Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #630134 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-22 22:38 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-05-03 10:03 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 172 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 22:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 15:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-22 22:58 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 16:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:01 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 18:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 01:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 14:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 14:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 10:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 15:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 10:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-30 18:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 11:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 18:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 18:54 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:14 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 19:39 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:23 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:24 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:26 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-10 21:42 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-10 23:11 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-11 15:23 +0100
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
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 14:34 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 13:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 15:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-05-06 10:40 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 14:56 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:04 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:25 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 20:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 20:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:06 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:03 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 15:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 17:17 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 17:22 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 14:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:22 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 18:30 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:49 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:40 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:16 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:15 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:43 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:46 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 01:02 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 18:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 01:47 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 19:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 08:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:30 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 10:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:54 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 19:37 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-05-06 22:09 +0200
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-05-06 16:19 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 20:28 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 22:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 15:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-21 14:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:33 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:36 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:43 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:45 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:54 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 19:16 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:13 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:42 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-23 00:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:16 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-02 22:07 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 14:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 01:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 18:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 15:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 10:03 -0700
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5334758.A3C98%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632099 |
On 5/6/17, 6:32 AM, in article op.yztjw4ubjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> So you really have nothing to say to support your comments about climate >>>> change. OK. >>> >>> Yes, climate varies. >> >> Again, not in contention. > > If you agree it varies, you won't be worrying about us changing it then will > you? Another straw man from you. 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. Pretty much you are saying you think the Earth is flat because you figured out that when you look out your window you do not see a curve other than a hill, and that if people can accept the curve comes from a hill there is no reaoson to think the Earth is (basically) round. -- 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>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 12:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <W3IPA.30518$sS7.12250@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #632110 |
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. Have a good day. -- Best, Wolf K https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com "What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 17:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oenkq5$v7g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632227 |
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/antarctic-ice-has-set-an-unexpected-record-and-scientists-are-struggling-to-figure-out-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." I suspect an over reaction to every data set that points towards what one seeks to find. > > Have a good day. > It's a nice day too. Kinda cool for May :) -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 11:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <m2mugcl6q5l9lq5kri478f6mecp3kcm0sh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #632231 |
On Sun, 7 May 2017 17:16:53 -0000 (UTC), Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> 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/antarctic-ice-has-set-an-unexpected-record-and-scientists-are-struggling-to-figure-out-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." > >I suspect an over reaction to every data set that points towards what >one seeks to find. > >> >> Have a good day. >> > >It's a nice day too. >Kinda cool for May :) Get yer foli hat on big fella.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 17:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oenn5t$v7g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632232 |
On Sun, 07 May 2017 11:24:57 -0600, Beezel Bub, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On Sun, 7 May 2017 17:16:53 -0000 (UTC), Sprang ><spring@sprung.invalid> 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/antarctic-ice-has-set-an-unexpected-record-and-scientists-are-struggling-to-figure-out-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." >> >>I suspect an over reaction to every data set that points towards what >>one seeks to find. >> >>> >>> Have a good day. >>> >> >>It's a nice day too. >>Kinda cool for May :) > > > Get yer foli hat on big fella. I'm surprised I can wear it. :) Remember the global alarmists saying the Atlantic was gonna have increased intensity and frequency tropical systems? Didn't pan out. So then, they changed it to increased intensity, decreased frequency. Didn't pan out. Now it's increased intensity, but they won't hit land. Until one does, then yell TOLD YA. Reminds me of the religious people with the cardboard placards warning of the 2000 years return of Christ very soon, real soon, maybe tomorrow. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 14:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <WKJPA.79411$jP5.36201@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #632246 |
On 2017-05-07 13:57, Sprang wrote: [...] > Remember the global alarmists saying the Atlantic was gonna have increased > intensity and frequency tropical systems? > Didn't pan out. [...] Actually, I don't recall that. https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/ Another article demonstrating the typical scientist's attempt to resist confirmation bias: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28389-did-climate-change-set-the-scene-for-hurricanes-like-patricia/ And a neat graphic: https://www.flickr.com/photos/idvsolutions/7840356344/sizes/l/in/photostream/ -- Best, Wolf K https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com "What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oenpei$gm0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632260 |
On Sun, 7 May 2017 14:32:19 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 2017-05-07 13:57, Sprang wrote: > [...] >> Remember the global alarmists saying the Atlantic was gonna have increased >> intensity and frequency tropical systems? >> Didn't pan out. > [...] > > Actually, I don't recall that. > > https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/ > > Another article demonstrating the typical scientist's attempt to resist > confirmation bias: > https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28389-did-climate-change-set-the-scene-for-hurricanes-like-patricia/ > > And a neat graphic: > https://www.flickr.com/photos/idvsolutions/7840356344/sizes/l/in/photostream/ I'll probably *try* and look at some of that, but not today ;) Be forewarned: You won't sway me. More people *work* in the field of climatology, meteorology than at any time in the past. No doubt all kinds of crap is being reported on. :) -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D534C955.A3EBF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632261 |
On 5/7/17, 11:36 AM, in article oenpei$gm0$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 7 May 2017 14:32:19 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 2017-05-07 13:57, Sprang wrote: >> [...] >>> Remember the global alarmists saying the Atlantic was gonna have increased >>> intensity and frequency tropical systems? >>> Didn't pan out. >> [...] >> >> Actually, I don't recall that. >> >> https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-re >> cords/ >> >> Another article demonstrating the typical scientist's attempt to resist >> confirmation bias: >> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28389-did-climate-change-set-the-scene >> -for-hurricanes-like-patricia/ >> >> And a neat graphic: >> https://www.flickr.com/photos/idvsolutions/7840356344/sizes/l/in/photostream/ > > I'll probably *try* and look at some of that, but not today ;) > Be forewarned: > You won't sway me. Of course... you have an agenda to push socialism of the cost of use of ancient stores of carbon. Your political desire for socialism will override your willingness to accept science. > More people *work* in the field of climatology, meteorology than at any time > in > the past. > No doubt all kinds of crap is being reported on. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oeo4tr$nnp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632274 |
On Sun, 07 May 2017 12:53:41 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 5/7/17, 11:36 AM, in article oenpei$gm0$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sun, 7 May 2017 14:32:19 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 2017-05-07 13:57, Sprang wrote: >>> [...] >>>> Remember the global alarmists saying the Atlantic was gonna have increased >>>> intensity and frequency tropical systems? >>>> Didn't pan out. >>> [...] >>> >>> Actually, I don't recall that. >>> >>> https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-re >>> cords/ >>> >>> Another article demonstrating the typical scientist's attempt to resist >>> confirmation bias: >>> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28389-did-climate-change-set-the-scene >>> -for-hurricanes-like-patricia/ >>> >>> And a neat graphic: >>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/idvsolutions/7840356344/sizes/l/in/photostream/ >> >> I'll probably *try* and look at some of that, but not today ;) >> Be forewarned: >> You won't sway me. > > Of course... you have an agenda to push socialism of the cost of use of > ancient stores of carbon. Your political desire for socialism will override > your willingness to accept science. You're bat-shit crazy if you think I support socialism. Being a stay at home Mom is taking a toll on you, is it? :) > >> More people *work* in the field of climatology, meteorology than at any time >> in >> the past. >> No doubt all kinds of crap is being reported on. :) > > -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 15:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D534E79D.A3F06%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632285 |
On 5/7/17, 2:51 PM, in article oeo4tr$nnp$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: ... >>> I'll probably *try* and look at some of that, but not today ;) >>> Be forewarned: >>> You won't sway me. >> >> Of course... you have an agenda to push socialism of the cost of use of >> ancient stores of carbon. Your political desire for socialism will override >> your willingness to accept science. > > You're bat-shit crazy if you think I support socialism. Denial of climate science is pushing that the cost of using ancient stores of carbon should be pushed onto society as a whole and not covered by those who use it. Denial does not change the fact that what you are doing is supporting socializing these costs. > Being a stay at home Mom is taking a toll on you, is it? :) Do not get the reference. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 11:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D534BC84.A3E83%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632246 |
On 5/7/17, 10:57 AM, in article oenn5t$v7g$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> It's a nice day too. >>> Kinda cool for May :) >> >> >> Get yer foli hat on big fella. > > I'm surprised I can wear it. :) > > Remember the global alarmists saying the Atlantic was gonna have increased > intensity and frequency tropical systems? > Didn't pan out. > > So then, they changed it to increased intensity, decreased frequency. > Didn't pan out. > > Now it's increased intensity, but they won't hit land. > > Until one does, then yell TOLD YA. > > Reminds me of the religious people with the cardboard placards warning of > the 2000 years return of Christ very soon, real soon, maybe tomorrow. You pick and choose what you think some scientists have said, without reference, in an effort to denounce science. And you see no issue with that. Odd. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 14:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vxJPA.16606$jO6.14157@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #632231 |
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/antarctic-ice-has-set-an-unexpected-record-and-scientists-are-struggling-to-figure-out-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-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains Secondly, the unexpected record is record low sea ice. Unexpected because it's sudden. > 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?): “It’s going to be a record low minimum no matter what happens right now, it’s just a matter of, how low do we go,” Serreze said Monday. “It could be any day now.” (The ice is even lower now than it was when we spoke.) >> 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). -- Best, Wolf K https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com "What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 18:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oenooi$drg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632253 |
On Sun, 7 May 2017 14:18:00 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: > 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/antarctic-ice-has-set-an-unexpected-record-and-scientists-are-struggling-to-figure-out-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-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains > > Secondly, the unexpected record is record low sea ice. Unexpected > because it's sudden. And a record HIGH in October 2014. > >> 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?): > “It’s going to be a record low minimum no matter what happens right now, > it’s just a matter of, how low do we go,” Serreze said Monday. “It could > be any day now.” (The ice is even lower now than it was when we spoke.) > After a record HIGH in 2014. I *read* it, too :) >>> 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). I see an ocean almost daily :) Back in the 70's, marshgrass was planted on the ocean side of a sea wall. All the grass is still visible, though high tide covers it, as it has since the 70"s. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 15:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <LpKPA.11726$9o7.4231@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #632258 |
On 2017-05-07 14:24, Sprang wrote: > On Sun, 7 May 2017 14:18:00 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: [...] >> Secondly, the unexpected record is record low sea ice. Unexpected >> because it's sudden. > > And a record HIGH in October 2014. Which is why the record low is a puzzle. Very quick change from one extreme to the other. [...] >> Where are you located? (Within 100 miles, I don't really want to know >> your address). > > I see an ocean almost daily :) > Back in the 70's, marshgrass was planted on the ocean side of a sea wall. > All the grass is still visible, though high tide covers it, as it has > since the 70"s. I live on Lake Huron, which has gone from near-record low five years ago to near-record high this year. -- Best, Wolf K https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com "What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 19:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oensu6$s1m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632271 |
On Sun, 7 May 2017 15:18:00 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 2017-05-07 14:24, Sprang wrote: >> On Sun, 7 May 2017 14:18:00 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: > [...] >>> Secondly, the unexpected record is record low sea ice. Unexpected >>> because it's sudden. >> >> And a record HIGH in October 2014. > > Which is why the record low is a puzzle. Very quick change from one > extreme to the other. Right. It is a puzzle. Makes one wonder if the extremes only get coverage when they affirm what people want to see. > > [...] >>> Where are you located? (Within 100 miles, I don't really want to know >>> your address). >> >> I see an ocean almost daily :) >> Back in the 70's, marshgrass was planted on the ocean side of a sea wall. >> All the grass is still visible, though high tide covers it, as it has >> since the 70"s. > > I live on Lake Huron, which has gone from near-record low five years ago > to near-record high this year. > I have no doubt we are in a warming period. I just doubt it's man-made only, and end-of-the-world severe. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D534CC3B.A3ECB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632272 |
On 5/7/17, 12:35 PM, in article oensu6$s1m$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 7 May 2017 15:18:00 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 2017-05-07 14:24, Sprang wrote: >>> On Sun, 7 May 2017 14:18:00 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> [...] >>>> Secondly, the unexpected record is record low sea ice. Unexpected >>>> because it's sudden. >>> >>> And a record HIGH in October 2014. >> >> Which is why the record low is a puzzle. Very quick change from one >> extreme to the other. > > Right. > It is a puzzle. > Makes one wonder if the extremes only get coverage when they affirm what > people want to see. The data is available and many, many people see it -- and scientists write peer reviewed articles on it. >> [...] >>>> Where are you located? (Within 100 miles, I don't really want to know >>>> your address). >>> >>> I see an ocean almost daily :) >>> Back in the 70's, marshgrass was planted on the ocean side of a sea wall. >>> All the grass is still visible, though high tide covers it, as it has >>> since the 70"s. >> >> I live on Lake Huron, which has gone from near-record low five years ago >> to near-record high this year. > > I have no doubt we are in a warming period. > I just doubt it's man-made only, and end-of-the-world severe. What is this doubt based on when all evidence points to it being, at least largely, caused by man's actions? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oenqa7$j1v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632253 |
On Sun, 7 May 2017 14:18:00 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: > 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/antarctic-ice-has-set-an-unexpected-record-and-scientists-are-struggling-to-figure-out-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-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains Oh, I missed out on this. I have been meaning to comment, and to do so as only a rude American can :) Why the fuck is NASA being funded to do this crap? National Aeronautic and Space Administration. Either do space shit, or get defunded. Think *Mars*, not questionable ice measurements from space. _-End Rant-_ for now. > > Secondly, the unexpected record is record low sea ice. Unexpected > because it's sudden. > >> 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?): > “It’s going to be a record low minimum no matter what happens right now, > it’s just a matter of, how low do we go,” Serreze said Monday. “It could > be any day now.” (The ice is even lower now than it was when we spoke.) > >>> 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). > -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 12:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D534BF93.A3E9D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632263 |
On 5/7/17, 11:50 AM, in article oenqa7$j1v$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: ... >>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/01/antarc >>> tic-ice-has-set-an-unexpected-record-and-scientists-are-struggling-to-figure >>> -out-why/> >>> >>> From the article: >>> >>> "Indeed, the overall Antarctic sea ice trend, bucking climate change >>> expectations, has been a slight increase over time, rather than a >>> shrinkage." >> >> Firstly, the NASA report referenced in the article states that >> "Globally, sea ice is diminishing despite Antarctic gains". >> https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminish >> ing-despite-antarctic-gains > > Oh, I missed out on this. > I have been meaning to comment, and to do so as only a rude American can :) > > Why the fuck is NASA being funded to do this crap? > National Aeronautic and Space Administration. > Either do space shit, or get defunded. > Think *Mars*, not questionable ice measurements from space. > > _-End Rant-_ for now. They work with many areas of science, and to understand other planets they also use the tools they develop on this one. Why would they not? ... -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oentn3$vhe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632269 |
On Sun, 07 May 2017 12:12:03 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 5/7/17, 11:50 AM, in article oenqa7$j1v$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/01/antarc >>>> tic-ice-has-set-an-unexpected-record-and-scientists-are-struggling-to-figure >>>> -out-why/> >>>> >>>> From the article: >>>> >>>> "Indeed, the overall Antarctic sea ice trend, bucking climate change >>>> expectations, has been a slight increase over time, rather than a >>>> shrinkage." >>> >>> Firstly, the NASA report referenced in the article states that >>> "Globally, sea ice is diminishing despite Antarctic gains". >>> https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminish >>> ing-despite-antarctic-gains >> >> Oh, I missed out on this. >> I have been meaning to comment, and to do so as only a rude American can :) >> >> Why the fuck is NASA being funded to do this crap? >> National Aeronautic and Space Administration. >> Either do space shit, or get defunded. >> Think *Mars*, not questionable ice measurements from space. >> >> _-End Rant-_ for now. > > They work with many areas of science, and to understand other planets they > also use the tools they develop on this one. Why would they not? Haha. Yeah, the climate department getting pretty big. Funny that. News Flash!! ... global warming caused by satellites!! LOL. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D534C9A7.A3EC8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632273 |
On 5/7/17, 12:48 PM, in article oentn3$vhe$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 07 May 2017 12:12:03 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 5/7/17, 11:50 AM, in article oenqa7$j1v$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/01/anta >>>>> rc >>>>> tic-ice-has-set-an-unexpected-record-and-scientists-are-struggling-to-figu >>>>> re >>>>> -out-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-dimini >>>> sh >>>> ing-despite-antarctic-gains >>> >>> Oh, I missed out on this. >>> I have been meaning to comment, and to do so as only a rude American can :) >>> >>> Why the fuck is NASA being funded to do this crap? >>> National Aeronautic and Space Administration. >>> Either do space shit, or get defunded. >>> Think *Mars*, not questionable ice measurements from space. >>> >>> _-End Rant-_ for now. >> >> They work with many areas of science, and to understand other planets they >> also use the tools they develop on this one. Why would they not? > > Haha. > Yeah, the climate department getting pretty big. > Funny that. > News Flash!! ... global warming caused by satellites!! > LOL. What? Really the issue here is if we should socialize the costs of ancient stores of carbon. I say NO... you say we should. But as with most pushing that form of socialism you will use excuses instead of being direct. -- 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>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web