Re: [asa] The Mathematics of Global Warming

Though there are similarities, there are some significant differences in
modeling climate vs weather. One of those differences is that weather is
critically sensitive to initial conditions and the solution depends on the
very sensitive dynamic response to those initial conditions. Climate, on the
other hand, depends on a long term steady state solution that is relatively
insensitive to initial conditions. Solutions to the latter are much easier
to obtain than the former. Heuristically, one can predict the climate for
July 4 twenty years from now but you can't predict the weather ten days from
now, let alone next July 4.

As I've mentioned previously, global warming predictions do not depend
solely on models. It is noteworthy that all diverse lines of investigation
point in the same direction. Paleoclimatology, current trends, future
models, are all consistent, having a range of solutions for the specifics at
2100 but all with the same message. Everyone I know in the field desperately
wishes it weren't true and would be delighted to hear of any data or any
analysis saying it ain't so. If anyone has such info, please pass it along.
This one isn't it.

The statement that no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning
global warming is not supported by any logical reasoning that I know of.

Randy

--------------------------------------------------
From: "John Walley" <john_walley@yahoo.com>

>
> The forecasts of global warming are based on the mathematical solutions of
> equations in models of the weather. But all of these solutions are
> inaccurate. Therefore no valid scientific conclusions can be made
> concerning global warming.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 30 14:20:44 2009