Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

But the data--and the big misrepresentation in Gore's 'Truth'--seems to say the reverse. Gore's big chart clearly shows that the temperature rises preceed the rises in CO2, not the other way around. Hard to make the argument that increased CO2 causes warming from the historical data!


----- Original Message -----

Hanson makes the argument in his "Grandchildren" book that we aren't
relying on computer models when we say we know CO2 will raise the
temperature. He says (I have not found the scientific paper) there
natural experiments in the geological past that show warming driven by
CO2. One example he talks about (besides the feedbacks that pushed
climate out of ice ages) was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum.
Hanson seems to think that a large injection of carbon into the
atmosphere (the cause of which is poorly understood) resulted in a
6C global temperature increase.


----- Original Message -----
From: "brian whatcott"<>

On 10/12/2010 6:28 AM, LaMontagne, Bob wrote:
You seem to take it as an insult that I would say that "the
investigators have not found an effect that rises out of the
noise" and
then you go on to say how the results are not reproducable "100%
of the
time". I would characterize that as not rising out of the noise.
Bob at PC

Interesting fusion of the concepts of
significance and repeatability coming through here?

Of course one could counter with how significant is a result if it
is not
repeatable? However, this is probably the nature of beast when we
try to
talk about global climate.

Something that concerns me and the degree to which we are depending
computer modeling to deal with the topic, is that certainly these
are all
dynamic models. That is, the models themselves are constantly being
and fed new data. That's how it should be, but when somebody
counters with
a question about why this or that has or hasn't happened when
predicted by
the models and the answer comes back 'the current conditions are
with the model' (or something along those lines) is this
'consistent' with
the old model or with the updated model that has recently been fed
particular data or conditions that might be in question? Ultimately
the question becomes just how predictive the models really are. How
should we rely on today's models say for 10 years hence. Turned
around, how
accurate were the predictions of 10 years ago. Of course this gets
complicated by advances in the science and the computers such that
we might
well expect today's models to be better than those of 10 years ago.
Still--models are just that, and climate models are extremely
complex with
way many (too many?) variables!


Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN
Free Physics Software

'Before you open your mouth, just remember,
the empty wagon rattles the loudest.'
-- my dad

kyle forinash 812-941-2039

Forum for Physics Educators