APS and the Global Warming Scam

[SoAMadDeathWish]

The basic equations of fluid dynamics are the Navier Stokes equations for which we do not have a general solution. There not even a general system of convergent approximations yet. Only a few restricted cases of the Navier Stokes equations yield numerical solutions that are known to converge.

From the Wiki article on the Navier Stokes equations:

The Navier–Stokes equations are also of great interest in a purely mathematical sense. Somewhat surprisingly, given their wide range of practical uses, it has not yet been proven that in three dimensions solutions always exist (existence), or that if they do exist, then they do not contain any singularity. (They are smooth.) These are called the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problems. The Clay Mathematics Institute has called this one of the seven most important open problems in mathematics and has offered a US$1,000,000 prize for a solution or a counter-example.^[1]

^{I told you turbulence and chaotic dynamics is a tough nut.}

^{Ba'al Chatzaf}

You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years.

As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief.

When you deal with chaotic dynamics you need numerical algorithms that are guaranteed to converge. Such methods are not generally available with the Navier Stokes equations. That is why there is a million dollar prize for finding such methods.

We do not have tractable mathematical methods for chaotic and non-linear dynamics. That is the way it is.

I told you we do not have a well founded climate science, but you won't listen.

Models we have and they can be fiddled.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No, you most certainly do not. There are ways around the problem, such as using the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations,

May I remind you that the general 3-body problem for Newtonian Gravity has never been solved, precisely because of non-linear dynamics. Does that mean that our models of the solar system are unfalsifiable or that we do not have a viable theory of gravitation?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Naomi, you're quite frantic when it comes to your beliefs.

J

Jonathan,

The word irrational comes to mind.

Swagger, some technical vocabulary and no rational substance.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

The basic equations of fluid dynamics are the Navier Stokes equations for which we do not have a general solution. There not even a general system of convergent approximations yet. Only a few restricted cases of the Navier Stokes equations yield numerical solutions that are known to converge.

From the Wiki article on the Navier Stokes equations:

The Navier–Stokes equations are also of great interest in a purely mathematical sense. Somewhat surprisingly, given their wide range of practical uses, it has not yet been proven that in three dimensions solutions always exist (existence), or that if they do exist, then they do not contain any singularity. (They are smooth.) These are called the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problems. The Clay Mathematics Institute has called this one of the seven most important open problems in mathematics and has offered a US$1,000,000 prize for a solution or a counter-example.^[1]

^{I told you turbulence and chaotic dynamics is a tough nut.}

^{Ba'al Chatzaf}

You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years.

As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief.

When you deal with chaotic dynamics you need numerical algorithms that are guaranteed to converge. Such methods are not generally available with the Navier Stokes equations. That is why there is a million dollar prize for finding such methods.

We do not have tractable mathematical methods for chaotic and non-linear dynamics. That is the way it is.

I told you we do not have a well founded climate science, but you won't listen.

Models we have and they can be fiddled.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No, you most certainly do not. There are ways around the problem, such as using the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations,

May I remind you that the general 3-body problem for Newtonian Gravity has never been solved, precisely because of non-linear dynamics. Does that mean that our models of the solar system are unfalsifiable or that we do not have a viable theory of gravitation?

May I remind you there is a well know numerical method of solving the N-body problem guaranteed to converge to as close to tje correct answer as desired. There is not at this time known any such method that will solve the Navier Stokes equation in three dimension. Such a method has been sought after for nearly a century and there is even a million dollar prize for anyone who can find it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

The basic equations of fluid dynamics are the Navier Stokes equations for which we do not have a general solution. There not even a general system of convergent approximations yet. Only a few restricted cases of the Navier Stokes equations yield numerical solutions that are known to converge.

From the Wiki article on the Navier Stokes equations:

The Navier–Stokes equations are also of great interest in a purely mathematical sense. Somewhat surprisingly, given their wide range of practical uses, it has not yet been proven that in three dimensions solutions always exist (existence), or that if they do exist, then they do not contain any singularity. (They are smooth.) These are called the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problems. The Clay Mathematics Institute has called this one of the seven most important open problems in mathematics and has offered a US$1,000,000 prize for a solution or a counter-example.^[1]

^{I told you turbulence and chaotic dynamics is a tough nut.}

^{Ba'al Chatzaf}

You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years.

As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief.

When you deal with chaotic dynamics you need numerical algorithms that are guaranteed to converge. Such methods are not generally available with the Navier Stokes equations. That is why there is a million dollar prize for finding such methods.

We do not have tractable mathematical methods for chaotic and non-linear dynamics. That is the way it is.

I told you we do not have a well founded climate science, but you won't listen.

Models we have and they can be fiddled.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No, you most certainly do not. There are ways around the problem, such as using the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations,

May I remind you that the general 3-body problem for Newtonian Gravity has never been solved, precisely because of non-linear dynamics. Does that mean that our models of the solar system are unfalsifiable or that we do not have a viable theory of gravitation?

Einstein's field equations do have numerical solutions. The N-body gravitational problem have numerical solutions.

The general Navier Stokes equations do not. No guaranteed stable numerical algorithm is guaranteed to converge a solution given the boundary conditions. There is even a million dollar prize for the solution. No one has collected it yet.

Chaotic and non-linear dynamical problems are close to intractable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years.

As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief.

What is needed are numerical algorithms guaranteed to converge to a solution. The n-body problem does not have a closed form solution for n > 2 but it does have a numerical solution. That is why the

orbits of our space craft can be figured out to high accuracy with the aid of computers

In addition the Einstein Field equations can be solved numerically in a low strength gravitational field

Alas non- linear chaotic dynamics and turbulence problems do not yield as well

[SoAMadDeathWish]

You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years.

As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief.

What is needed are numerical algorithms guaranteed to converge to a solution. The n-body problem does not have a closed form solution for n > 2 but it does have a numerical solution. That is why the

orbits of our space craft can be figured out to high accuracy with the aid of computers

In addition the Einstein Field equations can be solved numerically in a low strength gravitational field

Alas non- linear chaotic dynamics and turbulence problems do not yield as well

That's pretty cool. I actually didn't know that it had been solved.

But the solution was discovered as recently as 1991. Does that mean that up until then, there were no viable theories of gravitation?

I'm glad you pointed out the Einstein Field equations, because that's where I was about to go next. Now, as far as I know, there are no numerical methods for solving Einstein's field equations that are guaranteed to converge in the general case. Does that mean that GR is unfalsifiable?

The answer to both of these questions, is, of course not.

Look, if you have a climate model, the worst thing that can happen is that it tells you that the energy or other some such parameter is infinite. If that's the case, then you know right away that the result is nonsensical, and you can limit the model's applicability so that it doesn't include situations that gave rise to the singularity.

However, that in no way means that applying the Navier-Stokes equations is impossible for all the other conditions for which the model does apply. As I've said before, the climate is studied over long enough time-scales that extremely turbulent situations which would cause problems are smoothed over.

[Selene]

Can we stop enabling the ignorant bitch...oops...

did I let that slip out...

if I did

I meant it!

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

That kind of thing isn't necessary. And it's not classy...

The way these folks act about climate change is its own reward.

I admit, I have a hard time trying to hold my tongue when faced with blatant propaganda and manipulation (like Naomi is doing), but the better way is to let it run and keep saying it is baloney in the manner of swatting flies.

Here is some proof:

CNN's Jeff Zucker: Climate Change Coverage Bores Our Audience
by Jack Mirkinson
The Huffington Post
05/21/2014

From the article:

CNN chief Jeff Zucker has an explanation for why his network doesn't cover climate change that much: the audience isn't interested.

Capital New York watched New York Times reporter Bill Carter quiz Zucker on Monday at an event for the Deadline Club. Carter pointed out that the network has received quite a bit of criticism for its climate coverage, which has often been found to be either paltry or problematic.

Zucker candidly said that climate change "deserves more attention," but that he was merely following the ratings.

"We haven't figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way," he said. "When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience's part."

And CNN is basically a left-wing station now. Not quite MSNBC, but getting there. Zucker WANTS to promote the agenda.

But the reason he can't figure out how to engage the audience on climate change is, to use a vulgar Hollywood figure of speech when they refer to hyped-up marketing for a poor film, you can polish a turd, but you can't make it shine for long. Better people than Zucker have been polishing this thing for years.

The public isn't stupid. It may have bad taste, and it can be manipulated short-term, but long-term, it isn't stupid. Notice that the climate change people have had an awfully long time to make their case and they are now losing ground big-time. This despite oodles of money thrown at the media over decades, bullying scientists the world over, an Academy Award for a documentary, on up to the recent bogus claim by Obama that this is "settled science." They are losing and they can't seem to stop it.

Still, I know how hard it is to see someone being bald-faced deceptive right in front of you and digging in on an absurdity. (It's like when Obama, Rice, H. Clinton, etc., told that story over and over about a YouTube video being the reason for the Benghazi attack instead of terrorists.) This feels like the person is disrespecting you by treating you as if you were a gullible sucker (actually the person is). But the audience does have a bullshit meter (just like you and I do). We should let them use it.

The act of seeing someone behave like that in an intellectual environment is the reason I keep getting irritated, but the erosion of public support due to the public getting fed up with that manner is why I'm letting this thing run.

I think our schools have taught young people that lying--even blatant lying--is a tool, not a moral issue. That's why they are so casual about doing it. No big deal. Truth is merely a tool, too. If one doesn't work to get someone to agree or shut up, use the other. The payoff is to control others, not convince them.

I also think these young people become perplexed when faced with those who get mad at being lied to. It's not that they are immoral. They are amoral. They never learned to think in terms of right and wrong and the self-respect that comes with it. (Notice amoral folks tend to be very unhappy.)

The more people like Naomi defend climate change from the progressive playbook, the more their case degrades in the mainstream.

All we have to do is bite our tongues on the anger, swat the flies as they show up, be patient enough to let these folks hang themselves, and sometimes give them more rope.

They are doing an excellent job of it.

Just ask Jeff Zucker.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

However, that in no way means that applying the Navier-Stokes equations is impossible for all the other conditions for which the model does apply. As I've said before, the climate is studied over long enough time-scales that extremely turbulent situations which would cause problems are smoothed over.

Newtonian gravitation has been sufficient to launch space vehicles into the outer part of the solar system. Where the gravitational field is weak the Newtonian solution and the Einsteinian solution for motions are nearly equal.

To deal with weather we need the Navier Stokes equations full strength. Unfortunately we do not know how to solved them full strength.

Our mathematical models for both weather (which deals with ocean and atmospheric conditions short range) and climate (which is long ranger and depends on more than the ambient ocean and atmospheric conditions) are not very good. That is why we cannot predict weather accurately for more than ten days out no matter how many radiosonde balloons we send up.

The modern era of chaotic dynamics was introduced when meteorologist Ed Lorenz attempted to solved a non-linear system of equations in three variable to predict atmospheric convection. He discovered (by accident) that variations in the initial states of as little as one part in ten thousand produced very significantly different solutions.

From the Wiki article on Lorenz:

During the 1950s, Lorenz became skeptical of the appropriateness of the linear statistical models in meteorology, as most atmospheric phenomena involved in weather forecasting are non-linear.^[2] His work on the topic culminated in the publication of his 1963 paperDeterministic Nonperiodic Flow in Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and with it, the foundation ofchaos theory.^[2][5] He states in that paper:

Two states differing by imperceptible amounts may eventually evolve into two considerably different states ... If, then, there is any error whatever in observing the present state — and in any real system such errors seem inevitable — an acceptable prediction of an instantaneous state in the distant future may well be impossible....In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be nonexistent.

His description of the butterfly effect followed in 1969.^[2][6][7] He was awarded the Kyoto Prize for basic sciences, in the field of earth and planetary sciences, in 1991,^[8] the Buys Ballot Award in 2004, and the Tomassoni Award in 2008. ^[9] In his later years, he lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He was an avid outdoorsman, who enjoyed hiking, climbing, and cross-country skiing. He kept up with these pursuits until very late in his life, and managed to continue most of his regular activities until only a few weeks before his death. According to his daughter, Cheryl Lorenz, Lorenz had "finished a paper a week ago with a colleague."^[10] On April 16, 2008, Lorenz died at his home in Cambridge at the age of 90, having suffered from cancer.^[1

^{No matter how small the error in initial condition, the equations produce markedly different outputs. This is characteristic of systems describable by non-linear differential equations.}

^{We cannot predict weather long term and we cannot predict climate long term because it depends not only on weather ambient conditions (temeprature, humidity, pressure) but on Orbital states, axial tilt, cosmic radiation, and the suns energy and magnetic states as well as the optical states of the atmosphere (presence of so-called green-house gases). We currently cannot touch climate with a ten foot pole. We need a lot more work on the basic processes that determine climate long term. Merely averaging weather is not an effective predictor because there are many things at work and their dynamics are non-linear. For example a small variation in axial tilt will have a large effect on long range climate. Since the axial tilt variation has a 26,000 year cycle and there is a 100,000 year cyclic change in earths revolution orbit we will get climate cycles of over 100,000 years in length.}

^{Even factoring in "green house" effects your surest bet is another ice age. Who knows when? No one knows right now. Even global warming can trigger another ice age by causing a lowering of dissolved salt levels in the oceans. This will shut down or diminish the halocline conveyors. Thank of England without the Gulf Stream to warm her up. The Thames will freeze again as it did during the "little ice age" (1300 - 1750 approximately). There are positive feedback loops that can cause very serious climatic effects. If lots of clouds are produced (and this is affected by cosmic rays) the temperatures could drop radically and trigger off another ice age.}

The statistical models produced by the IPCC simply do not address the complex physical processes involved in climate. They overweight greenhouse gasses and essential ignore solar output, axial tilt variation and orbital perturbations. Also we do not have a good scientific theory to account for internal energy production from the sun. How much energy we receive is affected by magnetic activity in the sun. There is a rough eleven year cycle in solar output but that is not precise.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

[SoAMadDeathWish]

However, that in no way means that applying the Navier-Stokes equations is impossible for all the other conditions for which the model does apply. As I've said before, the climate is studied over long enough time-scales that extremely turbulent situations which would cause problems are smoothed over.

Newtonian gravitation has been sufficient to launch space vehicles into the outer part of the solar system. Where the gravitational field is weak the Newtonian solution and the Einsteinian solution for motions are nearly equal.

To deal with weather we need the Navier Stokes equations full strength. Unfortunately we do not know how to solved them full strength.

Our mathematical models for both weather (which deals with ocean and atmospheric conditions short range) and climate (which is long ranger and depends on more than the ambient ocean and atmospheric conditions) are not very good. That is why we cannot predict weather accurately for more than ten days out no matter how many radiosonde balloons we send up.

The modern era of chaotic dynamics was introduced when meteorologist Ed Lorenz attempted to solved a non-linear system of equations in three variable to predict atmospheric convection. He discovered (by accident) that variations in the initial states of as little as one part in ten thousand produced very significantly different solutions.

From the Wiki article on Lorenz:

During the 1950s, Lorenz became skeptical of the appropriateness of the linear statistical models in meteorology, as most atmospheric phenomena involved in weather forecasting are non-linear.^[2] His work on the topic culminated in the publication of his 1963 paperDeterministic Nonperiodic Flow in Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, and with it, the foundation ofchaos theory.^[2][5] He states in that paper:

His description of the butterfly effect followed in 1969.^[2][6][7] He was awarded the Kyoto Prize for basic sciences, in the field of earth and planetary sciences, in 1991,^[8] the Buys Ballot Award in 2004, and the Tomassoni Award in 2008. ^[9] In his later years, he lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He was an avid outdoorsman, who enjoyed hiking, climbing, and cross-country skiing. He kept up with these pursuits until very late in his life, and managed to continue most of his regular activities until only a few weeks before his death. According to his daughter, Cheryl Lorenz, Lorenz had "finished a paper a week ago with a colleague."^[10] On April 16, 2008, Lorenz died at his home in Cambridge at the age of 90, having suffered from cancer.^[1

Two states differing by imperceptible amounts may eventually evolve into two considerably different states ... If, then, there is any error whatever in observing the present state — and in any real system such errors seem inevitable — an acceptable prediction of an instantaneous state in the distant future may well be impossible....In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be nonexistent.

Chaotic behavior is caused by the sensitivity of a system to initial conditions. The initial conditions are determined by measurements, which are only finite in their accuracy. The chaos results from the lack of perfect information on the initial state of the weather, which is what Lorenz said, and which contradicts your claim that the inability to predict the weather results from flawed models. Neither Lorenz nor any other chaos theorist has ever claimed that "we cannot predict weather accurately for more than ten days out no matter how many radiosonde balloons we send up".

Chaos is not a problem in climatology, because, as I've said before, turbulence is smoothed out by time-averaging.

^{No matter how small the error in initial condition, the equations produce markedly different outputs. This is characteristic of systems describable by non-linear differential equations.}

^{We cannot predict weather long term and we cannot predict climate long term because it depends not only on weather ambient conditions (temeprature, humidity, pressure) but on Orbital states, axial tilt, cosmic radiation, and the suns energy and magnetic states as well as the optical states of the atmosphere (presence of so-called green-house gases). We currently cannot touch climate with a ten foot pole. We need a lot more work on the basic processes that determine climate long term. Merely averaging weather is not an effective predictor because there are many things at work and their dynamics are non-linear. For example a small variation in axial tilt will have a large effect on long range climate. Since the axial tilt variation has a 26,000 year cycle and there is a 100,000 year cyclic change in earths revolution orbit we will get climate cycles of over 100,000 years in length.}

^{Even factoring in "green house" effects your surest bet is another ice age. Who knows when? No one knows right now. Even global warming can trigger another ice age by causing a lowering of dissolved salt levels in the oceans. This will shut down or diminish the halocline conveyors. Thank of England without the Gulf Stream to warm her up. The Thames will freeze again as it did during the "little ice age" (1300 - 1750 approximately). There are positive feedback loops that can cause very serious climatic effects. If lots of clouds are produced (and this is affected by cosmic rays) the temperatures could drop radically and trigger off another ice age.}

The statistical models produced by the IPCC simply do not address the complex physical processes involved in climate. They overweight greenhouse gasses and essential ignore solar output, axial tilt variation and orbital perturbations. Also we do not have a good scientific theory to account for internal energy production from the sun. How much energy we receive is affected by magnetic activity in the sun. There is a rough eleven year cycle in solar output but that is not precise.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Prove it, then. Where is all this supposed research that shows that the current models are too inaccurate and don't take important factors into account? I have asked you for these references over and over again in this thread, and you refuse to back up your claims with even the slightest bit of support. You are not an authority on the subject, and as far as anyone knows so far, you're just making stuff up.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I sometimes wish a religious person would show up and start badgering Naomi to prove that God doesn't exist. Then no matter what she says, he says, "That doesn't prove God doesn't exist. Where is your proof?"

It's the same crap as what she does.

I even think after a while she would get irritated.

It's like the little kid's "why?" game. No matter what you say, the little kid asks "why?" And it goes to infinite regress.

Michael

[tmj]

I sometimes wish a religious person would show up and start badgering Naomi to prove that God doesn't exist. Then no matter what she says, he says, "That doesn't prove God doesn't exist. Where is your proof?"

It's the same crap as what she does.

I even think after a while she would get irritated.

It's like the little kid's "why?" game. No matter what you say, the little kid asks "why?" And it goes to infinite regress.

Michael

Where would the consensus in the Vatican play in that scenario? (notwithstanding each cardinal's actual view vs publicly expressed one)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tad,

How the hell do I know?

I don't understand your question.

Do you imagine I am some kind of expert on the Vatican?

My point is about the childishness of the "prove a negative" game when it is played like a kid asking, "Why?"

That goes for all religious fanatics, including AGW truthers.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I'm not asking Ba'al to prove a negative. I'm asking him to back up his claims about climate models being unfalsifiable or seriously flawed in some way.

[Jonathan]

Naomi, you're quite frantic when it comes to your beliefs.

J

Jonathan,

The word irrational comes to mind.

Swagger, some technical vocabulary and no rational substance.

Michael

I think it's fun watching the left throttle up its talking points, and push them more frantically every day. The "AGW is settle science" thing seemed to kick in as a tactic just the "consensus" "scientist's" predictions were starting to show themselves as drifting farther and farther from reality.

In April, on the Scientific Fraud thread, I posted this:

Here's a hypothetical chart, with the orange areas representing the predictions of "the scientific consensus" (dark orange representing 75% certainty, light orange representing 95% certainty), and the black line representing actual recorded temperatures.

What will happen if, in the future (represented as the blue band), observations from reality become increasingly more distant from the predictions?

The "AGW is settled science" tactic becomes louder and more frantic and repetitive the farther that time goes on into the blue section. I think the idea is that the left realizes that it is running out of time to grab as much control as it can and impose restraints, hardships and death on people. Pretty soon the sheep that they're trying to herd won't trust them anymore, so they have to act now.

J

[tmj]

I would guess that there exists a greater than 97% consensus among the publicly stated views of the members of the college of Cardinals (current and historic) that God exists. But I bet some are fibbing when it comes to their personal views(just a guess), it would be detrimental to their ability to hold their position if they didn't keep the party line.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi, you're quite frantic when it comes to your beliefs.

J

Jonathan,

The word irrational comes to mind.

Swagger, some technical vocabulary and no rational substance.

Michael

I think it's fun watching the left throttle up its talking points, and push them more frantically every day. The "AGW is settle science" thing seemed to kick in as a tactic just the "consensus" "scientist's" predictions were starting to show themselves as drifting farther and farther from reality.

In April, on the Scientific Fraud thread, I posted this:

Here's a hypothetical chart, with the orange areas representing the predictions of "the scientific consensus" (dark orange representing 75% certainty, light orange representing 95% certainty), and the black line representing actual recorded temperatures.

What will happen if, in the future (represented as the blue band), observations from reality become increasingly more distant from the predictions?

The "AGW is settled science" tactic becomes louder and more frantic and repetitive the farther that time goes on into the blue section. I think the idea is that the left realizes that it is running out of time to grab as much control as it can and impose restraints, hardships and death on people. Pretty soon the sheep that they're trying to herd won't trust them anymore, so they have to act now.

J

Your "hypothetical chart" sure does a great job of disproving AGW in "hypothetical reality" (which is not to mention the complete and utter lack of labels on the axes or scales or a source or anything even remotely resembling a fact). Too bad that the rest of the world doesn't live in your imagination.

If you had any real data which contradicted the predictions, you would have posted that instead of a "hypothetical chart".

[Jonathan]

Frantic!

Don't worry, Naomi, you'll have plenty of other opportunities to control and inflict pain on other people once AGW politically goes the way of eugenics. So calm yourself.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well hell.

Maybe we should rethink this whole AGW thing.

Lookee here:

Alarmist Paul Ehrlich Predicts Need to ‘Eat the Bodies of Your Dead’
By Sean Long
NewsBuster
May 22, 2014

From the article (I've removed the mocking and nagging):

Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist famous for his ... book “The Population Bomb,” doubled down on his climate change and overpopulation fear-mongering with HuffPost Live on May 21. Ehrlich warned host Josh Zepps that the dangers of overpopulation are growing, blaming Republicans and the media for failing to take action. While hawking a new book called “Hope On Earth,” Ehrlich’s co-author Michael Tobias praised Ehrlich’s older ... predictions and said they underestimated the problem.

Ehrlich ... told Zepps humans must soon begin contemplating “eat[ing] the bodies of your dead” after resources are depleted... .

... Ehrlich claimed that scarcity of resources will get so bad that humans will need to drastically change our eating habits and agriculture. Instead, we will soon begin asking “is it perfectly okay to eat the bodies of your dead because we’re all so hungry?” He added that humanity is “moving in that direction with a ridiculous speed.”

My goodness.

That sounds suboptimal, nay... bad.

I certainly don't want to become a cannibal.

Maybe we should pass a new law or something.

Michael

EDIT: There was a video at the link of an interview with Elrich, but apparently someone has taken it down or there is too much traffic for the servers. Time will tell and a new copy of the video should appear somewhere.

[Jonathan]

The left is looking forward to implementing anthropophagy/soylent green. They want it. It excites them. Maybe even sexually. They feel very empowered by the idea of it.

J

[tmj]

It seems it would be hard to control the world's population , to get it to do the right thing, but that doesn't mean you can't try, right?

[Selene]

\

Michael

You are absolutely correct.

Was an interesting week and I allowed the utter insanity of her position to actually piss me off.

Naomi, I apologize for calling you a "birch."

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It seems it would be hard to control the world's population , to get it to do the right thing, but that doesn't mean you can't try, right?

Tad,

You got the essential word right: "control."

CONTROL.

The name of the game. Power over others.

Now for the real question behind this whole thing. Who should do the controlling?

You will find control freaks really interested in this question.

And if you like imagining a world where you are ruled by control freaks, or you are a control freak yourself, you will find the AGW topic deeply moving and profound. Especially that part of shackling industries.

And you won't see anything wrong with, say, an Al Gore buying a propaganda outlet (Current TV) to preach the evils of using oil, running it into the ground, then selling it at a hugely inflated crony-capitalism price to a company funded by oil (Al Jazeera).

It actually is hard to control everybody in the world and you asked, "doesn't mean you can't try, right?"

Right.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

The basic equations of fluid dynamics are the Navier Stokes equations for which we do not have a general solution. There not even a general system of convergent approximations yet. Only a few restricted cases of the Navier Stokes equations yield numerical solutions that are known to converge.

From the Wiki article on the Navier Stokes equations:

The Navier–Stokes equations are also of great interest in a purely mathematical sense. Somewhat surprisingly, given their wide range of practical uses, it has not yet been proven that in three dimensions solutions always exist (existence), or that if they do exist, then they do not contain any singularity. (They are smooth.) These are called the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness problems. The Clay Mathematics Institute has called this one of the seven most important open problems in mathematics and has offered a US$1,000,000 prize for a solution or a counter-example.^[1]

^{I told you turbulence and chaotic dynamics is a tough nut.}

^{Ba'al Chatzaf}

You don't need exact solutions of the equations in order to use them for calculation. The approximation methods we do have are sufficient for most purposes and are well-behaved enough that they work just fine except in the most extreme situations. Even then, you can average out anything too turbulent if you use an appropriate time interval. You don't have to be able to predict every little gust of wind in order to calculate the average temperature of a system over 10 or 20 years.

As I've said before, if you believe that the climate models are unfalsifiable, then you should present your reasons for believing so. It should not be so difficult if you actually have any good reasons for your belief.

When you deal with chaotic dynamics you need numerical algorithms that are guaranteed to converge. Such methods are not generally available with the Navier Stokes equations. That is why there is a million dollar prize for finding such methods.

We do not have tractable mathematical methods for chaotic and non-linear dynamics. That is the way it is.

I told you we do not have a well founded climate science, but you won't listen.

Models we have and they can be fiddled.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No, you most certainly do not. There are ways around the problem, such as using the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations,

May I remind you that the general 3-body problem for Newtonian Gravity has never been solved, precisely because of non-linear dynamics. Does that mean that our models of the solar system are unfalsifiable or that we do not have a viable theory of gravitation?

We have several theories of gravitation (classical-Newtonian and the linearzied approximation to Einstein's field equations from General Relativity. Both models are quite accurate for the solar system. Things get hairier for very strong gravitational fields. It is not clear the Einstein's theory holds up near black holes and Newton's theory definitely does not.

In any case we do not have anything this good for climate. Climate is very complicated. It is more than averaging weather.

And for weather, we have no really good theories. The best we can do is predict weather ten days out. Long term weather prediction simply does not exist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tmj]

I wonder if the IPCC doesn't wish they would have gone with " investigations in interglacial temperature ranges as related to carbon diffusion" ,instead of tipping the ideological hand with "human caused" . Even if some of the science is true, which I doubt being a layman and seeing what I believe as a theory in search of a cause, what then? "We" as a species can and do over come problems nature throws our way, if the best and brightest are free to figure it out. Are "We" not part of nature? Aren't our activities part of the planet's system?