Since google.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Since when does 6 C correspond with 42.8 F? > > Sent from Windows Mail > > *From:* CB Sites <cbsit...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 24, 2014 7:12 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Jojo, I really think you miss the point. Let assume a moment the global > average temperature was 6C above average. That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit! > You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means. > It means extinction of life as we know it. I know you deniers think some > how man kind will survive. To be honest, I think that is doubtful. > Economic systems will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and > warring political systems will doom the planet. > > I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play > out future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the > extinction of man. > > > > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > >> Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must >> be. That is the root cause of their problem. You have listed several good >> points and I will take them into consideration. >> >> My main issue with the current models is that new processes and >> interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of >> the models in a significant manner. I ask what would be the output of a >> model at the end of this century that had all of the known and >> unknown pertinent factors taken into consideration? The recent >> acknowledgement of a new factor that allows for a 30 year pause in >> temperature rise is not an issue to be taken lightly. It also inflicts >> upon me the concern that there are likely more of these factors that remain >> hidden as of today. >> >> I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and >> realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set >> of input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse. You >> also probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields >> coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. >> Many combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a >> restricted range. The problem shows up once you use those >> different coefficients to project the curve forwards into unknown future >> points. >> >> We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I >> am speaking of. The old data apparently matched the functional >> relationship that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the >> pause. They were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested >> that they would be worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5 >> years. As we know that time period came and passed and the pause continued >> which forced many of these guys to seek an explanation. >> >> Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with >> their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle. Where >> was this cycle included during the long hockey stick period? Some might >> consider that the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have >> come about due to added heating by this same cycle. That certainly makes >> sense to me. >> >> So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon >> a defective model. Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that >> these guys now have all the important factors included within their >> models? The proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the >> models during a period of time where they show reasonable results that >> compare to the real world. We are seeking knowledge of the world's climate >> in 100 years time as we make plans to counter the expected dangers. It is >> non sense to trust a model that does not work 20 years into the future for >> this purpose. The past fits are trivial and can always be obtained by >> curve fitting. The future fit reveals how good the model actually >> performs. That is where they are lacking. >> >> Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I >> expect it to perform as my model predicts. If I measured results that were >> seriously in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same >> application with known problems. Instead I would dig deeper into the model >> and devices until the results match the model fairly well. I have in fact >> done this on several occasions. Only then is the model useful to generate >> predictions of value. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? >> >> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> wrote: >> >> Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to >>> my expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high >>> standard as is required of most other endeavors. You apparently are >>> willing to give them a free pass since you have a gut feeling that they are >>> right to some degree. >>> >> >> I don't think anyone is arguing for giving climate scientists a free >> pass for anything they want to do, anymore than we would argue here for >> giving physicists a free pass to endlessly pour money into ITER or the >> National Ignition Facility; certainly not me. I'm arguing for humility >> before expertise gradually developed in understanding a wicked problem. We >> can question policy and funding decisions that are based on uncertain >> conclusions. But stepping in and saying that we (the general public) are >> in as good a position to weigh the data as capable climate scientists is to >> lose a sense of the proportion in the face of the amount of time and effort >> that must be expended to discern signal from noise in a complex domain. >> >> Without such humility, we are prone to a little bit of unintentional >> hubris. It is similar to making the following statements as members of the >> general public: >> >> - What you electrical engineers are saying about instantaneous power >> is bunk. I know that if the sine and the cosine fluctuate too rapidly, >> they'll jam together like the keys on a typewriter and throw the power out >> of hoc. >> - Making a practical quantum computer is not as hard as you guys make >> it out to be, for I have built one out of an erector set and rubber bands >> and know something about the basic principles involved. >> - Moore's law is not at all insurmountable. The electrical engineers >> are simply failing to see that if you add in some refrigeration lines, the >> temperature will be sufficiently decreased to allow a continued >> exponential >> increase in circuit density. This is simple thermodynamics. >> >> This is probably what we sound like to people who have studied climate >> science when we interject with our analyses without having spent years of >> our lives trying to understand the nuances of the problem. One hesitates >> to do something similar in the context of LENR, and only does so because >> almost no one who has the proper qualifications is willing to undergo the >> stigma that will attach to anyone in physics who publicly examines LENR. >> >> The overfitting of a model to a set of data is a generally known risk, >> and ways of avoiding it are taught in undergraduate courses. If we do not >> give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt on this one, we will be >> proceeding from an assumption that they're incompetent. >> >> In trying to understand what climate scientists are doing, I would draw >> an analogy to using our knowledge of radioactive decay half-lives to >> understand how much of a radionuclide will exist after a certain amount of >> time. Because the process is a stochastic one, the knowledge of the >> half-life is close to useless in predicting whether an individual nucleus >> will decay at a certain time. But over a period of time, the half-life >> will allow one to calculate the amount of the original radionuclide >> remaining to within a high degree of precision. I doubt that this ability >> was something that was acquired overnight. It probably took a few years of >> trial and error to empirically tease out the exponential decay relation. >> But even when they were working with less than reliable models, I'm >> guessing they were able to discern the general trend. >> >> Another analogy to what climate scientists are trying to do is to that >> of a mechanical engineer attempting to predict the temperature of an engine >> that has been running for a certain period of time. It is probably >> difficult to predict the temperature at a specific thermocouple at an >> instance in time beyond a certain broad range. But I'm guessing that it's >> not too hard to anticipate the average temperature across the thermocouples >> after one has become familiar with the operating characteristics of the >> engine in question. Climate scientists are doing something similar, but at >> a stage when the laws of thermodynamics were less well understood. >> Nonetheless general trends can be discerned. >> >> I would not at all be surprised if the relevant time ranges for useful >> predictions in climate change models were on the order of decades. Each >> system being modeled has its own range of times within which statements are >> relevant. In some nuclear decays, the time range for some decays is on the >> order of 10^-8 - 10^-20 seconds. I would be surprised, in fact, if climate >> scientists were able to bring model predictions to within less than tens of >> years, given the great amount of latency involved for changes to show up in >> the system. >> >> As for climate scientists adjusting their models periodically in the >> face of new facts, I am reminded of a quote attributed to Keynes, who was >> responding to a similar complaint: "When my information changes, I alter >> my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" >> >> Eric >> >> >
