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

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu Mar 01 2007 - 00:00:06 EST

At 09:06 AM 2/28/2007, Rich Blinne wrote:

>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
>>><<mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>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>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. ~ Janice
>
>...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. ~ Rich

@@@ No sound-minded person is going to propose
legislation / public policy based on short-term forecasts / data.

IPCC: "The climate system is a coupled
non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the
long-term prediction of future climate states is
not possible. .. “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 … " [End IPCC quote]

Jerome J. Schmitt QUOTE: "..Perhaps most
critically, the role of precipitation in climate
seems to be understated in the numerical global
climate models. Roy W. Spencer, principal
research scientist at the Global Hydrology and
Climate Center of the National Space Science and
Technology Center in Huntsville, AL,
<http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/not_that_simple_opedcolumnists_roy_w__spencer.htm?page=0>writes
that the role of precipitation is not fully
accounted for in global warming models. ..:
'Unless we know how the greenhouse-limiting
properties of precipitation systems change with
warming, we don't know how much of our current
warmth is due to mankind, and we can't estimate
how much future warming there will be, either. To
solve the global-warming puzzle, we first need to
learn much more about the precipitation-system
puzzle. What little evidence we now have suggests
that precipitation systems act as a natural
thermostat to reduce
warming.' http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1792683/posts

> Again we need those computers that don't read Crichton novels. ~ Rich B.

@@@ Point one:

Radical environmentalists need to practice what
they "preach" instead of purchasing "carbon
indulgences" from the poor so that they can keep on "sinning" with impunity:

Quote: "..the very act of manufacturing a
computer degrades the environment by using
massive amounts of resources-clean water,
intensive labor in clean rooms-and producing
toxic waste in quantities that far outweigh any
potential positive effects that one computer could have on the world.

In fact, these are the resources used to make one 8-inch wafer:
    * 4,267 cubic feet of bulk gases
    * 3,787 gallons of waste water
    * 27 pounds of chemicals
    * 29 cubic feet of hazardous gases
    * 9 pounds of hazardous waste
    * 3,023 gallons of de-ionized water
Not only is semiconductor manufacturing the worst
air polluting industry, it also uses several million gallons of water a day."

The above was excerpted from "Chips Ahoy: The
hidden toll of computer manufacture and use," by
John C. Ryan and Alan Thein Durning.

Point two:

Bio: CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in
Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Educated at
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa).
Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65.
Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge
University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard
Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow
at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La
Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.

QUOTE: "Therefore, he has as much credential as I
do to discuss environment." ~ Wayne Dawson. Sat,
30 Sep 2006 [asa] Edward O. Wilson shares
Dawkins' basic views http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200609/0430.html

>>>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). ~ Rich B.

@@@ QUOTE: "...Today's forecasts of sea-level
rise use climate models of the ice sheets that
say they can only disintegrate over a thousand
years or more. But we can now see that the models
are almost worthless. .." ~ Jim Hansen February
17, 2006 http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article345926.ece

QUOTE: ".. 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," [said]
Susan Solomon, senior scientist at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (and the
co-chair of the latest report from the
<http://news.com.com//U.N.+climate+panel+says+warming+is+man-made/2100-11395_3-6155717.html>Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change) told attendees at the
American Association for the Advancement of
Science taking place in San Francisco February
19, 2007 10:44 AM PST http://news.com.com/2061-11128_3-6160463.html

It isn't possible for puny, arrogant men to
predict the future. The fact that you actually
believe that it is -- (if only you can obtain
enough computing power and the right programming) -- is pretty funny.

Take special note of the words, "by their nature.." and "surprises":

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. .. The climate system is a
coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore
the long-term prediction of future climate states
is not possible." [End IPCC quote]

> ...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. ~ Rich B.

@@@ Read it and weep:

#
69 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
QUOTE: ".. I disagree with Gavin Schmidt: Dr.
Schmidt seems to think that the temperature
projections in the IPCC Third Assessment Report,
or TAR (i.e., a temperature rise of 1.4 to 5.8
degrees Celsius from 1990 to 2100) are better
than Michael Crichton's projection of 0.8 degrees
Celsius from 2000 to 2100. But the IPCC TAR
projections are clearly worse, if one places the
same range of temperatures around Michael
Crichton's estimates that exist in the IPCC TAR.
That is, the IPCC TAR has a mean value of 3.6
degrees Celsius increase, +/- 2.2 degrees Celsius.
If Michael Crichton's value of 0.8 degrees
Celsius is taken with a range of +/- 2.2 degrees
Celsius, it becomes a prediction of anything from
a cooling of 1.4 degrees Celsius, to a warming of
up to 3.0 degrees Celsius (with a mean value of
warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius). Even assuming a
warming of as much as 2.0 degrees Celsius from
2000 to 2100, Michael Crichton would still have a
better prediction than the IPCC TAR (i.e. 0.8
degrees is closer to 2.0 degrees than 3.6 degrees
is to 2.0 degrees). As I noted, I will post again
(when I have more time) on why Michael Crichton's
prediction is *better* than the predictions in
the IPCC TAR. Comment by
<http://markbahner.typepad.com>Mark Bahner 25 Dec 2004 @ 1:58 pm

# 31. Gavin Schmidt writes, "He (Crichton) also
gives us his estimate, ~0.8 C for the global
warming that will occur over the next century and
claims that, since models differ by 400% in their
estimates, his guess is as good as theirs. This is not true."

I agree. That's not true. Michael Crichton's
guess of ~0.8 degrees Celsius for the 21st
century is far, far better than the IPCC
projections of 1.5 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (from
1990 to 2100). I discuss this fact on my website
(my own prediction is for ~0.7 degrees Celsius
warming in the lower troposphere):

A review of IPCC projections versus historical
and likely future
trends http://markbahner.50g.com/what_will_happen_to_us.htm

The IPCC projections are completely unrealistic,
in part because: 1) They include completely
unrealistic projections for future atmospheric methane concentrations, and
2) They include unrealistic projections for
future CO2 emissions, and for future CO2
atmospheric concentrations. Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)

>>>"...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. ~ Rich B.

@@@ Send them where noted climatologists AlGore
and Melissa Etheridge send theirs. :)

~ Janice ...... QUOTE: " There are more
reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming,"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1792973/posts

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 1 00:00:40 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 00:00:40 EST