Ah, so Trickle Down Economics is a crackpot idea when conservatives use it, but if you're using it to argue for "Green" causes, it's now en vogue? I moved and the hassles with changing your address in the system means I don't get the memos for what fads are Morally Superior.

I agree that conspiracy theorists have delusions of grandeur. What you fail to notice is the conspiracy claims by the AGW people, along with other kneejerk ad homiem attacks if you dare to ask them for predictions, say 2000-2100, including standard deviations of both observed climate and models(*). "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" does not follow "vast body of reviewed and verified climate change literature", because that literature has fallen into the groupthink of models being reality.

But, I wouldn't want to trouble you to take the time to do actually science and do experiments, especially because that would conflict with your precious messiah complex.

(*)It's rather pathetic that the level of competence in doing science is so low that this is regarded as a crackpot claim, but that's more of a problem with "science is a pile of facts, especially those that make me feel superior" crowd.

[PDF] Occam's Razor and Bayesian Analysis, a calculation of the probability of GR being correct. So what's the corresponding figure for AGW? Considering *anything* that happens with weather is attributed to CO2 based climate change, it's 0%. "Predicting" everything is the same as predicting nothing.

Ah, thank you for explaining that. I was wondering why climate models were contrary to observations and basic physics, but now I see that they aren't based on physics, so it's wrong to evaluate them on that merit.

Or it could be that "scientific credentials" are based on, you know, actually *doing* science, and providing predictions instead or narratives and whining "it's complex and hard and statistical and computer magic".

"Margo: February 14th, 2007 at 1:34 pm Variables that should always be positive, for example, can be bounded by use of these. Are there any variables that should always be positive in a GCM? I was reading a GCM description by the GISS team, and mass in a grid box is permitted to be negative, but and occasionally does for brief periods. Not making this up. :)"

I hope you're aware that a chaotic system is chaotic on *all* time scales, and that "averaging", over time and space to create a "global temperature" does not make it any less chaotic, it merely "hides" the chaos that *will* reappear given sufficient time.

Arguing that yes, weather is unpredictable, but climate is not through the miracle of averaging is pure intellectual dishonesty, especially given that climate models are basically just crude weather models run for an extended time.

The only way you're going to be able to predict climate is to determine the (variable) boundary conditions, which include, but are not limited to, solar output, orbital position and position in galaxy, albedo which includes clouds and land use, and emissivity with its associated factors, along with determining the heat capacity of the atmosphere (to determine *when* weather becomes climate), oceans, and such, and possibly heat from the earth's core into the atmosphere.

You're aware that the AMA and the govt *heavily regulate* the health care system and doctors, and is quite possibly the least free market good there is. Look at what it takes for a foreign doctor to be able to *legally* practice in the US. (Free) markets are not the solution the everything though, and neither is some vague notion of "regulation": what's needed is some proper regulation, that actually, say, improves quality of healthcare, as opposed to just more politicians pandering.

Is it so unreasonable to ask that the *observed* standard deviation of global temperature be calculated, and then model prediction (along with their own standard deviation) be graphed, from 1900-2100 as that is the range they are claimed to be valid for.

If they can actually predict something with the degree of certainty they imply, they wouldn't have to make so many ad homiem attacks and could just go with "hypothesis non fingo".

So, where are the "sound, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable, testable" *experiments* to check that yes, our theory about how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere (or rather "toy atmosphere", for testing), is brilliantly confirmed by observations?

Computer models and physics equations does not science make, experiments are vital.

I'd be quite interested if you'd actually be able to find flaws in this, since the only responses seem to be ad homiem and such, with no concern for theory backed by observations. (Hopefully thanks in advance)

Venus' temperature is caused *only* by ~92 atmosphere of pressure.

Derivation:

The adiabatic lapse rate = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km.

Furthermore:
T(z) = Tsurface - ALR*z, by definition (~= 735 - 7.82z).
The barometric equation is P = Psurface*e^(-Mgz/RT).
Solving for z = -RT/Mg*ln(P/Psurface),
        and plugging into T(z), we get T(P) = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*Mg/R*RT/Mg*ln(Psurface/P)
        = T = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*T*ln(Psurface/P),
        rearranging, T(P)*(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) = Tsurface
        Thereforce T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P)))

Have you actually read any papers in climatology? The field is rife with "we used a computer model and some plausible physical laws, came up with some hypotheses, and used the model to experimentally verify".

As for even being reproducible:
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. - Phil Jones

That's not science, and in that environment peer review is just groupthink.

You can't seriously be talking about climate models with hand waving arguments about averaging so that they can only be tested in 2100, but horrible things will happen if we don't assume them correct and act accordingly. Has the IPCC even put out the calculated standard deviation of global temperature yearly, 10 years, etc, based on the observed global temps? Are these questions about basic facts and circular reasoning so unreasonable to expect from science?

Something you may be interested in, though water vapor makes the calculation much more complex so this is for Venus.

Derivation:
The adiabatic lapse rate = dT/dz = -Mg/R*(y-1)/y = ~7.82K/km (I was lazy and used 100% CO2 for this, also y = gamma) which isn't too far off from the ALR calculated from measurements using least squares = ~7.74K/km.

T(z) = Tsurface - ALR*z, by definition (~= 735 - 7.82z).
The barometric equation is P = Psurface*e^(-Mgz/RT).
Solving for z = -RT/Mg*ln(P/Psurface),
    and plugging into T(z), we get T(P) = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*Mg/R*RT/Mg*ln(Psurface/P)
    = T = Tsurface - (y-1)/y*T*ln(Psurface/P),
    rearranging, T(P)*(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) = Tsurface
    Thereforce T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P)))

That's a nice experiment that I assume proves that CO2 absorbs IR better than air (and, like a greenhouse, heats up because of stopping convection, unlike the atmosphere).

It also completely ignores the dynamics of a CO2 based atmosphere like, say, Venus. From just the adiabatic lapse rate and barometric equation, you can easily see that Venus is hot because of 92 atmospheres of pressure, and a pure CO2 atmosphere would be slightly cooler than N2/O2 because of its lower specific heat capacity.

T(P) = Tsurface/(1+(y-1)/y*(ln(Psurface)-ln(P))) Derivation here

Unfortunately, The Union Of Concerned Scientists article is too busy with political arguments like consensus and conspiracy theories about Exxon's lobbying power to provide much info on how to get paid for regurgitating my undergrad thermodynamics text.

Do you have any ideas who I should contact to get funding to expand Venus' temperature caused by ~92 atmosphere of pressure into a more detailed paper?