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

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Feb 28 2007 - 09:06:19 EST

On Feb 27, 2007, at 10:02 PM, Janice Matchett wrote:

>
> At 03:32 PM 2/26/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:
>
>
>> On 2/26/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net > wrote:
>> @ That's fine - if you actually "believe" that it's possible
>> computers to accurately "model" a chaotic system like climate.
>> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200702/0480.html
>>
>> 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.

On December 19, 2006, National Weather Service computers were doing
what they and climate computers do best, doing numerical solutions to
Napier Stokes equations while not reading Michael Crichton novels.
For the previous three weeks, these computers predicted uneventful
weather with above-average temperatures for the Front Range but then
they over and over predicted unprecedented December blizzard. Accu-
weather computers were doing the same while not listening to Rush
Limbaugh. Weather Channel computers the same while not reading the
Daily Telegraph. Some poor hysteric 60's enviro-radical at the NWS
saw this and issued a blizzard warning before any snow fell.

At the same time, the superintendent of the Poudre School District
went out on the streets of Fort Collins at 4:00 A.M. the morning of
the 20th. He saw nothing unusual. Perhaps he was listening to Devo on
KISS-FM because he took them to heart and concluded "same as it ever
was". While everybody else was canceling work and classes he alone in
the state of Colorado kept the school district open. No dope smoking,
plastic banana, good time rock and roll FM type from Boulder was
going to keep his district closed.

As it turned out those weather/climate models are fulling capable of
turning on a dime from not catastrophic to catastrophic. They
accurately predict both types of events. It is a novice's error to
think that something catastrophic is somehow less predictable because
of chaos. This is because of observer bias. We notice when
catastrophic predictions are slightly off and wrongly think that
these are somehow less predictable because of it. Scientific analysis
of models compare the prediction with the data and look for a
correlation or lack thereof. Again we need those computers that don't
read Crichton novels.

As Paul Harvey would say, you know the rrrrrest of the story. The
Front Range was hit with the third largest snow event in its history.
I risked mine and my children's lives trying to pick them up at the
end of the day. School buses were stuck and got into traffic
accidents trying to return the kids. Even though they finally
cancelled classes one hour early teachers were forced to remain in
"meetings" until the end of the day. The superintendent's apology
made national news.
>
>
>> 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: . 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]
>

Our knowledge has improved in ten years (e.g. we can predict three
times farther out with the same accuracy as we did a decade ago and
we have much bigger computers to be able to lower the grid size and
time steps that takes the "chaos" out of the calculations). Quite
frankly we were shocked that we have been able to directly observe
the changes already. That IPCC predication, that we needed
significant improvement to directly observe climate change in ten
years, was completely blown. We now far too easily directly observe
it all over the place. Where the computer predictions were inaccurate
was because they underestimated some of the positive feedbacks, e.g.
the computer models are underestimating the observed polar ice melt.
The difference between the climate situation and my example above is
the snow is already falling. Superintendent Janice has fewer excuses
than the PSD superintendent. And before you start, don't make the
positively stupid argument that snow storms disprove global warming.
There is a truism, it's too cold to snow. That's because warmer air
can hold more moisture. The same models that correctly predicted the
blizzard predict the warming trend which is greater than your made up
0.8 C in the next century answer.

>
>
>> "...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.

Remind me not to send my kids to your school district.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 28 09:07:26 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 09:07:26 EST