APS and the Global Warming Scam


Recommended Posts

Climate is NOT weather. Weather is short term conditions. Climate is long term trends in the state of the atmosphere and the oceans. The ice age lasted 100,000 years. Last winter's snow storm lasted a day or two.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Quote

Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "place, zone"; and -λογία, -logia) is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.[1]

I expected better than that from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate is NOT weather. Weather is short term conditions. Climate is long term trends in the state of the atmosphere and the oceans. The ice age lasted 100,000 years. Last winter's snow storm lasted a day or two.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Quote

Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, "place, zone"; and -λογία, -logia) is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.[1]

I expected better than that from you.

I quote you "over a period of time" The periods that establish climate range from decades to thousands of years.

We can predict weather at most 10 - 12 days in advance. That is because weather is a manifestation of chaotic dynamics in atmospheric conditions. Climate is established over -long- periods of time.

There is more to climate than just the current temperature and humidity. Secondary and Tertiary cosmic ray input affect the formation of clouds. Then there are orbital variations. Then there are variations in the heat and light cycle of the sun. These are what establish climatic trends. Then there is the layout of the land which affects ocean currents. When Antartica broke away from Pangea and water could circulate freely around it this affected the ocean conveyor currents. When the neck of land from North America joined to South America (this is central America now) it cut off ocean currents and caused world wide changes in the halocline conveyors --- the major currents such as the gulf stream. This is the stuff of climate.

Your knowledge of the matter is shallow and superficial. Go learn some stuff then come back and pontificate.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, be nice, she is not too bright.

Her ability to string an argumennt on AGW from a correct premise and support the argument with scientific evidence is limited at best.

AGW is the global law and any contrary evidence is:

1) unscientific;

2) politically motivated;

3) an outright lie; etc. etc.

Pretty pathetic actually.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quote you "over a period of time" The periods that establish climate range from decades to thousands of years.

We can predict weather at most 10 - 12 days in advance. That is because weather is a manifestation of chaotic dynamics in atmospheric conditions. Climate is established over -long- periods of time.

There is more to climate than just the current temperature and humidity. Secondary and Tertiary cosmic ray input affect the formation of clouds. Then there are orbital variations. Then there are variations in the heat and light cycle of the sun. These are what establish climatic trends. Then there is the layout of the land which affects ocean currents. When Antartica broke away from Pangea and water could circulate freely around it this affected the ocean conveyor currents. When the neck of land from North America joined to South America (this is central America now) it cut off ocean currents and caused world wide changes in the halocline conveyors --- the major currents such as the gulf stream. This is the stuff of climate.

Your knowledge of the matter is shallow and superficial. Go learn some stuff then come back and pontificate.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Long" is not a well-defined time-scale. Climate, as the definition plainly says, is "weather conditions averaged over time." First of all, note the word "averaged". Weather conditions by contrast are instantaneous (theoretically).

Note also that the time is not restricted to any range of time-intervals. Theoretically, you could study weather patterns over a 10-second range and call it a "climate", but such short time intervals are too chaotic for us to really say anything about them. Nonetheless, the relatively short time interval does not make the average temperature over a ten-second interval of a weather system the same thing as its temperature at any instant. They are simply too very different kinds of variables.

Your knowledge of the matter is shallow and superficial. Go learn some stuff then come back and pontificate.

You claimed that the climate models in the mainstream are unfalsifiable in an earlier post, and I'm still waiting for your brilliant demonstration of that "fact". On top of that, any of my opponents in this thread have yet to challenge even a single AGW claim on empirical grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, be nice, she is not too bright.

Her ability to string an argumennt on AGW from a correct premise and support the argument with scientific evidence is limited at best.

AGW is the global law and any contrary evidence is:

1) unscientific;

2) politically motivated;

3) an outright lie; etc. etc.

Pretty pathetic actually.

A...

Where is all this supposed evidence? Not one person here has presented even a single thing so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, be nice, she is not too bright.

Her ability to string an argumennt on AGW from a correct premise and support the argument with scientific evidence is limited at best.

AGW is the global law and any contrary evidence is:

1) unscientific;

2) politically motivated;

3) an outright lie; etc. etc.

Pretty pathetic actually.

A...

Where is all this supposed evidence? Not one person here has presented even a single thing so far.

The effect of the oceanic conveyors (the major currents) is documented up the ying yang.

The Gulf Stream and the northern Atlantic conveyor is the major reason why the Thames does not freeze every winter.

The current around Antarctica is why the middle of Antiarctica is so cold. The Antarctic Ice is not melting fast like the Greenland Glacier.

Why not read a book or ocean current, cloud formation and the the effect of plate tectonics on climate.

Visit your library soon and often.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is all this supposed evidence? Not one person here has presented even a single thing so far.

That is a lie.

You have a great argument with your other personalities.

You just lied and you have not provided studies.

I am done.

I will post studies, however you are incapable of argumentation so I won't argue.

I am actually ecstatic that you are arguing for AGW, because your incompetence will only chase people away so they can actually look at reality.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He never said what the WSJ article claims he did. The whole thing is pure fabrication.

Naomi,

Actually I'm glad you said this because I didn't recall the Wall Street Journal being mentioned except in passing. And this made me look closer than I normally would have.

So what did the WSJ claim that Bengtsson said that you say he never said and is "pure fabrication"?

Well, let's look.

Here is the only 2014 article in the WSJ I found that came up in a Google search with Bengtsson's name.

Scientific Authoritarians

The case for skepticism about climate scientists.

By James Taranto

May 15, 2014

Wall Street Journal

Here is one passage that deals with Bengtsson (it's the second of two passages and I'm stating it first to get it out of the way since it is not very controversial).

London's Daily Mail reports that Bengtsson "was also abused on science blogs, with one describing the people who condemned him as 'respectable' and that his actions amounted to 'silliness.' Another described him as a 'crybaby.' "

Bengtsson tells the Mail: "Some people like my views, other people don't, that is the way when it comes to science."

That couldn't be the part you claim Bengtsson never said, the part that was "pure fabrication." Besides, this isn't something he said to WSJ. He said it to London's Daily Mail and James Taranto merely quoted the Daily Mail.

Here is the other passage (I put the part quoted from National Review in italics because the forum software goes nuts with indents in quotes--in the original it is indented):

Here, from National Review's Patrick Brennan, is the latest reason to distrust the authority of "consensus" climate scientists:

On May 8, Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climate scientist and meteorologist, joined the advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group that questions the reliability of climate change and the costs of policies taken to address it. While Bengtsson maintains he'd always been a skeptic as any scientist ought to be, the foundation and climate-change skeptics proudly announced it as a defection from the scientific consensus.

Less than a week later, he says he's been forced to resign from the group. The abuse he's received from the climate-science community has made it impossible to carry on his academic work and made him fear for his own safety. A once-peaceful community, he says in his resignation letter, now reminds him of McCarthyism.

"I had not expect[ed] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life," he wrote in his resignation. "Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship."

Once again, Bengtsson didn't say anything to WSJ. Taranto quoted the National Review instead. But I can see some things in the quote you would believe is "pure fabrication." Enormous world-wide pressure. Fear for his own safety. Colleagues withdrawing support and from joint authorship. McCarthyism. And so on.

Meaty stuff.

So you believe all this is false?

Fortunately, I happen to chase down links when I look at something like this and I decided to look at the article on the National Review's site to see where they came up with it:

Abuse from Climate Scientists Forces One of their Own to Resign from Skeptic Group after a Week: ‘Reminds Me of McCarthy’

By Patrick Brennan

May 14, 2014

The Corner

National Review

Lordy, Lordy, look what I found!

The resignation letter from the advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Bengtsson himself quoted in full. Here it is:

Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expect[ed] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson

All that from the horse's own mouth.

Every bit of it.

Granted, I did not see a source for this letter where I could confirm it, but are you claiming that this letter is "pure fabrication"? That an organization like the National Review would make up a fictional letter of resignation from a renowned scientist and publish it as fact?

You're acting like a true believer on this issue, but I have difficulty imagining even you could believe that.

So where is this "pure fabrication" in the Wall Street Journal you insist on?

Or in the National Review (a right wing rag) for that matter?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, be nice, she is not too bright.

Her ability to string an argumennt on AGW from a correct premise and support the argument with scientific evidence is limited at best.

AGW is the global law and any contrary evidence is:

1) unscientific;

2) politically motivated;

3) an outright lie; etc. etc.

Pretty pathetic actually.

A...

Where is all this supposed evidence? Not one person here has presented even a single thing so far.

The effect of the oceanic conveyors (the major currents) is documented up the ying yang.

The Gulf Stream and the northern Atlantic conveyor is the major reason why the Thames does not freeze every winter.

The current around Antarctica is why the middle of Antiarctica is so cold. The Antarctic Ice is not melting fast like the Greenland Glacier.

Why not read a book or ocean current, cloud formation and the the effect of plate tectonics on climate.

Visit your library soon and often.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Are you insinuating that ocean currents completely explain global warming? If so, then why not just state that belief upfront and provide supporting arguments and evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is all this supposed evidence? Not one person here has presented even a single thing so far.

That is a lie.

You have a great argument with your other personalities.

You just lied and you have not provided studies.

I am done.

I will post studies, however you are incapable of argumentation so I won't argue.

I am actually ecstatic that you are arguing for AGW, because your incompetence will only chase people away so they can actually look at reality.

A...

No it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He never said what the WSJ article claims he did. The whole thing is pure fabrication.

Naomi,

Actually I'm glad you said this because I didn't recall the Wall Street Journal being mentioned except in passing. And this made me look closer than I normally would have.

So what did the WSJ claim that Bengtsson said that you say he never said and is "pure fabrication"?

Well, let's look.

My mistake. It wasn't WSJ, I meant to say Investors.com, the link that Jonathan provided, i.e. this.

The part I claimed that is pure fabrication is the part:

Bengtsson, 79, quoted in the Daily Mail, said it was "utterly unacceptable" to advise against publishing a paper on political grounds. He called it "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views."

"The reality" of climate, he said, "hasn't been keeping up with the (computer) models."

Notice how they completely chop up the quote and "filled in the blanks" in a very convenient way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake. It wasn't WSJ, I meant to say Investors.com, the link that Jonathan provided, i.e. this.

The part I claimed that is pure fabrication is the part:

Bengtsson, 79, quoted in the Daily Mail, said it was "utterly unacceptable" to advise against publishing a paper on political grounds. He called it "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views."

"The reality" of climate, he said, "hasn't been keeping up with the (computer) models."

Notice how they completely chop up the quote and "filled in the blanks" in a very convenient way.

Naomi,

I am taking time off to spoonfeed you on how to do very simple research with Google.

Aren't you a big girl yet?

But once again, let me help you.

Notice that the article you linked to at Investors.com talked about the Daily Mail. They did not chop up any quote at all. They quoted the Daily Mail accurately.

It's tedious, but let's do it right and you will see for yourself. That's much better than turning your mind off and parroting a party line. First the article at Investors.com:

Climategate II And The Rise Of Climate McCarthyism

Investors.com

05/16/2014

(No author mentioned.)

From the article as printed, starting one paragraph before and extending one after the quote you gave (for the sake of showing the neighboring context):

The actions of this once-peaceful community, he wrote in his resignation letter, now reminded him of McCarthyism.

Bengtsson, 79, quoted in the Daily Mail, said it was "utterly unacceptable" to advise against publishing a paper on political grounds. He called it "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views."

"The reality" of climate, he said, "hasn't been keeping up with the (computer) models."

Judith Curry, climatologist and chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, says the campaign against Bengtsson "a disgraceful display of climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails."

Notice that the two paragraphs in the middle are exactly as you quoted. Granted, this article did not link to any Daily Mail article, but we are smart. Right? We are grown ups. We dig out our trusty Google helper. Notice that we take a phrase the article claims to quote from the Daily Mail and use that as our search text. (Clever us... :smile: )

What do we get?

Goodness me!

Lookee there!

We get an article from... tadaa!... the Daily Mail right there in the search results. I even linked to the same article in my post above, not that I expected anyone making accusations of "pure fabrication" to actually read it...

London's Daily Mail ...

But I digress. Here is the article:

Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause, claims professor

by BEN SPENCER

15 May 2014

Daily Mail

Here is an interesting tidbit from the article:

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.

‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.

The reason I mention this quote is to highlight the words, "he told the Times." Spencer is referring to The Times of London, as in the following article: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view by Ben Webster on May 16 2014. I presume for The Times to print what it did about Bengtsson, they interviewed him and can back their quotes up with a recording. Since we have to subscribe to The Times at the time of this posting in order to read that article, I did my old trusty routine with Google and came across the same article here on the The Global Warming Policy Foundation site--with a screenshot of the original article to boot. Quoting from The Times article:

Professor Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, said he accepted that emissions would increase the global average temperature but the key question was how quickly.

He added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.”

Now let's get back to the Daily Mail article and quote from there doing the one paragraph before and one (actually two) after routine:

The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.

He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the [computer] models.

‘If people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.’

Next year the UN hopes to broker an international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol which would impose legally binding targets on every country.

So how do they all compare? I'm going to make this even easier.

Your claim of butchered text from Investors.com: Bengtsson, 79, quoted in the Daily Mail, said it was "utterly unacceptable" to advise against publishing a paper on political grounds. He called it "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views." "The reality" of climate, he said, "hasn't been keeping up with the (computer) models."

The Daily Mail text: Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds. He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the [computer] models.

The Times text, from which this was based: He added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the [computer] models.

Well... there are minor variations between the different texts, but they all say the same thing. Where's the butchering? Where's the chop chop? Where's the "pure fabrication"?

In the baloney you are trying to put over on everyone?

I can't do this spoonfeeding for you each time you decide to preach propaganda and ape your echo chamber. After all, I have a life.

So please learn how to read correctly. You are intelligent enough to do that. At least I hope your error-laced bluster is due to laziness and vanity instead of comprehension...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do they all compare? I'm going to make this even easier.

Your claim of butchered text from Investors.com: Bengtsson, 79, quoted in the Daily Mail, said it was "utterly unacceptable" to advise against publishing a paper on political grounds. He called it "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views." "The reality" of climate, he said, "hasn't been keeping up with the (computer) models."

The Daily Mail text: Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds. He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the [computer] models.

The Times text, from which this was based: He added that it was “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the [computer] models.

Well... there are minor variations between the different texts, but they all say the same thing. Where's the butchering? Where's the chop chop? Where's the "pure fabrication"?

In the baloney you are trying to put over on everyone?

I can't do this spoonfeeding for you each time you decide to preach propaganda and ape your echo chamber. After all, I have a life.

So please learn how to read correctly. You are intelligent enough to do that. At least I hope your error-laced bluster is due to laziness and vanity instead of comprehension...

Michael

It's exactly as I've said before. If Bengtsson had indeed said something like "It is “utterly unacceptable” to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments", then why not quote him directly? Instead, the Times article puts the words in his mouth. You can make anybody say whatever you want, if the only thing you quote from them directly are the two words "utterly unacceptable".

EDIT: I never claimed that Investors.com butchered text from another article. I claimed that Bengtsson's own words were butchered and twisted in that quote.

He said as much in his own words, directly from his own mouth:

“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.

“I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters reviewer’s comments suggested (emphasis mine) his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence. Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers’ comments in full. I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work.

“I was surprised by the strong reaction from some scientists outside the UK to joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation this month. I had hoped that it would be platform to bring more common sense into the global climate debate.

“Academic freedom is a central aspect to life at University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.”

It's clear here that Bengtsson was merely concerned about how the reviewer's comments might be interpreted. Not that they were in fact motivated by politics, but that it might come off that way. If this is the case, then the whole premise of the Times article is based on a falsehood.

However, you then claimed the man said the above because he was "scared". Scared of what? The above paragraph does not support that view unless you already assume that he was being intimidated into saying the above. In short, your belief that there is something more to this story than another case of yellow journalism is based on nothing more than your own prejudices and confirmation bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, you then claimed the man said the above because he was "scared". Scared of what? The above paragraph does not support that view unless you already assume that he was being intimidated into saying the above. In short, your belief that there is something more to this story than another case of yellow journalism is based on nothing more than your own prejudices and confirmation bias.

You have reached my tolerance for foolishness for one day.

Your capacity to blank out posts--like the dude's resignation letter and interviews--that are right in front of you eyes is either the result of a hopelessly corrupted conceptual faculty or simple garden variety dishonesty.

Neither serve for me. The precious minutes and hours of my life are not to be wasted on garbage like what you are doing.

Personally I now believe you are playing a game to see how far you can push nonsense and get away with it on OL. So I'm back in mulling over what to do about it mode.

One thing is for sure. The intellectual bar will be raised from your kindergarten level to the adult level, with you or without you.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, you then claimed the man said the above because he was "scared". Scared of what? The above paragraph does not support that view unless you already assume that he was being intimidated into saying the above. In short, your belief that there is something more to this story than another case of yellow journalism is based on nothing more than your own prejudices and confirmation bias.

You have reached my tolerance for foolishness for one day.

Your capacity to blank out posts--like the dude's resignation letter and interviews--that are right in front of you eyes is either the result of a hopelessly corrupted conceptual faculty or simple garden variety dishonesty.

Neither serve for me. The precious minutes and hours of my life are not to be wasted on garbage like what you are doing.

Personally I now believe you are playing a game to see how far you can push nonsense and get away with it on OL. So I'm back in mulling over what to do about it mode.

One thing is for sure. The intellectual bar will be raised from your kindergarten level to the adult level, with you or without you.

Michael

The "resignation letter" is backed up by absolutely no one, not even Bengtsson himself, and his interviews reveal that the "abuse" he supposedly received amounted to nothing more than people calling him mean names on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, be nice, she is not too bright.

Her ability to string an argumennt on AGW from a correct premise and support the argument with scientific evidence is limited at best.

AGW is the global law and any contrary evidence is:

1) unscientific;

2) politically motivated;

3) an outright lie; etc. etc.

Pretty pathetic actually.

A...

Where is all this supposed evidence? Not one person here has presented even a single thing so far.

The effect of the oceanic conveyors (the major currents) is documented up the ying yang.

The Gulf Stream and the northern Atlantic conveyor is the major reason why the Thames does not freeze every winter.

The current around Antarctica is why the middle of Antiarctica is so cold. The Antarctic Ice is not melting fast like the Greenland Glacier.

Why not read a book or ocean current, cloud formation and the the effect of plate tectonics on climate.

Visit your library soon and often.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Are you insinuating that ocean currents completely explain global warming? If so, then why not just state that belief upfront and provide supporting arguments and evidence?

No. A lot of things determine global climate. Among which are the sun's energy output (it varies), orbital variations including axial tilt, cloud formation which is affected to some extent by cosmic radiation, various gaseous effusions from beneath the earth, dust concentration in the atmosphere, salt concentration which affects the various ocean conveyors etc. Not only that but the underlying dynamics of both weather and climate are non-linear and chaotic so very small variations can produce very large variations in out. There are also feed back loops among the various processes.

Bottom line: Climate and Weather is much more complicated than the basic physics of particles and fields.

At this juncture we do NOT have a solid theory of weather and climate (a result of the chaotic dynamics underlying both). We do have models but unfortunately they have to many parameters and be be twiddled to fit just about any data.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. A lot of things determine global climate. Among which are the sun's energy output (it varies), orbital variations including axial tilt, cloud formation which is affected to some extent by cosmic radiation, various gaseous effusions from beneath the earth, dust concentration in the atmosphere, salt concentration which affects the various ocean conveyors etc. Not only that but the underlying dynamics of both weather and climate are non-linear and chaotic so very small variations can produce very large variations in out. There are also feed back loops among the various processes.

Bottom line: Climate and Weather is much more complicated than the basic physics of particles and fields.

At this juncture we do NOT have a solid theory of weather and climate (a result of the chaotic dynamics underlying both). We do have models but unfortunately they have to many parameters and be be twiddled to fit just about any data.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So are living organisms, but that doesn't make the science of biology impossible. And we most certainly do have a solid theory of weather and climate, it's called "fluid dynamics". That they behave chaotically is no barrier to scientific investigation.

We do have models but unfortunately they have to many parameters and be be twiddled to fit just about any data.

Find me even a single example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "resignation letter" is backed up by absolutely no one, not even Bengtsson himself, and his interviews reveal that the "abuse" he supposedly received amounted to nothing more than people calling him mean names on the internet.

Has he denied this letter somewhere?

I would if someone made up a letter, said I wrote it, and published it in the mainstream. Just like the rest of humanity.

One more item of foolishness has been logged on your balance.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "resignation letter" is backed up by absolutely no one, not even Bengtsson himself, and his interviews reveal that the "abuse" he supposedly received amounted to nothing more than people calling him mean names on the internet.

Has he denied this letter somewhere?

I would if someone made up a letter, said I wrote it, and published it in the mainstream. Just like the rest of humanity.

One more item of foolishness has been logged on your balance.

Michael

Well, he hasn't even acknowledged its existence, so it's hard to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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