When London is submerged and New York is awash...

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On 12 Jan 2005 04:01:26 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

... nor do I have any of your bad habits.

Stop gratuitously throwing mud, you know nothing about my habits.

Or anyone else's -- at least, here, anyway.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:35:20 +0000, Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk>
wrote:

The spending limits are regularly breached by france, Italy, Belgium
and Germany to name but a few. You just don't get to hear about it;
that's all. The framework under which the Euro was set up was indeed
strict, however the observance of it is anything but.

I actually knew this in my own writing, and left room for this point when I
wrote "The EU countries have all agreed (not that they are *doing* it as they
should) to keep their deficit spending at or below 3% of GNP." Note the
parenthetical, I included.

Each country violating the rule exposes itself to serious penalties, though the
EU has chosen not to impose them so far as I've heard. And they have their own
reasons -- Germany, for example, still has eastern Germany's "expense" and some
of the other countries with more expansive social policies don't want to
sacrifice those services.

In fact the
whole project was crystalised at a point in time of political
expedience, *not* economic conformity and stability. It is a lot like
a cake with poorly-mixed ingredients. It cannot now be unbaked.

I can't argue one way or another about this. You might be right.

Some day the whole, rotten facade will come unravelled. God help the
developed economies if that occurs after this crock of sh*t has been
adopted as the world's principal reserve currency.

It's already being used as a reserve currency, though not nearly as the US
dollar is... yet. Many contracts in the world are being specified in euros and
not in dollars, too. There is already a motion in that direction.

I sincerely hope we in Britain have nothing to do with it - ever.

Well, you have Tony Blair who is pro-EU as far as I've seen. But the British
*do* have their excellent banking system (and a tremendous investment in US
business activities) and you might very well keep it. (All new countries going
into the EU are required to use the euro as their currency.) I'll be watching
this play out -- it will be interesting to see the sparks.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:59:21 +0000, Guy Macon
<_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:

I once asked my lovely and talented wife to stand behing the car
and tell me if the turn signal was working. She said:

"It's working. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is..."

I cannot say I understand your point, so I'll guess at it. You imagine that
climate GCMs need to predict weather? If so, you are sorely mistaken. And not
just a little bit, but entirely so.

Predicting the next flip of a fair coin is very hard. Predicting the average of
the next 10000 coin flips is much easier, Guy. Predicting the weather a month
from now at Astoria, Oregon is hard. Predicting the global mean temperature for
the decade from 2090 to 2100 given an estimate of human greenhouse gas emissions
is much easer.

As you should be aware, specific and chaotic transients are harder to model and
predict than the general and steady state.

I hope that makes the issue clearer for you.

Jon

 

[Guy Macon]

Jim Thompson wrote:

[Just a frivolous post to get this citation into my retrievable
records]


http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

makes an interesting read on the 'Scientific Consensus'.

Even better link on the same topic:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

My favorite links on the subject of Global Warming:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.john-daly.com/
http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9

 

[Guy Macon]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:59:21 +0000, Guy Macon
_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:

I once asked my lovely and talented wife to stand behing the car
and tell me if the turn signal was working. She said:

"It's working. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is..."

I cannot say I understand your point, so I'll guess at it.
You imagine that climate GCMs need to predict weather?

Not at all. My criticism is pointed at those fools who talk about a
particular wet/dry winter or cool/hot summer as if it tells us something
about climate change. Those fools often are to be found by watching
your local newscast.

Getting back to the topic at hand, the computer simulations have
some interesting problems:

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=12
http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/s41p851.htm#Message2239
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=285
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:24:29 +0000, Guy Macon
<_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:

Not at all. My criticism is pointed at those fools who talk about a
particular wet/dry winter or cool/hot summer as if it tells us something
about climate change. Those fools often are to be found by watching
your local newscast.

On this narrow point, I'd probably agree. One weather event does not a climate
make. However, there *are* trends and when one looks over a large base of
individual events, one sees where this is all going.

To bring this back to electronics, if you have an analog signal that lies
accurately between to digitizing points of an ADC and there is sufficient
Gaussian distributed noise about it that sometimes the reading is to one side
and sometimes to another, you can look at the number of times it is to this side
and the number of times to that side and by how much and gain a bead on the
likely true value in between.

None of this guarantees you that the value you project *is* the same as the
actual analog value of your desired signal, of course. But within some
reasonable bounds of risk, you are probably right.

It's still too early, for example, to decide whether or not the "hurricane
seasons" we've seen off and on are a reflection of global warming itself. It
will be another 8 or 10 years before that picture can arise, I believe. But
there is no doubt of the rise in the global warming effect itself and very
little room for doubt about the *dominant* anthropogenic cause of it, as of
today.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:09:29 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

Climate is just weather on a longer timebase. I suspect that weather
is fractal in time, erratic at all time scales. The only advantage in
claiming you can predict longterm trends over short-term ones is that
it's harder for people to call you on it.

Some day, perhaps, it may be the case. But our knowledge of these chaotic
systems isn't detailed enough for your above statement to be meaningful. It's
not possible to compute small scale physics from first principles and accumulate
them correctly up to the entire earth, as a whole, just now.

For example, in the real earth's atmosphere, convection modifies large-scale
thermodynamics. The problem for models is to represent sub-grid sized effects
such as this in terms of the large-scale parameters. Once convection begins,
how does the model represent the new vertical distribution of temperature,
moisture, condensation, and evaporation, ...., for example? Particularly, when
these processes are occurring on scales much smaller than the model's grid
spacing allows... So, depending on the model, this can be done explicitly or
through parameterization. But if it isn't done, if proper adjustments are not
made to the profiles through this kind of parameterization, convection continues
unabated. And that is not realistic.

So the models cannot yet work both on the small and the large. The earth, of
course, does all this from tiny quantum effects at individual event boundaries
and all we see is the aggregate result. But there is no way our current
modeling is going to be able to proceed from these quantum effects all the way
up, through dynamic catastrophe systems, through highly localized time and space
points and then through to a global climate.

Luckily, it's not necessary to model every quantum event up through turbulent
flow dynamics in local spaces and times in order to gain an accurate bead on
global climate systems over periods of decades, which are the sum. Which gets
back to my earlier and correct point.

I heard one serious climate researcher say that several major
couplings were not only unknown in magnitude, they are unknown in
sign.

Be specific and we'll talk about it.

Jon

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:18:04 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

Public policy that is based on going against what amounts to an overwhelming
confluence of scientific opinion is NOT a very wise approach. If 5000
scientists produce peer-reviewed papers on a topic and the 5000 scientists all
arrive at pretty much the same conclusion, you have consensus through
peer-review and reproducible experiments.

Reproducible experiments? In weather and climate?

John

 

[Don Klipstein]

In art. <10ub94tihpjvcdb@corp.supernews.com>, Guy Macon wrote in part:

If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then
does CO2 in the atmosphere also cause increased sun activity?
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwind.html

How did they measure solar wind back in 1865-1870?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Guy Macon]

Jim Thompson wrote:

Scientific conclusion thru *consensus*?

It isn't science. It's computer simulations. If it
was science nobody would be talking about any supposed
consensus - they would be talking about the results of
experiments.

The fact that the proposed solution just happens to be to
replace free-market capitalism with a command-and-control
soviet system explains why so many embrace it.

 

[Mark Zenier]

In article <oibau0523h5lghleqnmka6hjh5vunfthmd@4ax.com>,
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Gee, like that's really an unbiased source. Try finding a source
that's not a division of the Republican Party's Propaganda Ministry.

makes an interesting read on the 'Scientific Consensus'.

It seems all the models predicting doom assume a positive feedback effect
from increasing carbon dioxide levels. As an engineer the notion that there
is any significant net positive feedback the earth's climate system is
ridiculous. The earth's climate has been like a pin balanced on it's point
for millions of years and 'we' are going to knock it over in the next few
decades - yeah right.

There are a couple of worrisome mechanisms that can come into play.
The release of methane from gas hydrates when they get too warm, and
the decomposition of arctic bogs currently(?) locked in permafrost.

I vaguely remember that there's at least one instance of a gas
hydrate methane release in the climate record. (A gas hydrate is
a deep ocean or underground bed of water ice crystals that collects
methane gas in the crystal structure).

Both of these are very nonlinear, so nothing much happens until the
transition temperature is reached. Then all hell breaks loose.

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com Washington State resident

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:20:20 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

Public policy that is based on going against what amounts to an overwhelming
confluence of scientific opinion is NOT a very wise approach. If 5000
scientists produce peer-reviewed papers on a topic and the 5000 scientists all
arrive at pretty much the same conclusion, you have consensus through
peer-review and reproducible experiments.

Reproducible experiments? In weather and climate?

Yes. The broad truth, as you imply, is that there is only one earth. But none
of this precludes reproducible experiments for specific areas, when and where
possible.

"Theory is primary," as they say. Objective meaning arrives only through
theory. And no data may be objectively interpreted for meaning in the absence
of theory. (By objective meaning here I mean to exclude meaning assigned by
personal belief.) Climate models are developed from, in part, good theory that
is indeed well supported through reproducible experiments.

I'm certainly not saying that GCMs are the be-all, right now. A number of
papers are regularly presented on detailed problems and assumptions in their
necessary parameterization and discussing new ways to resolve or test them or
improve their broader application. A long way to go, really. I don't want to
give any impressions different from this. However, it's fairly clear from a
comprehensive view (the likelihood of some undetected element dispelling the
conclusions are tiny) that anthropogenic causes represent more than 50% of the
differential forcings over pre-industrial times. (These include, by the way,
significant cooling effects from human caused aerosols, which 'compensate' some
for the other forcings in the other direction.)

Read the report I mentioned earlier, in detail. Then ask questions about it.

"Historical evolution of radiative forcing of climate"
http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_atm_env01.pdf

Jon

 

[Clarence_A]

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:7s2bu05s8vkm556rpj5c2kg6t4mp4me8t7@4ax.com...


As usual had noting of value to say!
Since he only attacks the writer and seems to know nothing about
the subject!

 

[keith]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:09:52 -0800, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:57:11 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:
"Keith Williams" wrote

Sliding down the hills in CA.

You don't see Kofi Annan sending Aid to California, do you!

It's a little hard to work up a feeling of sympathy for idiots who build
three million dollar mansions on top of mudslides.

If you think this is bad, just wait for The Big Earthquake.

Everything east of the San Andreas fault will slide into the Atlantic
Ocean.

Yikes! That's going to ruin the day for the EuroPeons too! *SURF'S UP*!

OTOH, I'd like to visit Ireland.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:05:45 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On 12 Jan 2005 04:01:26 -0800, the renowned Winfield Hill
hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

For example, why not as an
important energy policy promote the greater use of railroads for
freight rather than trucks across the country?

The railway unions would have to be knocked down a notch or two. Just
the kind of thing that a (R) administration does well.

Are you hoping the strike? I don't think even the RR union is quite that
stupid. They don't need to give anyone any excuse to terminate their
sweetheart deals.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:27:49 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:16:13 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com> wrote:

[snip]

That's one!

[snip]

Is that the classic mule joke, that's one, that's two... ?

That's a-one-two-three. Jeez Jim, I kew you were about the right age, but
Lawrence?

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:18:28 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On 12 Jan 2005 06:09:26 -0800, larwe@larwe.com wrote:

fewer workers will be around to pay for it. A birth rate of, say, 1.2
per couple isn't good in the long term.

"Every German girl must realize that her highest duty is to become a
German mother" is not good in the long term either.

How about tackling the problem from the other end of the spectrum and
encouraging pensioners to 'quit stinking up the joint' after say 5
years' (max) of (publicly-funded) retirement and telling them their
highest duty is to FOAD and httpbe a burdon on the state?

You show the way.

--
Keith

 

[Clarence_A]

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:hijbu05l75et07pp2drivprvgn9cvccsna@4ax.com...

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:16:13 GMT, "Clarence_A" <no@No.com
wrote:

[snip]
That's one!
[snip]

Is that the classic mule joke, that's one, that's two... ?
...Jim Thompson

Most appropriate for the intended individual!

 

[Winfield Hill]

Clarence_A wrote...

Your positions are not expressed as opinions but conclusions
which are frequently not even close to reality as I perceive it.

One opinion / conclusion I hold: you are an idiot and a jerk.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Richard the Dreaded Liberal wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:57:11 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:
"Keith Williams" wrote

Sliding down the hills in CA.

You don't see Kofi Annan sending Aid to California, do you!

It's a little hard to work up a feeling of sympathy for idiots who build
three million dollar mansions on top of mudslides.

If you think this is bad, just wait for The Big Earthquake.

Everything east of the San Andreas fault will slide into the Atlantic
Ocean.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
IRS: We've got what it takes to take what you've got.