Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

[vanvaley1]

Re: Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

Volcanos. Another 7+ earthquake off the coast of Indonesia. Forgot the number of recent major quakes off the west coast of Indonesia within a couple of hundred miles or so from Toba. Toba, as ya know, is a major caldera and has made nasty before when it went off big. Haven't the faintest idea if major earthquakes impact surrounds with volcanos resulting in eruptions. If something like Toba burps in a magnanimous manner, suspect the climate change argument is place on 'hold on' mode...along with various parts of one's anatomy.

Curious to know if natural disasters have ever been incorporated into a trading program? If so...by degree of estimated damages? Or are large natural disasters kind of a 'shoot from the hip investment opportunity' reaction by Wall Street et al?

[Ben]

Re: Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

I thought this was a very reasonable post.

I'm not sure what you mean by 1st order forcing. I was just trying to use "radiative forcing" as it is used in the IPCC reports.

I agree that a climate sensitivity of 1.2 wouldn't warrant radical action. How much action it would warrant is a difficult economic question. I'm not versed on the details.

I read your quote to mean:
-Without feedback, it's 1.2
-Feedback is likely to be positive
-Our best guess of sensitivity is around 3 degrees
-But it's uncertain

Now, if climate sensitivity is more like 3, then it seems like we have cause for action.

Actually what's most relevant is our best guess at the probability distribution for climate sensitivity. There are graphs of that in my earlier post. The point is, our best guess is that it's around 3. But there's a reasonable chance it's lower at around 1. And there's a reasonable chance it's higher.

If you start working out the cost-benefit analysis with these probabilities, to me it seems easily enough to justify cutting carbon emissions.

"the physics which says that increasing CO2 will eventually lead to some temperature rise is so simple that I think it can't be disputed"

Yes you're right. I later replaced this statement with, "if CO2 concentrations rise and everything else remains equal, the temperature will rise." This is basically an expression of what you said - if we don't factor feedback into the model, sensitivity is positive.

Would you agree that CO2's responsibility for the last 200 years of warming has not been established without large degrees of uncertainty and that in fact that what has been conveyed to the general public is certainty?

I go with the IPCC, which I think uses the word "likely" defined as 66-90% probability (I might have remembered this wrong, it was a while ago). I take this to mean, the balance of evidence lies in favour of the hypothesis, but there could be something unknown that surprises us.

As for public presentation, as in my 2nd post, you have to examine closely what's being claimed. I got the impression from the IPCC that we are considerably more certain that if CO2 goes up, the planet will warm significantly than that we caused the majority of the warming in the 20th century.

And to be honest, it's very difficult to present anything remotely scientific to the public. The media repeatedly gets things utterly wrong. Communicators of science don't seem to be allowed many nuances in their position. So yes, maybe it's presented as too certain, but all scientific debates seem to end up black or white.

When it comes to scandals, I don't think things like the email scandal were really that bad. It's certainly outweighted by the many honest truth seeking scientists I know. And the anti-global warming side has been involved in some pretty outrageous stuff too...

[Ben]

Re: Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

There are a lot of ways to confirm - or at least not invalidate - a hypothesis.

I just making the point that showing "by experiment" is different from "confirming a hypothesis." I gave several ways in which the hypotheses about sensitivity have been confirmed.

Increasing CO2 levels should increase more in the troposphere, and in turn should contribute to increases in tropospheric temperature levels.

I'm don't think this is true.

Similarly while CO2 is more or less uniformly distributed over the Earth, the sources of anthropogenic CO2 are not. Given this - and given the AGW-CO2-Catastrophe assumption that the is anthropogenic CO2 causing temperature changes - there should be clear regional temperature anomalies around all human populated areas (land) vs. areas which experience low to no human CO2 emissions (ocean).

This is false in several ways.

Human emissions of CO2 are quickly mixed into the atmosphere. They don't "build up" significantly around the sources of emissions. This is well confirmed and understood.

Then you say yourself that CO2 is evenly distributed, but try to suggest that pro-AGWs think anthropogenic CO2 somehow causes warming while normal CO2 doesn't, leading to warming where the antropogenic CO2 is? This is nonsense.

Is this assertion that "net positive feedback is indeed one of the varied parameters when 'fitting' behavior" verified or only to your understanding?

My understanding of the material on the page I linked to, is that both sensitivity and net feedback are emergent properties. Net feedback is not varied directly as an input. Rather, more fundamental parameters are varied, leading to different values for net feedback.

Similarly all of the IPCC models are net positive feedback - at least according to Dr. Roy Spencer:

This maybe the case, but it's not because they have assumed they are net positive feedback; it's because the models don't work if the input parameters are not fixed in such a way that the model is net positive feedback.

Since observational constraints on the upper bound of ECS are still weak (as shown below), these prior assumptions influence the resulting estimates.

I like how you picked this quote. Constraints are still weak i.e. maybe it's a lot worse than we say.

And again, you've not addressed the points I raised earlier: there are 2 different anecdotal examples where the Arctic had little to no ice: both during the previous warming trend in the 1920-1940 era.

There are probably lots of anecdotal examples of the Artic having super loads of ice. What can I say? Maybe someone has tried to plot this data and find a trend? Unfortunately I don't know about it. I'd re-scan the IPCC report, but I'm low on time. Still it seems pretty worrying that there has been a statistically significant, sustained downtrend for 30 years.

As for the other points about the radiation balance and the troposphere, I'm not in a position myself evaluate them. I'd need to be a climate scientist. All I can say is
1. The climate is complex, so I don't expect scientists to have worked out every issue before declaring that AGW is a dangerous problem. I mean there are huge holes in our knowledge of how the body works, but that doesn't stop us trying to cure ourselves.
2. When I can't evaluate the science myself, I have no choice but to listen to the scientific majority, in the absence of serious motivations for them to lie. So, I play the IPCC, most of the world's universities, the royal society, NASA etc etc against Roy Spencer and Roger Pielke.

As for nuclear power, this is a very hot potato issue. Many of the most rabid AGW-CO2-Catastrophists are equally against nuclear power.

As you can imagine, I get into some pretty big arguments!

[c1ue]

Re: Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

Ben,

I appreciate the time and effort you are spending in order to clarify your views - in public - on this subject.

Unlike some others who purported to be open minded, but in fact resorted to ad hominem almost immediately, you have truly discussed this subject in an open and forthright manner.

Kudos.

That said...

When it comes to scandals, I don't think things like the email scandal were really that bad. It's certainly outweighted by the many honest truth seeking scientists I know. And the anti-global warming side has been involved in some pretty outrageous stuff too...

I do agree that there is no evidence of deliberate scientific malfeasance in the ClimateGate emails, but you have to admit that there is clear evidence of suppression of data in contravention to all accepted scientific norms.

There is also clear evidence of illegal contravention of FOI requests - but that is a legal and not a scientific issue.

Lastly the emails clearly show that the seemingly bulletproof concensus is not even remotely as clear internally as is the picture presented to the public.

If you start working out the cost-benefit analysis with these probabilities, to me it seems easily enough to justify cutting carbon emissions.

Just out of curiosity, what analyses have you looked at whereupon this statement is based on?

If there is one consistency between the various carbon mitigation initiatives I have seen, it is that they are either ineffective in practice thus far (carbon emissions trading) or the economic cost is severely under-represented. The Sterne report is a glaring example of this.

I go with the IPCC, which I think uses the word "likely" defined as 66-90% probability (I might have remembered this wrong, it was a while ago). I take this to mean, the balance of evidence lies in favour of the hypothesis, but there could be something unknown that surprises us.

The difficulty I have with this statement is that the underlying science is nowhere near that level of certainty.

The criticism Dr. Judith Curry presents on the near term temperature record is precisely to this point: if the underlying data itself is not mature, how can conclusions based on extrapolations of said data be more conclusive?

Secondly there are clear examples both on an individual scientist and a published peer reviewed paper basis that contradict the IPCC 'line'; the Roger Pielke Sr. postings are examples where the full listing of relevant papers on a given subject are listed with the IPCC included ones noted.

I just making the point that showing "by experiment" is different from "confirming a hypothesis." I gave several ways in which the hypotheses about sensitivity have been confirmed.

My understanding of the material on the page I linked to, is that both sensitivity and net feedback are emergent properties. Net feedback is not varied directly as an input. Rather, more fundamental parameters are varied, leading to different values for net feedback.

I looked back; all I could see regarding sensitivities was that you asserted that the sensitivities were emergent and not part of the climate models themselves.

I will inquire with Dr. Roy Spencer to solicit his view of this matter since apparently this is a subject neither of us can comment on.

The question will be: in the IPCC models, is the net climate sensitivity emergent from the data, or is the net climate sensitivity a parameter set by the model (i.e. assumed)?

I will reiterate though: To my understanding there is no actual empirical or experimental proof of net climate feedback values - positive or negative. The net feedback may indeed be an emergent phenomenon, but again the failure of the IPCC GCM models to match actual events bodes poorly for anything resulting in from that exercise. In no way can GCM output be considered either empirical nor experimental proof.

Increasing CO2 levels should increase more in the troposphere, and in turn should contribute to increases in tropospheric temperature levels.

I'm don't think this is true.

I showed the paper which documents a clearly detectable difference in CO2 levels between troposphere and other parts of the atmosphere. Given the radiative properties of CO2, there should be a detectable temperature difference.

Similarly while CO2 is more or less uniformly distributed over the Earth, the sources of anthropogenic CO2 are not. Given this - and given the AGW-CO2-Catastrophe assumption that the is anthropogenic CO2 causing temperature changes - there should be clear regional temperature anomalies around all human populated areas (land) vs. areas which experience low to no human CO2 emissions (ocean).

This is false in several ways.

Human emissions of CO2 are quickly mixed into the atmosphere. They don't "build up" significantly around the sources of emissions. This is well confirmed and understood.

Then you say yourself that CO2 is evenly distributed, but try to suggest that pro-AGWs think anthropogenic CO2 somehow causes warming while normal CO2 doesn't, leading to warming where the antropogenic CO2 is? This is nonsense.

I would note that I did not say there was buildup.

If the sources of extra CO2 are only in human activities (i.e. 90%+ on land), then it stands to reason that there is more CO2 near the source than far away.

Certainly over time CO2 levels even out. But so long as there is a source, there will be a local imbalance. In other words, the specific CO2 at any given time and specific location will change, but the concentration will not. Kind of like the difference between an oil tanker hitting a rock and the Gulf Coast drilling accident.

I'm not sure where this is incorrect - please point it out.

As for CO2 being evenly distributed - this is correct in a general sense but is not correct in a local sense. The CO2 distribution maps I've seen show a 1% to 5% delta across the globe. This I can agree is not relevant especially since the CO2 'bubbles' likely move around.

However, a coal-fired electrical plant belching megatons of CO2 in the air should have an appreciable local effect. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the CO2 levels in that immediate area are far higher than almost any other random spot on Earth.

There should be detectable differences in local temperature then due to this localized higher CO2 concentration.

Again, what is wrong with the hypothesis?

There are probably lots of anecdotal examples of the Artic having super loads of ice. What can I say? Maybe someone has tried to plot this data and find a trend? Unfortunately I don't know about it. I'd re-scan the IPCC report, but I'm low on time. Still it seems pretty worrying that there has been a statistically significant, sustained downtrend for 30 years.

If the downtrend were indeed unique, then perhaps more concern would be warranted.

If the downtrend is actually part of a yet poorly understood long term cycle (i.e. more than 30 years), then overmuch concern is premature.

But more importantly, if a hypothesis states that the present behavior of climate is due to recent unnatural forces (man made fossil fuel burning), and evidence of Arctic ice retreat is used to justify this hypothesis - the existence of ice free periods in the Arctic prior to significant man-made fossil fuel burning makes the hypothesis inconsistent.

But let me phrase this debate a different way:

What evidence would you require in order to question the likelihood of anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming?

This is the real question: it isn't what makes you believe, it is what would induce you to question your existing belief.

For me, having a global climate model which at least resembles either global or even regional climate behavior for a period of 3 or 4 years would lead me to think the GCM has some validity.

Similarly a more robust explanation for the inconsistencies of the past climate/temperature behavior would also lead me to be more agreeable to the 'consensus'.

And lastly, specific policies designed to focus on either conservation or efficient energy generation as compared to present practices - these I could agree to.

In contrast what I see on the policy side is a gigantic pork barrel. The latest example:

http://www.bostonherald.com/business...icleid=1253263

Cape Wind, which wants to build 130 wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod, and National Grid announced yesterday that they’ve reached an agreement to start charging customers 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour in 2013 - more than double the current rate of electricity from conventional power plants and land-based wind farms.

Under the 15-year National Grid contract, the price of Cape Wind’s electricity would increase 3.5 percent each year, pushing the kilowatt price to about 34.7 cents by the time the contract ends.

The current price of National Grid’s non-wind electricity is now about 9 cents per kilowatt. That means the cost of fossil-fuel generated electricity would have to increase nearly four-fold just to keep pace with Cape Wind’s prices over the next 15 years.

“I’m glad it’s your electric bills and not mine,” said Robert McCullough, president of McCullough Research, an Oregon energy consulting firm, referring to Cape Wind’s prices.

He said Massachusetts would have been better off going with less costly land-based wind farms.

“Why are you spending billions (on offshore wind) when you can pay half that with traditional wind?” he asked.

And the spin mongering goes on to say:

Cape Wind and National Grid, which is planning to buy half the energy the wind farm will produce, said their rate deal will add about $1.59 a month, or about 5 cents a day, to the current ratepayer’s bill in 2013.

This is complete crap. Just because the average ratepayer's bill will ostensibly increase only 5 cents a day (which the German solar experience shows such projections are totally worthless), doesn't mean the exercise is worthwhile.

I'm posting an examination of solar energy as a counterpoint - product of an exercise with a friend of mine who is officially switching to solar from semiconductors - it shows another example of marketing hype vs. reality.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

I read your quote to mean:
-Without feedback, it's 1.2
-Feedback is likely to be positive
-Our best guess of sensitivity is around 3 degrees
-But it's uncertain

In regard to the quote from the National Council which I posted, I would parse it differently.

- CO2 forcing, is calculated to be 1.2 degrees K, in the absense of any other factors.
-Feedback and sensitivity in the climate is uncertain,
-Our best guess of sensitivity from GCM models is around 3 degrees K.

let me reiterate the CAGW hypothesis

1.The world has a warming trend of ~0.7 °C since the mid-1800s.

2. The warming is anthropologically CO2 caused

The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)[external Link] leaves no doubt that human activity is the main cause of the warming observed over the last 100 years, particularly over the last 50 years.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cm...hat_is_cc.aspx

3. CO2 driven climate change has already been seen to have a broad range of impacts.

4. CO2 driven climate change will continue to have a broad range of ever increasing impacts.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cm...l_effects.aspx

The quotes and the links I have provided are from the department of energy and climate change in the UK. These types of unambigous statements are typical at the governmental level imo.

Given you have said

I'm happy to admit that extracting CO2's responsibility for the last 200 years of warming is a tricky, controversial problem.

I do not wish to put words in your mouth, so please take this as a genuine question, would you then say the following statement "leaves no doubt that human activity is the main cause of the warming" is a misrepersentation of the science?

I believe it is a misrepresentation of current understanding in that it vastly overplays the certainty and omits caveats, moreover is typical.

Further 3 and 4 are necessarily dependent on 2, based on recent emperical evidence i.e. the missing heat in the energy budget, this throws even greater uncertainty on the CAGW hypothesis particularly regarding the understanding and postulating of energy flows and raises substantial questions on the direction of climate sensitivity.

This leaves

1) More CO2 will likely make the climate somewhat warmer.
2) There is a danger (unquantified in the probabilistic sense) this CO2 increase might make climate much hotter, .
3) There is a (more remote) danger (mostly unquantified) that a very much hotter world would have extreme societal consequences.

When it comes to scandals, I don't think things like the email scandal were really that bad.

Let me be clear on this I felt the email scandal, was a scandal, because it showed tribalism, group think, dogma and blocking of alternative view points, from climate scientists at the top table on whose research and opinions the world is formulating policy on.

Therefore the argument for the scope of proposed action to be taken is based, in my best judgement, on a misrepersentation of climate science, where the lines between politics, advocacy and science have become increasing blured and has led to a misapplication of the so called precautionary principle having already resulted and likely to futher, diversion of scarce resources from more pressing issues.


Example

“The diversion of food crops to biofuel production was a significant factor contributing to global food prices rocketing by 83% in the last year, and causing violent conflicts in Haiti and other parts of the world,” reports African Energy News. ”Food riots have also taken place in Egypt, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Mauritania, Madagascar and the Philippines in the past month“ (and in Pakistan and Mexico, too).

[yernamehear]

Re: Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

The Danger of Junk Science- Death, Destruction and Chaos.
Britain bans doctor who linked autism to vaccine


By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer Maria Cheng, Ap Medical Writer –
LONDON – The doctor whose research linking autism and the [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]vaccine [COLOR=#366388 ! important]for [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]measles[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], mumps and rubella influenced millions of parents to refuse the shot for their children was banned Monday from practicing medicine in his native Britain.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield's 1998 study was discredited — but [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]vaccination [COLOR=#366388 ! important]rates[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] have never fully recovered and he continues to enjoy a vocal following, helped in the U.S. by endorsements from celebrities like Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy
Wakefield was the first researcher to publish a peer-reviewed study suggesting a connection between autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. Legions of parents abandoned the vaccine, leading to a [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]resurgence [COLOR=#366388 ! important]of [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]measles[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] in Western countries where it had been mostly stamped out. There are outbreaks across Europe every year and sporadic outbreaks in the U.S.
"That is Andrew Wakefield's legacy," said Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "The hospitalizations and deaths of children from measles who could have easily avoided the disease."
Wakefield's discredited theories had a tremendous impact in the U.S., Offit said, adding: "He gave heft to the notion that vaccines in general cause autism."
In Britain, Wakefield's research led to a huge decline in the number of children receiving the [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]MMR [COLOR=#366388 ! important]vaccine[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]: from 95 percent in 1995 — enough to prevent measles outbreaks — to 50 percent in parts of London in the early 2000s. Rates have begun to recover, though not enough to prevent outbreaks. In 2006, a 13-year-old boy became the first person to die from measles in Britain in 14 years.
"The false suggestion of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine has done untold damage to the UK vaccination program," said Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. "Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that it is safe."
On Monday, Britain's General Medical Council, which licenses and oversees doctors, found Wakefield guilty of serious professional misconduct and stripped him of the right to practice medicine in the U.K. Wakefield said he plans to appeal the ruling, which takes effect within 28 days.
The council was acting on a finding in January that Wakefield and two other doctors showed a "callous disregard" for the children in their study, published in 1998 in the medical journal Lancet. The medical body said Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them 5 pounds (about $7.20) each and later joked about the incident.
The study has since been widely rejected. From 1998-2004, studies in journals including the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, Pediatrics and BMJ published papers showing no link between autism and the measles vaccine.
Wakefield moved to the U.S. in 2004 and set up an autism research center in Austin, Texas, where he gained a wide following despite being unlicensed as a doctor there and facing skepticism from the medical community. He quit earlier this year.
Offit said he doubted Britain's decision to strip the 53-year-old Wakefield of his medical license would convince many parents that vaccines are safe.
"He's become almost like a Christ-like figure and it doesn't matter that science has proven him wrong," Offit said. "He is a hero for parents who think no one else is listening to them."
Wakefield told The Associated Press Monday's decision was a sad day for British medicine. "None of this alters the fact that vaccines can [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]cause [COLOR=#366388 ! important]autism[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]," he said.
"These parents are not going away; the children are not going to go away and I most certainly am not going away," he said on NBC's "Today Show."
Wakefield claimed the U.S. government has been settling cases of vaccine-induced autism since 1991.
However, two rulings by a special branch of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in March and last year found no link between [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]vaccines [COLOR=#366388 ! important]and [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]autism[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]. More than 5,500 claims have been filed by families seeking compensation for children they claim were hurt by the vaccine.
Wakefield has won support from parents suspicious of vaccines, including Hollywood celebrities.
McCarthy, who has an autistic son, issued a statement in February with then boyfriend Carrey asserting Wakefield was "being vilified through a well-orchestrated smear campaign."
"It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]autism [COLOR=#366388 ! important]around [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]the [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]world[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers," the actors said.
McCarthy, whose best-seller "Louder Than Words" details her search for treatments for her son Evan, wrote the foreword for a new book by Wakefield about [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]autism [COLOR=#366388 ! important]and [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]vaccines[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR].
In Monday's ruling, the medical council said Wakefield abused his position as a doctor and "brought the medical profession into disrepute."
At the time of his study, Wakefield was working as a gastroenterologist at London's Royal Free Hospital and did not have approval for the research. The study suggested autistic children had a bowel disease and raised the possibility of a link between autism and vaccines. He had also been paid to advise lawyers representing parents who believed their children had been hurt by the MMR vaccine.
Ten of the study's authors later renounced its conclusions and it was retracted by the Lancet in February.
At least a dozen British medical associations, including the Royal College of Physicians, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust have issued statements verifying the safety of the measles, mumps and [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]rubella [COLOR=#366388 ! important]vaccine[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR].
This verdict is not about (the measles) vaccine," said Adam Finn, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Bristol Medical School. "We all now know that the vaccine is remarkably safe and enormously effective... We badly need to put this right for the sake of our own children and children worldwide."
___
Associated Press Writer Kelley Shannon contributed to this report from Austin, Texas.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

Here's a link to your post:

Britain bans doctor who linked autism to vaccine

The article is easier to read at the original site; something went awry in the posting process here, double and triple highlighting with unparsed COLOR macros certain key words.

As to the contents of the article, it's not clear what this article about vaccines and autism has to do with the climate issues being considered on this thread. The subtitle which (as best as I can guess) you added, "The Danger of Junk Science- Death, Destruction and Chaos.", suggests to me you take Dr. Andrew Wakefield's work to be junk science. I disagree, but prefer not to get into the subject of vaccines on iTulip, especially on an unrelated thread.

[yernamehear]

Re: Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

1. The post is related, i.e. both are junk science
2. History didn't start when you (or I) were born. Knowledge moves forward.
If you are one of those that believe that trace amounts of biochemical agents are significant parts of the current health problems in the 1st world, well I have news for you.
3. The vast majority of human history has been one of suffering based on the "big things". Now, in the US the biggest health problems are behavioral: smoking, over-eating, over-indulging in alcohol. Trace amounts of various chemicals as a concept for a large fraction of health problems has been disproven by Professor Ames.
4. Professor Ames (do a www search) will be portrayed as a crackpot, but deserves the Nobel prize due to his testing expertise, and his intuitive abilities. He has correctly inferred that trace amounts of almost anything are harmless. The big things are known.

The big things are NOT things like Hg fillings, vaccines, artificial sweeteners.

I think they make blue dye from cockroaches! (A true internet hocum that the tin hat crowd actually engages in discourse about).

Gimme a break and Good Luck to you.

(Note- I work in the field of chemistry, risk analysis, and testing, for more than 30 years in various capacities. I've seen just about everything in the field.)

Here's a link to your post:

Britain bans doctor who linked autism to vaccine

The article is easier to read at the original site; something went awry in the posting process here, double and triple highlighting with unparsed COLOR macros certain key words.

As to the contents of the article, it's not clear what this article about vaccines and autism has to do with the climate issues being considered on this thread. The subtitle which (as best as I can guess) you added, "The Danger of Junk Science- Death, Destruction and Chaos.", suggests to me you take Dr. Andrew Wakefield's work to be junk science. I disagree, but prefer not to get into the subject of vaccines on iTulip, especially on an unrelated thread.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

]Professor Ames (do a www search)

David Ames, Bruce Ames, S.O (Some Other) Ames? How about another clue or two?

On second thought, never mind. It's still too far off topic for this thread.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

The post is related, i.e. both are junk science

That's a rather too weak a relation to justify this digression, in my view. I disagree with calling Wakefield's work junk science, and I decline the opportunity to defend my position here.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

Climatologists do NOT know how much CO2 has warmed the Earth since 1800. And some warming of the Earth since 1800 is due to solar-output variation which is not understood. (We have little data on variations in the solar constant over centuries.) Also, climatologists do NOT know how much water vapour has warmed the Earth since 1800. ( Water vapour blocks-out infra-red radiation to space during the night, and climatologists know next-to-nothing about water vapour changes in the atmosphere over long periods of time. ) Also, climatologists know next-to-nothing about the affect of dust and filth in the atmosphere over time and whether that filth warms the Earth at night more than it cools the Earth during the day. And the Earth's urban heat-islands have biased temperature readings taken around cities, even at airports.

As a climatologist at the Univ. of Minnesota, I generally kept my mouth shut because the climate puzzle is far from solved. I didn't have the answers, nor did any other so-called "expert" or "scientist", with or without climate models.

Suffice to say that with the dust and filth from the eruption of the volcano in Iceland, the Earth is going to experience a short-term cooling trend in its climate, probably a cooler than usual summer in the Northern Hemisphere and a colder than usual winter (2011) in the Northern Hemisphere. Daytime high temperatures this summer are likely to be colder than normal, and nighttime low temps are likely to be warmer than normal, but mean temps will likely be significantly cooler than normal.

[Roughneck]

Re: Volcanoes, Weather and Computer Models

When it comes to computer models, garbage in= garbage out.