these test have
proven the viability of the climatic models.

> It is not just temperature predictions that are made and tested.

Why are you hiding the results of your tests? Is it a secret?

> The climate is a very complex system and our observations of it are by no
> means complete even for what is going on today.

Are you suggesting that this adds up to an excuse for ignoring the fact
that the confidence level of the models may be very very low.

> This represents both a shortfall of knowledge and an oppurtunity for
> validating model predictions.

I'm confused. Above you indicated that the tests have been done. Now here
it seems you are suggesting the opposite. So what's the deal. Do you have
verification or are you just flappin your hemorhoids again?

> 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
> 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.

You think this is a good thing?

> 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. 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.

This is comical. Warming over the last 12 years is statistically
insignificant.

> 12 years later, he was remarkably correct,

Data? References?

> requiring an adjustment only for the timing difference between the
> simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount
> Pinatubo.

Prove it.

>
> 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,

Is it?

> 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:

Hindsight is 20/20. There's all kinds of anecdotal evidence of people that,
supposedly, predicted the future.

Roger Coppock

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 3:16:13 AM4/3/06

to

The source code and documentation for many climate modles is
online or supplied with many textbooks on the subject. Model
runs for 'predicting the past' are typically included. See UCAR,
NCAR, Livermore, or Hadley Centre's websites. See Amazon.com
for textbooks.

H2-PV NOW

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 4:13:41 AM4/3/06

to

And you are an Organized Crime torpedo.

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".

Scott Nudds

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 8:09:17 AM4/3/06

to

<dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

> The geocentric model of the universe was well established with the
> planets following complicated "epicycles" to account for their motion,
> including the apparent retrograde motion of Mars. No matter how
> complex the observed motions became, it was always possible to add more
> epicycles to make the model "predictive" of past observations. In the
> end, it was its own complexity that doomed the geocntric theory as
> anyone could see that the heliocentric theory made for a far simple
> model.

It was hardly replaced because it was unpredictive. In fact it allowed
the positions of the planets to be predicted centuries in advance.

And it wasn't doomed either, neither was it replaced with a simpler model
which is more mathematically complicated.

In fact during the Apollo missions, the computers calculate the positions
of the moon based on epicycles rather than Keplerian orbits. Why? Because
it was less mathematically complex for them to do so, and gave the requied
accuracy.

<dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

> Like the geocentric model, it would be entirely possible to produce a
> climate model that is erroneous but can be made past predictive and
> short term future predictive by adding more "epicycles". I am not
> saying this is the case but I am biased because of my past work with
> erroneous atmospheric models.

Wrong again John Boy. The earth centered model was entirely predictive,
both of the future and of the past and was equally predictive of the future
as it was of the past.

<dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

> I am concerned that some people here put enormous faith in such models
> when experience shows that they should be used with great caution.

In fact OBSERVATIONS indicate that the warming observed is following along
a path that the models identified as among the worst case scenarios.

Scott Nudds

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 8:14:27 AM4/3/06

to

"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Really? Six main trails? Where are these trails? Are they in a secret
box
> under your bed?

Just off hand, I can think of 12.

1: Direct observation of warming.
2: Basic Radiative physics
3: Collapse of antarctic ice shelves
4: Observed species migration
5: Melting of virtually all glaciers worldwide
6: Melting northern permafrost
7: Coral Bleaching
8: Direct measurement of ocean temperature increases
9: Observed increase in weather variability
10: Observed Increase in hurricane strength
11: Model predictions of higher temperatures
12: Global observation of shorter duration of winter.

Raymond Arritt

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 10:42:31 AM4/3/06

to

Jim McGinn wrote:
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:Ss1Yf.29848$%H.16238@clgrps13...

>>and also have been tested against vast amounts of widely varied data.

>
>
> What are the results of these tests? Why have they not been made public?

They have been made public. To your usual response of "References" the
best reply is "Google is your friend." This assumes that you're willing
to make a good faith effort to look for and read those references
(something which you have so far failed to demonstrate).

>>It is not just temperature predictions that are made and tested.
>
>
> Why are you hiding the results of your tests? Is it a secret?

Ah, you've found out about our conspiracy. We're hiding the results in
web pages, internationally-distributed scientific journals, textbooks,
and other places accessible only to the co-conspirators and
6,000,000,000 of their closest friends.

Michael Tobis

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 11:59:43 AM4/3/06

to

How unpleasant. If you would ask politely there would be far better
answers to all your questions, but you've already clearly indicated
that you have no interest in taking the answers seriously. For
instance:

> Do you have anything that would allow us to put some kind of quantitative
> indication on how much confidence we should put in these climatic models?

I referred you to Annan and Hargreaves recently. It provides a formal
and rigorous statistical analysis of the confidence interval for global
sensitivity using multiple evidence sources. Since you claim to be
interested in science, why not have a look?

mt

Jim McGinn

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 12:57:21 PM4/3/06

to

"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote

>> What are the results of these tests? Why have they not been made public?
>
> They have been made public.

References?

Jim

Jim McGinn

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 12:59:31 PM4/3/06

to

"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Do you have anything that would allow us to put some kind of quantitative
>> indication on how much confidence we should put in these climatic models?
>
> I referred you to Annan and Hargreaves recently. It provides a formal
> and rigorous statistical analysis of the confidence interval for global
> sensitivity using multiple evidence sources.

What's this got to do with computer models. (Read the title of the thread.)

Jim

Michael Tobis

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 2:53:28 PM4/3/06

to

It provides corroboration.

The big picture is not in serious doubt at this point. General
circulation models are a useful tool but are only part of the big
picture.

There's little reason to expect the big picture to change much as a
result of changes to GCMs, since we already have GCM results
successfully predicting

the 1990 vintage prediction of 2005 climate change
the Pinatubo results

and reproducing:

the 20th century reconstructions
various Holocene simulations
various deep paleoclimate simulations

mt

dbo...@mindspring.com

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 4:34:56 PM4/3/06

to

For Rogers benefit, I used to run a huge defense computer code based on
the AFGL climate model. This was in 1985 and they knew the model was
flawed due to poor dta from higher latitudes.
Climate models and many other models are based on many coupled partial
differential equations and as anybody who has ever done such modelling
knows, the output is often "chaotic" depending very strongly on
boundary conditions and initial conditions. Your model can be correct
but will give erroneous results for this reason. Even if you get the
IC and BC correct, another factor that leads to chaotic results is
failure to include certain PDEs you thought were insignificant but they
end up seriously skewing your result. In other words, your science can
be very good but the model will give bad predictions for anything far
from where you start. It is possible to tweak such models to give
better results without ever getting it right simply by adding more
effects but you might never add in the right effects.
For example (and I am not claiming this is correct), if you never put
in solar forcing due to increased solar irradiance in a model without
AGW, it will not predict warming correctly.
Experience shows that complicated models of complex systems should
always be viewed with suspicion.

Global Warming @ARMY.com

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 4:48:58 PM4/3/06

to

dbo...@mindspring.com wrote:

> Experience shows that complicated models of complex systems should
> always be viewed with suspicion.

Models are only one, and a least significant one, of the many
cross-corroborating trails proving global warming.

CORALS NEVER LIE -- they are incapable of taking sides in political or
economic or scientific arguments. They live inside the boundaries that
their evolution has permitted them to survive within. When the climate
causes the heat to rise, they die. Their heat death point is fixed by
species.

There is no LYING, no FAKING, NO AMBIGUITY. Corals leave fossils when
they go extinct and they live continuously without gaps when they have
satisfactory conditions. We have NO FOSSIL RECORDS of arbitrary
die-offs of corals going back millions of years, but we have mass
bleachings and 90% die-offs in 1998, again in 2002, again in 2005-2006.
The 1998 record stands unbroken so far, but the 2005-2006 even is still
under-weigh.

CORALS NEVER LIE, But REPUBLICANS ALWAYS LIE about Global Warming.

http://snipurl.com/omlm
Coral Bleaching -- Undisputable Evidence of GLOBAL WARMING

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002901104_coral31....
Bleaching, disease killing coral

http://news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=ab77419d270fa55e
Good news and bad for important reef

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3136&src=QHAENN
Feeling the Heat: The World Wakes Up
Florida: Dying Coral

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060313/NEWS010...
Murk clouds Keys diving
Sediments whipped up by Wilma blamed for poor lower-reef visibility

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12115754/site/newsweek/
7 New Wonders of the World
Coral Triangle, Indonesia

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pcorals25mar25,0...
Scientists say reef may be dying
Jupiter Island dives discover coral bleaching

http://caymannetnews.com/2006/03/1049/commentary.shtml
NOAA reports massive bleaching

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1598283.htm
Scientists check reef for cyclone damage

http://starbulletin.com/2006/03/06/news/story06.html
Rising sea levels threaten coral reefs

Jim McGinn

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 4:55:45 PM4/3/06

to

"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote

> It provides corroboration.

Really. Show us how.

>
> The big picture is not in serious doubt at this point.

We're supposed to take your word on this?

> General
> circulation models are a useful tool but are only part of the big
> picture.
>
> There's little reason to expect the big picture to change much as a
> result of changes to GCMs, since we already have GCM results
> successfully predicting

Evidence?

>
> the 1990 vintage prediction of 2005 climate change
> the Pinatubo results

Does this have anything to do with Catastrophic AGW? If not then why did
you bring it up? (Look at the title of this thread.)

>
> and reproducing:
>
> the 20th century reconstructions
> various Holocene simulations
> various deep paleoclimate simulations

Does any of this confirm catastrophic AGW? If it does you should make an
argument to that effect.

Jim

Scott Nudds

unread,

Apr 3, 2006, 5:23:52 PM4/3/06

to

>Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> You're whacked.

Former DeLay Aide Pleads Guilty

WASHINGTON - A former top aide to Rep. Tom DeLay pleaded guilty Friday
to
conspiracy and promised to cooperate with a federal investigation of bribery
and
lobbying fraud that has so far netted three convictions and prompted calls
for
ethics reform in Congress.

Tony Rudy, DeLay's former deputy chief of staff, admitted to conspiring with
convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff both while Rudy worked for DeLay and after
he
left the lawmaker's staff to become a lobbyist himself.

He faces up to five years in prison, but could receive much less based on
the
extent of his help with the investigation, U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal
Huvelle told Rudy at a court hearing in Washington.

As a top aide to DeLay in his role as House majority leader, Rudy took
payments
from Abramoff in 2000, then helped stop an Internet gambling bill opposed by
Abramoff's clients, according to court papers.

Later, while working as a lobbyist, Rudy also was extensively involved in
arranging a golf trip to Scotland for Rep. Bob Ney (news, bio, voting
record),
described as Representative 1, and congressional staffers, the court papers
said.

Rudy, who resigned as DeLay's deputy chief of staff in 2001, is the first
person
to plead guilty in the case since Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud charges
in
January. Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay press secretary who later became a
lobbying partner with Abramoff, pleaded guilty in November to conspiring to
bribe public officials.

The plea agreement contains no allegations that DeLay, who it describes as
Representative 2, did anything wrong.

As part of the deal, Rudy pleaded guilty to the single conspiracy count and
prosecutors agreed not to pursue other possible charges against him or his
wife.
"The American public loses when officials and lobbyists conspire to buy and
sell
influence in such a corrupt and brazen manner. By his admission in open
court
today, Mr. Rudy paints a picture of Washington which the American public and
law
enforcement will simply not tolerate," said Alice Fisher, assistant Attorney
General in charge of the Justice Department's Criminal Division.

Rudy, 39, stood with his head slightly bowed and his hands clasped in front
of
him as the judge detailed how he took free trips, tickets, meals and golf
games
from Abramoff while working for DeLay.

Rudy, a lawyer, answered the judge's questions in a strong voice but seemed
more
subdued when Huvelle asked if he understood that he was pleading guilty to a
felony and would lose some rights.

"Yes your honor," he said quietly.

His lawyer, Laura Ariane Miller, objected when Huvelle described the
allegation
that he took things "in exchange" for official acts. Instead, Miller said
that
her client sought and received gifts.

Huvelle said that under the sentencing guidelines, which are not mandatory
but
often used by judges, Rudy could receive 24 to 30 months in prison because
he
does not have a criminal record and acknowledged his crime.

The judge said that prosecutors could ask for a lower sentence, depending on
his
cooperation. Rudy was allowed to remain free pending the sentencing
Rudy and his lawyer left the courthouse without commenting to reporters.
Ney's lawyer, Mark Tuohey, said a guilty plea by Rudy doesn't change Ney's
situation. The congressman continues to maintain his innocence. Tuohey said
he
hadn't seen the court papers filed Friday and couldn't comment in detail on
them.

Court papers say Rudy sent an e-mail inviting Ney and his then-chief of
staff
Neil Volz to Scotland in 2002, promising golf and "drinking and smoking
Cubans."
Ney contends he thought the trip was properly paid for by a GOP policy group
for
a legitimate international parliamentary event.

"Mr. Rudy had nothing to do with Mr. Ney's Scotland trip at all, nothing,"
Tuohey said. When asked whether Rudy could have sent the e-mail invite, he
said,
"If he did, I haven't seen it."

Ney is cooperating with Justice Department requests for information. For
example, Ney spokesman Brian Walsh said the Ohio Republican has provided
prosecutors with stacks of receipts to prove he and his staff paid for their
own
food at Abramoff's downtown Washington restaurant. Ney also has said he was
duped by Abramoff into entering statements on the Congressional Record in
support of Abramoff's purchase of a fleet of Florida casino boats.

After leaving DeLay's office, Rudy first joined Abramoff's lobbying team at
the
Greenberg Traurig law firm. Soon after, he signed on with another former
DeLay
staffer, Ed Buckham, at the Alexander Strategy Group.

Jim McGinn

unread,

Apr 4, 2006, 2:33:14 AM4/4/06

to

<dbo...@mindspring.com> wrote

> Experience shows that complicated models of complex systems should
> always be viewed with suspicion.

Or even contempt.

Raymond Arritt

unread,

Apr 4, 2006, 3:46:44 AM4/4/06

to

As stated in my previous post:

Jim McGinn

unread,

Apr 4, 2006, 4:04:54 AM4/4/06

to

"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote

Put up or shut up.

Jonathan Kirwan

unread,

Apr 4, 2006, 4:28:23 AM4/4/06

to

I haven't seen a single instance where Jim demonstrated any effort on
his own part to actually try and read with understanding a single,
scientific paper pointed out to him. Not one demonstrated instance.

I just think he doesn't respect himself much and doesn't feel his own
opinions are worth that much, so he won't do any personal work to
develop and refine them.

Jon

Message has been deleted

beav

unread,

Apr 4, 2006, 10:20:20 AM4/4/06

to

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:14:27 -0400, "Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com>
wrote:

>
>"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> Really? Six main trails? Where are these trails? Are they in a secret
>box
>> under your bed?
>
>Just off hand, I can think of 12.
>
>
>1: Direct observation of warming.

ok

>2: Basic Radiative physics

ok

>3: Collapse of antarctic ice shelves

where? when?

>4: Observed species migration

maybe you mean expansion of their range(s), and extirpation of species
that can't move.

>5: Melting of virtually all glaciers worldwide

ok

>6: Melting northern permafrost

yep

>7: Coral Bleaching

alright

>8: Direct measurement of ocean temperature increases

ok

>9: Observed increase in weather variability

pretty subjective. if you wanted to say that the average temp in
recent years has reached the highest measured running average in
history, you'd be more accurate.

>10: Observed Increase in hurricane strength

can't tell yet. could be a cyclical increase

>11: Model predictions of higher temperatures

the model must predict it, then it must happen. models can predict
all kinds of things. models give you a feel for the future, but they
are really a means of checking you hypothesis.

>12: Global observation of shorter duration of winter.

ok.

it seems that GW is here.

now. what do we do about it? don't say Kyoto. what do we REALLY do
about it?
>

Phil Hays

unread,

Apr 4, 2006, 10:56:15 AM4/4/06

to

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 14:20:20 GMT, beav <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote:

>>3: Collapse of antarctic ice shelves
>
>where? when?

Oh, for starters try this:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/News_and_Information/Press_Releases/2002/20020319.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0306_030306_glaciersurge.html

>now. what do we do about it? don't say Kyoto. what do we REALLY do
>about it?

Technical answer or political answer?

--
Phil Hays

Scott Nudds

unread,

Apr 4, 2006, 12:34:30 PM4/4/06

to

> >3: Collapse of antarctic ice shelves

"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote in message
> where? when?

Over the last 5 years
In the antarctic.

> >4: Observed species migration

"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote in message

> maybe you mean expansion of their range(s), and extirpation of species
> that can't move.

Movement northward for various species as the surface warms and provides a
more suitable habitat. The process is called species migration.

> >9: Observed increase in weather variability

"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote in message

> pretty subjective. if you wanted to say that the average temp in
> recent years has reached the highest measured running average in
> history, you'd be more accurate.

No, I am saying the extremes of weather have increased in frequency and
severity.
For example, record hurricane seasons, record drouts, record rains, record
cold and record heatwaves like the one in Europe that killed 15,000 people.

You remember that don't you? Or perhaps you remember yesterday night when
the just a couple weeks into the tornado season in the U.S. and there has
already been more tornadoes than in any other season ever recorded.

> >10: Observed Increase in hurricane strength

"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote in message

> can't tell yet. could be a cyclical increase

Higher surface temperatures = more energy = stronger hurricanes. Already
two category 5's in Australia.

Are we having fun yet?

> >11: Model predictions of higher temperatures

"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote in message

> the model must predict it, then it must happen. models can predict
> all kinds of things. models give you a feel for the future, but they
> are really a means of checking you hypothesis.

And the hypothesis is checked, quantified, and meshes with observation.

"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote in message

> now. what do we do about it? don't say Kyoto. what do we REALLY do
> about it?

We have to move from point A to point B. It will take 1000 steps. Kyoto
is step 1.

Failure to take step 1, precludes taking step 2,3,4, etc.

Global Warming @ARMY.com

unread,

Apr 4, 2006, 1:50:19 PM4/4/06

to

You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an

Scott Nudds

unread,

Apr 4, 2006, 5:03:14 PM4/4/06

to

"Jim McGinn" wrote
> Or even contempt.

Once you begin to understand the underlying science, you will be qualified
to begin to hold a contemptuous opinion of the science.

Michael Tobis

unread,

Apr 4, 2006, 5:35:42 PM4/4/06

to

These are very reasonable concerns form the point of view of an
informed outsider.

There is no a priori reason to believe that climate modeling is
possible. Nor is there an a priori reason for believing it is
impossible.

It turns out that climate modeling (of the sort you describe, that is,
as an initial value PDE problem) is in fact possible beyond the limits
of the chaotic predictability of the system in question. That is
because climate is not the system trajectory, but the statistics of the
ensemble of trajectories, otherwise known as the contours of the
manifold of trajectories within the state space, if you want to get
fussy. The bounds of chaotic predictability apply to the trajectory,
not to the ensemble, which it turns out is strongly constrained and
behaves like a rather unwieldy but nevertheless disspative and
predictable system.

Consider that the seasons are predictable even though the weather
isn't. Predicting future climate in a climate model is based on the
same physical principles as predicting the seasons in such a model, and
the seasons are predicted reliably.

There are similarities between weather models and climate models. They
certainly share intellectual roots, and sometimes they share code.
However, the purposes to which they are put differ considerably, and
this is why predictability limits on weather models do not applpy to
climate models.

While this only constitutes a plausibility argument for the utility of
climate models in prediction, there is empirical evidence that this is
indeed the case. The aforementioned ability of the mdoels to replictae
the statistical properties of the seasons is a strong case in point.
Replication of the twentieth century record, utility in paleoclimate
applications, and to some extent utility in the study of
extraterrestrial planetary atmospheres bolster this evidence.

It is most important in the present context to point out that despite
what our more disingenuous critics would have you believe, the core of
the evidence that we need to be concerned about anthropogenic emissions
does not come from model runs, but from relatively straightforward
arguments in classical radiative physics.

In addition to their scientific purpose as tools to enhance
intellectual understanding of the atmosphere and the earth, climate
models have practical use in various applications, notably including
informing policy. What they inform policy about, though, is not whether
or not there will be a problem; multiple evidence sources have
essentially converged, and there are not any notable outliers left. The
description of the situation in detail should be easily accessible to
someone with your baqckground. I highly recommend that you read the
Third Assessment Report of the first working gorup of the IPCC,
available here:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

Hoping you will find this reply helpful.

mt
--
Michael Tobis

Jim McGinn

unread,

Apr 4, 2006, 6:58:58 PM4/4/06

to

"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote

> These are very reasonable concerns form the point of view of an
> informed outsider.
>
> There is no a priori reason to believe that climate modeling is
> possible. Nor is there an a priori reason for believing it is
> impossible.

Blah, blah, blah. So much for stating the obvious.

>
> It turns out that climate modeling (of the sort you describe, that is,
> as an initial value PDE problem) is in fact possible beyond the limits
> of the chaotic predictability of the system in question. That is
> because climate is not the system trajectory, but the statistics of the
> ensemble of trajectories, otherwise known as the contours of the
> manifold of trajectories within the state space, if you want to get
> fussy.

This reads like something that was created between bong hits.

Questions:

1) What does the phrase, "climate is not the system trajectory," mean? Do
you have any references that support your characterization, whatever that
may be?

2) What does the phrase, "the contours of the manifold of trajectories
within the state space," mean. References?

3) What does any of this have to do with, supposedly, providing us a
reasonable degree of insurance that we can trust the computer models?

> The bounds of chaotic predictability apply to the trajectory,
> not to the ensemble, which it turns out is strongly constrained and
> behaves like a rather unwieldy but nevertheless disspative and
> predictable system.

You obviously haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

>
> Consider that the seasons are predictable even though the weather
> isn't. Predicting future climate in a climate model is based on the
> same physical principles as predicting the seasons in such a model, and
> the seasons are predicted reliably.

We have past evidence of season, you idiot, we have no past evidence of
catastrophic GW.

>
> There are similarities between weather models and climate models. They
> certainly share intellectual roots, and sometimes they share code.
> However, the purposes to which they are put differ considerably, and
> this is why predictability limits on weather models do not applpy to
> climate models.

What a fool.

>
> While this only constitutes a plausibility argument for the utility of
> climate models in prediction, there is empirical evidence that this is
> indeed the case. The aforementioned ability of the mdoels to replictae
> the statistical properties of the seasons is a strong case in point.
> Replication of the twentieth century record, utility in paleoclimate
> applications, and to some extent utility in the study of
> extraterrestrial planetary atmospheres bolster this evidence.

Bad logic.

>
> It is most important in the present context to point out that despite
> what our more disingenuous critics would have you believe, the core of
> the evidence that we need to be concerned about anthropogenic emissions
> does not come from model runs, but from relatively straightforward
> arguments in classical radiative physics.

This comment here underscores the argumentive tactics of the GW loons. When
challenged about the lack of confidence associated with the computer models
they shift the argument with these kinds of statements, "the core of the

evidence that we need to be concerned about anthropogenic emissions does not
come from model runs, but from relatively straightforward arguments in

classical radiative physics." If we were to ask these loons to substantiate
this purported, "straightforward arguments in classical radiative physics,"
we would find that they would not answer the question with anything but
theory based conjecture. When we point out to them that they haven't made
their point they will then shift the argument to the dramatic aspects of
what would happen if AGW is true. And when we then point out to them that
they are evading the issue they will then resort to the old standby that
anybody that opposes their nonsense is part of a right wing conspiracy.

> In addition to their scientific purpose as tools to enhance
> intellectual understanding of the atmosphere and the earth, climate
> models have practical use in various applications, notably including
> informing policy. What they inform policy about, though, is not whether
> or not there will be a problem; multiple evidence sources have
> essentially converged, and there are not any notable outliers left. The
> description of the situation in detail should be easily accessible to
> someone with your baqckground. I highly recommend that you read the
> Third Assessment Report of the first working gorup of the IPCC,
> available here:
>
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
>
> Hoping you will find this reply helpful.

There is nothing in the IPCC report that provides us a scientific basis for
predicting catastrophic AGW.

H2-PV NOW

unread,

Apr 4, 2006, 7:28:24 PM4/4/06

to

Jim McGinn wrote:

> This comment here underscores the argumentive tactics of the GW loons. When
> challenged about the lack of confidence associated with the computer models
> they shift the argument with these kinds of statements, "the core of the
> evidence that we need to be concerned about anthropogenic emissions does not
> come from model runs, but from relatively straightforward arguments in
> classical radiative physics." If we were to ask these loons to substantiate
> this purported, "straightforward arguments in classical radiative physics,"
> we would find that they would not answer the question with anything but
> theory based conjecture. When we point out to them that they haven't made
> their point they will then shift the argument to the dramatic aspects of
> what would happen if AGW is true. And when we then point out to them that
> they are evading the issue they will then resort to the old standby that
> anybody that opposes their nonsense is part of a right wing conspiracy.

Models are irrelevent. Radiative physics was begun by Albert Einstein
over 100 years ago presenting the "photon" theory of light radiation.
He developed it further with the Theory of Relativity and the Special
Theory of Relativity. Neils Bohr and the Copenhagen Interpretation
developed quantum physics theory further. Both of these are well proved
by the photons of light emitted by the dscreen you are looking at to
read this.

That is radiative physics. PHYSICAL elements and molecules RADIATE
energy as visible and invisible light. Infrared light is invisible to
humans but visible to their instruments. We can see IR light with
instruments and special IR sensitive camera films.

Only rightwing loons deny infrared energy exists.

CO2 is opaque to IR photons. That means it captures them, holds them
for a time and releases them when conditions are right. CO2 is also
invisible.

Only rightwing loons deny CO2 exists.

The VISIBLE spectrum lead to the discovery of elements through their
RADIATIVE PHYSICS. We know a lot about the absorption and emissions of
various spectra of light, both visible and invisible.

Only rightwing loons deny spectra exist.

WE know for an absolute certainty what happens when IR radiation is in
an atmosphere containing CO2. DEnial of Greenhouse gases requires a new
physics that explains where the IR energy disappears from the system
when we measure it is in the system using thermometers and IR-sensitive
instruments and IR-sensitive camera films.

Only a rightwing loon would deny IR energy is in the system after it
has been measured as being there.

The FIRST LAW of THERMODYNAMICS states that energy cannot be created
nor destroyed. Radiative Physics explains what the IR heat energy does
in the system. You have to produce an alternative explanation which
EXPLAINS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE better than the explanation used by the
whole world's phyicists.

Only a rightwing loon would imagine leprechans wisking away the IR
energy so that it never influences the climate-atmospheric system.

MODELS are useful for predicting, but they are totally unnecessary for
demonstrating that Athropogenic (Man-Made) Greenhouse Gases trap heat
in the biosphere and create Global Warming.

You can fight and destroy every model on the planet and the plain
RADIATIVE PHYSIC still proves there is a serious Global Warming problem
caused by man-made pollutoion gases.

Only a rightwing loon trained in a Kansas Creation-Science class would
be ignorant of RADIATIVE PHYSICS and think models are central to
proving anything about Global Warming.