Re: Statistics 101

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 7/26/01 12:55:20 PM Mountain Daylight Time, 

Brian_Gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca writes:



> 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?  


Past climate changes have indeed been approximately modeled, but accurate 

knowledge of past climate change only goes back less than 100 years.  Very 

long part changes are inferred from paleontology and geology, which is 

excellent -- I am not  discrediting that -- but there is still a lot of 

interpretive nudgment involved.


What I would like to see on a lab-bench-scale level is:


1.  A demonstration of how the temperature of air (over both a reflective and 

non-reflective surface) changes with the changing concentration of CO2 in 

that air.

2.  How that depends on the radiant heat absorbed by the system.

3.  Under what circumstances the intensity of the vibrational and rotational 

absorption spectrum changes.

4.  The directionality of CO2 IR radiation or heat radiation in that system.


I agree that, in a general way, we have made intelligent speculations about 

the molecular mechanism, but we have not demonstrated it.  Maybe it can't be 

done.  I also agree that the fate and transport of these gases in the 

atmosphere is very instructive, and I certainly am not ruling that out.  That 

needs to be studied also.  Remember that this whole thread began because I 

see a big difference between what is understood about the ozone layer and 

what is understood about global climate change.  


Why is everyone so defensive?  It seems to me that I am just asking the 

questions that any experimental scientist would ask.


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com