Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #106554

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/7/17, 11:18 AM, in article vxJPA.16606$jO6.14157@fx41.iad, "Wolf K"
<wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-05-07 13:16, Sprang wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 May 2017 12:38:12 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this:
>>> On 2017-05-06 12:26, Snit wrote:
>>>> [...]Keep in mind that, as far as you have shown,
>>>> NONE of the scientific disciplines that show evidence of man-made global
>>>> climate change have ignored the fact that the climate has changed in the
>>>> past, nor have any of the major models left that out.
>>> 
>>> Our school received Science, the AAAS journal, because the science dept
>>> head was a member. Around 1975 +/-, Science published a special issue on
>>> weather and climate modelling. One group reported that on some runs
>>> their model showed a major climate change within a couple of centuries
>>> instead of 5,000 years and up, as had been deduced from the climate
>>> record in ice cores, tree rings, lake bottom sediments, etc. the usual
>>> rate of change was around 50,000 to 100,000 years. The authors figured
>>> there was something wrong with their model, but couldn't figure out
>>> what. But they did say that if the model was substantially correct, then
>>> ideas about how fast the climate could change would have to be revised.
>>> And that changes in average temperatures etc that were showing up in the
>>> long-term weather records might be early warning signs of climate change.
>>> 
>>> Kindly note how cautious they were. They did not want to believe that
>>> their model was correct, because the results conflicted with everything
>>> they believed they knew about the climate.
>>> 
>>> Since then, weather and climate models have become much more powerful.
>>> E.g., we expect 3-day weather forecasts to be accurate. When I was
>>> growing up, we expected a the morning's 1-day forecast to change by
>>> evening. The climate models have incorporated more historical data, and
>>> more feedback loops. The chaotic nature of the whole system has become
>>> more apparent: Major changes in a variable have little effect until a
>>> tipping point is reached, and then even a small change in that variable
>>> tips the whole system into a different state.
>>> 
>>> The climate can indeed change within a couple 100 years. I think it's
>>> happening.
>>> 
>>> FYI, here's the latest news on a slow-motion disaster:
>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39779761
>>> 
>>> When the Larsen ice-shelf breaks up, there will be more open sea. Ice
>>> reflects heat from the sun, open sea absorbs heat. The Antarctic seas
>>> will warm up. That will speed up disintegration of the ice-shelves,
>>> which will create even more open water, and even warmer seas around
>>> Antarctica. That will result in warmer weather over the continent, which
>>> will speed up melting of the Antarctic ice pack. Just how fast the whole
>>> process will take is, as they say, "not well understood." But it's a
>>> feedback loop. The ice pack will melt ever more quickly, raising
>>> sea-levels by several meters.
>>> 
>>> I suspect even JWS and Sprang know how a feedback loop behaves.
>> 
>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/01/antarct
>> ic-ice-has-set-an-unexpected-record-and-scientists-are-struggling-to-figure-o
>> ut-why/>
>> 
>> From the article:
>> 
>> "Indeed, the overall Antarctic sea ice trend, bucking climate change
>> expectations, has been a slight increase over time, rather than a shrinkage."
> 
> Firstly, the NASA report referenced in the article states that
> "Globally, sea ice is diminishing despite Antarctic gains".
> https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishi
> ng-despite-antarctic-gains
> 
> Secondly, the unexpected record is record low sea ice. Unexpected
> because it's sudden.

The game is to grab some very select data, found by scientists, and claim
this proves scientists cannot be trusted.

It is utter nonsense.

>> I suspect an over reaction to every data set that points towards what
>> one seeks to find.
> 
> Yes, that's confirmation bias. Which is why you quoted that sentence,
> and apparently didn't bother checking the reference. And why the
> climatologists of 40-some years ago were unwilling to believe the model
> that indicated a very rapid climate change was possible. And why most of
> them have been unwilling to link any one severe weather event to climate
> change. Or even an unprecedented string of severe weather events, for
> that matter.
> 
> See, scientists know that when it comes to complex systems,
> probabilities is the best they can offer. The fact that most
> climatologists now speak of climate change as a current fact should make
> you pause for reflection. Especially when they still express their
> forecasts as probabilities.
> 
> For example, every prediction about the rate of Arctic climate changes
> (eg, the extent of summer and winter sea ice) has understated what then
> actually happened a few years later. "If present rates continue", as
> they say, there will be zero Arctic summer ice by somewhere between 2050
> and 2100. Probably closer to 2050.
> 
> Article about both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. Study the graphs.
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2118093-global-sea-ice-is-at-lowest-level
> -ever-recorded/
> 
>  From the WashPost article you referenced (did you read the whole thing?
> Really?):
> ³It¹s going to be a record low minimum no matter what happens right now,
> it¹s just a matter of, how low do we go,² Serreze said Monday. ³It could
> be any day now.² (The ice is even lower now than it was when we spoke.)

Nothing to add other than to note very well worded. Thank you.

>>> Have a good day.
>>> 
>> 
>> It's a nice day too.
>> Kinda cool for May :)
> 
> Where are you located? (Within 100 miles, I don't really want to know
> your address).


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 14:32 +0100
  Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:26 -0700
    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 12:38 -0400
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:16 +0000
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> - 2017-05-07 11:24 -0600
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:57 +0000
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 14:32 -0400
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:36 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:53 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 21:51 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 15:02 -0700
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:59 -0700
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 14:18 -0400
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:24 +0000
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 15:18 -0400
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:35 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 13:06 -0700
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:50 +0000
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:12 -0700
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:48 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:55 -0700
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:56 -0700
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:57 -0700
    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-08 00:09 +0100
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:24 -0700

csiph-web