Computer models are glorified algorithms with fancy graphics.

All computer models have to based upon a given set of data and then a formula must be inputted to equate the outcome over time.

So models are just one of the glorified manners scientists gussy up their poor facts and poor equations to make it sound like the magical "computer" has come up with some solution humans couldn't figure out. Scientific American and other politically nmotivated science publications are a good place to see examples of "computer modelling science."

Anyone who comes to me with a computer model of anything other than a website or a software program is wasting their time - I want to see the equations and the variables which went into the model. Usually they can fit into one paragraph on a blank white sheet of paper.

Any scientist worth his/her salt needs no computer models to augment an argument. Sound equations based upon sound data are more than sufficient.

The lack of solar input, frequency and wavelength variables into all the "algorithms" or computer models I have seen regarding global warming - immediately inform me that the scientist has avoided the complexity and importance of the greatest variable of all.

How many tons of CO2 are being produced are almost negligible to the mega joules per square meter, per day of solar radiation: <C>

Until we actively monitor and maintain more comprehensive records on solar input into the GW equations - they are IMHO almost worthless.

Even mega joule measurements alone are NOT enough! It is the FREQUENCY of the incoming sunlight which we must monitor - because all sunlight is not equal! Indeed, the higher frequency bursts - speed up ionization of molecules (leading to skin cancer, as well as ionizing elements within the atmosphere and making them act more extremely.

So we need measurements on cumulative radiation as well as measurements of the quantities of rays which are reaching the earth with higher ionizing rates (aka higher wave frequencies)!

Of course this is a large order to fill - and may take a lot of time and money to answer - and so most environmental scientists seem content to ignore and exclude such variables as they would leave to much of a question mark upon their algorithm of choice.

This is why they resort to the computer model. The power of emotional appeal is great. I can show "flash" animated holes growing in the atmosphere as well as projected temperature increases - watching a growing desert area overtake a major city would make for cool animation too.

However, Larry is correct - acting and setting policy, without these variables especially the quantities of ionizing waves - can easily make the problem worse rather than better. I could easily generate a computer model which shows how the global temperatures have increased since pollution controls were legislated on cars. I could parallel the average temperatures with legislation passed in 1968 and show how temperatures steadiliy increased.

I could then take this incomplete set of data and say that the lack of certain monoxides, scrubbed out by catalytic converters - made these gases unable to bind with other elements, causing longer airborne rate per molecule (ARPM). (See? sounding official already;-) As the model progresses with time - we see more particulates with molecules with high ARPM cause the greenhouse effect and subsequently global warming.

My solution? Tear off all the pollution controls on cars which scrub out monoxides. Monoxides are deadly to man because they bind with the blood cells - but int the atmosphere they help to bind pollution to seawater and trees, etc.

There! Is this sound science? With an impressive computer animation and an article in Scientific American with pretty pictures and a team of lobbyists from the automobile companies showing the study to every congressman and senator - soon the whole world would know about the dangers of catalytic converters - and about the "float" effect of molecules with high ARPM!

You see Mark, they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" - and in the case of environmental science and subsequent laws and policies - I am afraid this is all too often the case.

The sky may be falling but chicken little should've looked around closely at ALL the evidence before running around with his "computer model" and trying to panic everyone.

I'm all for intelligent actions to improve our environment - but they have to prove themselves to be worthy and intelligent before I can subscribe to their implementation.

My 35 cents worth,

SDAI-Tech1