Re: [asa] Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory and Busted Sod

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue Oct 23 2007 - 00:01:58 EDT

At 12:08 AM 10/21/2007, mlucid@aol.com wrote:
>(Snip)
>>I think, Janice, that you are biased by issues
>>external to the science and more to your
>>personal/political disposition. You would do
>>well to try and examine the world purely on
>>your own recognizance, and pay less attention
>>to the polarized, dogmatic positions of what
>>passes for the American political landscape.
>>
>>-Mike (But I still love ya.)
>
>@ Now THAT is the funniest thing I've heard all
>day! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
>
>I know you think that anyone who disagrees with
>your position has succumbed to the polarization
>I mention above, but note that I agree with your
>position about the idiocy of the corn
>alternative fuel issue. This indicates that I
>don't follow one side's prepackaged mindset. I
>look carefully at the facts for the most
>part. I think that you identify me as the
>"other side" but believe me I'm not. Hillary
>Clinton is just another Corporate apologist in a
>kinder gentler packaging. I am not the other
>side. I am my side. My side may still be
>disagreeable to you, in many ways, but I would
>still prefer that you saw it as me disagreeing
>with you and not some collective to which I subscribe. ~ Mike

@@ Here (below) are "the facts". They aren't
"my" facts. If you disagree with the scientists
below who have provided their interpretation of
the facts, you will be disagreeing with them, not me:

Here's the "interpretation" of the facts by the paramount living physicist:

"... all the fuss about global warming is grossly
exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy
brotherhood of climate model experts and the
crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers
predicted by the computer models.

Of course, they say, I have no degree in
meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to
speak. But I have studied the climate models and
I know what they can do. The models solve the
equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very
good job of describing the fluid motions of the
atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor
job of describing the clouds, the dust, the
chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and
forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.

The real world is muddy and messy and full of
things that we do not yet understand.

It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an
air-conditioned building and run computer models,
than to put on winter clothes and measure what is
really happening outside in the swamps and the
clouds. That is why the climate model experts end
up believing their own models.".... Freeman
Dyson,
(8/8/07)
<http://echo3.bluehornet.com/ct/ct.php?t=1522963&c=1501910315&m=m&type=1&h=F7CFB1B3D40CE8540F6A8509DE92D33F>http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

Randy's source (K. Emmanuel of MIT) admits as
much: "Computer modeling of global climate is
perhaps the most complex endeavor ever undertaken
by mankind. A typical climate model consists of
millions of lines of computer instructions
designed to simulate an enormous range of
physical phenomena, including the flow of the
atmosphere and oceans, condensation and
precipitation of water inside clouds, the
transfer of solar and terrestrial radiation
through the atmosphere, including its partial
absorption and reflection by the surface, by
clouds and by the atmosphere itself, the
convective transport of heat, water, and
atmospheric constituents by turbulent convection
currents, and vast numbers of other processes.

There are by now a few dozen such models in the
world, but they are not entirely independent of
one another, often sharing common pieces of
computer code and common ancestors. [A KEY point]

Although the equations representing the physical
and chemical processes in the climate system are
well known, they cannot be solved exactly.

It is computationally impossible to keep track of
every molecule of air and ocean, and to make the
task viable, the two fluids must be divided up
into manageable chunks. The smaller and more
numerous these chunks, the more accurate the
result, but with today’s computers the smallest
we can make these chunks in the atmosphere is
around 100 miles in the horizontal and a few
hundred yards in the vertical, and a bit smaller in the ocean.

The problem here is that
many important processes are much smaller than these scales.

For example, cumulus clouds in the atmosphere are
critical for transferring heat and water upward
and downward, but they are typically only a few
miles across and so cannot be simulated by the climate models.

Instead, their effects must be represented in
terms of the quantities like wind and temperature
that pertain to the whole computational chunk in question.

The representation of these important but
unresolved processes is an art form known by the
awful term parameterization, and it involves
numbers, or parameters, that must be tuned to get
the parameterizations to work in an optimal way.

Because of the need for such artifices, a typical
climate model has many tunable parameters, and
this is one of many reasons that such models are
only approximations to reality. Changing the
values of the parameters or the way the various
processes are parameterized can change not only
the climate simulated by the model, but the
sensitivity of the model’s climate to, say, greenhouse-gas increases.

  How, then, can we go about tuning the
parameters of a climate model in such a way as to
make it a reasonable facsimile of reality? Here
important lessons can be learned from our
experience with those close cousins of climate
models, weather-prediction models. These are
almost as complicated and must also parameterize
key physical processes, but because the
atmosphere is measured in many places and quite
frequently, we can test the model against reality
several times per day and keep adjusting its
parameters (that is, tuning it) until it performs as well as it can.

But with climate, there are precious few tests. [Nooooooo kidding.]

One obvious hurdle the model must pass is to be
able to replicate the current climate, including
key aspects of its variability, such as weather
systems and El Niņo. It must also be able to
simulate the seasons in a reasonable way: the
summers must not be too hot or the winters too cold, for example.

Beyond a few simple checks such as these, there
are not too many ways to test the model, and
projections of future climates must necessarily involve a degree of faith.

The amount of uncertainty in such projections can
be estimated to some extent by comparing
forecasts made by many different models, with
their different parameterizations (and, very
likely, different sets of coding errors). We
operate under the faith that the real climate
will fall among the projections made with the various models.." ~ K. E.

>~ Janice (But I still love ya. :)
>
>You know Janice, that's all that really matters
>to me. All this other stuff will work itself
>out one way or another. But you being mi amiga
>after it's past is what's important more than
>anything. Because what you and I do one way or
>the other about global warming is just a feather
>on the scales. But what we are to each other
>has a real, perceivable affect, now, in both our lives. .
>
>-Mike (tu amigo)

@@ ~ Janice ....a friend to all who choose not to make me their enemy.

>[snip]
>>[3] Chill out.
>>Washington Post ^ | October 14, 2007 | BJORN LOMBORG
>><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501676.html>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501676.html
>>
>>Excerpts:
>>"... predictions of impending disaster just don't stack up.
>>
>>"...research shows that the cold is a much
>>bigger killer than the heat. According to the
>>first complete peer-reviewed survey of climate
>>change's health effects, global warming will
>>actually save lives. It's estimated that by
>>2050, global warming will cause almost 400,000
>>more heat-related deaths each year. But at the
>>same time, 1.8 million fewer people will die from cold.
>>
>>"...Global warming will claim lives in another
>>way: by increasing the number of people at risk
>>of catching malaria by about 3 percent over
>>this century. According to scientific models,
>>implementing the Kyoto Protocol for the rest of
>>this century would reduce the malaria risk by just 0.2 percent.
>>
>>On the other hand, we could spend $3 billion
>>annually -- 2 percent of the protocol's cost --
>>on mosquito nets and medication and cut malaria
>>incidence almost in half within a decade.
>>Malaria death rates are rising in
>><http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Sub-Saharan+Africa?tid=informline>sub-Saharan
>>Africa, but this has nothing to do with climate
>>change and everything to do with poverty: Poor
>>and corrupt governments find it hard to
>>implement and fund the spraying and the
>>provision of mosquito nets that would help
>>eradicate the disease. Yet for every dollar we
>>spend saving one person through policies like
>>the Kyoto Protocol, we could save 36,000 through direct intervention.
>>
>>"......Wherever you look, the inescapable
>>conclusion is the same: Reducing carbon
>>emissions is not the best way to help the
>>world. .....I'm frustrated at our blinkered
>>focus on policies that won't achieve it.
>>
>>In 1992, wealthy nations promised to cut
>>emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Instead,
>>emissions grew by 12 percent. In 1997, they
>>promised to cut emissions to about 5 percent
>>below 1990 levels by 2010. Yet levels will
>>likely be 25 percent higher than hoped for.
>>
>>"...Even if the policymakers' earlier promises
>>had been met, they would have done virtually no
>>good, but would have cost us a small fortune.
>>The climate models show that Kyoto would have
>>postponed the effects of global warming by
>>seven days by the end of the century. Even if
>>the United States and
>><http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Australia?tid=informline>Australia
>>had signed on and everyone stuck to Kyoto for
>>this entire century, we would postpone the
>>effects of global warming by only five years.
>>
>>Proponents of pacts such as Kyoto want us to
>>spend enormous sums of money doing very little
>>good for the planet a hundred years from now. ...
>>
>>The typical cost of cutting a ton of CO2is
>>currently about $20. Yet, according to a wealth
>>of scientific literature, the damage from a ton
>>of carbon in the atmosphere is about $2.
>>Spending $20 to do $2 worth of good is not smart policy. ...
>>
>>...I formed the Copenhagen Consensus in 2004 so
>>that some of the world's top economists could
>>come together to ask not only where we can do
>>good, but at what cost, and to rank the best
>>things for the world to do first. The top
>>priorities they've come up with are dealing
>>with infectious diseases, malnutrition,
>>agricultural research and first-world access to
>>third-world agriculture. For less than a fifth
>>of Kyoto's price tag, we could tackle all these issues. ....."
>>
>>
>><http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Bjorn+Lomborg?tid=informline>Bjorn
>>Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen
>>Business School, is the author, most recently,
>>of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta
>>check out free
>><http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970>AOL
>>Mail!
>
>----------
>Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta
>check out free
><http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970>AOL
>Mail!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 23 00:03:11 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 23 2007 - 00:03:11 EDT