waitforufo

Several of the topics in this forum have to do with climate modeling, particularly as it pertains to global warming. In these forum topics I and others have suggested that these models be verified by demonstrating an ability to closely track well know past climate events. So for example: Can current climate models track and explain the little ice age from beginning to end? Can current climate models track and explain the medieval warm period from beginning to end? Can current climate models track and explain the Holocene climatic optimum from beginning to end? Are such questions reasonable? Why or why not? It seems to me that part of verifying any model would be to test the model with one or more climate forcings removed or held constant. Proponents of current climate models often talk about data going back past several ice ages. They also seem to be able to pinpoint with some accuracy that date at which they believe anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations began to have an effect. Since this data seems to be available and often presented by proponents of current climate models, why not verify these models over the periods of time I have suggested above? Would mankind not benefit from the knowledge gained from such verification?

What part of all of them don’t you understand? The author of the paper you site put the following below a figure you presented. FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. All these radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or natural processes as discussed in the text. The values represent the forcings in 2005 relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). Human activities cause significant changes in long-lived gases, ozone, water vapour, surface albedo, aerosols and contrails. The only increase in natural forcing of any significance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance. Positive forcings lead to warming of climate and negative forcings lead to a cooling. The thin black line attached to each coloured bar represents the range of uncertainty for the respective value. (Figure adapted from Figure 2.20 of this report.) There is enough wiggle room in the above FAQ to drive a truck through. When someone writes something like that they themselves are casting doubt on their own work. So I state again..

How I live shares the wealth of my success with many people. There are all those people that build my fossil fuel consuming recreational vehicles, those that distribute and sell them, those that produce the fossil fuels and those that distribute it. Then there are those that sell me breakfast, lunch, and dinner when I am away from home in the mountains enjoying nature and my friends. It's called the economy. Maybe you have heard of it. My way sound much more generous than shutting down the economy based on articles published in research paper mills. I guess those people have to work too. Perhaps you think people would be better off if the wealth of the world were put into dumping iron oxide into the oceans to increase the number of little crustaceans. I know, maybe we could turn corn into alcohol and drive up food prices. That just might improve man kind’s lot. My lungs both function well. I was just testing them at Rocky Mountain altitudes in my snowmobile. But thank you for your concern. I couldn't be happier. Maybe that is your problem. You just can't stand that others are doing better than you. You have to call them names.

In the paper above provided by iNow, the following is printed below the figure shown above. FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. All these radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or natural processes as discussed in the text. The values represent the forcings in 2005 relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). Human activities cause signifi cant changes in long-lived gases, ozone, water vapour, surface albedo, aerosols and contrails. The only increase in natural forcing of any signifi cance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance. Positive forcings lead to warming of climate and negative forcings lead to a cooling. The thin black line attached to each coloured bar represents the range of uncertainty for the respective value. (Figure adapted from Figure 2.20 of this report.) Pay particular attention to "The thin black line attached to each coloured bar represents the range of uncertainty for the respective value." Also note the sentence that states "All these radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or natural processes as discussed in the text." What about other forcings not discussed in the text? Uncertainty and unknown forcings are where all models fall apart. Also when uncertainty and unknowns are prevalent, one can easily attribute response to the wrong forcings based on sound scientific arguments. Later one then finds that a combination of other factors actually produced the measured results. To insure such a bad outcome, one will generally limit the time scale of the data analyzed to only cover only the period of time that best supports ones own argument. Thank you, iNow, for proving the point of my last post (#32).

Generally speaking a model is a mathematical expression used to first describe observed phenomena and to then predict future phenomena. The process goes something like this. A person has data from an event or experiment. A curve fit is performed and from that curve fit a mathematical expression is defined. That mathematical expression is a model. Generally further experiments are then conducted to prove the model. For example, if I have a cannon, a barrel of powder, and a large supply of cannon balls, I can come up with a mathematical expression for ball distance traveled based on variables such as powder charge, firing angle, cannon ball weight. That model will work well as long as the cannon is well made, the balls fit well, and powder can be made with uniform performance. I can develop the model above without knowing anything about gravity, air drag, chemistry, metallurgy, etcetera. All I have to have is the data from a large number of experiments and the ability to define a function from curve fit to the data taken. With this model I can determine accurate firing solutions. Modelers in fact don’t need to know much science. For example, people developed models of an earth centered universe that were very accurate at predicting the location of stars and planets. These models are still in use today for navigation. Bad science, but good models. Now, some scientist may come along one day and explain how my cannon model works based on scientific principals of gravity, air drag, chemistry, metallurgy, etcetera, but I don’t need to know any of these things to develop my model. In fact, such knowledge may hinder the modeling process if I were trying to make known science match the data taken. Modelers fall into this trap all the time. Now what happens if the cannon is not well made, the balls don’t fit well, and powder can not be made with uniform consistency? Well, I can still eye ball a curve fit and develop a mathematical model but I might not be able to hit much. At least I will have to take more shots. Let’s hope the target isn’t moving. So what about models of natural systems? Let’s say I’m a pharmaceutical manufacturer. I develop a new chemical compound that I think will help control diabetes. Now I could test the effects of the chemical compound on human health with a computer model. If I created such a computer model perhaps much could be learned about human health. But, my guess is most people would not take the drug unless it was first tested in animals, and then monitored human trials. Most people would not trust a computer model. They would be skeptics. Too many of the variables are just unknown for a good computer model of the human system. Climate models are even worse. At least in the pharmaceutical example above, animals and human volunteers can be used for testing. How is this done with the climate? The IPCC publishes a chart showing the uncertainty of various known global warming and cooling forces. These uncertainty ranges appear to be quite large. So based on limited set of forces of which we have limited knowledge, as show in the IPCC uncertainty charts, I’m to accept changes in my standard of living. Sorry, but I have a snowmobile I want to ride for no other reason but recreation.

Glad to see that you are starting this off in such an unbiased and impartial way. I’m also happy to see that you are a hope filled person. Just curious, but what branch of science explores the topic of hope?

One can always take a pessimistic view. Science and technology have enabled the human species to expand to 6.6 billion persons. About 56 million people die per year. That is about the entire human population in around -1000. Vast sum are spent keeping people alive for the last few months or days of their lives. Is that quality living? In fact, much of the rat race of modern living is enabled by science and technology. Then there is the entire global climate issue and what to do about it. What is a sustainable human population and how will it be achieved. Science and technology will play a part in that too. That might not be too pretty. A pessimist could go on an on. Personally, my life has been great and full of all kinds of fun and interesting toys. History has proven to me that human beings just keep making things better and better. But I’m an optimist.

In my last post (#14) I did not mean to imply that only a limited set of subjects should be taught. In fact, I believe a comprehensive set of subjects should be taught. I just don’t have a big problem with route memorization. As Mr. Skeptic mentions in post #8, route memorization is a good method of teaching a lot in a little amount of time. Will you forget much of it? Sure, but you won’t forget that it can be done and that is most of the battle. Through high school, for example I was taught algebra, trigonometry, and geometry. When I was tested on these subjects, I had to write each answer in a corresponding answer box on the provided test page. The teacher (generally a nun) would grade the test by covering the test sheet with a piece of masonite with a holes punched in it corresponding to each test page answer box. On the masonite next to the punched holes the correct answers were written. Wrong answers were red lined. After this grading, a fraction was written on the top of the page, correct / total number of questions. I believe the tests were ancient. Mimiographs. I can still smell the alcohol. I would not doubt that every Catholic school in the entire country used the same tests. You see it was not important that the teacher knew the subject. It was important that students did. You were taught route. If you asked a question you were given a route answer. If you asked too many questions you were sent to detention. If you did not learn enough during class you were held over after school for extra time. Sitting through those boring, monotone, route memorized lectures was bad enough the first time. That alone provided the motivation to work enough to get at least a C. Because of this education, I know history, geography, mathematics, biology (including evolution), religion (not just Catholicism), civics, language …. Lots of information in a little bit of time. Concepts, understanding, self esteem…. Not so much. My children have lots of self esteem.

My personal experience. I went to Catholic school in the 60’s / 70’s . Big class rooms with 35 to 40 students. All route memorization. In hind sight, I don’t think the nuns new the subjects very well. They drilled us the way manuals told them to drill us. I had difficulty with several of the subjects. When my performance was truly sub par they held me over for extra tutoring. This tutoring was conducted exactly the same way the 40 student class room instruction was, but with fewer students and more stern looks. I think the primary motivation for holding the “special tutoring” sessions was to shame poor performing students in to working harder. This may sound harsh, but I give them credit. They did not give up. They just weren’t too imaginative. The big disadvantage of this education method is that it was very boring. I dreaded going to school and day dreamed through much of it. There were advantages however. The primary advantage was that the education I received was exactly the same as my grand parents, my parents, my uncles and aunts, and my siblings. If I asked any of them a question about my studies, I got the same answer. On every subject we spoke the same language. Now that I am later in life I can help those a generation above mine with little difficulty. I am now an engineer with a master’s degree in my late 40’s. My three children range in age from 19 to 24. Each of my children was taught in a different way. Their education in mathematics emphasized “concepts” and “understanding.” I recall trying to help my children with their homework and often thinking I was not exposed to such mathematics until college and some of it not until graduate school. Their grades by the way were often not based on getting the right answer, but by them writing a paragraph explaining how they performed the problem to get the wrong answer. They also were given poor grades if they got the right answer but did it in the wrong way or did not write a good paragraph to explain how they got the correct answer doing it the correct way. They were taught many ways to do the same problem which just confused them. Had I been taught and graded in this way I would have accomplished much less in my life. English, as I am sure you know by now was never one of my strong subjects. My children still struggle with mathematics and none of them are interested in the sciences. So I ask, what is the purpose of elementary, junior high, and a high school education? Most people don’t become scientists or engineers. But they do need basic skills to get by in life. My personal opinion is that most people are better off with a common set of fundamentals. They don’t need to know why they work. Some of them will be curious and work to achieve true understanding.

Just to clarify, the purpose for my posting is not to find ways to fix my sister. Not directly anyway. I believe my best response to her behavior is to stop contributing to it. This means no more supporting her or any of her dependents. The goal of my posting is to find information which will help me and others, particularly my mother, understand her mental problem. Through this understanding, perhaps I will change my current chosen response, but I doubt it. If I gain knowledge here, I will share it with others who are impacted by my sister’s behavior. More information: My sister is married. She has worked part time in the past but lost her job about 6 months ago. She is currently looking for part time work. She is also currently earning cash doing home based day care. Her husband works full time and has union based seniority job security. I think he makes about $40k a year. So when she works, they make about $50k a year. All the reputable credit cards have dropped her. I think on occasion she finds a company that will issue a $500 credit limit but those generally drop her quickly as well. She has a subprime mortgage on her home that she negotiated about 4 months ago, so she has no home equity. When it comes to spending, if she is awake and not under some obligation to be at a particular location, she is shopping. If she cannot sneak out of the house on weekends when her husband is preoccupied, or find a sitter when he is off someplace, she takes her 4 children with her. You have seen her; she is the one with the crying kids. I have not been at her home that there is not some evidence of a recent family meal of fast food. This is often because she is shopping after work and does not have time to cook. Her pantry is full of snack foods (chips, pretzels, etc) and the fridge is loaded with soft drinks. She is really into decorating her home for holidays. When the holiday is over she just throws out the decorations. Next year she buys again. For example, Christmas is just around the corner. Her home is the most decorated one the block. Lights, deer made of wire and lights that move, fake snowmen, candy canes, you name it. It is quite a spectacle. The inside is “Home Beautiful.” Next year will need a new theme. Then there are the clothes. Not just for her but for her children. She has two girls and two boys. The boys clothes are not too bad by comparison but the girls are a non-stop shopping opportunity. Her oldest, my niece, tells me that she has to be careful about saying she likes some outfit she sees on television. If she does that, she has a new wardrobe a week later and if she doesn’t start wearing it she finds that her old clothes have gone missing. I could go on and on about all the lies but why bother. My favorite includes “I found this killer deal…” She does not believe she has a problem. She is just a little behind or everything was fine but then a crisis hit. Like totaling the car (7 cars in 10 years). Just bad luck. By the way she will tell you that everyone lives just like her. She is just a bit unlucky.

I have a sister, 45, who is a spendthrift. She has had this problem for years, financially ruining her family several times. She and her husband have declared bankruptcy twice. Our father passed away in 2000. Afterwards, I helped our mother arrange her very middle class finances, which our father previously managed. In doing so, to the surprise of my mother and me, we discovered that dear old dad had bailed out sis several times, each in the $10 to $50k range. Since mom is not a soft touch, and since there are time limits on how often one can declare bankruptcy, my sister is again in financial trouble. Since 2000 she has borrowed money from me and her other 3 siblings, her uncles and aunts, friends, and of course her mother. Everyone is long past throwing good money after bad. My sister has 4 children, giving birth to the last at age 42. Among other things my sister is anorexic, and getting pregnant and carrying a baby to term has never been easy for her. Last Christmas at a dinner party she went on and on with my youngest sister-in-law about how difficult it was for her to get pregnant. My sister-in-law, not to happy about how much her husband has “loaned” our sister asked “Why on earth would you want to have a forth child at age 42?” My sister replied “I just love shopping for baby clothes.” So now my mother is 75 and with age, her reason and will are weakening. She really just has enough to keep her comfortable. My sister however sees her nest egg as money to be spent. You see, my sister now realizes that mom is the last chance for cash. The rest of us will let her go to the poor house. She also knows we won’t let mom go there. So in a round about way, she is just getting her siblings to giver her the love (cash = love) she deserves. In a quest to keep my mother independent, I have decided to try to learn a bit about my sister’s problem. To help her? No, my hope is that by providing this information to my mother, my mother won’t give in to my sister’s money demands. Time has shown me that giving money to my sister is just adding fuel to the fire. My web searching to date has only come up with oniomania. Oniomania is a impulse control disorder to shop. I tend to prefer spendthrift. My history with my sister tells me that it is not the buying that’s the problem but the spending. The difference? Some of her actions tell me she would get pleasure flushing $100 bills down the toilet one at a time. She has been caught several times throwing out home decorations or new clothes she purchased just weeks before to replace them with nearly identical items. She will borrow money to give it to charity. She will sponsor parties for her children’s school classes. Her clothes are often mysteriously damaged by laundry accidents (e.g. bleach, ironing …). She has borrowed money from my mother for braces for her children’s teeth and then when showing them off her husband mentions that his work has such a good dental plan that it covers braces 100%. My sister has totaled 7 cars in the last 10 years. By her telling, none of these accidents have been her fault. Several of these “accidents” have lead to her receiving insurance settlements up to $20k. Where does all this money go? Now I do always see her wearing the nicest clothes and drinking a Starbucks coffee. She does have a nicely stocked wine closet. My mother looks at her grandchildren and asks “how can I let them lose there home?” My answer is to keep from losing yours as well. So if you know anything about my sister’s mental problems and can provide me with some information that will strengthen my mothers resolve, I would appreciate it.

I find it ironic that Occam's Razor would be used to challenge the existence of god. William of Ockham (also Occam) was an English Franciscan friar who believed that all Christian clergy should own no property and live by begging and accepting only necessities as gifts of others. In fact he got into quite a bit of trouble with the Pope (John XXII) for advocating this belief. I’m sure he would be surprised that his “"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" would be one day interpreted to mean “god is not necessary.”

What makes you think other engine types haven't been tried? Several electric models have been tried. There were steam engine powered cars. Chrysler tried gas turbine engines. We now have hybrid internal combustion/electric. The internal combustion engines we use today are actually quite remarkable. They are reliable, long lasting, and provide a wide range of horse power on demand. The beauty of capitalism is that good solutions will be tried and once tried markets will most often be found. If a market is not found for a superior product, it is generally the consumers fault. My favorite example of this is packaging for salt and oat meal. Consumers, at least in the United States, are used to purchasing salt and oat meal in cylindrical boxes. Cylindrical boxes take up more space on the shelf and during transportation. This produces production, transportation, and retailing inefficiencies. Manufacturers have tried to sell salt and oat meal in cubic boxes but people won’t purchase it.

Your little bomb idea is vary stupid and dangerous. One of the products of mixing potassium and water is potassium hydroxide also know as caustic potash. This is a very strong base which will dissolve flesh. When your little bomb goes boom, caustic potash will be strewn about. You want to breathe that? You want that in your eye? Don’t be an idiot.

Most Christian denominations summarize their orthodoxy with the Nicene Creed. This creed begins with: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” This statement of faith is at the beginning of the creed for two reasons. One, the creed is laid out in chronological order. Creation happened first. Two, it is of primary in theological importance. All that is, comes from God. The above statement of faith does not restrict a believer form accepting scientific laws or theories. Only a bigot would suggest otherwise. In fact, the above statement of faith requires the believer to accept all truth revealed by reason because it provides understanding about the creator. Those ignorant of this fact should perhaps read Kepler or Newton. Many of the greatest scientists in history have made the pledge of faith above. This forum topic is nothing but a bigoted ad hominem attack on both religious believers and global warming skeptics. Shame.

SkepticLance, I agree. Also, it does not seem that the data presented by swansont tracks well with the cooling periods you have pointed out that occurred in the 20th century. A comment on modeling. In my field, electrical engineering in the area of electromagnetics, there are several modeling tools available that predict design performance. These modeling tools are based on well known science, primarily Maxwell’s equations. These modeling tools do get a design into the ballpark thereby reducing the number of physical design iterations needed to achieve a final design. A ballpark is still a large place when the science is so well known and elegantly described. Modeling something as complex as the earths dynamic climate with accuracy must be orders of magnitude more complex. This complexity makes it all the more important to verify the performance on past historical events such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age.

Swansont, Thank you for providing the above references. I do however have issues with the back-dating periods provided by these references. When I asked for a period of time from 1007 to present I was really just looking for a significant period of time. The exact dates were not of particular interest. I was more interested in whether or not current models could explain why the medieval warm period and the little ice age occurred. Would the modeled results follow the know history for these significant events in our recent past. If they could, then we would know if they had any meaningful accuracy in predicting climate in the absence of anthropogenic forcing. If current models are not accurate enough to explain past climate warming and cooling periods, why should we trust their ability to predict the future of our current warming period? Is this too much to ask? Do you find anything unscientific about this request?

Swansont, You said: I simply asked you to provide a reference to a paper demonstrating this "back-testing" you mention. I suggested a backtesting period of time equal to 1000 years. If a model is to be trusted to predict 100 years into the future one would think that a back-testing period of 10 times that amount would not be unreasonable. Your response was to dismiss my request as the rantings of a creationist. Having trouble finding a back-testing reference? Since you claim that successful back testing has been demonstrated repeatedly, one would think my request is a simple one.

I'm glad to hear that global warming isn't a political issue. Back-tested? Show me a paper or report that shows modeled results where the modeling begins in the year 1007 and predicts the "global climate" accurately from that day to today.

iNow, I said By using the word "same" I thought it would be understood that you, iNow, are the source of my data. I have attached the data again. This shows the "same" data on the same scale but in terms of % atmosphere. My curve fitting is not perfect but close enough. [ATTACH]1648[/ATTACH] This is the same data in % atmosphere. The y axis maximum is now 1% [ATTACH]1649[/ATTACH] This is the same data in % atmosphere. The y axis maximum is now 100%. This plot gives a visual perspective of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to all the atmosphere. [ATTACH]1650[/ATTACH] With regard to this scale change as a misdirection tactic, what was the context of the original scale provided by iNow? Show an average person the last plot above, explain that the curve represents a 30% increase in CO2, then explain why they should reduce their standard of living to prevent global catastrophe. Good luck with that. With regard to Jim Hanson, isn't he just a shill for George Soros? I mention this because this forum often discredits scientists based on their funding.

iNow in post 242 shows the image below. [ATTACH]1636[/ATTACH] This is the same image in a different scale with the y axix as % atmosphere. [ATTACH]1637[/ATTACH] You really wonder why average people are not worried about global warming?

Animal rights. Let’s see if we can list them. Right to life? No. We kill them when we choose for many reasons, food being but one of them. Right to Liberty? No. Even pets that have our great affection for do not have this right. Right to property? No. They have little need for property with the exception of habitat. Even in the case of habitat we don’t ever say that a particular animal has a right to this particular habitat. If they have the right to property therefore it is not an individual right. Also, if you ask someone why we should be concerned about animal extinction rarely do you here an argument that the endangered species has a collective right to life. The argument you here is that we humans benefit from biological diversity. We preserve species for our own good. A right to pursue happiness? See right to life, liberty, and property above. A right to justice? See right to life, liberty, and property. A right not to suffer? No. We use animals for medical experiments and product testing all the time. We induce animal suffering to prolong human life and reduce human suffering and discomfort. We are even willing to induce birth defects in animals through genetic manipulation for this purpose. The Nobel Prize in medicine was just given to three men for their successful efforts in genetically manipulating life forms, in particular laboratory animals. So why do we condemn people that poke animals with a sharp stick for their own pleasure? Because they are inducing needless suffering. Such people have a flaw in there character. Societies have always shunned people with such character flaws.

It has been often argued that the ethical treatment of animals has little to do with the pain experienced by animals, but more to do with the pain experienced by humans. People make all kinds of animals their helpers and companions (e.g. dogs, horses, etc.) People experience mental aguish when they see animal species, to which they have affection, abused. This emotional pain should not be inflicted needlessly. Animals are also used for medical experiments and product testing. Countless human lives have been saved and great human suffering has been eliminated due to these efforts. Yet, those who perform medical experiments and product testing on animals often have negative physiological trauma caused by the experiments they perform. How we treat animals also impacts how we treat other humans. It his well know that psychopaths and serial killers start out by torturing animals. By criminalizing animal cruelty, such people can be monitored by or removed from society before they torture or kill humans. On the contrary, killing animals for food, promotes humanity. It should be done in a way to minimize animal suffering so that the person doing the killing is not negatively affected. A good example of this can be found at county and state fairs. Children raise animals from birth for competition. At the end of judging, these animals, at least the winners, are killed for further inspection. This is often an emotional time for these children. Farmers and ranchers consider this to be a teaching moment about the sacrifices made to promote humanity.

Offensive? Just who would be offended? I have seen political correctness take some strange paths but this one is beyond comprehension. Do you, or someone you love, have a pet virus? Are you planning on starting people for the ethical treatment of viruses? If you are worried about offending viruses, why not prions? Wouldn’t want to hurt their feelings either. Am I missing something here, or has the English language lost all meaning?

My understanding is that natural gas turbines are the most popular form of new electric power generation in the US today. This is primarily due to their low emissions. Low emissions mean that the power company can more easily pass environmental impact requirements. Several such power plants have been built in my local area in the last decade. You might want to do a simple Google search on “natural gas turbines electric power generation.” Doing such a search, I found the following links. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine> <http://www.eere.energy.gov/de/pdfs/gas_turbines_doe_perspective.pdf> I hesitate in promoting natural gas for electrical power generation however. As power companies have built more gas turbine plants the cost of natural gas has gone up. I heat my home and cook my food with natural gas. If you want to make heat, I think it is best to burn natural gas on site.