Socialized Health Care in the USA

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm not a climatologist, and neither are you. The scientific subtleties of the climatological argument are obviously beyond us, something which could easily be used to mislead people on either side.

I am not a climatologist, either. However, my field was the modeling of physical phenomena which would include the thermodynamics of atmosphere. As such, though I am not qualified to generate climate models, I am more than qualified to critique and judge them. Around twenty years ago, through the good graces of some of my colleagues at national labs, I was able to obtain the source code of two climate models. Without divulging details, I can honestly say that the models were designed to predict global warming rather than to predict climate change and see if global warming was the expected result. In spite of the built in biases in the programs, the adjustable parameters still had to be very carefully selected to give the 'correct' result. Weather is almost the ultimate in chaotic systems (thus, 'the butterfly effect) and long term weather is almost totally unpredictable. I'm sure that in the two decades since I've looked at the problem, some progress has been made. I'm not sure just how much more valid the present models are.

That being said, the actual data from the past five decades leave little doubt that global warming is a very real and present phenomenon. Predicting may be difficult, postdicting is much easier. So, although the prognosis may be unclear, the diagnosis is beyond doubt. And, to further mix metaphors, we don't know if the climatic Russian roulette we're playing is with all the chambers loaded or all empty or something in between.

--Pete