Re: [asa] Asteroid Apophis

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Mon Feb 26 2007 - 10:49:20 EST

At 09:20 AM 2/26/2007, Johan Jammart wrote:
>Thanks to all for your answers. It seem to me
>that the “free-process defense” is
>most satisfying answer to me, at least for the
>moment. Interesting shot articles here for those
>who are interested:
> ~ Johan Jammart

@ Quoting from your article: "...Additionally,
in specifying that the sun and moon are to rule
over the day and over the night" [Genesis
1:18] God appears to be granting a certain measure of freedom to them. .... "

I wonder if that has been factored into any of
those global warming "climate models". :)

~ Janice ... Quoting from a different source:

Quote: ".....Several years back, I spent millions
of your (and my) tax dollars on predictive models
for a weapon system that is still being
developed. I also spent hundreds of thousands of
tax dollars on statistical analysis of those
models, as well as being briefed on other models
costing millions of dollars that had millions of
dollars worth of statistcal analysis done on
their modeling as well. These models tried to
predict the outcomes of weapon engagements that
were all within known parameters of the physical
sciences (i.e., they didn't try to predict
whether a weapon would be fired by the human
controller, only what was the physical outcome of
the actual firing, and the counter measures as
applied). The accuracy of the models was then
predicated on their ability to predict future
outcomes as we tested the weapon, or to "predict"
those outcomes that we already had from
testing. Scientists working on these models came
from MIT's Lincoln Labs, DARPA, and Sandia Labs, to name a few.

The end result was mind boggling.... The models
could predict some of the results, not all. They
could not even predict a majority of observed
outcomes. And the level of confidence in the
model dropped significantly every time the model
predicted wrong. Statistically, for a model to
be effective, it had to predict correctly quite a
few times before the level of confidence in the model could reach even 50%.

Keep in mind that these models were all
predicting well-known and understood physical
characteristics such as ballistic arc, throw
weight, thrust, atmospheric drag, cross-section
ratios, fluid dynamics, and the like. These
were all modeled "knowns" that had worked well in other, less complex, models.

Any model used by a climatologist to prove or
disprove man's effect on, or ability to affect,
global warming, would have to take into account
many more "unknowns", often referred to as
butterfly effect".

  Perhaps the greatest unknown among the many, is
man himself. This is stated clearly in the
executive summary of Chapter 14 (Advancing Our
Understanding) in the.. report
Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution
of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on

IPCC: "(further work is needed to) Link models
of the physical climate and the biogeochemical
system more effectively, and in turn improve
coupling with descriptions of human activities.
At present, human influences generally are
treated only through emission scenarios
that provide external forcings to the climate
system. In future more comprehensive models,
human activities need to begin to interact with
the dynamics of physical, chemical, and
biological sub-systems through a diverse set of
contributing activities, feedbacks, and responses." [end IPCC quote]

If the models being used have limited capability
to take into account human activities, then how
on earth (pun intended) are they supposed to
predict global climate change based on human
activity! The answer is, of course, that they can't be used that way...yet.

IPCC: "(scientists must) Improve methods to
quantify uncertainties of climate projections and
scenarios, including development and
exploration of long-term ensemble simulations
using complex models. The climate system is a
coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore
the long-term prediction of future climate states
is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon
the prediction of the probability
distribution of the system’s future possible
states by the generation of ensembles of model
solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical
nature of climate is computationally intensive
and requires the application of new methods
of model diagnosis, but such statistical
information is essential." [End IPCC quote]

That seems reasonable; put more accurate
information into more complex models, see what
the models come up with for possible future
states, put statistical numbers to the
probability of those states, and see what you
get. But as of this report, that wasn't
happening. Neither the models or the information was mature enough to do so.

But even when we do put in all that information,
what exactly is the model predicting? And how
good can any model be when the system is a
complex as a global climate. From the same report:

IPCC: "The climate system is particularly
challenging since it is known that components in
the system are inherently chaotic; there are
feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and
there are central processes that affect the
system in a complicated, non-linear manner.
These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are
an inherent aspect of the climate system. As the
IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996)
(hereafter SAR) has previously noted, “future
unexpected, large and rapid climate system
changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by
their nature, difficult to predict. This implies
that future climate changes may also
involve ‘surprises’. In particular, these arise
from the non-linear, chaotic nature of the
climate system … Progress can be made by
investigating non-linear processes and
sub-components of the climatic system.” These
thoughts are expanded upon in this report:
“Reducing uncertainty in climate
projections also requires a better understanding
of these non-linear processes which give rise
to thresholds that are present in the climate
system. Observations, palaeoclimatic data, and
models suggest that such thresholds exist and
that transitions have occurred in the past …
Comprehensive climate models in conjunction
with sustained observational systems, both in
situ and remote, are the only tool to decide
whether the evolving climate system is
approaching such thresholds. Our knowledge
about the processes, and feedback mechanisms
determining them, must be significantly
improved in order to extract early signs of such
changes from model simulations and observations.” [End IPCC quote]

Doctor Bromwich: "It isn't surprising that these
models are not doing as well in these remote
parts of the world. These are global models and
shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.

Really, they could save themselves a lot of
if they read 4MC more
often. 15-Feb-2007 Contact: David
614-292-6692 <>Ohio
State University Antarctic temperatures disagree
with climate model

So when AlGore says that the debate is over, is
he stating that the debate is over in scientific
circles, or just among [ ------'s- ] ? It seems
that there is still a lot of debate about the
models for climate predictions, never mind the
predictions themselves coming from the models.

This inability for science to be able to close
the book on debate is perhaps more easy to
understand using an anecdotal observation.

I can recall hundreds of times when I have read
quotes from scientists, in scientific
publications, stating that if this or that new
finding was true, they would have to rethink the
whole concept of....whatever it is they are an expert in.

This has happened in paleontology, physics,
engineering, geology, biology...almost any
scientific endeavor. Since the launching of the
Hubble Space Telescope in 1990, this has been a
weekly occurrence in astrophysics. But according
to AlGore, it can't be happening in one of the
youngest, most immature sciences,
climatology. Climatology is free of debate.

I think that it is apparent that the world is
getting warmer, insomuch as there used to be
sheets of ice miles thick covering the northern
hemisphere, and they are now gone. It is also
apparent that since the "little ice age" the world has been getting warmer.

What is also apparent is that the doomsday
scenarios from people like Al Gore are getting more shrill.

Even just a few years ago, scientists used to say
that the oceans would rise by only a few
centimeters a year for hundreds of years, as
temps worldwide rose at the same consistent slow
rate as well. Apparently this was not alarming
enough, so now the predictions are much more dire ...

The History Channel show I watched had
climatologists predicting that the seas would
rise 20 feet or more in a few decades. Seasons
would change almost overnight, with one scientist
claiming that already within the last few years
spring was coming weeks earlier than historically
to Manhattan (anyone want to guess how it is
possible to scientifically get from a seasonal
variation of one microclimate covering a few
years to a global predictive model that envelops
hundreds of years? Buehler? Buehler?) and you
can't see a single hot day go by without some
scientist claiming that it's is "proof" of global
warming, as if there were never record warm days
before internal combustion
cold days are conveniently ignored.

So, is the debate about man's impact on global
warming truly over? In AlGore's mind, yes. Is
the debate about man's impact on global warming truly over among scientists?

For some, yes it is. However, it is hardly over
in their minds because of facts, as there simply
aren't enough
to warrant a scientific consensus on man's impact on global warming.

It is, however, over in their minds, based on faith. ..."

January 15,

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 26 10:50:32 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 26 2007 - 10:50:32 EST