[swilhelm73]

Darn good article.

[TomB]

bump

[nuke rocketeer]

What disturbs me most about the global warming crowd is their emphasis on the results of their computer models. I build computer models of power plants to predict performance and extrapolate the results for upgrading equipment and uprating the power levels. First, you build the model using the design parameters for the equipment in the plant and reproduce the design predictions. The very next thing you do after building the model is "tune" it to current performance. That is, you tweak the equipment design parameters to match the measured parameters in the plant. It is really important that these measurements be accurate and repeatable. Ignoring a measurement that is good but tells you something you do not want to hear is a recipe for failure. After you have tweaked the model to reproduce the results of one set of data, you check it out by putting a new set of boundary variables from another set of data and see how it predicts the rest of the data. For a power plant the boundary variables are feed water flow, cycle heat input from the boiler (or reactor), steam pressure/temperature, and cooling water flow/temperature. The model should predict plant output within 0.5 to 1.0 megawatts (out of 500 to 1300 megawatts) and various cycle parameters within 2%. A properly tuned model can do this day in and day out and is a handy tool for finding performance problems. It to can also extrapolate accurately to predict what will happen if you want to change the cycle.

No that I have explained what a proper computer model can do, let's examine how well the various climate models predict current climate and weather. As of now, there is NO computer model that can accurately predict the weather variables at any location more than 12 hours in advance. The huge chaotic energy inputs the sun and the earth's core, the chaotic movements of the Earth's atmosphere, and the poorly understood chemical interactions of the atmosphere and the oceans makes for a staggering number of simultaneous calculations. NOAA takes in hundreds of meteorological measurements a day from all over the world and from several satellites and feeds them into a computer that uses all the capacity of one of the most powerful supercomputers in the world. Try as they might, the scientists at NOAA still cannot predict accurately the weather accurately more than 12 hours in advance. Similar programs are used to extrapolate the climate years and decades into the future when they cannot tell us accurately what the general climate will be in the next season. Just look at the predictions made for the number of hurricanes, the severity of the upcoming winters, summers, etc.

These same Cassandras tell us that global average temperatures have risen 0.5 degrees over the last 30 years, based on satellite temperature measurements and selected ground based measurements. I work with the best available temperature measurements and cannot get that kind of accuracy with any certainty. The uncertainty of the best measurements are usually plus/minus 0.5 degrees. I have heard, but cannot verify, that many measurements that do not support their preconceived theories are thrown out. It would fit with the general propaganda that Sagan, Erlich, et al have been throwing out at us for 30 years. I have always looked for, but have not seen, their FULL set of data along with the averages, standard deviations, and uncertainties of the measurements. All I get are the press releases showing the temperature rise and breathless statements on how we westerners are responsible for the upcoming disaster. I would bet that the uncertainty of these measurements is greater than the results that we are being bombarded with. What this means is that the temperature rise they point to is more likely no rise at all. It is merely just a statistical fluctuation.

[Carry_Okie]

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country.

Darned stupid idea.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

50und=PT*,fa*,0wT,2,m|e^

The Equation of the pretty far out to me theory.

[AuntB]

BTT

[Cameronite]

I used to be an avid reader of Scientific American, but it's turned into such a biased rag I can't stand it any more. I still buy one once a year or so to see if it has improved any, but I always end up wising it were printed on softer paper so it could be put to a more appropriate use.

[Marine Inspector]

Darn good article.

I agree.

[TXnMA]

As a scientist, I find this Crichton artidcle to be most thought-provoking -- and more "on the mark" than "off the mark".

Any time 'science' abandons basic principloes -- like reproducibility of results --in favor of consensus of opinion, it has ceased to be 'science'.

I just slogged through the January issue of Scientific American, (yes, I still subscribe) and it fairly reeks of the sort of 'junky science' Crichton writes about in this article. If you have access to a copy, take a look at the full-page illustration on page 85 and, please, tell me WTH that stupid graphic has to do with anything remotely resembling science...

(FWIW, I did check sciam.com to see if the stupid image was online -- but the website is still stuck on the December issue.) What I did find was a headline about "ultrasound" on the sun -- and an article about vibrations at 100 milli hertz. Last time I checked, millihertz frequencies were in the Infra (not "ultra") sound range...

Junky, junky, junky "science", indeed!

[asgardshill]

The Sagan Equation is bunk. I could just as easily posit that at least 300 grains of sand out of all the world's beaches should be able to dance the Lindy like Michigan J. Frog and sing "Hello Ma Baby".

[The Raven]

Great!!

[Just another Joe]

A rather good anology is made to the infamous EPA metastudy on ETS in this article.

[HenryLeeII]

Aliens Cause Global Warming (MUST READ)

Those fargin' bastages! I knew it was them! But everytime I stand on the corner with my sandwich board informing passersby of this fact, the police come along with their Thorazine and everything goes fuzzy for a few days. They think I don't know what they're up to, but its the only way for me to get a warm meal and bed sometimes...

[moehoward]

read later

[NeoCaveman]

It is the belief in the theory that Elvis is still alive that leads to belief in global warming.

[matchwood]

Just finished reading it - terrific!

Recently watched a "round table" discussion on DW-TV where the American expressed his dismay at the recalcitrant behavior of President Bush while the other panel members laughed.

His critical statement was, "at least 99.9% of the world's scientests believe that pollution causes global warming, I can't understand why Mr. Bush doesn't react."

I have even more respect for President Bush now.

[SunkenCiv]

Blast from the Past (last of the night)

[SunkenCiv]

Aliens Cause Global Warming
Caltech Michelin Lecture | January 17, 2003 | Michael Crichton
Posted on 12/11/2003 4:44:39 PM EST by Dan Evans
Edited on 01/02/2004 9:36:11 PM EST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1038662/posts

[Delacon]

I’ve always felt that this was the most elloquent speech in defense against bad science and global warming alarmism. RIP Mr. Crichton.