Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:8389 sci.misc:1029
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!think!bloom-beacon!gatech!mcnc!uvaarpa!umd5!mimsy!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm
From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.misc
Subject: Re: the "greenhouse effect" theory
Message-ID: <127@aplcomm.UUCP>
Date: 18 Mar 88 14:00:13 GMT
References: <22138@bbn.COM> <114@aplcomm.UUCP> <22230@bbn.COM> <122@aplcomm.UUCP> <22276@bbn.COM>
Sender: news@aplcomm.UUCP
Reply-To: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Lines: 83
Summary: if the model fits, wear it!

In article <22276@bbn.COM> eli@BBN.COM (Steve Elias) writes:
>In <122@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes:
 
>>I believe you are confused as to my definition:  I said that the greenhouse
>>effect, as defined, was a confirmed, easily testable model.  
:
:	i understand your definition.  it's not that tough.  
:	i'm writing about the greenhouse effect: the scientific theory.
:	one which we understand more as we research and attempt to model it.

As I understand it, you are discussing the applicability of a
particular effect on planetary atmospheres, attempting to incorporate other
influences within the model.
If I am incorrect, could you please post what you are referring to when
you say "greenhouse effect: the scientific theory"? We may be talking
about different things, using same words, or some such.....
 
:	i'm not interested in discussing dictionary definitions of 
:	scientific discoveries & theories.  does anyone mind?

Don't mind at all.  Would be nice to use the same terms as everyone else
when talking about the same things, though. :)
 
>>Now, you
>>are debating the applicability of the valid model to conditions under
>>which is was not generated.  This action is not generally recommended as
>>"extrapolating beyond region of fit" also known as "going off on a limb"
 
:	thanks for telling me what i was debating.  you are saying
:	that the greenhouse effect IS a valid model ??   

I told you what I thought I was debating.  I take your reaction to 
mean I was wrong?

The greenhouse effect is a valid model.  It has a well-defined,justifiable
structure, measurable inputs, produces a descriptive output cabable of being
used to make verifiable predictions. To me this makes it valid.

just for fun: valid - well grounded or justifiable, correctly derived
from premisis.  How do YOU determine if a model is valid?
Note: "valid", not "appropriate" nor "exhaustive"

(As another aside, my masters is in operations research/systems analysis
specializing in advanced modelling.  I know the problems involved in
validating a model.)

:	                                                instead of 
:	telling you what you were saying, i'm asking.  this action
:	is recommended as "discussion" also known as "civil conversation". :)

My statement concerning what I thought you were saying is know as
"communicating": I wanted to ensure that what I thought you were 
saying was indeed what you meant.  It is more fun to flame when you
misunderstand, but you really don't learn much    :(
 
>>You are incorrect in saying that the Earth's atmosphere cannot be modeled.
>>You might be more correct to say "cannot be modeled well", but you must
 
:	i said "valid model" -- meaning a model that can 
:	actually be used to predict what the atmosphere will do: on both
:	macro scales and local ones.

If this is your definition of "valid", what precision/accuracy do you
use in determining the correctness of the prediciton?  I can predict
anything from nothing, but unless it correlates somewhat to reality
I hasitate to call it a "valid model".  Otherwise, a teacup or ouigi (sp?)
board would be a valid model: they can be used to predict what the
atmosphere (or anything else) will do on any scale.  
 	
:	we're nowhere near developing a model like this -- neither 
:	our computation methods nor our sensing methods are up to the job.
:	do you concur?  

I do not concur on the macro scales.  The meso scale models are all right,
but nothing to write home about.  Most of the microscale models are
awful, and live in the heads of meterologist.  That is why the
"local forcasts" are a running joke.
 


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5