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

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Mon Feb 26 2007 - 12:59:04 EST

At 06:40 PM 2/21/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:
>On 2/18/07, Janice Matchett
><<>> wrote:
>@ 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.
>... What scientific data tells you what is going to happen in the future?

@ Ask the guys she's talking about

>The alternative to a model is a guess. Models have the advantage
>over mere guesses of being tested against the data but they are not
>a back up to it. Tested models also are very good tool to see if we
>really understand the underlying phenomena. With respect to
>understanding the relationship between anthropogenic GHG and global
>temperature, the answer is yes because the models match the data.
>With respect to understanding how much sea level rise that results
>from the global temperature rise the answer is no because they
>don't. We can have all the data in the world but it is useless
>without a good model. This response truly shows you really don't
>understand how science works. .." ~ Rich B.

@ Point granted. I mis-spoke. Computer models are the "tools"
scientists are now using to prophecy events 100 years or more into
the future. Like the scientists you quote, the scientists I quote
understand "how science works". You just don't like the way the
scientists I quote "interpret" the data.


QUOTE: "...a good model developer will constantly test his model
against real data to find where its predictions deviate from actual
data. Once the reasons for the deviation are understood, the model
can be improved to reduce discrepancies from actual data. Thus the
model does not serve as a backup for the data, but its development
cycle is intimately connected with the real data. One question a
policymaker can ask to ascertain whether due diligence is being given
to model development, is "Has the model's performance improved over
time?" The answer for climate models appears to be yes, although
obviously improvements can still be made. ~ Bill Hamilton Wed, 21 Feb
2007 19:54:35

@ That's fine - if you actually "believe" that it's possible
computers to accurately "model" a chaotic system like

To test their "prophecies" let their 100-year computer models run out
for 10 years and see if actual events match the 10-year
predictions. If they do, then we can start thinking about making
major policy decisions. Until then - forget it.

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 26 12:59:33 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 26 2007 - 12:59:33 EST