Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/28/2007 8:25:31 AM PST by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
To: Tolik; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; honolulugal; SideoutFred; Ole Okie; ...


FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown




Wow...
2 posted on 02/28/2007 8:27:42 AM PST by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: xcamel; Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Global Warming ping


3 posted on 02/28/2007 8:28:08 AM PST by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik

Excellent article.


4 posted on 02/28/2007 8:31:42 AM PST by listenhillary (You can lead a man to reason, but you can't make him think)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik
Although based on scientific "first principles", complex numerical models inevitably require simplifications, judgment calls, and correction factors.

As a scientist, we have a name for this. It's called a WAG.

That's a wild-a$$ guess, for those of your in Rio Linda.

5 posted on 02/28/2007 8:33:12 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
In case you missed it : Skeptics and Deniers of Global Warming. Its not a settled science. Debate continues. 10 part series
6 posted on 02/28/2007 8:33:57 AM PST by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik

Just don't build too close to the coast and dress appropriately for the weather. That should get a person by.


9 posted on 02/28/2007 8:46:40 AM PST by Fitzcarraldo (If the Moon didn't exist, people would have traveled to Mars by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik
Andrew Grove PhD is a giant in the history of semiconductors. A founder of Intel, Grove famously presided as CEO over its enormous growth during the 1980s and 1990s. Few realize that his academic training is as a Chemical Engineer, not an Electrical Engineer.

Yup. My electronics engineering training has been virtually no help in my career in semiconductor processing.

10 posted on 02/28/2007 8:47:22 AM PST by null and void (Let's play 6 of global warming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik

Computational sciences have given new life to countless careers that would otherwise have been converted to used car sales.


13 posted on 02/28/2007 9:06:49 AM PST by RightWhale (300 miles north of Big Wild Life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik

Thomas Sowell's first job as an economist after graduating from Harvard was working for AT&T making economic predictions, using mathematical models. His boss showed him were the previous models (stacks of punch cards) where kept, so he could use them as a starting point. Young Thomas says "Oh, great, then we can see how well we've done!" His boss's reaction made it clear that he was *never* to bring up that idea again.

Actually, regression analysis allows one to place reliable bounds on the accuracy of a model, like when astronomers say that there is a 1 in 45,000 chance of a certain asteriod striking earth in 2036 (or whatever).

The IPCC seems to be paying homage to notion of error bounds by saying that there is a 90% chance of some {poorly defined unfavorable} event. What the author of this piece is talking about is what is known as validation. Historical data is perfectly good for validating a model, provided you can establish *all* the relevant input parameters and their associated uncertainties. I am personally unimpressed by anything I've read or seen about global warming to date. The alarmist scenarios are just too convenient for the politcal Left.


14 posted on 02/28/2007 9:19:06 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (When I search out the massed wheeling circles of the stars, my feet no longer touch the earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik

Ping to read when I'm having trouble sleeping.....


15 posted on 02/28/2007 9:28:33 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: nnn0jeh

ping


16 posted on 02/28/2007 9:39:04 AM PST by kalee (Tthe offences we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we write in marble. JHuett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik

Counterpoint: "We don't have time to wait, we must act now."

Read this small piece from today's Tennessean by Beverly Keel the celebrity columnist for Gore's views yesterday:

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/NEWS01/702280434


17 posted on 02/28/2007 9:41:36 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik

bookmarked


18 posted on 02/28/2007 9:48:32 AM PST by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

It would seem to me that chaos theory would suggest that it is impossible to predict with any degree of certainty any claims of future global warming specificially due to man. Too many variables, too many assumptions or simplifications/etc. in variables.


19 posted on 02/28/2007 9:52:49 AM PST by sportutegrl (This thread is useless without pix.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik
Might I direct your attention to

Pikey, O.H., Pilkey-Jarvis, 2007, Useless Arithmetic, Columbia University Press, ISBN 0-231-13212-3.

For your reading enjoyment. BTW the subtitle of this book is "Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict The Future"
23 posted on 02/28/2007 10:21:34 AM PST by lmailbvmbipfwedu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik
Another keeper!

I particularly loved these two paragraphs, Which should be self evident to anyone with just a conversant familiarity with the hard sciences:

Almost all semiconductor manufacturing processes occur in closed vessels. This permits the engineers to precisely control the input chemicals (gases) and the pressure, temperature, etc. with high degree of precision and reliability.

Closed systems are also much easier to model as compared to systems open to the atmosphere (that should tell us something already). Computer models are used to inform the engineering team as the design the shape, temperature ramp, flow rates, etc, etc, (i.e. the thermodynamics) of the new reactor.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that 1) the chemical reactions are highly studied, 2) there exists extensive experience with similar reactors, much of it recorded in the open literature, 3) the input gases and materials are of high and known purity, and 4) the process is controlled with incredible precision, the predictions of the models are often wrong, requiring that the reactor be adjusted empirically to produce the desired product with quality and reliability.

There was an article recently by a statistician, who pointed out that use of statistics analysis by amateurs can quickly lead to non-sensical results.
For example, if 3 assumptions are made which are 99% correct, the results can only be correct, significantly less than 99%.
When just a dozen factors are 99% correct, the results are only about 50% reliable.

With climate having dozens, perhaps hundreds of relevant factors, most of which are guessed at or ignored altogether, how reliable can these computer "model predictions" be?

27 posted on 02/28/2007 11:14:43 AM PST by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik

thanks, bfl


31 posted on 02/28/2007 1:41:04 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik
Great Post.

The author's analysis is devastating critique of the methodological fallacies that lay behind Climate Modeling as it is currently practiced.

There is also another major flaw in the current practice that the author did not mention that should warrant the summary rejection of the use these models in Public Policy.

The builders of the models on which the IPCC and other Reports have been based have refused to publish the input parameters and algorithms used to generate predictive results. Peer review is the backbone of scientific integrity and the lack of peer review outside the small coterie of model builders is a big of a red flag as can be imagined for any type of predictive model.

When the builder of the infamous "hockey stick" model was asked to publish his model assumptions he played the "political persecution" card. The highly and odd defensive reaction is indicative of how badly these models have been cooked for political purposes.
32 posted on 02/28/2007 1:52:21 PM PST by ggekko60506
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Forecaster; Nailbiter; BartMan1; stanley windrush

... ping


33 posted on 02/28/2007 2:15:21 PM PST by IncPen (When Al Gore Finished the Internet, he invented Global Warming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tolik

Mark


34 posted on 02/28/2007 2:17:15 PM PST by Former Proud Canadian (How do I change my screen name after Harper's election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson