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

Groups > sci.physics > #510339 > unrolled thread

Re: The Maunder Minimum is back! (Maybe. And we probably won’t notice)

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.

Contents

  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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#511120 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Monday or thereabouts, benj snorted ...

> And I could go on with record high levels of Antarctic ice and sea levels and 
> all the other lies.

The Antartic ice is covering a larger area of the sea because it is 
moving off the continent at a faster rate, as water flow at the true 
ground level increases.  In addition, the ice shelves are thinner and 
breaking off into ice bergs more rapidly.

You might try monitoring one of the GPS stations set up around the 
continent, instead of being smug ... and wrong.

/dps

-- 
Ieri, oggi, domani

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511187 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On 08/04/2015 03:01 AM, Snidely rolfed:
> On Monday or thereabouts, benj snorted ...
>
>> And I could go on with record high levels of Antarctic ice and sea
>> levels and all the other lies.
>
> The Antartic ice is covering a larger area of the sea because it is
> moving off the continent at a faster rate, as water flow at the true
> ground level increases.  In addition, the ice shelves are thinner and
> breaking off into ice bergs more rapidly.
>
> You might try monitoring one of the GPS stations set up around the
> continent, instead of being smug ... and wrong.
>
> /dps

I think I'll go with the people who have actually been measuring the ice 
for years rather than must making up political propaganda:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

You seem to have forgotten all the squealing about how "global warming" 
was melting all the ice when the variations were at the lowest point 
(along with hand-wringing over loss of all coastal cities) and now that 
there is record ice... Guess what? Well the record ice coverage is due 
to "global warming" too! Just how stupid do you think people are?

And I've already pointed out that GISS land temperature measurements 
(and the others too!) show no warming for almost two decades. So 
scientifically speaking that makes it appear that your melting at ground 
level is due to fantasy.

Tell us again how you have global warming when the temperature isn't 
going up?

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511331 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

benj suggested that ...
> On 08/04/2015 03:01 AM, Snidely rolfed:
>> On Monday or thereabouts, benj snorted ...
>>
>>> And I could go on with record high levels of Antarctic ice and sea
>>> levels and all the other lies.
>>
>> The Antartic ice is covering a larger area of the sea because it is
>> moving off the continent at a faster rate, as water flow at the true
>> ground level increases.  In addition, the ice shelves are thinner and
>> breaking off into ice bergs more rapidly.
>>
>> You might try monitoring one of the GPS stations set up around the
>> continent, instead of being smug ... and wrong.
>>
>> /dps
>
> I think I'll go with the people who have actually been measuring the ice for 
> years rather than must making up political propaganda:
>
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
>

The studies I have seen are not political propoganda, but actual 
measurements of the ice cap, including the measurements of increased 
ground speed, increased fresh water flow from under the ice, and a 
wider but thinner ice shelf.  This includes satellite observations, 
on-the-ground measurements, and long term use of GPS to measure both 
horizontal and vertical displacements.


> You seem to have forgotten all the squealing about how "global warming" was 
> melting all the ice when the variations were at the lowest point (along with 
> hand-wringing over loss of all coastal cities) and now that there is record 
> ice... Guess what? Well the record ice coverage is due to "global warming" 
> too! Just how stupid do you think people are?

Record ice /area/, but evidently not record ice /volume/.
>
> And I've already pointed out that GISS land temperature measurements (and the 
> others too!) show no warming for almost two decades. So scientifically 
> speaking that makes it appear that your melting at ground level is due to 
> fantasy.
>
> Tell us again how you have global warming when the temperature isn't going 
> up?

No, the  land temperature measurements do show warming continuing over 
the 2 decades of the alleged "warming pause".  Sea temperature 
measurements also show increases, and increasing absorbtion of CO2 is 
increasing the acidity of the ocean to the detriment of corals, such as 
the Great Barrier Reef.

/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]

#511694 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On 08/05/2015 06:43 AM, Snidely wrote:
> benj suggested that ...
>> On 08/04/2015 03:01 AM, Snidely rolfed:
>>> On Monday or thereabouts, benj snorted ...
>>>
>>>> And I could go on with record high levels of Antarctic ice and sea
>>>> levels and all the other lies.
>>>
>>> The Antartic ice is covering a larger area of the sea because it is
>>> moving off the continent at a faster rate, as water flow at the true
>>> ground level increases.  In addition, the ice shelves are thinner and
>>> breaking off into ice bergs more rapidly.
>>>
>>> You might try monitoring one of the GPS stations set up around the
>>> continent, instead of being smug ... and wrong.
>>>
>>> /dps
>>
>> I think I'll go with the people who have actually been measuring the
>> ice for years rather than must making up political propaganda:
>>
>> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
>>
>>
>
> The studies I have seen are not political propoganda, but actual
> measurements of the ice cap, including the measurements of increased
> ground speed, increased fresh water flow from under the ice, and a wider
> but thinner ice shelf.  This includes satellite observations,
> on-the-ground measurements, and long term use of GPS to measure both
> horizontal and vertical displacements.

Earlier radar studies show THICKENING of ice cap. Now that area is 
growing instead of shrinking all attention has changed to be on thickness.

I would point out that sea levels have been rising about 2mm a year 
since long before the industrial revolution and continues to do so. That 
water must come from melted ice. So a small loss of polar ice is normal 
and expected. Politics pumps it up into doom.

>> You seem to have forgotten all the squealing about how "global
>> warming" was melting all the ice when the variations were at the
>> lowest point (along with hand-wringing over loss of all coastal
>> cities) and now that there is record ice... Guess what? Well the
>> record ice coverage is due to "global warming" too! Just how stupid do
>> you think people are?
>
> Record ice /area/, but evidently not record ice /volume/.

Volume is very difficult to measure and IF the ice is melting underneath 
as claimed then that clearly shows it is caused NOT by "global warming" 
which is NOT currently happening, but by some crustal thermal effect.

>> And I've already pointed out that GISS land temperature measurements
>> (and the others too!) show no warming for almost two decades. So
>> scientifically speaking that makes it appear that your melting at
>> ground level is due to fantasy.
>>
>> Tell us again how you have global warming when the temperature isn't
>> going up?
>
> No, the  land temperature measurements do show warming continuing over
> the 2 decades of the alleged "warming pause".  Sea temperature
> measurements also show increases, and increasing absorbtion of CO2 is
> increasing the acidity of the ocean to the detriment of corals, such as
> the Great Barrier Reef.

I gave you the actual temperature measurements by Dr. Hanson and still 
you are a denier? Well, OK, during the stopped warming (it's not a 
PAUSE! To be a pause it would have to start again and you have no 
superpowers to use to determine if it's going to start again! actually 
this is nothing more than a cute trick played with statistics...You find 
an upward variation and then tell everyone it's going up forever! 
Basically fraud) there is no "significant" warming.

You are correct, however. Global warming IS continuing. I Admit it!
In fact you can see it right on the data I presented. Every year there 
is a whopping 0.005 degree temperature rise that is clearly warming 
oceans and thus the warmer water causes more CO2 to dissolve making the 
water more acid. (Just like warm soda pop!)

Politics isn't science. The Energy tax fraudsters have so fudged and 
manipulated and mouse-painted measurements, they have so lied to the 
public, and have bought and paid for real scientists and publishers to 
sell out to the scam that today climate science is all but defunct as a 
discipline. Nobody can be trusted anymore because there has just been 
too much pissing in the soup. You can tell us it still tastes fine, but 
people who know science won't touch it.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511716 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

“By heavens, if this isn’t a sign of climate change, then what is 
climate change going to bring?”

— Peter J. Goldmark, Washington’s commissioner of public lands, on this 
year's wildfires.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/dry-days-in-west-bring-ferocious-start-to-fire-season.html

As the U.S. burns you still go on with this kind of talk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511717 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

Le 07/08/2015 12:50, jacob navia a écrit :
>
>
>
> “By heavens, if this isn’t a sign of climate change, then what is
> climate change going to bring?”
>
> — Peter J. Goldmark, Washington’s commissioner of public lands, on this
> year's wildfires.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/dry-days-in-west-bring-ferocious-start-to-fire-season.html
>
>
> As the U.S. burns you still go on with this kind of talk.
>
>

In his quest to force tougher action on climate change, Gov. Jerry Brown 
has traveled to China, Mexico, Canada, even the Vatican.

But he was much closer to home on Thursday, just a couple dozen miles 
from the ranch his family has owned for generations.

Standing in front of scorched hills, the smell of smoke lingering in the 
air, Brown said the wildfire that had ripped through the area was 
evidence that global warming already has created dangerous conditions in 
California.

"This is a real wake-up call," the governor said. "It's a new normal."

With the state enduring rising temperatures and its fourth year of 
drought, more devastating fires could be around the corner, Brown said. 
"If the drought was to continue for a year or several years, California 
could literally burn up," he warned.

The blaze known as the Rocky fire began more than a week ago near Clear 
Lake, so far tearing through 69,600 acres in three counties. 
Firefighters have been making progress in recent days, but 43 homes and 
53 other buildings have been destroyed, according to the California 
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

The Rocky fire is the largest of 19 wildfires burning across the state, 
and it's been one of the most challenging. It grew rapidly and evaded 
firefighters' attempts at containment — at one point jumping a highway 
and threatening more homes.

Brown visited the area Thursday to meet with first responders and 
residents who had lost their homes.

"These are very difficult times and a real tragedy for the families," he 
said, adding that he would find ways to aid the victims. "I've been 
through a lot of these fires and emergencies. And often, after a few 
weeks, there's a lot of discontent. So I'm going to be on this very 
carefully to see what's available."

The governor's appearance also was a chance for him to emphasize the 
dangers of global warming.

"We have a real challenge in California," Brown said. "Unlike the East, 
where climate change seems to be adding more storms, here in California 
and the Southwest it's more dryness.

"We've got more dryness, less moisture and more devastating fires. So 
more to come. It is very serious."

The governor repeated his challenge to Republican presidential 
candidates — many of whom have denied the science of climate change or 
opposed steps to combat it — to outline action plans.

"California is burning," he said. "What the hell are you going to do 
about it?"

Climate scientists said it is difficult to draw a connection between a 
specific fire and global warming, but asserted an increased risk of 
major conflagrations is undeniable.

chris.megerian@latimes.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511124 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Monday, benj yelped out that:

> Why do all the liars here have to tell everyone they've "won".
> "Winning" is what politicians do. Science is about truth.


If you're actually interested in the climate, you could study the 
modelling programs.  A place to start is discussed in Brian Hayes' 
article:
<URL:http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/clarity-in-climate-modeling/1>


<quote>
Global warming doubters pressed the Hansen group to publish the source 
code for a suite of programs known as GISTEMP, which extract 
temperature trends from historical weather observations. The code was 
released, but no one could understand it or get it to run. Nick Barnes 
and David Jones, two British computer scientists, gathered up the 
untidy collection of files and rewrote them as a single program in the 
Python language, “with an emphasis on code clarity that encouraged 
interested people to download, inspect, and run it themselves.” Their 
new program produces the same results as the original. Furthermore, by 
taking the mystery out of how the temperatures are calculated, they 
have changed the tenor of the conversation. GISTEMP is no longer so 
controversial.
</quote>

/dps


-- 
Who, me?  And what lacuna?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511144 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:43:25 -0700, Snidely wrote:

>On Monday, benj yelped out that:
>
>> Why do all the liars here have to tell everyone they've "won".
>> "Winning" is what politicians do. Science is about truth.
>
>
>If you're actually interested in the climate, you could study the 
>modelling programs.  

Did you read that brain fart before you pressed 'send'?

The way to understand ***the*** climate is to study PlayStation
models?

You don't think learning some thermodynamics might help?

Do you think there is there only one climate?

How many of the 73 conflicting models represented here do you think
are worthy of study?
<http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>

How bamboozled does one need to be to become a greenie?

Study **modelling programs** if one is interested in **the** climate.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511200 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On 08/04/2015 08:30 AM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:43:25 -0700, Snidely wrote:
>
>> On Monday, benj yelped out that:
>>
>>> Why do all the liars here have to tell everyone they've "won".
>>> "Winning" is what politicians do. Science is about truth.
>>
>>
>> If you're actually interested in the climate, you could study the
>> modelling programs.
>
> Did you read that brain fart before you pressed 'send'?
>
> The way to understand ***the*** climate is to study PlayStation
> models?
>
> You don't think learning some thermodynamics might help?
>
> Do you think there is there only one climate?
>
> How many of the 73 conflicting models represented here do you think
> are worthy of study?
> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>
>
> How bamboozled does one need to be to become a greenie?
>
> Study **modelling programs** if one is interested in **the** climate.
>
> 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
>
>
Wally you are such a denier! You need to have more faith. Obama 
believes. That should be enough for you to believe too!

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511332 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

With a quizzical look, Wally W. observed:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:43:25 -0700, Snidely wrote:
>
>> On Monday, benj yelped out that:
>> 
>>> Why do all the liars here have to tell everyone they've "won".
>>> "Winning" is what politicians do. Science is about truth.
>> 
>> 
>> If you're actually interested in the climate, you could study the 
>> modelling programs.  
>
> Did you read that brain fart before you pressed 'send'?
>
> The way to understand ***the*** climate is to study PlayStation
> models?
>
> You don't think learning some thermodynamics might help?
>
> Do you think there is there only one climate?
>
> How many of the 73 conflicting models represented here do you think
> are worthy of study?
> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>
>
> How bamboozled does one need to be to become a greenie?
>
> Study **modelling programs** if one is interested in **the** climate.
>

If you want to know how well the models work, study the models.  If you 
prefer to make predictions by waving your hands, wave your hands.

> 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

Okay, YOU provide a model, since obviously you're better qualified.

/dps

-- 
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night.  I do not know 
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
  _Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511350 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 03:46:35 -0700, Snidely wrote:

>With a quizzical look, Wally W. observed:
>> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:43:25 -0700, Snidely wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, benj yelped out that:
>>> 
>>>> Why do all the liars here have to tell everyone they've "won".
>>>> "Winning" is what politicians do. Science is about truth.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If you're actually interested in the climate, you could study the 
>>> modelling programs.  
>>
>> Did you read that brain fart before you pressed 'send'?
>>
>> The way to understand ***the*** climate is to study PlayStation
>> models?
>>
>> You don't think learning some thermodynamics might help?
>>
>> Do you think there is there only one climate?
>>
>> How many of the 73 conflicting models represented here do you think
>> are worthy of study?
>> <http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>
>>
>> How bamboozled does one need to be to become a greenie?
>>
>> Study **modelling programs** if one is interested in **the** climate.
>>
>
>If you want to know how well the models work, study the models.  

Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions:
<http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/>

Nope, they don't work well. Moving on ...

>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?

>> 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
>
>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?

>since obviously you're better qualified.

I seem to be more informed about what is possible than you are.


>/dps

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511424 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

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.

Who is that guy?

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511523 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

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?

Why not?

Do you agree they are wrong?

If so, what are you whingeing about?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#511526 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

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]

#511878 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

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]

#512362 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

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]

#512390 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

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]

#512404 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

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]

#512443 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

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]

#512931 — Re: BURNING forests and the talk goes on

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]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web