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

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:02:36 EST

At 03:32 PM 2/26/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:

>On 2/26/07, Janice Matchett
><<>> wrote:
>@ 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
>Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. The
>average temperatures matched the predictions
>over the period from 1850 to present but only if
>you include anthropogenic effects. ~ Rich B.

@@ Sorry - that was after the fact. No
catastrophes were prophesied ahead of time so
that tells us nothing. The climate only warmed 6
or 7/10 degrees over 100 years. It is expected
to only warm 8/10 of a degree in the next 100
years - yet we have alarmists (the same hysteric
60's enviro-radicals) claiming that we only have
10 years to save ourselves from their prophesied global apocalypse.

Which one of them do you think will get to be the
head of the enviro-church who sells the "carbon
indulgences" so that Hollywood celebrities and
their like-minded vacuous friends may continue to
"sin" with impunity? How are celebrities buying
"carbon credits" any different from rich people
who were paying poor people to take their
position in the draft during the Civil War? Or
paying someone to ride a bicycle so that you can
ride around in a Gulfstream jet.? AlGore says
"...We purchase offsets for our carbon emissions
to bring our carbon footprint down to
zero." Now AlGore can make Sally Struthers-like
commercials about how you, too, can power your
home while Ethiopians live in huts.

Compare one who does nothing but loudly talk the
talk, with one who quietly walks the walk:

>The difference between climate models and
>weather models is not the underlying physics or
>the structure of the model which is the same but
>that which is being predicted. In the case of
>climate models, the predictions is global
>average temperature which is not as chaotic as
>whether it will rain tomorrow in Des Moines. ~ Rich B.

@@ To repeat:

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]

February 19, 2007 10:44 AM PST
"..Approximately 125,000 years ago, Earth was 3
to 5 degrees Celsius warmer on average than it is
today, and sea levels were 4 to 6 meters higher.
.. Susan Solomon, senior scientist at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(and the co-chair of the latest report from the
Panel on Climate Change) told attendees at the
American Association for the Advancement of
Science taking place in San Francisco. If the
land ice on Greenland were to melt completely,
the sea levels could rise six or seven meters
again, but the current scientific models indicate
it will take thousands of years. ..."It would
take centuries, if not millennia, to get a four
to six meter rise" in sea levels, she said.
Global temperatures would have to be raised by
1.9 to 4.6 degrees Celsius and be kept that way
for several centuries, she added. But could the
melt accelerate, like some other indicators of
global warming? "We just don't know," she
added. Solomon further explained that ... The
Earth was warmer 125,000 years ago because the
planet's orbit was different. .."

>"...So, according to your test we can start
>making major policy decisions because we can and
>have made accurate predictions using these models. ..

@@ Ahhhhh... not quite. See above.

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 28 00:03:19 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:03:21 EST