Jed, you missed my point entirely. I was not equating weather measurement and prediction to climate change prediction. Perhaps I was not clear enough within my discussion. I merely pointed out that the divergence of accurate results happens relatively rapidly in both of these different types of systems. Weather forecasting appears to diverge from accurate prediction in a matter of days whereas the climate errors take years to accumulate. Compare this behavior to what happens with a well defined polynomial curve which is accurate for essentially all values even when you stretch the time frame far into the future. If the polynomial function is known then it is possible to begin with a small set of input/output data and project those values without increasing error. Climate models are not showing that behavior to anything but a short time period. Are you ignoring the latest information that now the climatologists have decided that there is a 30 year cycle associated with Atlantic currents? Surely that same effect has been modifying the earlier data. Why was it not taken into account at that time? Why do the modelers now say that the present pause in temperature rise might last until 2025? Do you not consider this to be a new input? I realize that you have argued for a long time that there is no pause, but apparently the guys studying the models disagree with your assessment. What will be the next major surprise and when will it appear?
It amazes me to read that you feel that it is not important to expect the climate models to conform to reality. How else can one judge their accuracy? Perhaps many such as yourself have concluded that global warming is man made and real so forget the models because they are not trustworthy. I can not make that step into uncertainty when the stakes are so high. If we base our response upon a known bad system then we are going to make major mistakes in judgement. What if the pause becomes a steady temperature decline in the next few years? Do we remain on the same path regardless of the measurements since the models indicate otherwise? That does not constitute good science and you have been arguing against that type of reasoning forever with regard to LENR. I wonder how man made climate change proponents can so easily dismiss water vapor as the most important influence? Clouds show their ability to modify local temperature just about every day and to a very large extent. When it rains the temperature drops about 20 degrees around here. Of course there are various reasons for the change but the overall measurement is dramatic and much greater than anything expected as the carbon dioxide increases into the future. The reason that water vapor is left out of the debate as far as I can determine is that nothing can be directly done to modify it by mankind. The modelers appear to realize that water is the key, but they only include affects that their models suggest that carbon dioxide and other gases do to modify waters dominate behavior. And worse than that is the fact that they assign a multiplier with positive feedback to this coupling as part of a curve fitting process. The latest pause strongly suggests that the system is not working like they previously thought. Jed, you should be showing why we should trust the experts that you refer to instead of attacking those of us with a skeptical view of their progress. After all, many of them now admit that a new major problem exists in their models that could result in long term inaccurate prediction of the temperature rise. How should we read confidence into a statement that the pause might well last another 11 years? Do they mean 5 years, or could it be 30 years, forever, etc? Do you ever question experts? An open minded individual such as yourself must look at the latest facts on occasion. I do in fact reserve the right to demand that these guys get their predictions into order if we are to use those same predictions to generate policies that impact our lives. If they can not perform that function in a reasonable and accurate manner, then they should refrain from offering their advice to politicians. That is just common sense. I suppose I was expecting a debate on those facts instead of reference to experts that are not required to generate accurate predictions. It is also clear that global warming is one of those issues that encourages people to choose sides. Little can be gained in discussing such a polarizing topic and I get little pleasure out of endless misunderstandings. Perhaps we should wait those next 11 years of likely pause and take up the issue again. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: Weather forecast is virtually perfect for the next hour at most locations but hopeless in predicting what will happen in a week. I view the global warming modeling process in a similar manner. As I pointed out, and as countless climate experts have pointed out, you have no justification for this view of yours. Long term climate prediction and near term weather prediction are related in some ways, but they are VERY DIFFERENT in important ways. That is what the experts say. They give compelling reasons. You are ignoring their reasons. You resemble a self-appointed expert on Wikipedia writing bogus reasons not to believe tritium measurements in cold fusion. Your demand is irrational. It is, as I said, like demanding that an epidemiologist or a life insurance expert tell you the year and month that you yourself will die from disease. Just because we can predict these things for large groups of people that does not give us the ability to predict it for individuals. The ability to make long term predictions of the climate is an entirely different science from weather prediction. One cannot be held to the standards of the other. So, how are we as a society supposed to evaluate the output of the global warming scientists? It makes perfect sense to expect them to be able to demonstrate correlation between their predictions and what actually happens a few years into the future. Says who? Where did you get that information? Who told you that climatology should work a few years in the future? Do you also make claims about the timescale of theories and models in chemistry in physics that you have not studied? Are you going to say that a calorimeter with a 1-hour timescale should work equally well measuring a heat burst lasting 10 milliseconds? If they do not make predictions a few years into the future, they probably have good reasons. Unless you know a great deal about their work, and you have evaluated their reasons, you have no business second guessing them or making demands. People should never assume they know more than experts! That has been the whole problem with cold fusion from day one. People think they know more about electrochemistry and calorimetry than Fleischmann. You sound like the people who tell me that if cold fusion is real, we should have cold fusion powered automobiles by now. They have no idea what the problems are, or what the limitations of the science are. - Jed
