Text 1926, 104 rader
Skriven 2006-06-07 13:43:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2372.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Charlie Edmondson to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * *
*
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <44860830$1@news.cadence.com>
@REPLY: <2krb82hkf250l2v1lr5k0t7se0rj7qttrh@4ax.com>
Josh Hill wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:31:12 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Edmondson
> <edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>We know enough to know it's a serious man-made problem.
>>
>>Do WE?  Actually, most of the estimates I have read have said MAYBE 10%=
,=20
>>if you juggle the models enough.
>>
>>This is definitely a political, not a scientific issue.  The science is=
=20
>>pure statistical manipulation supported by slanted computer models.=20
>>Look into what they have to do to get the temperature differential=20
>>measurements.  There are more correction factors, SWAG adjustments and=20
>>good old county guesses in there to make a physicist laugh is a$$ off!
>>
>>And then, you take this overmanipulated data, and use that to draw your=
=20
>>conclusions...
>=20
>=20
> But, at essence, we're dealing with a very simple physical process:
> add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and you're going to heat things
> up. There's nothing controversial about that: it's born out by
> observations of ancient temperatures and atmospheric conditions, by
> laboratory experiments, by observations of other planets. And
> everything has to be seen in that light, as a refinement of the basic
> concept. Indeed, from a scientific perspective, the challenge would be
> to show why adding greenhouse gases /doesn't/ contribute to global
> warming. It would take a very strange mechanism to do that.
>=20
> So the models then focus on the myriad details -- the albedo of snow,
> soot, the rate of plant growth, ocean currents, what have you -- that
> determine the degree of warming. And it seems that the current
> computer models have excellent predictive utility, whereas alternative
> explanations do not:
>=20
> 'The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an
> average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be
> explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new
> research has revealed.
>=20
> 'The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about
> the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study
> said yesterday.
>=20
> ' "The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is
> over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps
> Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got
> it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too
> great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."
>=20
> 'In the study, Dr Barnett=92s team examined more than seven million
> observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the
> world=92s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
> Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are
> predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate
> change.
>=20
> 'It found that natural variation in the Earth=92s climate, or changes i=
n
> solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as
> alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain
> the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made
> emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations
> almost precisely.'
>=20
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/05/warming.trends.ap/index.html
>=20
> About the only contrary evidence I've seen lately is new evidence
> about the historical temperature of the arctic that suggests that
> they've overlooked a mechanism which at some point in the process
> causes warming to proceed /more rapidly/ than predicted.
>=20
Hi Josh,
I did read this.  Again, its the old pre-publication announcement of=20
data that has not yet been published or reviewed.  And it ain't no=20
simple process, and like I said to Amy, I am amazed that someone=20
actually had a computer model that had predictive utility.  Most of them=20
have failed big time in that department.

Ok, having a failure in trying to call "BS" on a professor in a nice=20
way.  Sorry, really need to ge back to work, but lets just say one=20
scientist saying "Finally, I have PROOF that all my claims are correct"=20
doesn't exactly convince me...

Charlie
                                                                               
          
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)