Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies

From	Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.misc, alt.usage.english
Subject	Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies
Date	2025-09-29 18:17 -0400
Message-ID	<bmtldk9it07hg19i2r6q3ub7ccgf0ugv70@4ax.com> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <10bbfvk$2d348$2@dont-email.me> <tpaqqlxq7u.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <10be5vp$32fs3$1@dont-email.me> <85cldkpsu9ii87ur5q4ndc2a8ercbn4mad@4ax.com> <10behdj$35i1j$4@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 18:59:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 29/09/2025 17:54, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2025 15:44:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
>>> twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
>>> globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree,
>> 
>> That sounds like Lindzen in 2007, between el ninos.
>> 
>> However, Lindzen is an actual GOOD scientist of the atmosphere.
>> Climate deniers have few scientists on their side, of any specialty.
>> ]
>No one denies climate.
>No one denies climate changes.
>
>The people who are in denial are the one who (dont) think (without 
>questioning it):
>
>- there is a  'perfect' climate
>- we are not at it

Wow!  I don't where you got that. It wasn't from environmentalists
that I've been reading for 50 years. 

>- human activity is the dominant reason. Original sin. Now CO2.

The Religious content I'm aware of was voiced mainly in the 1990s,
by Change deniers. E.g.,  "God siad he wouldn't wipe us out again."  

>- today's climate is 'bad' and getting  'worse'

Pragmatically, Humans continue to add CO2.  The easy consequence
(warming)  was predicted in the late 1800s. So, yes, while levels of 
CO2 continue to go up, we get "climate change" which is disruptive, 
plus the long range outcome (200 years) of flooding the cities where 
most humans live.  

Most discussions ignore the oceans: The surfaces are warming and
becoming more acidic.  Reefs are dying.  I read a book about the
Sixth Extinction that talkied about oceans. 

Ending the INCREASE in CO2 is the first step toward REDUCING the
fossil fuel contributions toward zero. Or otherwise removing CO2?

>- we can actually do something about it, when nothing has ever made it 
>change in the past.

Defeatist, much?  Humans probably made a desert of the Sahara by
over-grazing goats; that lesson is applied on a smaller scale to 
create green areas.  Humans have driven hundreds of species to 
extinction, and regarding those losses as lesson is what led to 
preservation efforts that are not yet total failures. 

>
>The whole think is like the Creation myth and the Garden Of Eden - 
>perfection spolt by human activity shame and self awareness.

Yeah, in a warped way.  My environmental readings omit religion. 
Humans built cities on coasts.  Rising CO2 eventually implies rising 
waters, and which flood those cities in a not-distant future. We  
Woke folk have the capacity to recognize, "Mistakes are being made."  

Immediate consequences are from storm damages. The fact that
storms seem more frequent and stronger might be a lucky accident
of these early years in a long term disastrous trend. That is, it 
could be harder to win allies if storms happened to have become
more moderate. "Extra water" from the warming of the oceans 
is part of "stronger hurricanes" since they wander over waters
that are warmer than they used to be. 

me >
>> If you read about it, his contrarian theory allows for a few decades
>> of warming, before the increased water vapor at high altitudes causes
>> heat to start leaking, eventually erasing 45 years of increases.
>> 
>>>                                  and,
>>> on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
>>> projections combined into implausible chains of inference,
>> 
>> I believe the more accurate summary would be, "on the basis
>> of simple linear extrapolations of present trends, ignoring
>> complications that COULD arise, and are not entirely implausible."

<snip some>

>The point is that the actual dynamics of climate are  best represented 
>by the integration of non linear partial derivatives of the Navier 
>Stokes equations of fluid dynamics. And the reasons we still use wind 
>tunnels is because the best computer programs we have a crap at 
>modelling turbulent flow.
>Over 50% of the heat lost from the earths surface is via convection - 
>turbulent flow.
>
>No climate model does more than make broad assumptions about this. 
>That's point one.

Yeah, I was glib when I said, "simple linear extrapolations...".  The 
form that they use for models includes non-linearities.  In my own
(simpler) statistical practice, I almost always could reduce 
computations to a linear model by incorporating transformations. 

But my point was, I went on to say, "complications... are not entirely
implausible."  I admitted that Lindzen has a chance of being right. 
I admit the existence of "unknown unknowns" -- and see a few lines 
down. 

>Point 2 is that the only way to get scary future projections is by 
>introducing positiove feedback that makes the whole climate unstable.

NO.  Pesent emissions are large and matter, no "feedback" required. 
Feedback?  The Wikipedia article on Lindzer mentions at least one 
serioius proposal (I know there are several, trivial) where a 
suggested useful, negative feedback proved on detailed modeling 
to have positive feedback instead. 

(Trivial argument: Won't increased water vapor make things cooler? 
negative feedback? 
Answer: No.  Water vapor itself is a potent Greenhouse gas and
increases the warming.  Positive feedback.) 

< snip; stuff I can't make sense of >

>                           ... but temperature is not tracking 
>CO2 exactly. At best you can say that CO2 is steadily rising but tempera 
>tire rises is nothing like steady.

Simple model: heat absorbed stored by oceans, released periodically 
to the atmosphere (el nino). "Temporary increas" was a better argument
in 2007. 

>
>The intelligent assumption is that there is no 'positive feedback' and 
>that something else is going on.

It seems to me that you have some badly mistaken impression
of the meaning of 'positive feedback.'  

<snip>

-- 
Rich Ulrich

Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Floppies The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 12:20 +0100
  Re: Floppies "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 13:42 +0200
    Re: Floppies The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 13:36 +0100
      Re: Floppies Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 15:24 +0100
        Re: Floppies The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 17:23 +0100
        Re: Floppies Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-23 09:51 -0700
        Re: Floppies "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-28 14:29 +0200
      Re: Floppies "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-28 14:25 +0200
        Re: Floppies Silvano <Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> - 2025-09-28 14:45 +0200
          Re: Floppies Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-29 02:30 +0200
            Re: Floppies Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-28 18:15 -0700
              Re: Floppies c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-28 23:17 -0400
              Re: Floppies The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-29 10:15 +0100
              Meta: Off-topic cross-posts (was: Re: Floppies) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-29 11:05 +0100
                Re: Meta: Off-topic cross-posts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-29 11:38 +0100
                Far Right = Conservative Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-30 07:06 +0200
                Re: Far Right = Conservative c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-30 01:17 -0400
              Re: Floppies "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 14:27 +0200
                Re: Floppies Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-09-30 06:24 +0200
                Re: Floppies "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-30 09:41 +0200
        Re: Floppies The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 15:16 +0100
          Re: Floppies "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 14:31 +0200
            Re: Floppies The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-29 15:44 +0100
              climate change, was Re: Floppies Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2025-09-29 12:54 -0400
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 19:14 +0200
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-29 19:00 +0100
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 21:54 +0200
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-29 21:11 +0100
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2025-09-29 17:02 -0400
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-29 18:59 +0100
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2025-09-29 18:17 -0400
                Re: climate change Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-30 00:14 +0100
                Re: climate change rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-30 02:42 +0000
                Re: climate change The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-30 10:15 +0100
                Re: climate change Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-09-30 21:11 +1000
                Re: climate change Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-01 03:53 +0000
                Re: climate change Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2025-09-30 02:08 -0400
                Re: climate change Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-09-30 16:46 +1000
                Re: climate change The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-30 10:18 +0100
                Re: climate change Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2025-09-30 23:09 -0400
                Re: climate change ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2025-10-01 04:03 +0000
                Re: climate change The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2025-10-04 15:06 -0400
                Re: climate change The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-05 10:05 +0100
                Re: climate change rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-30 20:55 +0000
                Re: climate change "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-01 09:59 +0200
                Re: climate change The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-30 10:13 +0100
                Re: climate change Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2025-09-30 19:50 -0400
                Re: climate change Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-10-01 11:36 +1000
                Re: climate change Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2025-09-30 22:32 -0400
                Re: climate change Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2025-10-01 15:01 +1000
                Re: climate change The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-01 09:17 +0100
                Re: climate change Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2025-10-01 15:45 -0400
                Re: climate change Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-01 17:33 -0700
                Re: climate change The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-02 11:44 +0100
                Re: climate change The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-02 11:40 +0100
                Re: climate change The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-10-01 09:16 +0100
                Re: climate change Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-01 09:41 -0700
                Re: climate change Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-10-01 03:53 +0000
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-30 10:00 +0100
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-30 13:20 +0200
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-30 12:50 +0100
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-30 02:31 +0000
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-30 09:54 +0200
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-30 20:52 +0000
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-01 00:30 +0200
                Re: climate change, was Re: Floppies The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-30 10:27 +0100
  Re: Floppies Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2025-09-23 21:36 +0100

csiph-web