Re: [asa] Bacterial Gene May Affect Climate And Weather

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Sun Feb 18 2007 - 14:26:12 EST

At 10:03 PM 2/17/2007, wrote:

AFPhys says:

>>"By the way, I work intimately with supercomputer modeling and the
>>results of such computations. Believe me when I say that even very
>>well understood physical models are subject to huge errors when it
>>comes to comparison of the outputs of these runs with real world
>>data and inputs. We're often stymied as to what is going on because
>>our models didn't suggest things we actually see in or simple, well
>>measured, lab situations." ~ AFPhys
>It is one thing to emphasize that there are limitations. Anyone
>involved with computer modeling understands that. It is another
>thing to say "give up". ~ Wayne
>"As you say, also, there is a great problem with "dynamics". The
>"mesh" that the present models are using is ridiculously large (by
>necessity) and there is no foreseeable computational technique or
>equipment on the horizon to overcome that." ~ AFPhys
>If we follow this logic, then we should have listened to"give up"
>with the Sommerfeld model of a free electron gas. It's a silly model
>when you think about it. It ignores electron-electron interactions
>in a _metal_ (an inherently chaotic system and surely one that
>contains a multitude of electrons). How worse could you get than
>such a stupid idea? Well, if we had listened to "give up", we would
>not have improved this model to handle semiconductors, and we would
>probably still be using an abacus or a slide rule. The Boltzmann
>model for an ideal gas is just as stupid. Should we have listened
>to "give up" on statistical mechanics too? Then we would never have
>arrived at even the Sommerfeld model. Maybe we should "give up" on
>particle physics. We hardly have an easy way to model the entire
>standard model quantitatively. Perhaps we have given up on it in
>the US. Resolution is an important issue. At some level of resolution,
>we can probably expect chaos, but, just like the challenges of
>semiconductors, gas laws, and particle physics, we start with the
>large grid and gradually work our way to the details. ~ Wayne

@ No one is suggesting that we should "give up" attempting to
improve the computer models as "back up" to hard scientific
DATA. What is being insisted on, though, is that computer model
forecasts/predictions not be used by politicians to formulate
economic policy. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

"One point that keeps coming up that bothers me is "The consensus
view is ..." or "99% of climatologists say ..." I have tried without
success to get Pim Van Muers to state what would be the consequences
of doing nothing. If the problem is real, policymakers need to
undersatand what would be the likely consequences of various
actions. Basing actions on the precautionary principle is not
wise." ~ Bill Hamilton Wed, 17 Jan 2007 6:24 PM (PST)
Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and Social

"...Today's forecasts of sea-level rise use climate models ... But we
can now see that the models are almost worthless. .." ~ Jim Hansen
February 17, 2006

"...While our best climate models about global warming are
frightening and seem to point the finger at (among other things
indicating that carbon dioxide emissions are increasing and are to a
large degree caused by human activity) science based on climatic
models (which are the best thing we have) [are] softer than knowing
the chemical reactions of CFC's. And it makes little difference
that it is published in peer reviewed journals (that does not
strengthen the models)." --James Mahaffy - Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:49:54
-0600 [asa] Level of certainty in science

"....Scientists point out that there are specific flaws in the
models, such as albedo errors, and external factors not taken into
consideration such as possible indirect solar effects mediated
through cosmic rays that could change the conclusion above. GCMs are
capable of reproducing the general features of the observed global
temperature over the past century. ..."

Of course, there are still many unknowns, such as reliable data
coverage, and a full understanding of all the mechanisms that go into
modeling the many aspects of global circulation. .." ~ Pim van
Meurs Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:02:12 -0800 Re: [asa] Letters to Sam
Harris a "Maladjusted Misotheist"


"..The ice dynamics models were found to be wanting because they
underpredicted ice melt and were dropped from AR4. It's those pesky
positive feedbacks that cause chaos which runs roughshod through our
precious computer models. In short, the effects are worse than
currently predicted -- we just don't know how much worse." ~ Rich Blinne

"OK. So the models underestimated the effects of ice melt. I would
think that ice melt would be so crucially important that no
simulation should see the light of day without extensive validation
for this. How many additional "omissions" are they, and in which
direction are they likely to bias the results?
~ Bill Hamilton Sun, 4 Feb 2007 5:09 PM (PST) Re: [asa]
Counteri-ntuitive Results of AR4 SPM on Sea Level


I agree with David. The scientists who are convinced that global
warming is a serious problem (and I agree with David that it is a
problem) need to distance themselves from the environmental movement,
who have turned conservatives off with their socialist, pantheistic
and oppressive government ways. If they will do that perhaps some
intelligent discussion can take place, which will lead to real
solutions. ~ Bill Hamilton Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:05 (PST) Re: [asa] Why
the opposition to global



~ Janice ... Ecclesiastes 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet
the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come,
thither they return again.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 18 14:26:37 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 18 2007 - 14:26:37 EST