Jed--
I think your reliance on experts is a little over stated, and I tend to agree with Dave’s assessment of expecting short term predictions to be possible. Many so-called experts in the nuclear industry endorsed the idea of storing spent fuel in wet storage at locations subject to both earth quakes and tidal waves. Look what happened in Japan. I can think of many other conclusions of experts in various technical fields where their conclusions have been shown to be wrong. The prediction of practical hot fusion is one we are all aware of. I find it particularly troubling that so called experts disagree on key models associated with the same event being considered. It does not give me much faith in any expert in the field of global warming. Time is a key input to most if not all global warming modeling. Some of the models are more empirical than others. The ones that are based on constitutive models in such a complex situation are more suspect in my reasoning than those that are empirical. If short term predictions are not consistent with the empirical model, that implies some key parameters are not being considered in the empirical models. This supports Dave’s and my consideration that some experts are not too expert in global warming. Bob Cook Sent from Windows Mail From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 12:05 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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
