APS and the Global Warming Scam


Recommended Posts

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office". D.H.

"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". D.H.

 

"Now Hume has shown that empiricism inevitably leads to an utter and total skepticism". (not known)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T

10 hours ago, anthony said:

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office". D.H.

"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". D.H.

 

"Now Hume has shown that empiricism inevitably leads to an utter and total skepticism". (not known)

The first is not a denial of knowledge.  It places passion before reason in the hierarchy of motives.  

Preferring the destruction of the world to the injury to one's finger is NOT a logical contradiction,  but it is perverse

Scientists are motivated (so that tell us) by curiosity  which  is a passion.  Any problem with that?

Whoever said empiricism leads to a denial of knowledge or the capability of knowing  is just plain wrong.  Empiricism puts greater weight or reliance on what is perceived  as compared to what is assumed  as self evident.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Preferring the destruction of the world to the injury to one's finger is NOT a logical contradiction,  but it is perverse

You can't prove it's perverse. That's just your opinion.

Greg would tell us we need God to tell us it's perverse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jts said:

You can't prove it's perverse. That's just your opinion.

Greg would tell us we need God to tell us it's perverse.

 

That is true.  I think such a wish is perverse.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2017 at 1:46 PM, william.scherk said:

I think that Objectivist epistemology is as good as any for approaching a scientific discipline. One does have to understand the hierarchies of science and some of its production facilities.   For example, I might call Person X a climate scientist,  correctly, but that doesn't tell anyone what Person X actually studies -- she might be rooted in geology, he might be rooted in atmospheric physics, he might be in the field of radiative transfer, she might be (like Curry) a specialist in one region or other -- an expert in the subfield of Arctic sea-air circulation. Where do they publish, when do they give public talks, under what conditions do they testify to 'the state of knowledge' in fields slightly beyond their focus?

Add to this ... where might Curry's (or any researcher on Arctic climate) research data be made available to the public, and to other inquirers (cf the 'open data movement)?

It depends ...

Quote

As an Arctic researcher, I’m used to gaps in data. Just over 1% of US Arctic waters have been surveyed to modern standards. In truth, some of the maps we use today haven’t been updated since the second world war. Navigating uncharted waters can prove difficult, but it comes with the territory of working in such a remote part of the world.

Over the past two months though, I’ve been navigating a different type of uncharted territory: the deleting of what little data we have by the Trump administration.

At first, the distress flare of lost data came as a surge of defunct links on 21 January. The US National Strategy for the Arctic, the Implementation Plan for the Strategy, and the report on our progress all gone within a matter of minutes. As I watched more and more links turned red, I frantically combed the internet for archived versions of our country’s most important polar policies. 

Since January, the surge has transformed into a slow, incessant march of deleting datasets, webpages and policies about the Arctic. I now come to expect a weekly email request to replace invalid citations, hoping that someone had the foresight to download statistics about Arctic permafrost thaw or renewable energy in advance of the purge. [...]

We’ve seen this type of data strangling before.

Just three years ago, Arctic researchers witnessed another world leader remove thousands of scientific documents from the public domain. In 2014, then Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper closed 11 department of fisheries and oceans regional libraries, including the only Arctic center. Hundreds of reports and studies containing well over a century of research were destroyed in that process – a historic loss from which we still have not recovered. 

These back-to-back data deletions come at a time when the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the global average. Just this week, it was reported that the Arctic’s winter sea ice dropped to its lowest level in recorded history. The impacts of a warming, ice-free Arctic are already clear: a decline in habitat for polar bears and other Arctic animals; increases in coastal erosion that force Alaskans to abandon their homes; and the opening up of shipping routes with unpredictable conditions and hazardous icebergs. 

In a remote region where data is already scarce, we need publicly available government guidance and records now more than ever before. It is hard enough for modern Arctic researchers to perform experiments and collect data to fill the gaps left by historic scientific expeditions. While working in one of the most physically demanding environments on the planet, we don’t have time to fill new data gaps created by political malice. 

So please, President Trump, stop deleting my citations.

144f9df2b0a14cbbfe85e3dd91d42ee8.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snatched from the jaws of the House Science Committee. 

Quote

Full Committee Hearing- Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method

Date: 
Wednesday, March 29, 2017 - 10:00am
Location: 
2318 Rayburn House Office Building

Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method

Hearing Charter

Witnesses

Dr. Judith Curry

President, Climate Forecast Applications Network; Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology

[Truth in Testimony]

Dr. John Christy

Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama at Huntsville; State Climatologist, Alabama

[Truth in Testimony]

Dr. Michael Mann

Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Pennsylvania State University; Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC), Pennsylvania State University

[Truth in Testimony]

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

Professor, Environmental Studies Department, University of Colorado

[Truth in Testimony]

 

115th Congress

 

From the Hill, via Politico, via "sources said" --

Energy Department tells staff not to use phrase 'climate change': report

 

Edited by william.scherk
Tweet tweet. Stop saying that phrase, please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On March 22, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Again, what specifics do you have in mind? "We should [...]," you say.  Do you mean the U.S. government should be taxing U.S. citizens to get the money? Or do you want the Europeans to pay for it, a la Palmer's suggestion of a CERN-like operation? And how much do you have in mind "we" should spend? And what proposal do you have for achieving quality control of the research?

I don't see any answers in your subsequent posts, only an assertion (responding to a different post of mine):

On March 23, 2017 at 8:25 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

What we need are better climate models.  

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2017 at 10:34 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

 

Here's the statement of yours in regard to which I asked for specifics - What cost? How provided? Who's doing the research?

 

You write in a subsequent post:

You think "we should spend some money on more powerful computers [...]" and that "a steady moderate cost approach to improving the science is called [for]."

Again, what specifics do you have in mind? "We should [...]," you say.  Do you mean the U.S. government should be taxing U.S. citizens to get the money? Or do you want the Europeans to pay for it, a la Palmer's suggestion of a CERN-like operation? And how much do you have in mind "we" should spend? And what proposal do you have for achieving quality control of the research?

Ellen

I can't give specifics until we have better climate models.   Right now we are shooting in the dark.  The alarmists are predicting Earth will turn into Venus sometime next century.  I don't think that will happen.  But we really need to know to what extent human activity are contributing to the most definite warming that is now taking place.  If it is not primarily human activity then the warming is due to natural causes.  O.K.  what causes?  If we knew that we could plan technologies  to deal with the increased warming.  If we knew what effect the warming will have on agriculture and rainfall we could  plan around that knowledge.  Right now we know the planet is warming.  That is not in dispute.  We must know the nature of the warming to make rational plans.  To know that we need more data,  better computer and better models.  More than that,  I cannot say.  

Right now our main problem is ignorance.,  The cure for ignorance is knowledge.  If we cannot firm up our grasp on climate the Alarmists will have their way and the politicians being politicians we  inflict various costs and programs on us that will not deal with the problem,  will drive costs through the roof  and could even wreck the economy.   Fear is not a good councilor.   Understanding is.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Delingpole: More Climate Fake News From The BBC

Quote

[...] But as we were reminded yet again on the BBC’s Inside Science programme this week, the BBC continues to treat this tainted and controversial figure with uncritical reverence.

On the programme, his interviewer Adam Rutherford allowed Mann space to give a version of this week’s Congressional hearing on climate science so ludicrously biased towards the alarmist narrative it might have been scripted by Greenpeace.

“We have currently as the chair of the House of Representatives Science Committee an individual – Lamar Smith – whose funding mostly comes from fossil fuel interests who rejects the overwhelming consensus of the world’s scientists that climate change is real and human caused and represents a threat. The hearing was intended to provide cover to Congressional Republicans and the current Trump administration who are trying to cut funding for climate science and who are trying to roll back the policy successes over the last several years in dealing with climate change and dealing with carbon emissions.”

“As the hearing went on every time the topic was about the substance, what the science has to say, my feeling was that the Congressional Republicans realised that they were on the defensive, that they were losing the argument because, after all, they are denying the overwhelming consensus of the world’s scientists. And eventually it got into the gutter where they were trying to discredit me personally and to talk about squabbles between scientists in a sense it was a confirmation that they knew they had lost the actual scientific argument at that hearing.”

“It’s a difficult period right now for anybody who cares about science. We’re about to see an unprecedented event next month here in DC where scientists are going to be marching in the streets….I think it’s a recognition from the typically quite reticent and conservative scientific community that they have to speak out now, that there’s a threat to science and to scientists unlike anything that we have, in my view, faced in the past.”

None of this weapons grade bilge went even slightly challenged by Rutherford, who flagged his own concerns about the Trump administration’s approach to climate science at the beginning of the interview by describing it as “troubling” and “disturbing”. [Says who? Why??]

Let’s not forget, also, that there were three other scientists with at least as much knowledge and experience as Mann who were speaking at the same Congressional hearings, only from a sceptical point of view. Might it not have been useful for the purposes of balance to get at least one of them – John Christy, Judith Curry or Roger Pielke Jr – for the BBC to hear from one of them too?

 

7 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:
On 3/30/2017 at 9:33 AM, william.scherk said:

From the Hill, via Politico, via "sources said" --

Energy Department tells staff not to use phrase 'climate change': report

I.e., stop the Newspeak.  Good.

There's more.  Apparently a preferred term to "climate science" is "climate studies."  Which, depending on your point of view, is smart politics.  I should note that (according to Politico's 'sources said'), the Energy Department denies instructing staff on phraseology.

From Science magazine: Lamar Smith, unbound, lays out political strategy at climate doubters’ conference

Quote

Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX) rarely expresses his true feelings in public. But speaking yesterday to a like-minded crowd of climate change doubters and skeptics, the chairman of the science committee in the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledged that the committee is now a tool to advance his political agenda rather than a forum to examine important issues facing the U.S. research community.

“Next week we’re going to have a hearing on our favorite subject of climate change and also on the scientific method, which has been repeatedly ignored by the so-called self-professed climate scientists,” Smith told the Heartland Institute’s 12th annual conference on climate change in Washington, D.C. The audience cheered loudly as Smith read the names of three witnesses—climate scientist Judith Curry, who recently retired from the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta; policy specialist Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado in Boulder; and John Christy, a professor of earth system science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville—he expects to support his view that climate change is a politically driven fabrication and that taking steps to mitigate its impact will harm the U.S. economy.

Then boos filled the ballroom of the Grand Hyatt hotel in downtown Washington, D.C., after Smith mentioned the fourth witness—Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Pennsylvania State University in State College and a frequent target of climate change doubters. “That’s why this hearing is going to be so much fun,” Smith said with a huge grin on his normally impassive face.

Emboldened by the election of President Donald Trump, Smith appears increasingly comfortable dismissing those who disagree with his stance on any number of issues under the purview of his science committee, from climate research to the use of peer review in assessing research results and grant proposals. And one key element in his strategy appears to be relabeling common terms in hopes of shaping public dialogue.

“I applaud you for saying you’ll be using the term climate studies, not climate science,” said one audience member. His reference was to Smith’s embrace of a distinction made by a previous speaker, climatologist Patrick Michaels of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., who argues that most climate scientists don’t deserve to be called “scientists” because they have manipulated their data and ignored contrary results. “But I also urge you to use the term politically correct science.”

“Good point,” Smith replied. “And I’ll start using those words if you’ll start using two words for me. The first is never, ever use the word progressive. Instead, use the word liberal. The second is never use the word 'mainstream' media, because they aren’t. Use 'liberal' media. Is that a deal?”

Greeted with a rousing ovation, Smith kept going. “I’ll give you a bonus. When we talk about changing the Senate rules on ending filibusters, don’t use the word ‘nuclear’ option. That has a negative connotation. Use ‘democratic’ option.”

Smith also signaled that he plans to turn up the volume on his criticism of federally funded research that doesn’t fit his definition of “sound science.” In particular, he expressed support for writing legislation that would punish scientific journals that publish research that doesn’t fit standards of peer review crafted by Smith and the committee (although he didn’t say how that would be accomplished).

“I think that is a good idea worth our consideration,” he told the questioner, who was building off Smith’s long-running criticism of a study that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has used in regulating air quality. “In fact, it’s one of several good ideas I’ve heard today. Let us see how we can accomplish that.”

In fact, as Smith told one audience member who worried that Trump might renege on some to his campaign promises, the sky’s the limit when it comes to dismantling the past 8 years of environmental regulations.

“I think the president has ushered in a permanent change in the political climate,” Smith asserted. “And by that I mean I think he’ll keep his promises and that he’ll do exactly what he said. You’re seeing that in his appointments, like Scott Pruitt at EPA, for example. So … I don’t think you’ll have any disappointment on any of those issues.”

 


 

Edited by william.scherk
Dragging the highlighter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba’al wrote: Right now our main problem is ignorance., The cure for ignorance is knowledge. end quote

No matter the cause, the earth may be undergoing climatic warming, so scientists and thinkers like Ba’al simply need to start imagining the consequences and coping mechanisms humans *will use* on a warmer earth. Temperature rise will mean perceived, longer springs and summers and shorter falls and winters. There will be more rain, and more snow though for a shorter winter period. Ice will melt and raise the lake, sea, and ocean levels. The temperate and tropical zones will be found on more of the land and sea mass, changing the growing areas for human food. The Sahara may become what it was in the time of the Egyptian Pharaohs, a lush, growing area.

Clothing won’t be optional, but it will be thinner material covering less of the body. Sun screen will become more potent to avoid skin cancer in lighter skinned races. Examine the cultures in tropical zones. Many of those attributes may extend into norther portions of America and southern regions of Canada. Calypso and ukuleles? Fewer Christmas carols? They still celebrate Christmas in Hawaii.

OK. tell me what you think will occur with a 10 degree yearly average rise in temperature. 20 degrees?

Peter     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Scientists and thinkers like Ba’al simply need to start imagining the consequences and coping mechanisms humans *will use* on a warmer earth.

What about Peter? What does Peter need to do?

Quote

Temperature rise will mean perceived, longer springs and summers and shorter falls and winters.

Where?

Quote

There will be more rain, and more snow though for a shorter winter period.

Where?

Quote

Ice will melt and raise the lake, sea, and ocean levels.

Ice-melt fed watersheds are not everywhere on Earth, though where they are essential to life (Himalayas) by feeding rivers, declining glacial ice in the mountains has consequences downstream over the long term (100 years or so).

Consider too the shrinking lakes of the earth .. and the effects of rising sea levels over a century.

Or,  tell us what you think will occur with a 0.10 degree-per-decade average rise in temperature over the next hundred years.

 

GFS-025deg_NH-SAT1_T2_anom.png

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: Right now our main problem is ignorance., The cure for ignorance is knowledge. end quote

No matter the cause, the earth may be undergoing climatic warming, so scientists and thinkers like Ba’al simply need to start imagining the consequences and coping mechanisms humans *will use* on a warmer earth. Temperature rise will mean perceived, longer springs and summers and shorter falls and winters. There will be more rain, and more snow though for a shorter winter period. Ice will melt and raise the lake, sea, and ocean levels. The temperate and tropical zones will be found on more of the land and sea mass, changing the growing areas for human food. The Sahara may become what it was in the time of the Egyptian Pharaohs, a lush, growing area.

Clothing won’t be optional, but it will be thinner material covering less of the body. Sun screen will become more potent to avoid skin cancer in lighter skinned races. Examine the cultures in tropical zones. Many of those attributes may extend into norther portions of America and southern regions of Canada. Calypso and ukuleles? Fewer Christmas carols? They still celebrate Christmas in Hawaii.

OK. tell me what you think will occur with a 10 degree yearly average rise in temperature. 20 degrees?

Peter     

The increase in temperature will probably mean longer growing seasons in the temperate and slightly to the north zones.  Which is probably good news provided the increase in temperature does not kick off positive  feed backs (such as methane release) which would cause the temperature to go up even more. On the other hand greater temperatures may produce more cloud which at high altitude increase the albedo of the planet  reflecting more of the suns rays and starting a cooling trend.  That would be the most beneficial  negative  feedback.  This is all guess work.  That is why we need experts to improve the models and make some solid predictions. The earth's climate system is far more complicated that the physics of particles and fields and we do not yet have all the mathematics and computers necessary to deal with the complication.   Our fastest computers  cannot deal with a thorough climate model as small resolutions.  That is why the current climate models are so crude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William asked, “What about Peter? What does Peter need to do?” and “Where? . . . .”

And Ba’al opined: This is all guess work.  That is why we need experts to improve the models and make some solid predictions. end quotes

I was using remembered climatic data from my studies going back years, and I was not talking about chaotic yearly weather. So as to the “Where” I would need to see it happen before committing resources for changing weather or sea rises. Existing experts can think about it in their free time and when one or more of them actually *predicts* the future climate they will get the prestige and grants.

We can’t Brexit, but as a recent cartoon stated, we can “Trump-it.” In a sense the best way to plan for climate change is to do nothing. Sit back, save your money, and observe. Spend no money on unproved conjectures. Ignore the ideological, religious Chicken Littles of man - made climate change. Be concerned about the real here and now: air pollution and tainted water. Monitor the records for beach replenishment rates in populated coastal areas and fewer short termed weather catastrophes will occur. When once in a hundred year floods become once in 20 year floods people will respond. Common sense and higher insurance premiums will shift populations from danger zones.

A local phenomenon I have noticed is that more coastal and bay front houses are being built on stilts and the garages on the ground floor are also raised a few feet to keep cars from being flooded. A local property I know of next to wetlands will and must have a house that will be on pilings. It has a sewer connection but the water must come from a well, and despite its being 200 feet from the bay the ground water below a certain level is not too salty. One downside to higher water front houses is that more of the view is blocked.  

Peter  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On April 1, 2017 at 5:15 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

I can't give specifics until we have better climate models.

[....]

Right now we know the planet is warming.  That is not in dispute.  We must know the nature of the warming

Bob, what a run-around.  What you initially said you think is "worth the cost" is getting better climate models.  Now you "can't give specifics" until those models are developed.  Oy.

And it isn't true that it isn't in dispute that the planet is warming.  The data records are so messed up, impossible to be sure.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Bob, what a run-around.  What you initially said you think is "worth the cost" is getting better climate models.  Now you "can't give specifics" until those models are developed.  Oy.

And it isn't true that it isn't in dispute that the planet is warming.  The data records are so messed up, impossible to be sure.

Ellen

The planet has been warming a bit since the worst days of the Little Ice Age.  The Thames river does not freeze over any more, not do the canals in the Dutch cities.  And grapes are growing in England again.  The Northwest Passage has opened up in Canada and the glacier cover in the Arctic area has thinned some. Arial photographs show the glaciers in the alps are less wide spread than they used to be.  This is all evidence of warming.  During the Little Ice Age the glaciers were advancing. 

What would it take to convince you that we are in the midst of a mildly warming interglacial episode? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2017 at 3:30 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

The planet has been warming a bit since the worst days of the Little Ice Age.  The Thames river does not freeze over any more, not do the canals in the Dutch cities.  And grapes are growing in England again.  The Northwest Passage has opened up in Canada and the glacier cover in the Arctic area has thinned some. Arial photographs show the glaciers in the alps are less wide spread than they used to be.  This is all evidence of warming.  During the Little Ice Age the glaciers were advancing. 

What would it take to convince you that we are in the midst of a mildly warming interglacial episode? 

That's generally accepted. I'd fear the next ice age except I won't live that long.

A little warming is beneficial and so too more CO2 in the atmosphere.

--Brant

to a point, I'm sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

That's generally accepted. I'd fear the next ice age except I won't live that long.

A little warming is beneficial and so too more CO2 in the atmosphere.

--Brant

to a point, I'm sure

An ice age is survivable  (but very unpleasant poleward of the Tropics.  The human race survived an ice age, at least homo sapien sapien did.  Homo neanderthal  did not fare so well.

There are people who deny the warming trend.    Also the Alarmists expect the Earth to turn into Venus within a few centuries due to a runaway CO2  warming effect.  This is very unlikely.  We are more likely to experience another ice age. 

A day will come when  we do have runaway warming.  In about a billion years or so  the hydrogen in the Sun will be mostly fused.  Helium will fuse as gravity pulls the sun inward.  Fusing helium is much hotter than fusing hydrogen.  The sun will be so hot that the oceans evaporate.  Needless to say either the human race has found a new home (near another star)  by then or it has become extinct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

An ice age is survivable  (but very unpleasant poleward of the Tropics.  The human race survived an ice age, at least homo sapien sapien did.  Homo neanderthal  did not fare so well.

There are people who deny the warming trend.    Also the Alarmists expect the Earth to turn into Venus within a few centuries due to a runaway CO2  warming effect.  This is very unlikely.  We are more likely to experience another ice age. 

A day will come when  we do have runaway warming.  In about a billion years or so  the hydrogen in the Sun will be mostly fused.  Helium will fuse as gravity pulls the sun inward.  Fusing helium is much hotter than fusing hydrogen.  The sun will be so hot that the oceans evaporate.  Needless to say either the human race has found a new home (near another star)  by then or it has become extinct. 

If I had a deathbed wish it'd be to see the human future in hundred year tranches out to ten thousand years. After that I'd be looking at aliens for I'm sure the human race is going to self evolve. A billion years? I'm not a geologist.

People seldom see or know the paradise beneath their feet and up in the sky. Earth is a spaceship.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If I had a deathbed wish it'd be to see the human future in hundred year tranches out to ten thousand years. After that I'd be looking at aliens for I'm sure the human race is going to self evolve. A billion years? I'm not a geologist.

People seldom see or know the paradise beneath their feet and up in the sky. Earth is a spaceship.

--Brant

The future of our sun is more a matter of physics,  than geology.  The evolution of stars is pretty well understood these days.  It was not always so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant wrote: A little warming is beneficial and so too more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Why wait, Brant? If we control our evolution and it is warming perhaps we can eliminate fur and hair entirely. Yet human head hair and eyebrows frame the face to be more expressive, allowing for more speedy and meaningful human interactions. A Hollywood cliché is that advanced humanoids like ET will be hairless and without eyebrows though Star Trek never envisioned that. Well I think that Star Trek TNG episode where all the humanoid race, compete to find the home world of our interstellar ancestors, did show the hologram of our ancestor from a billion years ago, without hair. What a great episode in a literary and philosophical sense.  

And cats and dogs look at our faces and especially our eyes to figure out what we meant by that incomprehensible human speech they just heard. My half tame pet fox (named Foxie) looks at my eyes and my hands, perhaps because she is aware of guns. She is very pregnant and needy and coming within ten feet of me to plead for food. When she left after feeding yesterday at 3 in the afternoon, I think she was going to give birth. My wife agreed and hoped she would not give birth in your back yard. My half tame raccoon (Roxie) looks at my face. Two nights ago I gave my cats a can of food near my back door around midnight and the dumb raccoon thought she had the right to first bite. She ignored my shoo’s so I went out with a shovel and hit the concrete and the sparks shoo’ed Roxie away. The cats were not worried they would be hit with the shovel and kind of hunkered down, then rushed forward to eat.

Chatty Charley. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On April 13, 2017 at 6:30 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

[....]

I didn't have time to look at this thread until now.  A lot is going on in discussions transpiring elsewhere which might have some actual effect on governmental climate policies.

---

Bob, you continue to display your penchants for not tracking what even you yourself have said and for delivering lectures which are beside the point.

You claimed - here - that it "is not in dispute" that "the planet is warming."  Note: "is warming," continuous. Not "warmer" than during the Little Ice Age.  You've often make the claim of a continuous warming trend since the Little Ice Age.  But the existence of a continuous trend is disputed, and justifiably.

I don't know, since there are many posts on this thread which I've never read, if you have any awareness of what's called "the hiatus," that is, a pause in measured warming for some sixteen to eighteen years.  Alarmists went into a tizzy over "the hiatus," trying to get rid of the problem posed for model predictions.

But a further problem is posed from the other direction, because of the uncertainties of temperature data records.  For there to have been "a hiatus" implies that there was a previous late-twentieth-century warming trend which "paused."  But was there?  It's impossible to be sure because of the unreliability of surface measuring devices, compounded by monkeying with data and deleting of raw data.

The uncertainties pose a problem for testing climate models.  A good model would have to get retroactive temperatures right, but since there's uncertainty about what temperatures were, there's inescapable guesswork as to a model's retroactive accuracy.

Thus even if your "better models" project was funded - for how much? with money provided how and by whom? with quality control overseen by whom? - and even if Navier-Stokes solutions were forthcoming, you'd still have to wait to see if the predictions were right, since the retroactive baseline would remain iffy.

---

Another issue is your frequent statement that you don't think Earth will "turn into Venus."  Presumably you don't mean that anyone is literally claiming that Earth will "turn into Venus," but what are you meaning exactly?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I didn't have time to look at this thread until now.  A lot is going on in discussions transpiring elsewhere which might have some actual effect on governmental climate policies.

---

Bob, you continue to display your penchants for not tracking what even you yourself have said and for delivering lectures which are beside the point.

You claimed - here - that it "is not in dispute" that "the planet is warming."  Note: "is warming," continuous. Not "warmer" than during the Little Ice Age.  You've often make the claim of a continuous warming trend since the Little Ice Age.  But the existence of a continuous trend is disputed, and justifiably.

I don't know, since there are many posts on this thread which I've never read, if you have any awareness of what's called "the hiatus," that is, a pause in measured warming for some sixteen to eighteen years.  Alarmists went into a tizzy over "the hiatus," trying to get rid of the problem posed for model predictions.

But a further problem is posed from the other direction, because of the uncertainties of temperature data records.  For there to have been "a hiatus" implies that there was a previous late-twentieth-century warming trend which "paused."  But was there?  It's impossible to be sure because of the unreliability of surface measuring devices, compounded by monkeying with data and deleting of raw data.

The uncertainties pose a problem for testing climate models.  A good model would have to get retroactive temperatures right, but since there's uncertainty about what temperatures were, there's inescapable guesswork as to a model's retroactive accuracy.

Thus even if your "better models" project was funded - for how much? with money provided how and by whom? with quality control overseen by whom? - and even if Navier-Stokes solutions were forthcoming, you'd still have to wait to see if the predictions were right, since the retroactive baseline would remain iffy.

---

Another issue is your frequent statement that you don't think Earth will "turn into Venus."  Presumably you don't mean that anyone is literally claiming that Earth will "turn into Venus," but what are you meaning exactly?

Ellen

Is warming because (1)  CO2 in the atmosphere  slows down the radiation of IR energy to space  (2) the amount of CO2 is increasing  and (3) the irradiance of the Sun is not decreasing (at least not over the last 100 years),  so there will be some increase in average surface temperature.  The Lukewarmists estimate about 0.8 deg C  per century.  The Alarmists have  predicted increasing of the order of 10 deg  C in the next 100 years because some kind of "tipping point",  a critical point of no return will be reached and soon(!).  I think the alarmists are wrong and the Lukewarmists have some evidence to back their estimate up.  I reject the "tipping point"  hypothesis because the Earth has been much warmer than it is now in the past and CO2 levels have been higher than 6000 ppm in the past  and  yet  life on earth flourished,  despite  5 major kill-offs (extinctions) in the past.  

I don't know what irks you, Ellen.  The Lukewarms have a reasonable position given what evidence we have.  They are not guaranteed to be right.  Nobody is so guaranteed.  As a non-equilbrium thermodynamic system the Earth's heat radiation and heat movement  mechanism is complicated beyond any current computer technology and we don't have all the math necessary to solve the Navier Stokes equation at all scales of resolution.   

Since we cannot experimentally control our climate nor simulate it comprehensively,  we make models  which happen to be incomplete  and such that no one model  integrates all of the possible factors of climate including natural drivers.  We have no good model (yet) for cloud formation.  We have no good model (yet) for the effect of dusts and aeorisols.  We have no get model (yet) for the Sun's magnetic repulsion of charged cosmic ray particles from outside the solar system. And most important off all,  we have very incomplete  grasp of the  feedbacks,  both positive and negative.  The claims the Alarmists make for their two dozen (or so) models  are not supported by hard  empirical fact.   I am inclined to listen to the Lukewarmists  because they have some evidence for what they say  and they do not make  hyper claims on steroids  for their models.

So what ails ye, Ellen?  Do you think the earth is not currently warming up? It is.  The Little Ice Age Ended.  Cold Spells end because things get warmer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now