Re: [asa] Re: GW

Is skepticism warranted? What I've read about the reports is that they
tend to minimize the problems, and that several models generally agree. I
note that the loss of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, as well as from
the Greenland ice cap and continental glaciers, are proceeding faster
than the models predict.
Another Dave (ASA)

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:39:48 -0500 Dave Wallace <wdwllace@sympatico.ca>
writes:
> I'm probably a little more skeptical than Burgy is but I still think
> we
> should be taking remedial action. Like Burgy I am not a climate
> scientist. Reasons why I am more skeptical:
>
> 1)The models are large complex codes and as someone who spent their
>
> career programming, I don't think there is any such thing as the
> last bug.
>
> 2)The computer models do not simulate all of the climate. As I
> understand it, in some cases not all the physics is known and in
> others
> the computer programs would just run too long to perform a more
> exact
> simulation. Something called parameterization is used to set
> coefficients for these areas that are not modeled but approximated.
>
> 3)Someone said that if they were tasked with understanding how good
> the
> climate models are, that one thing they would do is talk to the grad
>
> students who in many cases did the actual programming. Knowing
> enough
> about the numerical methods and especially error propagation takes
> more
> than a grad course or two in numerical methods. However, at least
> one
> of the models and I assume more than one, come from government
> research
> institutions and should not suffer from this problem.
>
> My take on remedial action is that we have two other global problems
> for
> which many actions are the same as for global warming. Those
> problems
> being:
>
> A) the coming depletion of oil and natural gas. The projection here
> is
> that gas (for automobiles) which now sells for 4+$ US a gallon will
> hit
> 6$ US a gallon in the not too far future.
>
> B) smog in cities like Toronto, LA, Tokyo is killing people,
> especially
> those with respiratory problems.
>
> Thinking of things that improve all three or even any two of the
> above
> is not hard:
>
> -Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs can reduce power consumption by a
> 75 to
> 80% and then upstream reduce fuel going into generating stations...
> A
> while back I saw a news story that indicated that incandescent bulbs
> in
> Canada are expected to become scares in the next decade or so.
> Whether
> by forcing them off the market or adding a tax of 10$ a bulb is
> immaterial.
>
> -eliminate air shuttles, Washington to New York to Boston etc.
> Ottawa
> (where I live) to Toronto probably has around 40 to 50 flights a day
>
> each way. If we laid down dedicated dual tracks, even with the
> trains
> that are in use today (85 to 100mph), rail passenger time, down town
> to
> down town would be more than competitive with flight.
>
> -eliminate inter city truck transportation by improving rail
> facilities.
>
> -install electric water heaters, washers, dryers and disk washers
> with
> the ability to run during off peak hours. Electric water heaters
> are
> available here that can be shut down remotely by the power company
> to
> help deal with city or province wide high peak loads. In a year or
> two
> we will get billed more per kwh during peak hours of the day than
> off
> hours. The generating stations that handle peak conditions are
> typically very expensive to operate and pollute correspondingly.
> Replacing good existing appliances is probably not the thing to do
> but
> as they wear out then more efficient units should be obtained.
>
> Dave W (CSCA member)
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jan 27 22:49:27 2008