Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #507529 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-16 15:38 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-08-08 12:07 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 60 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 15:38 -0500
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-17 04:26 +0000
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:24 -0500
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 17:19 -0500
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-17 22:38 +0000
ah, interesting noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 16:07 -0700
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won't notice) Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 16:35 -0700
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-07-30 11:12 -0400
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-02 12:05 +0200
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 06:58 -0400
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2015-08-02 12:53 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 00:12 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-02 19:57 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 10:40 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 08:03 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:37 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:28 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:41 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 22:40 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 06:48 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 14:51 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 08:18 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 13:35 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-03 20:37 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-03 22:40 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 02:51 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 02:23 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:01 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 13:35 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 03:43 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 01:21 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-07 12:50 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-07 13:23 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:43 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-04 08:30 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 14:07 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 03:46 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-05 08:51 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-05 20:23 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-06 02:04 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 23:42 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-08 09:25 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 02:22 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-10 09:34 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 10:37 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:55 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 01:05 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-12 11:17 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-12 05:44 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-12 05:19 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:05 -0500
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-13 02:34 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 22:23 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 00:45 -0700
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-08-04 09:52 +0200
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-08-04 08:55 -0400
Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2015-08-04 19:28 -0400
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-08-08 10:56 -0400
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-08-08 15:19 +0000
Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 12:07 -0500
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 23:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <mn.2d8e7df83787931d.127094@snitoo> |
| In reply to | #511523 |
Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday: > On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote: > >> Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit : >>> Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions: >>> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/> >> >> CFACT >> >> CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers >> through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing >> because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret. >> >> :-) >> >> Now to the content of that link >> >> They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that >> says that >> >> <quote> >> we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real >> world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming >> <end quote> >> >> Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper... >> >> Mr Spencer just SAYS SO. > > Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right. > > You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you? > > >> Who is that guy? > > So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong. > > >> See: >> Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer >> https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm >> >> Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall >> Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and >> public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a >> libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also >> listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental >> Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization > > So? > > All you have is ad hom? > > Are you going to show those 73 models to be right? It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the displacement input is too large. Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate research. > Why not? Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right. > Do you agree they are wrong? > > If so, what are you whingeing about? All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being perfect is asinine. /dps -- "This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement, but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on top of him?" _Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 09:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <om0csa978ae94b4jd4plp0163vqvta4a1f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #511526 |
On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:42:37 -0700, Snidely wrote: >Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday: >> On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote: >> >>> Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit : >>>> Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions: >>>> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/> >>> >>> CFACT >>> >>> CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers >>> through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing >>> because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret. >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> Now to the content of that link >>> >>> They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that >>> says that >>> >>> <quote> >>> we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real >>> world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming >>> <end quote> >>> >>> Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper... >>> >>> Mr Spencer just SAYS SO. >> >> Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right. >> >> You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you? >> >> >>> Who is that guy? >> >> So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong. >> >> >>> See: >>> Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer >>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm >>> >>> Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall >>> Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and >>> public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a >>> libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also >>> listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental >>> Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization >> >> So? >> >> All you have is ad hom? >> >> Are you going to show those 73 models to be right? > >It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All >models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be >expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is >inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of >hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the >displacement input is too large. > >Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect >the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to >understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate >research. Which says something about the relevance of the "research" to the real world, doesn't it? >> Why not? > >Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right. > >> Do you agree they are wrong? >> >> If so, what are you whingeing about? > >All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is >right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as >the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being >perfect is asinine. So is looking to models instead of reality. Reality: no warming for 18+ years. The models told us the sky was falling and we were all gonna die.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 02:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <mn.508e7df878cfc4c7.127094@snitoo> |
| In reply to | #511878 |
On Saturday, Wally W. pointed out that ... > On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:42:37 -0700, Snidely wrote: > >> Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday: >>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote: >>> >>>> Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit : >>>>> Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions: >>>>> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/> >>>> >>>> CFACT >>>> >>>> CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers >>>> through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing >>>> because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret. >>>> >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> Now to the content of that link >>>> >>>> They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that >>>> says that >>>> >>>> <quote> >>>> we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real >>>> world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming >>>> <end quote> >>>> >>>> Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper... >>>> >>>> Mr Spencer just SAYS SO. >>> >>> Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right. >>> >>> You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you? >>> >>> >>>> Who is that guy? >>> >>> So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong. >>> >>> >>>> See: >>>> Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer >>>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm >>>> >>>> Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall >>>> Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and >>>> public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a >>>> libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also >>>> listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental >>>> Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" >>>> organization >>> >>> So? >>> >>> All you have is ad hom? >>> >>> Are you going to show those 73 models to be right? >> >> It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All >> models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be >> expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is >> inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of >> hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the >> displacement input is too large. >> >> Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect >> the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to >> understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate >> research. > > Which says something about the relevance of the "research" to the real > world, doesn't it? > > >>> Why not? >> >> Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right. >> >>> Do you agree they are wrong? >>> >>> If so, what are you whingeing about? >> >> All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is >> right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as >> the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being >> perfect is asinine. > > So is looking to models instead of reality. > > Reality: no warming for 18+ years. > > The models told us the sky was falling and we were all gonna die. As you walk across the sinkholes in the tundra, just keep saying "it's still frozen, it's still frozen". /dps -- There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 09:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <e2ahsats73fuqtorr224clrrfqu57rm3fo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #512362 |
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:22:50 -0700, Snidely wrote: >On Saturday, Wally W. pointed out that ... >> On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:42:37 -0700, Snidely wrote: >> >>> Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday: >>>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote: >>>> >>>>> Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit : >>>>>> Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions: >>>>>> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/> >>>>> >>>>> CFACT >>>>> >>>>> CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers >>>>> through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing >>>>> because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret. >>>>> >>>>> :-) >>>>> >>>>> Now to the content of that link >>>>> >>>>> They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that >>>>> says that >>>>> >>>>> <quote> >>>>> we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real >>>>> world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming >>>>> <end quote> >>>>> >>>>> Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper... >>>>> >>>>> Mr Spencer just SAYS SO. >>>> >>>> Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right. >>>> >>>> You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you? >>>> >>>> >>>>> Who is that guy? >>>> >>>> So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>>> See: >>>>> Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer >>>>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall >>>>> Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and >>>>> public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a >>>>> libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also >>>>> listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental >>>>> Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" >>>>> organization >>>> >>>> So? >>>> >>>> All you have is ad hom? >>>> >>>> Are you going to show those 73 models to be right? >>> >>> It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All >>> models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be >>> expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is >>> inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of >>> hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the >>> displacement input is too large. >>> >>> Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect >>> the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to >>> understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate >>> research. >> >> Which says something about the relevance of the "research" to the real >> world, doesn't it? >> >> >>>> Why not? >>> >>> Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right. >>> >>>> Do you agree they are wrong? >>>> >>>> If so, what are you whingeing about? >>> >>> All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is >>> right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as >>> the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being >>> perfect is asinine. >> >> So is looking to models instead of reality. >> >> Reality: no warming for 18+ years. >> >> The models told us the sky was falling and we were all gonna die. > >As you walk across the sinkholes in the tundra, just keep saying "it's >still frozen, it's still frozen". There were times in the past when it wasn't frozen. Was it a problem then?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 10:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <QG2yx.11127$jj4.3975@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #512390 |
On 08/10/2015 09:34 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:22:50 -0700, Snidely wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, Wally W. pointed out that ...
>>> On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:42:37 -0700, Snidely wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday:
>>>>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit :
>>>>>>> Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions:
>>>>>>> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CFACT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers
>>>>>> through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing
>>>>>> because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now to the content of that link
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that
>>>>>> says that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <quote>
>>>>>> we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real
>>>>>> world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming
>>>>>> <end quote>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr Spencer just SAYS SO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right.
>>>>>
>>>>> You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Who is that guy?
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> See:
>>>>>> Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer
>>>>>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall
>>>>>> Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and
>>>>>> public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a
>>>>>> libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also
>>>>>> listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental
>>>>>> Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic"
>>>>>> organization
>>>>>
>>>>> So?
>>>>>
>>>>> All you have is ad hom?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you going to show those 73 models to be right?
>>>>
>>>> It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All
>>>> models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be
>>>> expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is
>>>> inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of
>>>> hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the
>>>> displacement input is too large.
>>>>
>>>> Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect
>>>> the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to
>>>> understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate
>>>> research.
>>>
>>> Which says something about the relevance of the "research" to the real
>>> world, doesn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why not?
>>>>
>>>> Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you agree they are wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, what are you whingeing about?
>>>>
>>>> All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is
>>>> right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as
>>>> the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being
>>>> perfect is asinine.
>>>
>>> So is looking to models instead of reality.
>>>
>>> Reality: no warming for 18+ years.
>>>
>>> The models told us the sky was falling and we were all gonna die.
>>
>> As you walk across the sinkholes in the tundra, just keep saying "it's
>> still frozen, it's still frozen".
>
> There were times in the past when it wasn't frozen.
>
> Was it a problem then?
You just don't get it Wally. Even though the one universally accepted
rule of History is "The Certainty of Change", All those who believe in
"global warming" have the idea that somehow all change must be STOPPED!
Seas must be stopped from rising, glaciers stopped from receding, and
tundra stopped from ever thawing. If only they could get that mile of
ice back over top of my house! Maybe stopping all use of fossil fuels
could help? It's worth a try, right?
And HVAC calls ME the "kook"!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 13:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <mqaoai$dcd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #512404 |
On 8/10/2015 10:37 AM, benj wrote: > > And HVAC calls ME the "kook"! You, John, Bert, others -- Cut off one head, two more shall take its place. HAIL HYDRA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 01:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <mn.60417df853a0afac.127094@snitoo> |
| In reply to | #512390 |
Remember Monday, when Wally W. asked plainitively: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:22:50 -0700, Snidely wrote: > >> On Saturday, Wally W. pointed out that ... >>> On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:42:37 -0700, Snidely wrote: >>> >>>> Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday: >>>>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit : >>>>>>> Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions: >>>>>>> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/> >>>>>> >>>>>> CFACT >>>>>> >>>>>> CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers >>>>>> through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing >>>>>> because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret. >>>>>> >>>>>> :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Now to the content of that link >>>>>> >>>>>> They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that >>>>>> says that >>>>>> >>>>>> <quote> >>>>>> we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real >>>>>> world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming >>>>>> <end quote> >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper... >>>>>> >>>>>> Mr Spencer just SAYS SO. >>>>> >>>>> Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right. >>>>> >>>>> You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Who is that guy? >>>>> >>>>> So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> See: >>>>>> Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer >>>>>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall >>>>>> Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and >>>>>> public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a >>>>>> libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also >>>>>> listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental >>>>>> Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" >>>>>> organization >>>>> >>>>> So? >>>>> >>>>> All you have is ad hom? >>>>> >>>>> Are you going to show those 73 models to be right? >>>> >>>> It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All >>>> models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be >>>> expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is >>>> inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of >>>> hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the >>>> displacement input is too large. >>>> >>>> Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect >>>> the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to >>>> understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate >>>> research. >>> >>> Which says something about the relevance of the "research" to the real >>> world, doesn't it? >>> >>> >>>>> Why not? >>>> >>>> Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right. >>>> >>>>> Do you agree they are wrong? >>>>> >>>>> If so, what are you whingeing about? >>>> >>>> All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is >>>> right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as >>>> the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being >>>> perfect is asinine. >>> >>> So is looking to models instead of reality. >>> >>> Reality: no warming for 18+ years. >>> >>> The models told us the sky was falling and we were all gonna die. >> >> As you walk across the sinkholes in the tundra, just keep saying "it's >> still frozen, it's still frozen". > > There were times in the past when it wasn't frozen. > > Was it a problem then? Depends on point of view, doesn't it? If you're a plant or animal adapted to living in the cold, warm is bad for you, just like cold is bad for plants and animals adapted to living in the warm. Drastic changes in climate have tended to be accompanied by large-scale die-offs. /dps -- But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason to 'be happy.'" Viktor Frankl
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 11:17 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <mqf2v7$bkq$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #512931 |
Le 12/08/2015 10:05, Snidely a écrit : > Drastic changes in climate have tended to be accompanied by large-scale > die-offs. Never mind. Deniers work always by the same principle: 1) Do not go into the facts presented by the adversary 2) Invoke some very general principle that is a truism: always right. In this case they argue that change is always there. We know that, it is true, then... that gives the impression of having answered when, in fact, you haven't say anything of value. Another example in this discussion was when they say that we do not want to return to the Ice Age. Of course everyone agrees. And they give the impression of answering when, in fact, they don't. How could they? Yes, everything changes and humans could go extinct. That would be a great change isn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 05:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <vv4msahcvpr3o6uvb2r05c51eflutta8hg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #512938 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:17:44 +0200, jacob navia wrote: >Le 12/08/2015 10:05, Snidely a écrit : >> Drastic changes in climate have tended to be accompanied by large-scale >> die-offs. > >Never mind. Deniers work always by the same principle: > >1) Do not go into the facts presented by the adversary Which facts? >2) Invoke some very general principle that is a truism: always right. Actually, that is a tactic used often by greenies: fear the tautology (sometimes inverting cause and effect). For example: "Climate change causes greater frequency in extreme weather." Consider: 1. "Extreme weather" is weather that is not normal for the current climate. 2. If the climate is changing, its "normal" weather is changing. 3. The climate *can't* change unless there is a progression of what would have previously been perceived of as "extreme weather" for the region. QED as FUD. >In >this case they argue that change is always there. We know that, it is >true, then... that gives the impression of having answered when, in >fact, you haven't say anything of value. Other than to shine a light on the FUD. >Another example in this discussion was when they say that we do not want >to return to the Ice Age. Of course everyone agrees. And they give the >impression of answering when, in fact, they don't. How could they? Which is to say warming from current conditions is generally better than cooling from current conditions. So warming is not the catastrophe that greenies paint it to be. >Yes, everything changes and humans could go extinct. That would be a >great change isn't it? Actually, misanthropic greenies would be delighted if 90+ percent of *other* people died off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "kquirici@yahoo.com" <kquirici@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 05:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <e327c86f-1d19-4a02-ac49-58dff0a25d29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #512954 |
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 5:44:56 AM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:17:44 +0200, jacob navia wrote: > > >Le 12/08/2015 10:05, Snidely a écrit : > >> Drastic changes in climate have tended to be accompanied by large-scale > >> die-offs. > > > >Never mind. Deniers work always by the same principle: > > > >1) Do not go into the facts presented by the adversary > > Which facts? > > > >2) Invoke some very general principle that is a truism: always right. > > Actually, that is a tactic used often by greenies: fear the tautology > (sometimes inverting cause and effect). > > For example: "Climate change causes greater frequency in extreme > weather." > > Consider: > 1. "Extreme weather" is weather that is not normal for the current > climate. > 2. If the climate is changing, its "normal" weather is changing. > 3. The climate *can't* change unless there is a progression of what > would have previously been perceived of as "extreme weather" for the > region. > Consider: 1. "Extreme weather" is weather that is not normal for the current climate 2. if global warming is occurring there will be more weather that we would now consider "extreme" - for example, drought, number of serious hurricanes per season, extinction of species at a higher than normal rate, rise of ocean levels and endangerment of all coastal cities and possible huge expenses in protecting or moving them (of course that means that 'normal' will edge over towards what we now consider 'extreme' - that doesn't change the fact that it will suck) 3. global warming is occurring. 4. therefore there will be more extreme weather. QED as PVR (perfectly valid reasoning). Regards, Ken > QED as FUD. > > >In > >this case they argue that change is always there. We know that, it is > >true, then... that gives the impression of having answered when, in > >fact, you haven't say anything of value. > > Other than to shine a light on the FUD. > > >Another example in this discussion was when they say that we do not want > >to return to the Ice Age. Of course everyone agrees. And they give the > >impression of answering when, in fact, they don't. How could they? > > Which is to say warming from current conditions is generally better > than cooling from current conditions. > > So warming is not the catastrophe that greenies paint it to be. > > >Yes, everything changes and humans could go extinct. That would be a > >great change isn't it? > > Actually, misanthropic greenies would be delighted if 90+ percent of > *other* people died off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 08:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <X_-dna7tIJsa2VbInZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #512954 |
On 8/12/15 4:44 AM, Wally W. wrote: > Climate change causes greater frequency in extreme > weather. That, Wally, is a statistical fact--increasing global temperature does increase occurrences of extreme weather events. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 02:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <7jeosal88lq3jfdpjahqmr5e8d18g184er@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #512974 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:05:11 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote: >On 8/12/15 4:44 AM, Wally W. wrote: >> Climate change causes greater frequency in extreme >> weather. > > That, Wally, is a statistical fact--increasing global temperature > does increase occurrences of extreme weather events. Do you mean we saw that happen last millennium? Because there hasn't been any warming this millennium.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 22:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <mn.2d3f7df82d6ae253.127094@snitoo> |
| In reply to | #511350 |
Wally W. was thinking very hard : > On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 03:46:35 -0700, Snidely wrote: >> If you >> prefer to make predictions by waving your hands, wave your hands. > > Why do you assume we can make meaningful predictions a hundred years > into the future? Because we are no longer limited to making meaningful predictions of a hundred hours? Because both our ability to make measurements and the ability to handle large numbers of computational elements has been increasing at an enormous rate? Because both our macro and micro understanding of the processes has been increasing as we research the issues? >>> If Kym was on the other side, that would go in a sig. >>> >>> >>>> A place to start is discussed in Brian Hayes' >>>> article: >>>> <URL:http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/clarity-in-climate-modeling/1> >>> >>> >>> Or one might start here: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics Thermodynamics is, of course, a /model/ of how heat energy behaves. >> >> Okay, YOU provide a model, > > I don't want one. Why do you? What do you want to do with it? Do you > think you can scam the public purse with it? I'm not into scamming the public purse. I'm into having a future for my descendants. I'm into having a clue about the consequences of my actions, and the effect a change in one direction or another might have. Otherwise, I can just put a blindfold on and be surprised at everything that happens. /dps -- Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his precious heavy water. _The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 00:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <mn.202d7df89c8063f4.127094@snitoo> |
| In reply to | #511109 |
On Monday or thereabouts, benj declared ... > Fact: CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas: On a pound-for-pound basis, it is less effective than water vapor or methane. But the number of pounds put into the atmosphere in the last 200 years is ... huge. And not slowing. /dps -- The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild. <http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 09:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <mppqvk$5mm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #511109 |
Le 04/08/2015 08:23, benj a écrit : > No arguments? Everything you warmballers say is a lie. We refute each > and every one with references and you all pretend you've heard nothing. > And then simply dismiss anyone with proof as a "denier". http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150803083445.htm <quote> Glaciers melting faster than ever The World Glacier Monitoring Service, domiciled at the University of Zurich, has compiled worldwide data on glacier changes for more than 120 years. Together with its National Correspondents in more than 30 countries, the international service just published a new comprehensive analysis of global glacier changes in the Journal of Glaciology. In this study, observations of the first decade of the 21st century (2001-2010) were compared to all available earlier data from in-situ, air-borne, and satellite-borne observations as well as to reconstructions from pictorial and written sources. "The observed glaciers currently lose between half a metre and one metre of its ice thickness every year -- this is two to three times more than the corresponding average of the 20th century," explains Michael Zemp, Director of the World Glacier Monitoring Service and lead author of the study. "Exact measurements of this ice loss are reported from a few hundred glaciers only. However, these results are qualitatively confirmed from field and satellite-based observations for tens of thousands of glaciers around the world." Global glacier decline According to the international author team, the current rate of glacier melt is without precedence at global scale, at least for the time period observed and probably also for recorded history, as indicated also in reconstructions from written and illustrated documents. In addition, the study shows that the long-term retreat of glacier tongues is a global phenomenon. Intermittent re‐advance periods at regional and decadal scales are normally restricted to a subsample of glaciers and have not come close to achieving the Little Ice Age maximum positions reached between the 16th and 19th century. As such, glacier tongues in Norway have retreated by some kilometres from its maximum extents in the 19th century. The intermittent re-advances of the 1990s were restricted to glaciers in the coastal area and to a few hundred metres. In addition, the study indicates that the intense ice loss of the past two decades has resulted in a strong imbalance of glaciers in many regions of the world. "These glaciers will suffer further ice loss, even if climate remains stable," explains Michael Zemp. <end quote> There are no facts? NASA, National Geographic, the UN, all of them are just "warm ballers".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 08:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <89d1sap7qadq7kio93k643p895mlckco90@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #511127 |
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 09:52:27 +0200, jacob navia wrote: > Intermittent re?advance periods at regional and decadal >scales are normally restricted to a subsample of glaciers and have not >come close to achieving the Little Ice Age maximum positions reached >between the 16th and 19th century. This is a bad thing? Who wants a return to the conditions during the Little Ice Age?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 19:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on |
| Message-ID | <mprhoi$4q0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #511109 |
On 8/4/15 2:23 AM, benj wrote : > On 08/03/2015 02:37 PM, jacob navia wrote: >> Le 03/08/2015 19:35, benj a écrit : >>> Hey buster, get off your ASS and fix something WORTHWHILE instead of >>> trying to rob the poor with a massive energy tax. >> >> When they start like this I have won... They have NO ARGUMENTS any more, >> just insults. >> >> :-) >> >> Have a nice day everybody > > No arguments? Everything you warmballers say is a lie. We refute each > and every one with references and you all pretend you've heard nothing. > And then simply dismiss anyone with proof as a "denier". > > Fact: CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas: > > http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf CO2 still is a greenhouse gas and still changes climate. > Fact: Even head warmballer Dr. Hanson's "improved" warming data shows no > significant rise over nearly two decades. All screams of dire "warming" > for past decade have been total lies. > > http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISS2014.gif Climate change is not something that happens over such a short time interval. If you compare the past two decades to two decades a hundred years earlier then you see what's happening. > Fact: There is NO causality between CO2 levels and climate warming. In > fact there is not even correlation As shown by Temperature 1940-1970 > when CO2 went UP and Temperature went DOWN! > > http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/40-70GISS.htm Climate change is not something that happens over such a short time interval. If you look at the data over the past 150 years you see extremely significant correlation (a p-value of the regression of 10^-48). > And I could go on with record high levels of Antarctic ice and sea > levels and all the other lies. > > Why do all the liars here have to tell everyone they've "won". > "Winning" is what politicians do. Science is about truth. > > Come back little boy when you have some actual data with you. If you want data you can look at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt and http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt If you analyse that data you will find the p-value of 10^-48 mentionned above. But it isn't really necessary to do that. CO2 has been shown to be a greenhouse gas in the lab. If you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere you get global warming. > But no matter, if Congress is full of "deniers", our emperor will simply > pass the huge energy tax by decree. And so he has! But don't worry about > your big energy bills, It's simple. Just return to the simple life of > the middle ages and you can be a happy serf again! No need for that. It is possible to have lots of energy with little greenhouse gas. No need to stop progress, only a need to fight global warming. Alain Fournier
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 10:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mq5587$tr2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #510832 |
The Little Ice Age was pretty bad in Europe. According to this page, by an AGW supporter, millions died by dearth and famine due to the LIA in Europe: The Little Ice Age in Europe. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html Even if you suppose this was not global, it still was catastrophic for Europe and probably for most of the Northern Hemisphere, such as North America. Then IF as you argue human-caused global warming would mitigate its effects, then ironically AGW would be a *good* thing to have occurred. About the recent surface changes seen on other planets and Moons by astronomers, this is clearly even further outside the realm of expertise of climate scientists and we should trust their opinions on the issue even less. Bob Clark ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance in human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions, to discover life on another world. By commercial space, launch and spacecraft costs can be slashed by a factor of 10 or more. This would be a cost that could be financed privately. And at costs this low it can even be done at a profit: Low cost Europa lander missions. http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 12:53:11 PM UTC-4, Daniel S. Riley wrote: > "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> writes: > > The computer models describing current climate don't plug in a > > *continual* reduction in the solar output by 0.1% obviously because > > that hasn't been seen for 350 years. > > Actually, this has been modeled. Understanding past climatic changes > and how similar events would change modern climate has lot of interest. > Plus, this is far from the first prediction that we're heading for a new > "Maunder Minimum", so it's hard to understand why this prediction is > getting so much attention. We'll have to wait for the paper and > observations to see if Zharkova's model is any more successful. > > > Note also that since the Sun's irradiance at the Earth is about 1,000 > > W/m^2, a drop of 0.1% would be about 1 W/m^2, about twice as large as > > that heat imbalance you cite. > > > > And just as that heat imbalance over years can build up to increase > > the overall temperature, a *continual* heat drop will combine over > > several years to decrease the overall temperature. > > > > Also, the professor Zharkova presenting this new model of solar > > activity suggests actually the irradiance drop during the Little Ice > > Age was 3 W/m^2 and she infers the upcoming drop will be similar to > > this. > > > > IF the irradiance drop really is that great that would be far outside > > what the current models consider and would be well above what the > > current heat imbalance is. > > There's some apples vs. bushels of oranges problems here. > > First, irradiance and forcing aren't the same. TSI (irradiance) is the > radiation arriving at the disc defined by the earth's outline, forcing > is averaged over the surface and is reduced by the amount reflected back > into space. 3 W/m^2 drop in TSI comes out to around 0.5 W/m^2 drop in > solar forcing, about the same size as the current heat imbalance. See > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget > https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/mini-ice-age/ > > Secondly, the heat imbalance isn't the total AGW forcing, you might > think of it as the delayed component because the earth doesn't react > instantaneously to changes in forcing. Total change in AGW forcing > since 1970 is close to 2 W/m^2 and continuing to rise. A new grand > minimum might offset 25% of warming so far, likely less, consistent with > an offset of no more than -0.3C from the models. Warming would continue > since AGW forcing is continuing to grow, and, if Zharkova's model is > correct, we get a corresponding jump up after 3 solar cycles when the > sun returns to normal. > > For examples of some recent models with grand minimum TSI reductions: > > "On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the > future climate on Earth" > Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L05707, doi:10.1029/2010GL042710. > > discussed here: > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/ > > also > > "Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum" > http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html > > "What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century > have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?" > J. Geophys. Res., 117, D05103, doi:10.1029/2011JD017013 > cached: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf > > > Interestingly, at the end of the interview the professor mentions also > > global warming indications seen on other planets. > > Tired old talking points, clearly outside her area of research. > Nothing new. > > -dan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 15:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) |
| Message-ID | <mq56l6$jgi$1@odin.sdf-eu.org> |
| In reply to | #511889 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > The Little Ice Age was pretty bad in Europe. According to this page, by an > AGW supporter, millions died by dearth and famine due to the LIA in Europe: ... If so, the shocking thing is how little the temp varied from a period when there was no mass starvation. Many people forget 1750 -- the middle of the LIA -- was well after temp records started in England. We have good data from the 17th cent in the Central England Temperature record kept by Hadley. The diff between 1650 or 1850 and 1750 is around .4C; the diff between 1850 and now is around .7C. A plot of CET temps for winters since 1650 is here. <http://graphs.kymhorsell.com/cet-winter.gif> . Avg winter temps in 1650 around 3.0C. Avg winter temps in 1750 around 3.4C. Avg winter temps in 1850 around 3.8C. Avg winter temps in 1950 around 4.2C. Avg winter temps expected in 2050 around 4.6C. -- Typhoon Soudelor: Massive Storm Makes Landfall in Taiwan ABC News, 07 Aug 2015 23:40Z The Taiwanese capital of Taipei could be vulnerable to the storm's strong winds. Taipei has a population of 2.6 million and features a cityscape of tall buildings and skyscrapers. Dangerous Tornadoes and Storms Hammer the Heartland ABC News, 08 Aug 2015 02:04Z Back here at home, the other weather headline, the dangerous storms hammering the heartland. 4 mn in the storm area. Officials in Turf Fight Over Response to Legionnaires' Outbreak in Bronx New York Times, 08 Aug 2015 03:07Z An outbreak of Legionnaires' disease in the South Bronx appeared to be ebbing on Friday, even as city and state officials jockeyed to show how they were responding to the airborne illness. 10 now dead in New York's Legionnaires' Disease outbreak -- ConsumerAffairs Wastewater From Colorado Mine Flows Toward New Mexico, Utah ABC News, 08 Aug 2015 05:06Z An eerie yellow sludge that poured out of a shuttered gold mine and into a southwestern Colorado river was inching its way downstream toward New Mexico and Utah. Powerful storm hits Taiwan, millions without power, four dead Reuters, 08 Aug 2015 05:54Z Taipei/Yilan, Taiwan. A powerful typhoon battered Taiwan on Sat with strong wind and torrential rain, cutting power to nearly 3 mn households and killing 4 people. Tsunami Debris Barge Arrives in Seattle NBC/AP, Aug 8 2015, 1:12 am ET Hundreds of tons of marine debris have been collected from the shores of Alaska and British Columbia as part of an unprecedented cleanup effort ... Some of the debris collected likely was swept to sea by the 2011 tsunami in Japan, which killed thousands of people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 12:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won?t notice) |
| Message-ID | <rvOdnYFNVYfGqlvInZ2dnUU7-I2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #511891 |
On 8/8/15 10:19 AM, R Kym Horsell wrote: > In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> The Little Ice Age was pretty bad in Europe. According to this page, by an >> AGW supporter, millions died by dearth and famine due to the LIA in Europe: > ... > > If so, the shocking thing is how little the temp varied from a period > when there was no mass starvation. > > Many people forget 1750 -- the middle of the LIA -- was well after > temp records started in England. We have good data from the 17th cent > in the Central England Temperature record kept by Hadley. > > The diff between 1650 or 1850 and 1750 is around .4C; > the diff between 1850 and now is around .7C. > > A plot of CET temps for winters since 1650 is here. > <http://graphs.kymhorsell.com/cet-winter.gif> . > > Avg winter temps in 1650 around 3.0C. > Avg winter temps in 1750 around 3.4C. > Avg winter temps in 1850 around 3.8C. > Avg winter temps in 1950 around 4.2C. > Avg winter temps expected in 2050 around 4.6C. > Good points. > > -- > Typhoon Soudelor: Massive Storm Makes Landfall in Taiwan > ABC News, 07 Aug 2015 23:40Z > The Taiwanese capital of Taipei could be vulnerable to the storm's strong > winds. Taipei has a population of 2.6 million and features a cityscape of > tall buildings and skyscrapers. > > Dangerous Tornadoes and Storms Hammer the Heartland > ABC News, 08 Aug 2015 02:04Z > Back here at home, the other weather headline, the dangerous storms > hammering the heartland. 4 mn in the storm area. > > Officials in Turf Fight Over Response to Legionnaires' Outbreak in Bronx > New York Times, 08 Aug 2015 03:07Z > An outbreak of Legionnaires' disease in the South Bronx appeared to be > ebbing on Friday, even as city and state officials jockeyed to show how they > were responding to the airborne illness. > 10 now dead in New York's Legionnaires' Disease outbreak -- ConsumerAffairs > > Wastewater From Colorado Mine Flows Toward New Mexico, Utah > ABC News, 08 Aug 2015 05:06Z > An eerie yellow sludge that poured out of a shuttered gold mine and into a > southwestern Colorado river was inching its way downstream toward New Mexico > and Utah. > > Powerful storm hits Taiwan, millions without power, four dead > Reuters, 08 Aug 2015 05:54Z > Taipei/Yilan, Taiwan. A powerful typhoon battered Taiwan on Sat with > strong wind and torrential rain, cutting power to nearly 3 mn households and > killing 4 people. > > Tsunami Debris Barge Arrives in Seattle > NBC/AP, Aug 8 2015, 1:12 am ET > Hundreds of tons of marine debris have been collected from the shores of > Alaska and British Columbia as part of an unprecedented cleanup effort ... > Some of the debris collected likely was swept to sea by the 2011 tsunami in > Japan, which killed thousands of people. > -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web