Jump to content

APS and the Global Warming Scam


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 987
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have no idea  who started the notion that global warming is a hoax.    Tyndall showed that CO2 retards the out-radiation in the IR bands back in 1880.  So we get a blanket effect. CO2 does not

Technically Lindzen is correct.  But blanket is a good analogy.  Blankets keep your body from losing heat quickly on a cold night.  The CO2, NH4 and H2O(g)  slow down the rate at which IR energy is ra

I am glad you posted that.  I was going to post Palmer's lecture.  it is excellent and it deals quite well the difficulties in making decent models of climate.  His discourse on the Navier Stokes equa

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

It could be that nothing would change a mind like Ellen's or Michael's or Jonathan's or Bob's -- but that doesn't make sense to me.  It could be that my question begs some other question, or is framed in a way that seems like a trap.

But I am genuinely curious -- for those who have thought about it, what would change your mind from a position of Skepticism or Lukewarmerism (or some nice way of saying Denial)?

William,

That's the easiest question in the world to answer.

It's called government funds.

If any of these fear-mongering end-of-times scientists serving their political masters believe we are truly endangering the planet by wanting people to flourish through technology, they should be able to find a way to gather info about it without government funding. Hell, if I were in what I thought was a dire emergency, I would do something about it on my own.

(Didn't I just do months and months of campaigning for Trump here on OL? Nobody paid me to do that. On the contrary, despite a few donations from a few OL members to help with forum costs, I paid out of my pocket to do it. No government largess helped me. And, yes, I did feel there was a dire emergency. I thought I could help make a difference and that's why I did it.) 

What are these scientists going to do when Trump pulls the plug on their happy hour? Sit back living off their sinecures and let the planet to go hell? Because they can't get government money?

What happens to their urgency when government funds dry up?

Hmmmmmm?...

Sorry, but that tells me their priority is government money, not any kind of danger to the planet.

You're a believer in the "evil humans destroying the planet of goodness and bounty" storytelling universe. And you've bought into linking that with science as if the word "science" makes the myth true. So I don't think you are a scammer or hypocrite. But I do believe there are quite a few among those you promote.

When people (like me) have been scammed, but was not emotionally invested in the beginning, and they've caught the scammers, they are less likely to take the scammer seriously anymore. In my case, it's not less likely. It's like never.

When you promote climate change doom and ask what it would take for people to agree with you, I get the same feeling as if you wanted me to accompany you on a project where you received an email from the widow of a Nigerian prince who has a lot of money blocked in the financial system and needs help getting it out. All she needs is a third-party bank account like yours or mine to help her get the funds out of the country and she will give you a percentage. I don't think you want to scam me and I realize you believe in the plight of the damsel in distress (don't worry, I'm being hypothetical :) ), but go with you on that one after everything everybody's done over the years? Come on... 

I've been around some serious scams before and I've studied them over the years as a quirky hobby. (I don't do them, though. My interest is learning about human nature, not ill gotten gains. Apropos, here's a site I used to read a lot when I was still in Brazil: Quatloos! It's only a shadow of its former self. Even though they say the archives start at 2008, it was huge before 2005 when I was reading it. Regardless, even in its diminished state, there's still a lot of great info on it.)

The immutable universal law of scammary is that a person who buys into a scam with his whole heart is the last one to admit it is a scam when it explodes. And sometimes he refuses to admit it at all.

I have never seen this law fail.

That's where I believe a lot of manmade climate change people are. 

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Wrong.  And you leave the impression that the IPCC itself authors Global Circulation Models. That is also wrong, Bob.

Wrong.

You no longer believe this, I think.

Yeahbut. Climate has always changed.  Right?  Right -- but what does that mean in terms of a human lifetime?  Consider the local climate in your area. Has it changed in your lifetime?  Did you expect the climate to change appreciably in your lifetime in your local climatic zone?

Allied to the concepts of tempo, amplitude -- over a human lifetime -- is the concept of differential effect. The theory of anthropogenic global warming predicts that if the appreciable increase of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will have differential effects by latitude, then the warming effect of the higher concentrations will be felt in the Arctic, and that CO2 will be found above 400pp, which is the estimated global average concentration at this time. It also predicts a larger release of methane from warming/melting permafrost, and that these concentrations will tend to 'pool' ...

Is the current bout of unusual warming in the Arctic something we can point to as having occurred before in recorded history? Is it a natural variation in climate that is simply going through a cycle that we don't understand?

I asked in another thread "what would it take to change your mind," and I answered it, by reference to the Arctic. 

I haven't had a single answer back  from anyone.  Does that mean that minds are unchangeable, or that folks just prefer not to talk about that threshold?

I don't know.  It could be that nothing would change a mind like Ellen's or Michael's or Jonathan's or Bob's -- but that doesn't make sense to me.  It could be that my question begs some other question, or is framed in a way that seems like a trap.

But I am genuinely curious -- for those who have thought about it, what would change your mind from a position of Skepticism or Lukewarmerism (or some nice way of saying Denial)?

Do the 'changes' in the Arctic mean much of anything to you and your sense of global warming?

Geological process porn!  (From the SIberian Times story "Trembling tundra - the latest weird phenomenon in Siberia's land of craters")

 

I am still waiting for the worthies of the IPCC to make a "hard prediction"   How about a date +- 25 years when Battery Park Manhattan will be underwater  at low tide.  

A genuine scientific theory is testable.  Which means  a prediction can be corroborated   or refuted empirically by a reproducible experiment.  

What I am seeing with the climate sensitivity models  is elaborate curve fitting. 

I have no doubt that the Arctic climate is warming up.  This has happened before.  When the Siberian Traps and the Deccan Traps  erupted.  During this events we had lava effusions  which lasted a million years  and most of the living species of earth were rendered extinct.  

There have been periods of the past  when the CO2 atmospheric concentration has been as high as 3000 ppm.  But life flourished.   

The alarmists who predict that the Earth will turn into Venus in the 22 nd century do not convince me./

There is a rather well written book which gives a view of earth climate change which is more consistent with thermodynamics (a genuine physical science which has yet to be empirically falsified).  

Please see:  https://www.amazon.com/Resilient-Earth-Science-Warming-Humanity/dp/143921154X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480427021&sr=8-1&keywords=the+resilient+earth

"The Resilient  Earth".  I would rate this book as lukewarmist.    I am a lukewarmist myself.  Yes, there are climatic regimes in which the air and sea temperatures are rising.  I do not believe the earth will turn into Venus until  the Sun exhausts its hydrogen fuel and starts to fuse helium.  At that point the Earth will no longer be in the goldilocks zone.  In the medium run before the sun runs out of hydrogen I expect there will be  at least one more hard ice age, with the glaciers coming as far south as New Jersey or Delaware. 

The quality of the current  climate sensitivity models  is somewhere between mediocre and shit. And the work on the temperature dynamics is not following the lines of genuine empirical physical science.   There is a  disturbing trend  not only in climate sensitivity models  but in basic science of matter and energy  that  is weighing the math too heavily and not doing enough empirically   This would be string theory and brane theory.    The mathematics is lovely  but there is a dearth of empirical support for these theories.  Many of the theorists are saying:  So what?  The math is so great, the theory must be true.  This is a reversion to the Greek  a priori disease.

Theories serve.   Fact rule.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah ...?

11 hours ago, Bob said:
11 hours ago, WSS said:

Is the current bout of unusual warming in the Arctic something we can point to as having occurred before in recorded history? Is it a natural variation in climate that is simply going through a cycle that we don't understand?

I asked in another thread "what would it take to change your mind," and I answered it, by reference to the Arctic. 

I haven't had a single answer back  from anyone. [...]

But I am genuinely curious -- for those who have thought about it, what would change your mind from a position of Skepticism or Lukewarmerism (or some nice way of saying Denial)?

Do the 'changes' in the Arctic mean much of anything to you and your sense of global warming?

I have no doubt that the Arctic climate is warming up.  

Thanks for entertaining a few of my questions.

Quote

This [Arctic warming] has happened before.  When the Siberian Traps and the Deccan Traps  erupted.  During this events we had lava effusions  which lasted a million years  and most of the living species of earth were rendered extinct.  

This was approximately 250.000,000 years ago. So, the us of the "We" were not yet evolved. I am sure the million-year effusion period was a boon for some kinds of life. Maybe bacteria. 

Quote

There have been periods of the past  when the CO2 atmospheric concentration has been as high as 3000 ppm.  But life flourished.  

You are not claiming that mammalians were around at that time of 3000ppm.  

If I understand correctly, the last time concentrations were that high and higher (as s measured/corroborated by proxy data) was about 500,000,000 years ago, near the Ordovician, some time before we built Venice, when life burgeoned in the oceans, fabulous sites of evolution, with true fishes emerging and other radiations of species marked in the extant fossil record.  Later extinguish in the Great Dying of the Permian-Triassic boundary. But hey.

The other thing you are not claiming is that the solar radiance was then the same these hundreds of millions of years ago as today -- or the last 80,000 years of human existence.

But it is an interesting point.  The last time CO2 concentrations were (estimated by proxies to be) at around 400ppm was 3,000,000 years ago. During that time, Arctic temperatures were (estimated at) around 10-15 Celsius warmer than today (against an estimated global average of 3 to 4 degrees C).  The sea levels at that time were over twenty metres higher than right now. 

Anyway, I don't think atmospheric CO2 is the sole driver of climate (temperatures), as solar irradiance has varied out of step with such GHG drivers.

Quote

The alarmists who predict that the Earth will turn into Venus in the 22 nd century do not convince me.

Me neither.  Venus in 200 years seems an unlikely position for a climate scientist to take. Who do you have in mind?

Quote

"The Resilient  Earth".  I would rate this book as lukewarmist.

Hmmm. What makes you reach for this book and not Spencer Weart's book?

Quote

 I am a lukewarmist myself.  

Goldilocks!

Up above somewhere is a link from Mike E, from the Mail on Sunday last, a story by David Rose -- reposted to Watts Up With That yesterday under a fresh headline: Steepest drop in global temperature on record There is a good discussion following it, with some sharp and not so sharp critiques.

What I found missing in the story was a link or mention of the actual scientific study (noted in Rose's story  like this ... "on its website home page yesterday, Nasa featured a new study"). Nowhere in the article at WUWT or the Mail on Sunday is a proper reference. So I wrote to Mr Rose on Twitter to ask him about the missing link -- the basis for his article. No answer back yet, though I and others have puzzled out the detail his editors left obscured.. 

Anyway, I follow Rose on Twitter and read through a spat between him and Jim Price (aka AndNowTheresPhysics).  Out of that spat came this all-camps tweet:

He sounds nice. And he sounds like a lukewarmer himself, with an addition of ADAPTATION and MITIGATION. 

I will report back from my query to the gentleman.

Here's something linked to from the Wikipedia article on the Siberia Traps and the Great Dying, a BBC show called The Day The Earth Nearly Died:

Quote

Synopsis 
The program features palaeontologists and other scientists as they try to find clues to the great extinction. In the program, it is argued that the Permian extinction came in 3 stages; the first was caused by volcanic activity in the great Siberian Traps. This is proposed to have caused global warming, which in turn killed much of the life on land. Second, it warmed up the sea, which killed much of the marine life. As the sea became warmer, the ocean floor released a massive amount of methane. As the methane reached the atmosphere, the earth became even warmer, which led to the extinction of even more lifeforms on land. In the program, the extinction is argued to have lasted less than 1 million years.

Transcript of the show here, and here a brief excerpt:

So it seems likely there were two Permian killers. The Siberian Traps did erupt, contributing first to a nuclear winter cooling effect (caused by dust) and and then to global warming (due to greenhouse gases). Over 40,000 years, some land animals gradually died out while life in the seas lived relatively calmly on, as the water temperature gently rose. Then the seas gave up their frozen methane. In just 5,000 years, there was massive loss of species from the world's oceans. In a third and final phase of the extinction, the Permian killer returned to stalk the land for another 35,000 years. By the end of that process, 95% of the Earth's species were extinct.

Blah.

 

Edited by william.scherk
Fixed attribution to
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is virtually nothing humans can do to wipe out life on this planet.  But there is plenty we can do  to make life tough or impossible for ourselves.

Life on earth has survived virtually everything nature has thrown at the planet.

Life on Earth will not be finished until the sun enters a very warm phase  about 1.5 billion years from now.  The sun will be hot enough to evaporate the oceans and life will perish in due course. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fiery doom of life on earth is such poetry in your hands, Bob. Earth warms up to rival today's love-furnace Venus by approximately point three gazillion years from now. It makes my lifespan about zero in comparison, so I am just glad like you that the beach is not creeping up to the level of my ass by morning, and that Canada can get cracking at the Arctic.

We are going to have all that former muskeg to homestead for the immigrants that America declines. Surely some Asian giant will want to buy our clean-burning methane as well as our LNG.

I posted in the wrong thrilling catastrophic show from the BBC. This is the right one, on the Great Dying. I am going to walk and think of end-stage entropy, which always cheers me up. All those zeros! Those dang government-funded scientists sure come up with it, don't They? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There is virtually nothing humans can do to wipe out life on this planet.  But there is plenty we can do  to make life tough or impossible for ourselves.

Life on earth has survived virtually everything nature has thrown at the planet.

Life on Earth will not be finished until the sun enters a very warm phase  about 1.5 billion years from now.  The sun will be hot enough to evaporate the oceans and life will perish in due course. 

I believe the sun is gradually warming and that complex life as we experience it will be gone in a few hundred million years. Say half a billion. There is also the "problem" of continents re-merging creating vast deserts inland from the ocean.

Human life on earth centered on cities is a mere ten-thousand year history. Not all that much more, if you think about it, than a human lifespan compared to this or that geological age. One of my grandfathers was born in 1871 and the other 1885. Was that really so long ago? What is so ancient about 1776? This--and Canada--is a young country. That is to say, compared to other countries all of which are, well, young.

We live in a physical world which moves so slowly it's hard to know it's moving at all. Our human world moves much faster. Humans are speed demons but because we are humans we only think of human things moving fast as we approach the end of our lives for we are then running out of time.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I believe the sun is gradually warming and that complex life as we experience it will be gone in a few hundred million years. Say half a billion. There is also the "problem" of continents re-merging creating vast deserts inland from the ocean.

Human life on earth centered on cities is a mere ten-thousand year history. Not all that much more, if you think about it, than a human lifespan compared to this or that geological age. One of my grandfathers was born in 1871 and the other 1885. Was that really so long ago? What is so ancient about 1776? This--and Canada--is a young country.

--Brant

The energy output of the sun (which includes heat) increases 10  - 12 percent every billion years.  The sun used to be cooler than it is currently and will be warmer in due course.  The big jump in temperature will occur when the hydrogen is mostly gone and the sun starts to fuse helium.  It will be much hotter then. In about 5 billion years the sun will expend in size, blow off its outer layers and become a white dwarf and it could stay in that state for a trillion years before it goes completely cold and  dark. The inner planets including earth and mars will be totally vaporized when the outer layers of the sun  engulf them.   Of course non of our descendants will be around to see that. If humans cannot figure a way to get to another star to live they will perish in the solar system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The energy output of the sun (which includes heat) increases 10  - 12 percent every billion years.  The sun used to be cooler than it is currently and will be warmer in due course.  The big jump in temperature will occur when the hydrogen is mostly gone and the sun starts to fuse helium.  It will be much hotter then. In about 5 billion years the sun will expend in size, blow off its outer layers and become a white dwarf and it could stay in that state for a trillion years before it goes completely cold and  dark. The inner planets including earth and mars will be totally vaporized when the outer layers of the sun  engulf them.   Of course non of our descendants will be around to see that. If humans cannot figure a way to get to another star to live they will perish in the solar system. 

The humans of a million years from now won't be much like us. If there be any.

Getting to another star? Only electronically reproduced once the spaceship finds a likely place.

I think, romantically, not too rationally, that this planet was seeded with DNA and that's why complex life evolved here--and that DNA also suffused the galaxy. Begs the question, still, of what created DNA? It's a variant of the what created God question except for existence as such there is no first cause. (Something from nothing is a contradiction in terms.) There has to be a circular process of creation and destruction (entropy) even though the Big Bang has fallen into some disrepute. Something ginned everything up so we could have entropy.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The humans of a million years from now won't be much like us. If there be any.

Brant,

This implies is a corollary of my point.

Why pay current-day scammers for something that will only start being a real problem hundreds of thousands of years or so from now?

Obviously, the scammers don't want to wait because they will be dead. But we--who they intend to scam--might want to keep our money while we are alive.

By the time this turns into a problem for real, we humans will either have blown ourselves to bits, or maybe, just maybe, decided there were better ways to make money than by scams, coercion, propaganda and obfuscating data. And maybe by then the scientific community will have grown an integrity muscle...

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Begin blah.

A clue to what the Pizzagate Satanic** Clintonists think they can get away with, from Politico: How Donald Trump Should Handle Climate Policy.

Quote

Instead of choosing one side or the other, Trump should “triangulate” between Republican and Democratic policies. This independent approach to climate protection would acknowledge the veracity of basic climate science and the government’s role in incentivizing emissions reductions but also involve relaxing some Obama-era regulations hated by the right. Such actions would garner support — and some opposition — from liberals and conservatives alike, a classic middle-of-the-road tactic.

The political and policy payoff for such boldness could be transformative, helping to improve Trump’s dubious reputation with key audiences, at home and abroad, not to mention helping the climate itself.

The question is: Does Trump have the vision and political imagination to capture this opportunity?

If he does, it’s possible to sketch out a potential path by looking at policies that both sides have supported — and that align with Trump’s own campaign goals. This would start with retaining a number of existing policies that earn a spot for their profound economic benefits alone. 

Not entirely comprehensive, but some strategic detail -- besides briefing what so-called progressives have accomplished on this front over thirty years (or since the Reagan-era Montreal Protocol), it also serves as navigation aid for a Trump-side  brain-trust.  His economic advisers, and his Treasury dudes, due to their Wall Street citizenship, will reflect economic consequence to the new President -- of each tranche of climate-related policy. As Jerry might say, its complexicated. As another might say, Blah, blah. And blah.

The Clintonist article does not mention such as gutting NASA's gaziillion and a half budget for climate-studies. We will within a year or so know how the new administration comes to terms with its responsibilities in these multiple areas.  I think Mr Trump will think hard about his main goals -- to make America the great dynamo of invention and manufacture. So, when an economically-important directive or bill comes to his desk (eg,  'incentives' for cutting-edge nuclear power plants detailed in the article), I figure he will go for it, even if it offends purists from either party in Congress.  I think he will think long and hard about the dominance of the USA as reigning scientific powerhouse.

I do hope he guts NASA, since we are always looking for well-educated and skilled immigrants. I think Trudeau would happily accept the newly expelled from government employment, maybe taking all 25,000 as a special kind of economic refugee.  

Or not.  

The other thing to note from the article are the pendant and projected legal challenges accompanying law and regulation. As a wheeler-dealer ,the new President can probably knock enough heads together to get the gen.

End blah. Resume being churlish. Here is the article made into  soup:

climateContinent.png

____________________________

** Snatched from the jaws of ...

About 159,000 results (0.59 seconds) 
 
Search Results
Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil Degrasse BrantTyson Gaede wrote: The humans of a million years from now won't be much like us. end quote

I think there are two key arguments against your proposition.

ELE’s. One is that there will be nearly extinction level events that will drive survival of the fittest global actions and genetic mutations will be established in the genome that will “carry on” no matter what. If my genes work I will reproduce superior offspring. The only outwardly visible change won't be Vulcan ears but it might be bigger heads and more muscle mass, but still within what is considered human.  

The other factor is genetic engineering in the lab and the nursery. I have no doubt that humans will seek to destroy bad seeds in the gene pool and improve on the good genes. No more genetically transmitted abnormalities. Smarter humans, stronger,  decreasingly less self-destructive or violent towards others, and perhaps happier humans. No deliberate attempts will be made to make these critters look different though I think we will see better looking humans. 

One other factor could be colonizing other planets in our solar system. We could engineer people to live on Mars or the asteroids or even in space with space colonies that spin to produce simulated gravity. Lower gravity could cause taller, thinner humans. 

However, we will still be humans, just one or two evolutionary steps up the tree. We will look human and be better humans, but we will still read the classics on our Samsung head sets.

We are family.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Peter said:

Neil Degrasse BrantTyson Gaede wrote: The humans of a million years from now won't be much like us. end quote

I think there are two key arguments against your proposition.

ELE’s. One is that there will be nearly extinction level events that will drive survival of the fittest global actions and genetic mutations will be established in the genome that will “carry on” no matter what. If my genes work I will reproduce superior offspring. The only outwardly visible change won't be Vulcan ears but it might be bigger heads and more muscle mass, but still within what is considered human.  

The other factor is genetic engineering in the lab and the nursery. I have no doubt that humans will seek to destroy bad seeds in the gene pool and improve on the good genes. No more genetically transmitted abnormalities. Smarter humans, stronger,  decreasingly less self-destructive or violent towards others, and perhaps happier humans. No deliberate attempts will be made to make these critters look different though I think we will see better looking humans. 

One other factor could be colonizing other planets in our solar system. We could engineer people to live on Mars or the asteroids or even in space with space colonies that spin to produce simulated gravity. Lower gravity could cause taller, thinner humans. 

However, we will still be humans, just one or two evolutionary steps up the tree. We will look human and be better humans, but we will still read the classics on our Samsung head sets.

We are family.

Peter

More hair!

That's all I want.

Got enough brains. Maybe too much.

--Brant

and an android doll

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of which reminds me of a joke.  Professor Gott at Princeton taught a course in astrophysics  (P403)  and during a lecture he said the Sun would completely destruct in five billion years and become a white dwarf.   Well later that night a student called Prof. Gott  at about 3.AM  waking him up.  "What is it?"  Gott asked.  The called said. "I am a student who attended your lecture his morning.  How long did you say it would take for the Sun to self destruct?"   Gott answered "Five billion years".  The student said "Oh!  Thank God!.   I thought you said five million years!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

All of which reminds me of a joke.  Professor Gott at Princeton taught a course in astrophysics  (P403)  and during a lecture he said the Sun would completely destruct in five billion years and become a white dwarf.   Well later that night a student called Prof. Gott  at about 3.AM  waking him up.  "What is it?"  Gott asked.  The called said. "I am a student who attended your lecture his morning.  How long did you say it would take for the Sun to self destruct?"   Gott answered "Five billion years".  The student said "Oh!  Thank God!.   I thought you said five million years!"

Funny--funnieeeeee!!!!!

--Ho, ho, ho

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mikee said:

Stephen Molyneux interviews William Happer (another Princeton Physics guy): Global warming debunked

And ... ?  

I mean, I don't know your views on the interview. I don't know if you watched/listened to it. I did by turning up the speed and turning on the captions. 

Here's a sample of recent newsy headlines from Skeptical Science:

Quote

Thu, Dec 1, 2016

Fri, Dec 2, 2016

Sat, Dec 2, 2016

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

And ... ?  

I mean, I don't know your views on the interview. I don't know if you watched/listened to it. I did by turning up the speed and turning on the captions. 

"I don't know if you watched/listened to it."- Of course I watched it.

"I don't know your views on the interview." -  I agree completely with the premise:

***GLOBAL WARMING DEBUNKED***

Of course, I've thought it was bunk for many years.  I think somewhere around 27 minutes they talk about the belief in global warming being "tribal",  I agree.  Practically anyone I've had a conversation with about it talks about other peoples views..."999 million scientists can't be wrong"...etc, no personal thought or even reasoned speculation about any of the so called theories and "models" the "predictions" are based on.

Based on my experience with computer modeling:  I've used computer programs to simulate the behavior of complex electronics circuit designs for perhaps 30 years.  They get better and better, mainly because many multi billion dollar companies in desperate competition with each other are racing to get products to the market and circuit simulators speed up the process dramatically.  But they still produce errors, you have to actually build the product and test it to know if it will work to specifications.  And testing the prototypes always reveals a fault which requires design changes.  Then you have pilot runs which are tested and usually more tweaks to the design.  Then a beta release, more feedback and more tweaks.  And a circuit board is a very constrained environment, all of the physics of each device is well known.  Many of the components have upwards of 50 variables in their models. The simulations don't tell you exactly what building a real product will tell you about your design.  You can still have nightmares like just happened to Samsung and their Galaxy 7 release.  Making a computer simulation of 100 years of climate on the earth and pretending you can make real predictions I think is nonsense on stilts.  Most academics suffer from the same malady as politicians, they've never had a real job.  There are very notable exceptions, some of whom I've met.  But I doubt those individuals are on your side of this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Mike, for taking the time. 

Is there anyone on what you call "my side" whose opinions (or scientific work) you respect? As you know, I spent several weeks following and reporting on the APS statement -- and was especially interested in the Workshop cited back a few pages (which link I will insert). In that workshop were six well-known scientists (in the broad field of climatology): Isaac Held, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Ben Santer and William Collins. It was a fascinating and not-too technical discussion between the six. You might be interested in the presentation by Collins, which begins on page 17.  He is one of the people in the world who constructs climate models. His interactions with the 'other side' are civil, even friendly, especially between him and Curry. 

In another post I laid out what I foresee that will change my opinions about Anthropogenic Global Warming, by reference to the Arctic. In your mental models of the issue, is there something that will tend to convince you to alter or update/change your opinions?  The more general question would be, is discussion worthwhile for you, on this issue, on this topic? Or are you done with 'my side'?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mikee said:

"I don't know if you watched/listened to it."- Of course I watched it.

"I don't know your views on the interview." -  I agree completely with the premise:

***GLOBAL WARMING DEBUNKED***

Of course, I've thought it was bunk for many years.  I think somewhere around 27 minutes they talk about the belief in global warming being "tribal",  I agree.  Practically anyone I've had a conversation with about it talks about other peoples views..."999 million scientists can't be wrong"...etc, no personal thought or even reasoned speculation about any of the so called theories and "models" the "predictions" are based on.

Based on my experience with computer modeling:  I've used computer programs to simulate the behavior of complex electronics circuit designs for perhaps 30 years.  They get better and better, mainly because many multi billion dollar companies in desperate competition with each other are racing to get products to the market and circuit simulators speed up the process dramatically.  But they still produce errors, you have to actually build the product and test it to know if it will work to specifications.  And testing the prototypes always reveals a fault which requires design changes.  Then you have pilot runs which are tested and usually more tweaks to the design.  Then a beta release, more feedback and more tweaks.  And a circuit board is a very constrained environment, all of the physics of each device is well known.  Many of the components have upwards of 50 variables in their models. The simulations don't tell you exactly what building a real product will tell you about your design.  You can still have nightmares like just happened to Samsung and their Galaxy 7 release.  Making a computer simulation of 100 years of climate on the earth and pretending you can make real predictions I think is nonsense on stilts.  Most academics suffer from the same malady as politicians, they've never had a real job.  There are very notable exceptions, some of whom I've met.  But I doubt those individuals are on your side of this issue.

global warming is real.  The earth has been warming up since the end of The Little Ice Age (1300-1850 c.e).  Some studies  say the human produce CO2 effluence does not account for more that 0.3 C opf t he  1.2 C  rise  in atmospheric temperature since   1850.   After an Ice Age or a cold snap  the Earth becomes warmer for mostly natural reasons.  Human CO2 effluence cannot account for more than a small part of the increase. Sooner or later the Earth will enter another cooling period or the resumption of glaciation,  the mark of a real ice age.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2016 at 8:45 PM, Mikee said:

Something like another Maunder Minimum (absence of sunspot activity)   could trigger another cold snap,  All that it required is  a few decades  of late cool summers that would excite a positive feed back loop of increasing albedo.  Short cool summers leads to lots of snow fall which leads to increased albedo (reflectivity) and even more snowfall and so on. Another ice age or elongated cool spell would be no  fun, but it would not be an extinction event.   A long period of cold weather would lead to crop failures,  higher death rates in the temperate and polar regions etc.   A lot of people might die but at least they will be able to resume winter ice festivals on the Thames river such as existed during the Little Ice Age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, I agree.  Global warming is real.  So is Global cooling.  You can measure it, you can't predict it with any accuracy and CO2 is not the major player, the Sun is.  There are unknown variables and unknown feedback mechanisms.  I also think you'd have to model dozens of interacting systems moving and changing constantly in unpredictable ways, truely chaotic.  What is predictable is the effect on human progress and thriving a completely command driven world wide socialist political system would produce.  A ten thousand year dark ages.  Imagine a world president Clinton or Bush number 250.  Or Kim Jong-il #1000...

So much for my dream of a trillion human highly advanced scientific community living in the Oort cloud for a million years...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2016 at 5:38 PM, Mikee said:

The data was contained in relatively fresh additions to a satellite dataset.

Which one was used in the Daily Mail article? Well, according to author Rose, the NASA satellite measurements of "global surface temperatures over land." As it turns out, he was slightly mistaken about this being a NASA product. It is from Remote Sensing Systems, which is a private company that offers products. From their "Measurements" page, "RSS currently provides 10 different data products based on microwave sounding measurements."

Okay, which one?  The Mail article does not say, and the graph with the article has no  attribution. There is a clue followed by readers and confirmed by Rose on Twitter -- he populated his graph with data from the product called TLT -- which signifies Total Lower Tropospheric Temperature. 

In other words, NOT 'surface temperatures.' An important distinction.  As the crew at RSS puts it: 

TLT is constructed by calculating a weighted difference between MSU2 (or AMSU5) measurements from near limb views and measurements from the same channels taken closer to nadir, as can be seen in Figure 2 for the case of MSU. This has the effect of extrapolating the MSU2 (or AMSU5) measurements lower in the troposphere, and removing most of the stratospheric influence. Because of the difference involves measurements made at different locations, and because of the large absolute values of the weights used, additional noise is added by this process, increasing the uncertainty in the final results. 

So, here is the graph from Rose:

rose_graph.jpg

This is a depiction of the matching data from RSS:

rsstltland_box.jpg

Why do we care?  Doesn't the total lower troposphere temperature measure something noteworthy?  Yes, I think so, and especially when compared to other products based on the same ensemble of satellite readings (those details some other time).

Why we care is because of the trend.  Not simply fluctuations due to cyclical variability, but the direction in which the lower troposphere readings are heading. In Rose's graph, he has not included a trend line.  Here is the TLT rendered data with a trend line:

rsstltland_trend.jpg

-- remember, this is atmospheric temperature over land only.  It is definitely interesting in context, but not what Rose claims. Rose has taken two points to claim that a new trend is upon us.

rsstltland_rose.jpg

Somebody might ask "do these particular points reported by the deprecated TLT version correspond well to the other products?"  The answer is no. 

To a less overwrought point, I would be in agreement with Rose:  in the absence of a strong El Nino, at the end of the oscillation, we should expect a relative flattening of the short-term trend.  To my mind it is to be expected. The El Nino phenomenon will tend to drive up  beyond the trend over a short term. The El Nino coming to an end does not mean, however, that global warming is over. 

Well, that's the way I see it, after puzzling over the issue with Rose himself directly and with a few other skeptics.  Even at the best 'Skeptic' blog, WUWT, commentators have pointed out the misleading aspects of the article.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, right?

Wrong, in terms of discussion writ large, but in a sense quite true. When strong or sweeping claims are made, there is most often a critical reaction.  This is how issues of fact and import can be resolved, at least in theory. For me, hearing from one 'side' only is a doorway to error.

Weather porn!  From Climate Reanalyzer:

02climateReanalyzerDec4th.png

 

 

Link to post
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

×
×
  • Create New...