Analyzing Hansen's Graph: a challenge to computer model validity
Jim McGinn
Looking at either lines C or B in this graph (I'm ignoring A since Hansen
has backed-off from supporting it) I see serious departures from
predictions. From 1973 to 1977 there is a huge departure from Hansen's
model predictions. From 1977 to 1980 it tracks accurately. But then from
1980 to 1985 we see again that Hansen's model fails to match with actual
observations. From 1985 to 1990 it seems to track relatively accurately
but then, from 1990 it goes off track again and doesn't seem to get back on
track until the late nineties.
If Hansen's model does such a poor job of tracking historical observations
how much creedence should we attribute it?
Can this be explained? Volcanoes?
Michael Tobis
predictable trends.
No one claims that there will be a perfect match between a single model
realization and the observations. Two runs of the same model, started
with very slight differences in initial conditions, show similar
divergence. Nevertheless, they show similar long-term trends.
If you believe that we know nothing as a consequence of our models (or
any other evidence), how can you conclude that the impact of messing
with CO2 is harmless? It could as easily be much worse than we say.
In order to sensibly argue against constraints, it is far from enough
to argue that models (and the rest of climate science) are wrong. You
need a strong argument that the CO2 accumulation is indeed harmless.
Nobody has anything like that.
mt
Roger Coppock
Do you have anything that is at least lukewarm, Jim?
Jim McGinn
"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote
> There is unpredictable interannual variability superimposed on the
> predictable trends.
>
> No one claims that there will be a perfect match between a single model
> realization and the observations. Two runs of the same model, started
> with very slight differences in initial conditions, show similar
> divergence.
Yes, and this has, mistakenly, been used as evidence that the confidence in
the end result of the model is high.
> Nevertheless, they show similar long-term trends.
Models that have a bias that dictates erroneous results also the same
tendencies.
>
> If you believe that we know nothing as a consequence of our models (or
> any other evidence), how can you conclude that the impact of messing
> with CO2 is harmless?
I don't.
> It could as easily be much worse than we say.
Sure, and it might prove beneficial. (Especially with respect to the very
real possibility that the current interglacial may be coming to an end.)
And what about the costs of mitigating CO2. What if China and India ignore
us. Are you prepared to send your sons and daughters to war to reduce CO2.
>
> In order to sensibly argue against constraints, it is far from enough
> to argue that models (and the rest of climate science) are wrong. You
> need a strong argument that the CO2 accumulation is indeed harmless.
> Nobody has anything like that.
Do you have anything to suggest that the international enforcement of CO2
restrictions would not, essentially, require WW III?
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Do you have anything to suggest that the international enforcement of CO2
> restrictions would not, essentially, require WW III?
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 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, play the sad 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
http://snipurl.com/ottg
Results for "Jim McGinn" Cato Institute.
http://snipurl.com/ottk
Results about 279 for Jim McGinn associated with Cato Institute
Organized Crimes.
Roger Coppock
> enforcement of CO2 restrictions would not, essentially,
> require WW III?
Yes, two things, suggest that WW III is not necessary
to enforce CO2 restrictions.
1) A history of many past international restrictions:
for example, the Geneva Cnventions, the Single Convention,
the WW II ban on the use of chemical weapons,
the UN Charter's and Declaration of Human Rights'
restrictions on inhuman acts, The Law of the Sea Treaty,
to the Montreal Protocol's restrictions on CFC's.
2) Common sense.
Coby Beck
news:2CwZf.56048$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
>
> Looking at either lines C or B in this graph (I'm ignoring A since Hansen
> has backed-off from supporting it)
Can you please provide a reference or at least an indication of why you
state this falsehood? A, like B and C were scenarios, projections of
possible future forcing scenarios. Time has passed, B has been the closest
hypothetical to the observed reality.
> I see serious departures from predictions. From 1973 to 1977 there is a
> huge departure from Hansen's model predictions.
These are "climate" models. Climate is defined as an average of weather
over a long period of time, often 30 years. Differences in inter annual
variability between one model run and another, or between observation and
model run are not significant. 4 years where levels differend is *not* a
serious departure.
> From 1977 to 1980 it tracks accurately. But then from 1980 to 1985 we
> see again that Hansen's model fails to match with actual observations.
> From 1985 to 1990 it seems to track relatively accurately but then, from
> 1990 it goes off track again and doesn't seem to get back on track until
> the late nineties.
This is due to the scenario's volcano erupting in mid 90's vs the actual
eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1992. Again, an excellent success for the model
prediction.
> If Hansen's model does such a poor job of tracking historical observations
> how much creedence should we attribute it?
You antecedent is incorrect, the consequent implied equally so.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Michael Tobis
The chances that stumbling around drunk in the dark could be beneficial
are nonzero. You might find a twenty in the gutter, after all. One
can't really prove otherwise. In general, random behavior is not a good
idea.
As I said,
> it is far from enough
> to argue that models (and the rest of climate science) are wrong. You
> need a strong argument that the CO2 accumulation is indeed harmless.
> Nobody has anything like that.
If you ignore all of science, the possibility that our drunken
blundering could have a happy ending is not refutable. This does not
rise to a strong argument that the behavior actually is harmless.
It simply means your advice to the drunk is to cover his ears, say
na-na-na-na-na, and hope he finds a twenty. After all, sobering up is
unpleasant and difficult, but being drunk and finding a twenty is
great!
mt
Jim McGinn
"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144450822.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Sure, and it might prove beneficial.
>
> The chances that stumbling around drunk in the dark could be beneficial
> are nonzero. You might find a twenty in the gutter, after all. One
> can't really prove otherwise. In general, random behavior is not a good
> idea.
>
Admitting you have a problem is the first step:
http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/?Media=PlayFlash
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Admitting you have a problem is the first step:
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an