Climate Models Irreducibly Imprecise
Eric Gisin
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-models-irreducibly-imprecise
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Thu, 01/07/2010 - 15:50
A number of recent papers analyzing the nature of climate models have yielded a stunning result
little known outside of mathematical circles-climate models like the ones relied on by the IPCC
contain "irreducible imprecision." According to one researcher, all interesting solutions for
atmospheric and oceanic simulation (AOS) models are chaotic, hence almost certainly structurally
unstable. Further more, this instability is an intrinsic mathematical property of the models which
can not be eliminated. Analysis suggests that models should only be used to study processes and
phenomena, not for precise comparisons with nature.
The ability to predict the future state of the Earth climate system, given its present state and
the forcings acting upon it, is the holly grail of climate science. What is not fully appreciated
by most is that,in the prediction of the evolution of that system, we are severely limited by the
fact that we do not know with arbitrary accuracy the evolution equations and the initial conditions
of the system. By necessity climate models work with a finite number of equations, from initial
data determined with finite resolution from a finite set of observations. These limitations are
further exacerbated by the addition of structural instability due to finite mesh discretization
errors (the real world isn't divided into boxes 10s or 100s of kilometers on a side; the impact of
changing mesh size has been well documented in a number of recent studies).
[rest at URL]
mr_antone
wrote:
There over 20 climate models from 10 countries. They may not agree in
the details, but they all predict it's getting warmer.
--
A Libertarian society is an oxymoron.
mr_antone
doctordave
> There over 20 climate models from 10 countries. They may not agree in
> the details, but they all predict it's getting warmer.
And if it not getting increasing warmer, then they are all wrong.
spudnik
global warming (such as sea-level).
what ever this report, it is even simpler than that:
the floating-point specification is inherently chaotic,
as well as being implimented with variation. however,
i have neve seen the update to 1980's IEEE-754,
which is -854, I think.
> > And if it not getting increasing warmer, then they are all wrong.
>
> No, then reality has changed.
thus:
the "rods & cones" of the retina a)
do not contain three pigments (per Young's "[apparent] trichromacy
of vision" -- full phrase due to Land), and b)
are both conformed of "log-spiral antennae." so,
how do you get a "photon" to be absorbed by that?
if some body aims a fullerene between your eyes, duck!
> In AD, the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while
> the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits
> multiple slits.
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
I M @ good guy
wrote:
There are 20 million thermometers in 200
countries and they all say it is colder than it has
been for a long time.
Jon Slaughter
No amount of logic can change someone's mind when they do not have one. You
might focus your energies in a more positive and productive way.
I M @ good guy
It is the AGW nuts that are fixated on a stupid
myth about a chemical essential to life being both
a pollutant and a warming agent, CO2 is neither,
it helps cool the atmosphere and would not be
a danger if triple present levels in the atmosphere.
tg
> Google "irreducible imprecision" shows this has been discussed for 3+ years.
>
>
> Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Thu, 01/07/2010 - 15:50
>
> A number of recent papers analyzing the nature of climate models have yielded a stunning result
> little known outside of mathematical circles
"Irreducible complexity" is a common Creationist argument.
We figure out complex dynamic non-linear systems all the time;
arbitrary precision is just that----arbitrary.
-tg
mr_antone
wrote:
Glaciers don't lie.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
If there is not precip in the watershed, there
will be a problem sooner or later, no matter how
big the glacier is, if the _OLD_ melt water is
counted on for fresh water, somebody is not
thinking straight.
A glacier can do about the same as a dam
as far as water storage goes, but does not
offer the advantages of a dam in other ways,
like reducing flood threats when the precip
is rain.
I am extremely skeptical about any trend
continuing for long, the past 50 years does not
really support the premise of CO2 caused warming,
and the major potential for climate change is
snow cover and cloud cover, both can cause
cooling.
It may become evident in a short time that
the idea of CO2 having much of an effect is
either flawed or exaggerated, or even wrong,
more CO2 could possibly mean more heat
radiated to space.
Crow
>>
>> There are 20 million thermometers in 200
>> countries and they all say it is colder than it has
>> been for a long time.
>>
>
> Glaciers don't lie.
Glaciers indeed did not lie during the MWP and LIA.
How inconvenient isn't it?
--
The lines between climate science and religion continue to blur.
Peter Franks
Has anyone done a study of a comparison of model* 'predictions' with
actuality over the past couple of decades (since the inception of said
model)?
*without after-the-fact corrections
mr_antone
wrote:
http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~mjun/paper/A06624R1.pdf
erschro...@gmail.com
> mr_antone wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:45:42 -0800, "Eric Gisin" <er...@nospammail.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Google "irreducible imprecision" shows this has been discussed for 3+ years.
>
>
> >> Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Thu, 01/07/2010 - 15:50
>
> >> A number of recent papers analyzing the nature of climate models have yielded a stunning result
> >> little known outside of mathematical circles-climate models like the ones relied on by the IPCC
> >> contain "irreducible imprecision." According to one researcher, all interesting solutions for
> >> atmospheric and oceanic simulation (AOS) models are chaotic, hence almost certainly structurally
> >> unstable. Further more, this instability is an intrinsic mathematical property of the models which
> >> can not be eliminated. Analysis suggests that models should only be used to study processes and
> >> phenomena, not for precise comparisons with nature.
>
> >> The ability to predict the future state of the Earth climate system, given its present state and
> >> the forcings acting upon it, is the holly grail of climate science. What is not fully appreciated
> >> by most is that,in the prediction of the evolution of that system, we are severely limited by the
> >> fact that we do not know with arbitrary accuracy the evolution equations and the initial conditions
> >> of the system. By necessity climate models work with a finite number of equations, from initial
> >> data determined with finite resolution from a finite set of observations. These limitations are
> >> further exacerbated by the addition of structural instability due to finite mesh discretization
> >> errors (the real world isn't divided into boxes 10s or 100s of kilometers on a side; the impact of
> >> changing mesh size has been well documented in a number of recent studies).
>
> >> [rest at URL]
>
> > There over 20 climate models from 10 countries. They may not agree in
> > the details, but they all predict it's getting warmer.
>
> Has anyone done a study of a comparison of model* 'predictions' with
> actuality over the past couple of decades (since the inception of said
> model)?
>
> *without after-the-fact corrections
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11649-climate-myths-we-cant-trust-computer-models.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions.htm
Eric Gisin
"tg" <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bfc52a04-3acf-4e66...@g18g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Beam Me Up Scotty
your delusions of being God like are something you need to model on your
computer.
How did you do when you tried solving the complex dynamic instant life
began, have you recreated that one? Or have you been able to explain how
3.5 billion years passed and 2 billion were not able to support life as
we know it..... that means that in about 1.5 billion years you had
enough time to roll the dice and accidentally create life, not only that
but you had to roll those dice billions of times to get DNA that could
reproduce its self.
check the odds on that and then see how precise you are.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
your delusions of being God like are something you need to model on your
computer.
How did you do when you tried solving the complex dynamic instant life
began, have you recreated that one? Or have you been able to explain how
3.5 billion years passed and 2 billion were not able to support life as
we know it..... that means that in about 1.5 billion years you had
enough time to roll the dice and accidentally create life, not only that
but you had to roll those dice billions of times to get DNA that could
reproduce its self.
check the odds on that and then see how precise you are.
And if Life was arbitrarily created by accident, shouldn't life have
been created more than once and the DNA of some life on this planet
should be radically different from our own DNA.... where is this life
that was also created arbitrarily under different basics?
--
spudnik
that it is a meta-analysis "TBD,"
given sufficient computing resources. however,
most of the biases are assumptive,
that more heating should occur at the poles e.g.
> >Has anyone done a study of a comparison of model* 'predictions' with
> >actuality over the past couple of decades (since the inception of said
> >model)?
>
> >*without after-the-fact corrections
>
> http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~mjun/paper/A06624R1.pdf
thus:
what is this reliance upon Einstien's 1920 statements?
what is your meaning of "subparticles in the medium;"
atoms in the vacuum?
> > Incorrect. Only you insist the aether must consist of particles in
> > order to apply pressure towards the matter doing the displacing.
> Not so. Elasticity and pressure COME FROM having subparticles in the
> medium. Any freshman physics student knows this. I'm shocked --
thus:
is it a mistake,
to take Einstien's 1920 comprehension of aether,
to be the end-all & be-all?
I really have a problem with the analogy
of "the earthen riverbank & the water," since
they are taken as analogous to their opposites; eh?
Peter Franks
Thanks.
Can you help me understand what the conclusion is?
Also, it doesn't call out when the models were last modified (my bit
about "after-the-fact corrections").
My next question is what happens to the outputs from those models if CO2
remains constant?
mr_antone
wrote:
Models are modified to improve their projections.
Asking when a model is last modified is meaningless.
"after-the-fact corrections" is nonsense.
>
>My next question is what happens to the outputs from those models if CO2
> remains constant?
CO2 doesn't remain constant.
spudnik
so called, and most of the assumptions are terribley
conversant with only the last hundred years, but
with significant fudge-factors of ignoring
*every* God-am thing that is invconvenient.
there is actually quite a lot of rather sporadic CO2 data,
some by some sort of proxt or other,
like ice-cores, going to the 19th century
I think it is a valid question,
What might occur, if CO2 remained at its current level, or
if it dereased, considering cap&trade (circa '91);
today's Wall Street Urinal makes a point
of saying that either capNtrade or carbon taxation would
have the desired eefect!
> Models are modified to improve their projections.
> Asking when a model is last modified is meaningless.
> "after-the-fact corrections" is nonsense.
> CO2 doesn't remain constant.
--l'Oeuvre!
http://wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Article_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>he was referring to the matter of climate-gate,
>so called, and most of the assumptions are terribley
>conversant with only the last hundred years, but
>with significant fudge-factors of ignoring
>*every* God-am thing that is invconvenient.
It appears more than went on than ignoring things,
English law is strong on the issue of "intent", so any
documented evidence of intentional actions to violate
any law should be investigated and if the evidence
suggests, indictments should follow.
>there is actually quite a lot of rather sporadic CO2 data,
>some by some sort of proxt or other,
>like ice-cores, going to the 19th century
I think we can accept that atmospheric CO2
concentrations have risen about as claimed, the
difficulty is with determining if that made any
difference at all so far.
>I think it is a valid question,
>What might occur, if CO2 remained at its current level, or
>if it dereased, considering cap&trade (circa '91);
>today's Wall Street Urinal makes a point
>of saying that either capNtrade or carbon taxation would
>have the desired eefect!
It is absolutely certain none of the present actions
will have any effect on global CO2 concentrations, but
if the car companies build only Gasoline Extended Range
Electric Vehicles, it could make a big difference in oil
imports and possibly reduce the price of oil.
>> Models are modified to improve their projections.
>> Asking when a model is last modified is meaningless.
>> "after-the-fact corrections" is nonsense.
All funding for computer models of climate
should be stopped, and the programmers should
seek employment as alternate energy equipment
design technicians.
>> CO2 doesn't remain constant.
But the present concentration is so low,
there is no evidence that another 20 or 30
years will cause any hardship or harm.
The problem is, the gossip fad of Global
Warming is so widespread, it will hang around
even through the first part of the next ice age,
maybe a super-volcano event is all that is needed
to get that started.
mr_antone
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>he was referring to the matter of climate-gate,
>so called, and most of the assumptions are terribley
>conversant with only the last hundred years, but
>with significant fudge-factors of ignoring
>*every* God-am thing that is invconvenient.
"Climate-gate" was about data, not models.
>
>there is actually quite a lot of rather sporadic CO2 data,
>some by some sort of proxt or other,
>like ice-cores, going to the 19th century
>
>I think it is a valid question,
>What might occur, if CO2 remained at its current level, or
>if it dereased, considering cap&trade (circa '91);
>today's Wall Street Urinal makes a point
>of saying that either capNtrade or carbon taxation would
>have the desired eefect!
>
>> Models are modified to improve their projections.
>> Asking when a model is last modified is meaningless.
>> "after-the-fact corrections" is nonsense.
>
>> CO2 doesn't remain constant.
>
>--l'Oeuvre!
>http://wlym.com
>http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Article_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
Claudius Denk
> Google "irreducible imprecision" shows this has been discussed for 3+ years.
>
>
> Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Thu, 01/07/2010 - 15:50
>
> A number of recent papers analyzing the nature of climate models have yielded a stunning result
> little known outside of mathematical circles-climate models like the ones relied on by the IPCC
> contain "irreducible imprecision."
Stunning? Absurd. It would be stunning if this was not the case.
> According to one researcher, all interesting solutions for
> atmospheric and oceanic simulation (AOS) models are chaotic, hence almost certainly structurally
> unstable. Further more, this instability is an intrinsic mathematical property of the models which
> can not be eliminated. Analysis suggests that models should only be used to study processes and
> phenomena, not for precise comparisons with nature.
And in a related development, researchers now realize that gravity is
not limited to the planet earth.
> The ability to predict the future state of the Earth climate system, given its present state and
> the forcings acting upon it, is the holly grail of climate science. What is not fully appreciated
> by most is that,in the prediction of the evolution of that system, we are severely limited by the
> fact that we do not know with arbitrary accuracy the evolution equations and the initial conditions
> of the system. By necessity climate models work with a finite number of equations, from initial
> data determined with finite resolution from a finite set of observations. These limitations are
> further exacerbated by the addition of structural instability due to finite mesh discretization
> errors (the real world isn't divided into boxes 10s or 100s of kilometers on a side; the impact of
> changing mesh size has been well documented in a number of recent studies).
Well, what you need is a finite mesh discretization errors eliminator
module. They could probably get one at radio shack for $19.95.
Problem solved.
Peter Franks
Modified based on observed evidence. An after-the-fact correction.
To wit, given sufficient historical data, I can produce a 'model' that
perfectly 'predicts' the historical results. That model is valueless.
I'm interested in a model (or models) that have been sufficiently
defined, and then /left alone/ for a sufficient period of time, and then
analyze the projections of that model against observed environmental
conditions to see if there is harmony or not.
> Asking when a model is last modified is meaningless.
Hardly. Since we are speaking of projections, we are essentially taking
a model and evaluating its output w/o modifying the model along the way.
There is meaning to my question, and it is critically important to
understand and qualify wrt these models.
I'm gathering that you are deliberately avoiding answering my question.
> "after-the-fact corrections" is nonsense.
Correct, they are nonsense if the output from the model is adjusted to
coincide with observed results. Such a model truly is nonsense, and I'm
interested in knowing how many models fall into this category, and more
importantly, how many /don't/.
>> My next question is what happens to the outputs from those models if CO2
>> remains constant?
>
> CO2 doesn't remain constant.
I'll rephrase my question so that is it more clear:
...what happens to the outputs from those models if the anthropogenic
CO2 output remains constant?
mr_antone
wrote:
Correct.
> An after-the-fact correction.
Malarkey.
>
>To wit, given sufficient historical data, I can produce a 'model' that
>perfectly 'predicts' the historical results. That model is valueless.
Nope. Using historical data and comparing a model's projection to
actual historical results is one method of verifying the model's
accuracy.
>
>I'm interested in a model (or models) that have been sufficiently
>defined, and then /left alone/ for a sufficient period of time, and then
>analyze the projections of that model against observed environmental
>conditions to see if there is harmony or not.
What are the observed environmental conditions in 2030?
>
>> Asking when a model is last modified is meaningless.
>
>Hardly. Since we are speaking of projections, we are essentially taking
>a model and evaluating its output w/o modifying the model along the way.
The known data sets are dynamic. Improved accuracy and additional
sources for example.
So a model should not be modified to include the additional
data/sources even if it improves its accuracy?
Or if a model projects hell will freeze over in July, 2009, it
shouldn't be modified?
> There is meaning to my question, and it is critically important to
>understand and qualify wrt these models.
Your belief that models should be " /left alone/ for a sufficient
period of time" shows you know very little about these models.
You just don't like their projections.
>
>I'm gathering that you are deliberately avoiding answering my question.
Heh.
>
>> "after-the-fact corrections" is nonsense.
>
>Correct, they are nonsense if the output from the model is adjusted to
>coincide with observed results. Such a model truly is nonsense, and I'm
>interested in knowing how many models fall into this category, and more
>importantly, how many /don't/.
So all those projections of 20 climate models from 10 countries are
truly nonsense.
>
>>> My next question is what happens to the outputs from those models if CO2
>>> remains constant?
>>
>> CO2 doesn't remain constant.
>
>I'll rephrase my question so that is it more clear:
>
>...what happens to the outputs from those models if the anthropogenic
>CO2 output remains constant?
Anthropogenic CO2 doesn't remain constant.
mr_antone
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>Big, incredible big bullshit.
>
>To make predictions, even into the past, you have to feed the model with
>any conceivable parameters.
Any conceivable parameters? Really?
"Well guys, here's another model down the shitter. Seems that maybe
perhaps possibly someday there might be a gigantic volcanic eruption
that could possibly perhaps effect the earth's climate for some
unknown length of time. Since we can't take that into account, the
model is a failure."
>The complexity of those parameters are even unknown today, so how do you want
>to reconstruct something you have no sufficient data?
Science calls it an approximation.
Being approximately right is not the same as being absolutely wrong.
>
>Describing history with models is like claiming "a car has more than 2 screws,
>and we can conclude it has also some shims and it's color was red".
>
>If your models are right, then show me reliable data about i.e. cloud albedo
>average from 9200-9100 BP or troposphere temperatures from 120300-120200 BP.
>
>You can't?
>How do you dare to claim your models were right, but you can't reproduce these
>essential data?
Prove this data is essential.
>
>Your models are nothing at all!
Unless the models have inputs of all known and unknown data they are
nothing?
You must hate the weatherman.
And icebergs don't lie.
tg
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:> > <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>
> > >mr_antone <mr_ant...@see.reply.to> wrote:
>
> > >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:44:24 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >mr_antone wrote:
> > >> >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:19:58 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >>> mr_antone wrote:
> > >> >>>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:41:49 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
>
> > >> >>>>> mr_antone wrote:
> > >> >>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:45:42 -0800, "Eric Gisin" <er...@nospammail.net>
> > >> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> > >> >>>>>>> Google "irreducible imprecision" shows this has been discussed for 3+ years.
>
>
> > "Well guys, here's another model down the shitter. Seems that maybe
> > perhaps possibly someday there might be a gigantic volcanic eruption
> > that could possibly perhaps effect the earth's climate for some
> > unknown length of time. Since we can't take that into account, the
> > model is a failure."
>
> > >The complexity of those parameters are even unknown today, so how do you want
> > >to reconstruct something you have no sufficient data?
>
> > Science calls it an approximation.
>
>
> > Being approximately right is not the same as being absolutely wrong.
>
> evidence it, no matter which side the approximation will tend?
> It's simply your imagination that makes your approximation a result of what
> you've conceived before.
>
> > >Describing history with models is like claiming "a car has more than 2 screws,
> > >and we can conclude it has also some shims and it's color was red".
>
> > >If your models are right, then show me reliable data about i.e. cloud albedo
> > >average from 9200-9100 BP or troposphere temperatures from 120300-120200 BP.
>
> > >You can't?
> > >How do you dare to claim your models were right, but you can't reproduce these
> > >essential data?
>
> > Prove this data is essential.
>
Classic Creationist reasoning. "Where are the transitional fossils?".
The process of Approximation used to be in the beginning of every
physics textbook---it is how we figure out experimental design and
various other things.
If you put a pot of water on a lit burner, you can't predict where on
the surface bubbles or convection will appear, or when, but you can
predict that there will be bubbles and convection currents, and the
approximate time.
So the question for you is: What evidence would convince you that
whatever it is you are denying is actually happening? If you can't
answer that, you are all bs and no money.
-tg
> If you walk from A to B and leaving out 3 steps, you fell on your nose, but
> never reach B (exceptionally your approximation tells you, you already have
> reached B).
>
> LOL
>
> > >Your models are nothing at all!
>
> > Unless the models have inputs of all known and unknown data they are
> > nothing?
>
> Yes.
>
> > You must hate the weatherman.
>
> > And icebergs don't lie.
>
> Yes, and Al Gore doesn't lie either.
>
> ROFLMAO
Peter Franks
You apparently don't know what you are talking about and have no
capacity to acknowledge that.
Anyone else in this forum that can actually /answer/ my questions?
mr_antone
wrote:
I do know and have the capacity to acknowledge that anthropogenic CO2
increases everyday.
>
>Anyone else in this forum that can actually /answer/ my questions?
If your hypothetical questions are not answered in this forum proves
what, old wise one?
Still waiting for your answers to my questions.
mr_antone
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>Of course. Or how would you describe reality?
>
>> "Well guys, here's another model down the shitter. Seems that maybe
>> perhaps possibly someday there might be a gigantic volcanic eruption
>> that could possibly perhaps effect the earth's climate for some
>> unknown length of time. Since we can't take that into account, the
>> model is a failure."
>>
>> >The complexity of those parameters are even unknown today, so how do you want
>> >to reconstruct something you have no sufficient data?
>>
>> Science calls it an approximation.
>
>I call it a more ore worse guess.
>
>> Being approximately right is not the same as being absolutely wrong.
>
>How do you decide your approximation is correct if you haven't enough data to
>evidence it, no matter which side the approximation will tend?
>It's simply your imagination that makes your approximation a result of what
>you've conceived before.
>
>> >Describing history with models is like claiming "a car has more than 2 screws,
>> >and we can conclude it has also some shims and it's color was red".
>> >
>> >If your models are right, then show me reliable data about i.e. cloud albedo
>> >average from 9200-9100 BP or troposphere temperatures from 120300-120200 BP.
>> >
>> >You can't?
>> >How do you dare to claim your models were right, but you can't reproduce these
>> >essential data?
>>
>> Prove this data is essential.
>
>It IS essential.
>If you walk from A to B and leaving out 3 steps, you fell on your nose, but
>never reach B (exceptionally your approximation tells you, you already have
>reached B).
>
>LOL
>
>> >Your models are nothing at all!
>>
>> Unless the models have inputs of all known and unknown data they are
>> nothing?
>
>Yes.
Get back to your day job of picking fly shit out of pepper and whine
that's it's not really pepper.
tg
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:44:24 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >mr_antone wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:19:58 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> mr_antone wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:41:49 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> mr_antone wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:45:42 -0800, "Eric Gisin" <er...@nospammail.net>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Google "irreducible imprecision" shows this has been discussed for 3+ years.
>
Of course not! That pesky Einstein went and corrected the previous
model of gravity, just to make it fit the new data, and look at all
the trouble it caused.
You Socialists claim to care about people, but are apparently
indifferent to the anxiety produced when you take away the Goddidit
explanation for things.
-tg
mr_antone
wrote:
>On Jan 12, 1:54�pm, mr_antone <mr_ant...@see.reply.to> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:44:24 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
<snip>
Yep.
That all those models from 10 countries project the world is getting
warmer proves it's one massive conspiracy.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
But do you know for certain that CO2 or any GreenHouse
Gas "warms" or "cools" the atmosphere?
>>Anyone else in this forum that can actually /answer/ my questions?
>
>If your hypothetical questions are not answered in this forum proves
>what, old wise one?
AGW is just a gossip fad, or maybe mistaken
assumptions by serious scientists, or a mistaken
belief in magical physical processes where the
very gases that cool the atmosphere are thought
to warm it.
Sorry none of you are able and willing to
discuss the science.
mr_antone
wrote:
It's well known that CO2 or any greenhouse gas in air absorbs infrared
radiation, thus heating the air. The more CO2 or greenhouse gas the
higher the temperature.
>
>>>Anyone else in this forum that can actually /answer/ my questions?
>>
>>If your hypothetical questions are not answered in this forum proves
>>what, old wise one?
>
>
> AGW is just a gossip fad, or maybe mistaken
>assumptions by serious scientists, or a mistaken
>belief in magical physical processes where the
>very gases that cool the atmosphere are thought
>to warm it.
AGW is a fad or mistake by serious scientists?
>
> Sorry none of you are able and willing to
>discuss the science.
Yikes! My irony meter just rusted to a halt.
You're dismissed.
spudnik
even though there are approximately no datasets that show it (that is
to say, none that I have come across since about '82,
when I first began to pay attention to the rapidity of the change
of the climate). of course,
you don't have to know, which datasets those are;
what ones do you ascribe to?
please note that on the equinox at noon, if
insolation is "one" at the equator, then
it is basically "zero" at both poles;
a model is always correct, at least twice a year!
> That all those models from 10 countries project the world is getting
> warmer proves it's one massive conspiracy.
thus:
so, what is it about aether tha *is* ponderable, if
Einstein couldn't find it in a thought "experiment?"
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
mr_antone
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>but the models have always coroberated (sp.?) "global" warming,
>even though there are approximately no datasets that show it (that is
>to say, none that I have come across since about '82,
>when I first began to pay attention to the rapidity of the change
>of the climate). of course,
>you don't have to know, which datasets those are;
>what ones do you ascribe to?
Data sets don't show anything. They're just numbers.
>
>please note that on the equinox at noon, if
>insolation is "one" at the equator, then
>it is basically "zero" at both poles;
>a model is always correct, at least twice a year!
>
>> That all those models from 10 countries project the world is getting
>> warmer proves it's one massive conspiracy.
>
>thus:
>so, what is it about aether tha *is* ponderable, if
>Einstein couldn't find it in a thought "experiment?"
>
>--l'OEuvre!
>http://wlym.com
spudnik
what is Earth's largest conspiracy, by etymology?
now, I propose that a model is correct,
at least twice per year, because most Earth scientists
do not comprehend spherical geometry; essentially,
the poles are singularities in their datascreens.
(there's a similar thing in math,
the fixed point(s) theorems.)
thus:
do you posit that "the vacuum" is just aether?... so, if
there is only relative degrees of vacuum,
what is the need for relative dgrees of aether,
to displace the matter that is not in space?
well, what other ponderable properties does it have,
other than this displacement/entrainment?
> If we combine the two we get:
>
> The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, at
> every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of
> the aether in neighboring places, is the aether's state of
> displacement.
>
> What *is* ponderable is the aether's state of displacement.
thus:
but the models have always coroberated (sp.?) "global" warming,
even though there are approximately no datasets that show it (that is
to say, none that I have come across since about '82,
when I first began to pay attention to the rapidity of the change
of the climate). of course,
you don't have to know, which datasets those are;
what ones do you ascribe to?
please note that on the equinox at noon, if
insolation is "one" at the equator, then
it is basically "zero" at both poles;
a model is always correct, at least twice a year!
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
mr_antone
<Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?
Roger Coppock
Those who wish to learn something about this interesting subject
could start here:
EdGCM.com
On Jan 7, 2:45 pm, "Eric Gisin" <er...@nospammail.net> wrote:
> Google "irreducible imprecision" shows this has been discussed for 3+ years.
>
> http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-models-irreducibly-im...
Peter Franks
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:32:31 -0800 (PST), spudnik
> <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?
No.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?
>
Yes... and they eat shit to get the bad taste of Liberals out of their
mouth after they eat them.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
> The post below indicates a massive ignorance of climate modeling.
>
> Those who wish to learn something about this interesting subject
> could start here:
>
> EdGCM.com
>
>
Garbage in Garbage out...
--
mr_antone
When it comes to eating shit, you're the expert.
While eating shit do you spit out the testicles you're sucking on or
leave them in?
mr_antone
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>AGW switching to name calling.
>Surrender noted.
>Thanks.
Name calling?
Your belief that AWG models are nothing is a real hoot.
You're some scientist.
<chuckle>
mr_antone
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-14.PDF
>(Page 774)
>
>"In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate
>research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
>with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
>long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
There you go again. Picking fly shit out of the pepper.
>
>"... all we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability
>distribution of the system�s future possible states ..."
Yep, all the models are saying the odds are the earth is getting
warming.
>
>You really want to doubt your beloved IPCC?
Whereas you conclude the models are nothing.
You old scientist you.
<laughing>
spudnik
continuous freezing and thawing splinters the brittle granite that
forms some of the park's majestic peaks. Park officials say
comparisons with historical photos suggest that at least some of the
glaciers are expanding."
garbage up; garbage down?
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
spudnik
have been since no body ever modeled a typical glass house,
including Svente Ahrrenius. and,
the reportage is understandably but lamentably selective.
> Meanwhile even the world's best "guess" model, Hansen C, has failed by far.
thus:
garbage up; garbage down?
thus:
ah, the treacly doohickey of language --
not to mention, translation!
if you would jettison the mere mathematical duality
of the "photon," and stick with the expanding wavefront
for a while, where'd go your quantum of aether?
if you insist on springing from wave- to particle-
interpretation for no reason
-- although all of their properties are dual,
just like in projective geometry & so on --
you won't get much that is reasonable; eh?
> Aether is uncompressed matter and matter is compressed aether, so the
> aether does have mass. But since it is the lowest common denominator
> of matter, it can't be measured. It is the same conceptually as a
> photon having a rest mass of zero. If a photon is a quantum of aether
> when it is at rest, not to suggest that is what the aether consists
> of, then even if the photon, as a quantum of aether, has mass, since
> nothing has less mass and you cannot track that individual photon
> separately through time (i.e. you cannot measure the individual
> photon), then it is perfectly reasonable to 'mistake' the photon for
> having a rest mass of zero.
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
mr_antone
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>No, I'm only citing from your AGW bible.
And concluding it as proof all models are wrong.
>Your digression shows me your ignorance of your own dogma.
You have just been nominated for the lifetime irony-cross award.
>
>> >"... all we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability
>> >distribution of the system�s future possible states ..."
>>
>> Yep, all the models are saying the odds are the earth is getting
>> warming.
>
>Which result in a bunch of *possible* futures, no matter how you look at it.
>It's more a "Let's produce 10000 results. One of them will surely fit anyhow
>and we can use it for hype."
>This is not a prediction, not even a projection. This is crap science!
Maybe you should stomp your feet a little harder.
>
>Meanwhile even the world's best "guess" model, Hansen C, has failed by far.
>
>
>> >You really want to doubt your beloved IPCC?
>>
>> Whereas you conclude the models are nothing.
>> You old scientist you.
>>
>> <laughing>
>
>Kidding yourself, as usual.
Naw, just laughing at your scientific 'crap science' conclusions.
>
>How about bracing yourself up and answer my questions?
>I'm sure you manage that matter, or?
I'll wait for your white paper. One liners don't cut it.
You old scientist you.
<still laughing>
tg
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:14:28 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
>
>
>
> >mr_antone <mr_ant...@see.reply.to> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:25:26 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
>
> >> >mr_antone <mr_ant...@see.reply.to> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:53:18 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
>
> >> >> >mr_antone <mr_ant...@see.reply.to> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:36:26 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
>
> >> >> >> >mr_antone <mr_ant...@see.reply.to> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:11:15 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
>
> >> >> >> >> >mr_antone <mr_ant...@see.reply.to> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:44:24 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >mr_antone wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:19:58 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> mr_antone wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:41:49 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> mr_antone wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:45:42 -0800, "Eric Gisin" <er...@nospammail.net>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Google "irreducible imprecision" shows this has been discussed for 3+ years.
>
You will wait for a long time. I'm constantly amazed that these people
think they are fooling anyone---I doubt he took anything beyond
General Science in his education. The echo chamber of talk radio
adolescent group dynamics is really pernicious; apparently he thinks
he can bluff and bluster everyone because his peers are as poorly
educated as he is.
Say, Mr. M, it takes about two posts for someone with a scientific
background to figure out that you don't have any.
-tg
mr_antone
wrote:
>On Jan 15, 9:13�am, mr_antone <mr_ant...@see.reply.to> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:14:28 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer
>>
>>
<snip>
It's just history repeating itself.
Similar arguments were/are used with ozone depletion, DDT usage, acid
rain and evolution for example.
It's almost a cult.
The scientific community knows better and will keep forging ahead.
Tom P
> doctordave <dhex...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> There over 20 climate models from 10 countries. They may not agree in
>>> the details, but they all predict it's getting warmer.
>
> No, then reality has changed.
>
Temperature today in Spitzbergen 3�c, rain. That's 15�c above the
seasonal average.
spudnik
of DDT was begun with Carson's book, which gave no interest
to any of its benfits, and little actual science. then,
Ruckleshouse banned it, against the recommendation
of the committee that had reported on it.
as for the holes in the ozone,
they are really patterns of weather. however,
Dupont's patents had run out, and
they had also just been hostilely taken-over by the Bronfman gang!
(Imperial Chemicals also played a big role.)
> It's just history repeating itself.
> Similar arguments were/are used with ozone depletion, DDT usage, acid
> rain and evolution for example.
thus:
quelle ridicule!... what experimental proof is there
of a "photon," other than a mere interpretation
of an electronic reading, and a century's blather
from the Copenhagenskool and its undead catpeople?
all essenttial properties of light are wavey, in spite
of the fact that there's a "dual" mathematical interpretation,
since Pauli made his matrices, and the possiblity
of making a photonic model a la ray-tracing.
> You have to 'bother' with the photon being detected as a quantum of
> aether.
thus:
your talk of aether is a) fast and b) loose, and c)
you give no experimental hypothesis as to any difference,
at all, that this stuff should make ... gee;
is it a liquid or a solid or, What?
Michelson-Morley did not get a null result, and
this finding was enhanced by others, later!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html
thus quoth:
Spring 1998 Vol. 11, No. 1
Michelson-Morley-Miller: The Coverup
The Experiments of Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926) and the Theory of
Relativity
Maurice Allais
On My Experiments in Physics, 1952-1960
Maurice Allais
Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity rest on the
allegedly null results of Michelson’s interferometer experiment. Here,
a French physicist and Nobel Laureate in economics, demonstrates that
Michelson’s results were not null, and that the interferometer
experiments of the American scientist Dayton Miller produced positive
results, thereby invalidating the foundation of the Theory of
Relativity.
Background: Optical Theory in the 19th Century, and the Truth about
Michelson-Morley-Miller
Laurence Hecht
To understand the ground-breaking significance of Dayton Miller’s
ether drift measurements, one must go back to the original discoveries
of Fresnel on the wave theory of light and its subsequent development
in the 19th century.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/F-W_2008/Planck_150th.pdf
(compare with http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm .-)
Into Space from the Sea
Oleg A. Sokolov
Since the dawn of the space age, nations have lofted satellites into
space from launch sites on land. Soon, for the first time, satellites
will also be reaching space from the sea.
All Chernobyl’s Victims:
A Realistic Assessment of Chernobyl’s Health Effects
Zbigniew Jaworowski
spudnik
of capNtrade; I'd just learned that my Rep. Waxman had
brought *that* bill in, as well, under HW in '91. so,
why does not the Wall St. Urinal et al tell us,
just how wonderful it was & is?
it was capNtrade on NOx and SO2. now,
why this should be an all-encompassing panacea
for CO2 -- probably, but
why can't we just have a small tax on carbon, instead
of letting the arbitrageurs skim it off --
is it possible to have a bit of both?
thus:
OK, what in Heck is the other property of a "singleton?"
> It doesn't matter if the aether is a singleton or consists of aether
> particles, light waves propagating through the aether are propagating
> through the aether as a singleton.
thus:
why do you say that
an electrical motor provides no medium
for the magnetic fields, or the air, for that matter?
thus:
apparently, Michelson-Morley's experiments, especially
with the "gas mode" interferometer, were simply not
this alleged "null" result. notably,
DCMiller's work improved upon the non-null results.
would you like the references, again --
can I trust you to try to read them?
it is really to bad, that
Minkowski's or Lorentz's work had to use teh awful "lightcones,"
because they totally obscure the phenomena of the phase-space
(of "space-time").
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
Saving the Bathwater
http://larouchepub.com/other/2010/3702next_hyperinflation.html