[opendtv] Re: A Station Group with a Future
- From: Doug McDonald <mcdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 13:43:12 -0600
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Science IS NOT based on consensus. The scientific method requires:
1. Hypothesis
2. Testing
3. And proof of the hypothesis
The reality of the global warming movement is that they base everything
on anecdotal evidence, then tell us that there is consensus among
scientists that we are the problem.
The problem is that the facts simply do not support the hypothesis of
man made global warming. This is propaganda at the highest levels.
There is plenty of scientific evidence that the current warming
micro-cycle is being cause by increased solar activity in the past two
decades.
There is no evidence to that, just as there is no true evidence that
the current warming is due mostly to astronomical causes. There
are merely correlations.
While I am not an expert on this subject per se, I have been on PhD
finals committees in Atmospheric Science. These involved large scale
atmospheric simulations.
And all the theses presented were, from my viewpoint as a chemist,
pathetic in the extreme. I was on the committees to look at chemical
aspects. The AS prfessors thought the theses just lovely.
Now we know that some atmospheric simulations, even large scale
ones, work beautifully. For example, all three of NOAA, intellicast, and
accuweather got the weather in both the US and (for the commercial
concerns) Argentina correct two weeks in advance of my recent vacation,
thanks to these models.
BUT ... weather is ergodic. This means that you can't predict accurately
very far into the future.
Climate is partially ergodic, partially quasi-periodic, and partly
externally driven by causes that themselves are partially ergodic
and partially quasi-periodic (but no "external causes", since nothing is
external
to the universe.)
There are four problems with climatic simulations: data, worrying
about ergodicity, having enough grid points, and being sure all needed
variables are simulated. The climatic simulations
don't have anywhere near enough data ... and none whatsoever on quite a
bit of the external (to the earth and even external to the solar system)
influences. The people who do them do worry about ergodicity and
whatever there is will get figured out OK, if the rest is OK. The grid points
are OK horizontally and probably vertically within the atmosphere,
but abysmally (pun intended) coarse in the oceans and in the biosphere.
All that is the upside, to paraphrase the late Hunter S. Thompson.
But there is also the downside: the almost certainty that not all
needed variables are being included in the simulations. This is especially
true about the biosphere.
The overall result is that all predictions are currently worthless.
Everything is guess and attributing coarse results to the obvious
coarse inputs (i.e. CO2 and sunspots, etc.) This is fallacious ...
the global results may be simply a large-scale ergodic feature.
Doug McDonald
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: