[asa] Bacterial Gene May Affect Climate And Weather

Two items:

[1] The science anti-christs coming to a TV show near you.
:) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1786188/posts

[2] Bacterial Gene May Affect Climate And Weather
        Science Daily ^ | 2-17-2007 | University Of Queensland
        Posted on 02/17/2007 2:47:13 PM EST by blam
          http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1786628/posts
[refresh browser]

One comment:

"This is an IPCC
chart.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1786628/posts?page=14#14
It greatly overstated the competence of the models, both in the past and now.

They aren't even close to being able to accurately include the
greatest heat reservoir of the Earth, oceans, in their modeling in a
gross manner, not to say anything about specific situations as ocean
currents. The effect of aerosols is very poorly understood. The
effect of clouds is poorly understood. They don't even try to
consider the most highly likely main driver of climate, the Sun and
the ways it can affect temperature except in the most gross manner,
and definitely have undercalculated its effect. Cosmic rays,
bacteria, etc... many other things are completely ignored.

Of those factors that are known and reasonably well understood, very
few are known well enough to provide data inputs to the models with
2% or lower error bars. Only 30 such factors make would throw off the
calculations so much as to make them useless, and there are many more
than 30 factors involved in this problem. (I'm being so generous to
the IPCC 'scientists' in this paragraph that I'm almost disgusted with myself)

As you say, also, there is a great problem with "dynamics". The
"mesh" that the present models are using is ridiculously large (by
necessity) and there is no foreseeable computational technique or
equipment on the horizon to overcome that. Meanwhile, these GCMs
can't even get close to reproducing the past without heroic and
by-chance tweaking of the many "free parameters".

Once I saw a calculation of the number of moves in a Chess game - a
problem whose complexity is child's play compared to the Earth's
climate. The author did something along the lines of this: He
calculated the "exponential explosion" for the number of possible
chess games and came up with what I found to be a reasonable number
(I don't recall what it was, but it was pretty darn big) He then
postulated that a chess computer could be made of a single electron,
and that each of those 'computers' could evaluate one game in a
second. He gave a parallel computation of the number of electrons in
the known universe. The long and short of it was that there are not
enough electrons in the known universe to have examined every
possible chess game in 15billion or so years.

Not Even Close.

The GCM's are examining something far more complex than a chess game,
and far more chaotic, and with very few rules that are really known.
It is no surprise to me that they are not competent, and I believe it
very highly unlikely that they will become so in my lifetime.

As of now, one of the ways they decide if a model run with given
parameters is worth "keeping" and continuing or not is whether shows
the temperature to increase with increasing CO2 after a few
iterations. That alone biases the results of all runs toward
increasing temperature regardless of any other parameters, and taints
all possible evidence from these models. It would be nice if someday
they have to simply admit the major deficiencies.

In my view, the best way to express a concern about the very likely
minuscule amount that humans are having on the Earth's climate is to
continue observations of the Sun, CO2, methane, cosmic rays, clouds,
bacteria(?), etc., and chart correlations of such gross inputs with
the actual temperature records. We need to eschew these silly
temperature 'models' in order to have a better idea of the chaotic
earths long term climate, where the true believer environmentalists
will tell you that even a butterfly flapping will have it's effect on
the Europe's weather next week.

By the way, I work intimately with supercomputer modeling and the
results of such computations. Believe me when I say that even very
well understood physical models are subject to huge errors when it
comes to comparison of the outputs of these runs with real world data
and inputs. We're often stymied as to what is going on because our
models didn't suggest things we actually see in or simple, well
measured, lab situations.

16 posted on 02/17/2007 5:02:45 PM EST by AFPhys
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1786628/posts?page=16#16

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 17 18:40:43 2007