Re: Statistics 101

["Michael Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>]

This message from Brian Gaulke, please reply to that address.



From: Brian_Gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca

To: RuthWeiner@aol.com

cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Message-ID: <85256A95.0067D7BD.00@smta00.hc-sc.gc.ca>

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 14:53:58 -0400

Subject: Re: Statistics 101





I was not saying that what was in the Science article was a validated model.

It

is an example, however,

of validation of a model.  The model has been able to reproduce past climate

change and to show that, within the

particular model being tested, this is only possible when anthropogenic

forcing

is inlcuded.  Beyond applying a

model to real input data and reproducing the real outputs, what do you

consider

necessary to validate the model?



As for your comment about molecular level mechanisms, I'm not sure what you

mean.  The transmission, absorption,

and reflection of radiation as a function of chemical composition of the

atmosphere is well understood and this

understanding is directly tied to molecular properties.  What exactly do you

think is missing at the molecular level?  (I

believe that what is missing is a complete understanding of larger scale

phenomena such as the formation and removal

of various types of aerosols and their impact on radiation transport, and

ocean/atmosphere interactions.)  On the other hand,

the atmosphere/ocean/land system cannot be modelled at a molecular level and

cosidering only

molecular level interactions would miss many of the complexities of climate

and

weather.  Surely you are not looking

for a complete understanding of something as complex as earth's climate at

the

molecular level.



Brian R. Gaulke, CHP

Brian_Gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca











RuthWeiner@aol.com on 2001/07/26 13:38:00



To:   Brian Gaulke/HC-SC/GC/CA@HWC, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

cc:



Subject:  Re: Statistics 101







Yeah, I saw the articles in SCIENCE -- I am collecting them.  That's not

what

I consider a validated model nor is there presentation of a consistent

mechanism at the molecular level.  Not like for the ozone layer, anyway.

Please don't respond with the simplistic stuff about IR absorption and

re-radiation.



Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.