This Global Warming Stuff is Just a Fantasy

[Quadibloc]

https://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/12/12/scientists-warn-arctic-refrigerator-is-failing-with-global-consequences/

isn't it?

John Savard

[Lynn McGuire]

We are all going to die !

Lynn

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 4:56:58 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> We are all going to die !

Well, at least if we're polar bears. But even that's bad enough.

If we had to go back to the Stone Age to stop it, of course, that would
be a different matter. But nuclear power can provide abundant carbon-
free energy.

John Savard

[Lynn McGuire]

Dude, there is plenty of ice for your polar bears, "Arctic sea ice
expanding faster than normal":

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/21/arctic-sea-ice-expanding-faster-than-normal/

I think that the graphs there are self explanatory.

Lynn

[David Johnston]

You're kidding. So because there was one month (not even a year, a
month) in which the ice grew at a surprising rate, you think the matter
is settled?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:p0suh8$8jv$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

Is there any evidence that polar bears are in any kind of distress?
There are regular, surprised, stories about how well they're doing.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[-dsr-]

Lynn does not understand that adding energy to a chaotic system
increases the dynamic range, which is to say that both up and down
extremes increase. Therefore, increased snowfall is a proof that
there is no warming, and increased summer temperatures are just
a blip.

Lynn also has much of his self-interest tied up in believing that
everything is going to be all right, or if it isn't, that's just
part of God's plan.

Frequently he has good insights into books, though he does love the
right-wing authoritarian post-apocalyptic survivalist genre more
than anyone else here. (Summary: big sudden disaster strikes, which
mysteriously causes the US government to become completely ineffective
and/or start rounding people up into concentration camps. Humans all
forget civilization and turn into caricatures of various political
ideologies. Only the hero who had the foresight to become ridiculously
good at combat can lead his [family, friends, group of intended sex
slaves] to found a new utopia in the wilderness based on always being
right. He will have to shoot people along the way.)

On-topic question: does the described sub-genre have many examplars
before Niven and Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer, or was it genuinely
new? There's Day of the Triffids, but that's not all humans against
humans.

-dsr-

[Peter Trei]

Depending on how pure an example you want, there the 1962 film 'Panic in
the Year Zero'.

I could swear I'd read a novel or shorter on which it was based, by
Heinlein, but I see nothing that matches.

pt

[Peter Trei]

To add to that, since 'Lucifer's Hammer' fits, other non-human disasters could
be included, such as 'A Wrinkle in the Skin', and "A Death of Grass".

Ballard wrote a bunch ('The Drowned World' etc), but they don't have the
Heroic Survivor character.

pt

[Scott Lurndal]

-dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:

>Frequently he has good insights into books, though he does love the
>right-wing authoritarian post-apocalyptic survivalist genre more
>than anyone else here. (Summary: big sudden disaster strikes, which
>mysteriously causes the US government to become completely ineffective
>and/or start rounding people up into concentration camps. Humans all
>forget civilization and turn into caricatures of various political
>ideologies. Only the hero who had the foresight to become ridiculously
>good at combat can lead his [family, friends, group of intended sex
>slaves] to found a new utopia in the wilderness based on always being
>right. He will have to shoot people along the way.)
>
>On-topic question: does the described sub-genre have many examplars
>before Niven and Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer, or was it genuinely
>new? There's Day of the Triffids, but that's not all humans against
>humans.

Pat Frank's _Alas Babylon_? (1959)

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:12:19 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

I wouldn't call it right-wing survivalist though, except to the extent
that by modern standards anything which accurately depicted 50s
society could seem "right wing".

[-dsr-]

I haven't read it -- does the author indicate that post-war his
protagonist will naturally take control and found a much better
society, or do they try to rebuild civilization instead?

-dsr-

[J. Clarke]

Neither one. They just keep doing what they have to do to survive.
And they're too busy surviving to engage in any grandiose plans.

[Scott Lurndal]

After a short period of lawlessness, the remains of the US government
with a lot of foreign assistance, initiate recovery and rebuilding.

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 18:39:34 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

That's not really the story though, that happens at the very end.

[James Nicoll]

In article <slrnp35cqh.l...@randomstring.org>,

Having survived in large part thanks to luck (and iirc, some resources
the black inhabitants of the town shared), the town seems unlikely to
be an important player in streamlined America, because they have hot
zones north and south of the town. IIRC.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[Lynn McGuire]

Yup, you are totally correct, a very chaotic system. A system which
cannot be modeled correctly today. Probably never.

So, making bold predictions that the global temperatures are going to
rise more than normal, that the oceans are going to rise many feet in
just a few years, or that hurricanes will double in frequency and
severity are just hogwash. All pulled out of people's asses.

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

This was written at the end of the same decade as the
promotional film showing that a clean yard (garden across the pond) and
freshly painted white house would still be standing
after a nuclear event, while the unkempt and unpainted
houses on either side were fried by the thermal pulse.

Complete with film from one of the test shots in the desert.

https://archive.org/details/Houseint1954

[David Johnston]

The collapse isn't nearly as extreme as it is in modern EMP books, even
though objectively the United States has taken way more damage. It does
take the reorganized U.S. government a full year to get around to making
contact to the community that the protagonist has risen to preserve and
lead.

[Scott Lurndal]

Which shows that you really don't understand the science. Stop
getting your science from that big-fat-idiot on the radio
or the daily mail.

[Dimensional Traveler]

SWAG, same as engineers.


--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[William Hyde]

Weather is chaotic, climate is not.

A system which
> cannot be modeled correctly today. Probably never.

Except it's already been done successfully.

>
> So, making bold predictions that the global temperatures are going to
> rise more than normal,

It is now fifty two years since the first model predictions of warming, and the globe is indeed warming.

More important than that, the pattern of the warming fits the early predictions. So if something else is warming the planet it must be something that fits the fingerprint of GHG induced climate change. There are no candidates for such a change. Solar constant increase, for example, is right out.

Stratospheric cooling was predicted fifty two years ago. It's happening, and happening for the reasons given fifty two years ago. I'd say that's a remarkably successful piece of work and entirely contradicts your claim that the system cannot be modeled.

that the oceans are going to rise many feet

Actually IPCC calls for a few feet over a long time.

The wild card is West Antarctica. One of it's three basins, holding an equivalent of two meters of sea level, could collapse in a matter of a few decades.

So with regard to rapid sea level rise, we are gambling. The odds, in my estimation, are with us - slightly. I'm at 172 meters above sea level. But the bulk of the human race lives closer to the oceans than I do. For example, you.

in
> just a few years, or that hurricanes will double in frequency and
> severity are just hogwash.

That is true, but no actual hurricane expert has made such a claim, though I recall it from a number of SF novels. Kerry Emanuel of MIT - long a conservative on the issue - now expects a significant increase in the number and strength of hurricanes. A Harvey-scale event was a one percent probability twenty years ago, he estimates it as a six percent probability now, nearly twenty percent by 2100.

He points out also that there is a limit to how strong a hurricane can become, so doubling is out, but he is sure that more and stronger hurricanes are coming.

It turns out that, per Watt of radiation change, aerosols are twice as effective at suppressing hurricanes as infrared warming is at causing them. So we might see a significant increase if we clean up our act with regard to aerosols. But we haven't burned down all the tropical forests yet.

All pulled out of people's asses.

From models you blithely dismiss, but which are firmly based on the same physics we use every day.

William Hyde

[Lynn McGuire]

Your blessed models may be soundly based on physics (that is debatable
from what I have seen), but they do not encompass the entire energy and
material balance around the Earth. Until one looks at the entire
picture around a process, one cannot make judgements that will affect
the ENTIRE human race on a casual basis.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 19:54:19 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Well, anyone who understands the science knows that the oceans are not
going to rise many feet in just a few years. The IPCC is predicting
inches, not feet. As for the rest, we don't have hurricane records
going back very far, and the temperature has been rising for 10,000
years.

[J. Clarke]

The thing is, after making their SWAG, engineers then do extensive
tests to make sure that it was right. IPCC has just swagged and done
no tests, so we have no idea if they are right.

[J. Clarke]

By who? Show us the validation tests. Hint--fitting a curve to 300
years of data is not "successful modelling".

>> So, making bold predictions that the global temperatures are going to
>> rise more than normal,
>
>It is now fifty two years since the first model predictions of warming, and the globe is indeed warming.

It's been warming for 10,000 years. A model that shows that the
status quo will continue is not particularly useful, nor is it a
"success".

When it shows us something that (a) we don't already know and (b) that
we can test, then it becomes useful.

>More important than that, the pattern of the warming fits the early predictions. So if something else is warming the planet it must be something that fits the fingerprint of GHG induced climate change. There are no candidates for such a change. Solar constant increase, for example, is right out.

Oh, GAWD, "solar constant increase is right out". The timing of the
glaciations does not fit some handy pattern in which ice melts when
the sun is hot. There seems to be some kind of relationship but it
has a long lag or a long lead in it.

>
>Stratospheric cooling was predicted fifty two years ago. It's happening, and happening for the reasons given fifty two years ago. I'd say that's a remarkably successful piece of work and entirely contradicts your claim that the system cannot be modeled.

So how long had it been cooling before they decided to predict that it
was cooling?

> that the oceans are going to rise many feet
>
>Actually IPCC calls for a few feet over a long time.
>
>The wild card is West Antarctica. One of it's three basins, holding an equivalent of two meters of sea level, could collapse in a matter of a few decades.

God could sandwich us between two rogue planets in a few decades too.
"Could" is not a prediction.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ous53dt42v4btjnho...@4ax.com:

They've gotten better and better at predicting the immediate past,
though.

[Dimensional Traveler]

A "No True Scotsman" argument.

[Dimensional Traveler]

So making a prediction, waiting for the time the prediction was made
for, comparing the prediction to the reality and finding they closely
match is not an indication of a correct prediction?

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:47:00 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

The question is not whether someone has made a correct prediction in
some specific case but whether he has a valid model.

You toss a coin in the air. You measure its trajectory for six inches
and on that basis predict that it will continue rising. It rises
another quarter inch and you measure that motion. Does that mean that
your model is sound?

I'm sorry, but no, predicting that something that has been going on
for 10,000 years will continue for another 10 years does not
demonstrate the correctness of the model.

We know that interglacials have occurred repeatedly in the past, that
the pattern of temperature change was largely what we are seeing in
this interglacial, and that in every interglacial in the past some
event (not some _random_ event, but something systemic) has occurred
that ended the warming trend and started a cooling trend that led to
glaciation.

None of the models that I have seen show this as a possible outcome.
If they don't show this as an outcome for some set of conditions, then
they cannot be accepted as being valid models of the long term
behavior of the Earth's climate.

What an engineer does is test, to the extent that it is possible to do
so, the entire range of conditions under which his SWAG must hold. And
even so sometimes the engineer misses something. This has not been
done with any climate model.

[Dimensional Traveler]

This sounds like you are saying that since we can't rule out any other
possibility with absolute certainty that we can't accept that 99% of the
people doing the work in the field could be right.

It is also an appeal to irrelevant authority. Engineers are not
climatologists.

[Quadibloc]

Some more news:

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/260362-temperatures-alaska-warmed-fast-year-noaa-algorithms

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 7:07:19 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> We know that interglacials have occurred repeatedly in the past, that
> the pattern of temperature change was largely what we are seeing in
> this interglacial, and that in every interglacial in the past some
> event (not some _random_ event, but something systemic) has occurred
> that ended the warming trend and started a cooling trend that led to
> glaciation.

> None of the models that I have seen show this as a possible outcome.
> If they don't show this as an outcome for some set of conditions, then
> they cannot be accepted as being valid models of the long term
> behavior of the Earth's climate.

I am not surprised that models used to track the effects of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere do not include code to reflect the Milankovitch cycle, because they are not intended to make predictions over that kind of timescale.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:34:54 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Until one looks at the entire
> picture around a process, one cannot make judgements that will affect
> the ENTIRE human race on a casual basis.

Not doing anything about Global Warming *now* _will_ affect the entire human race,
and badly. Waiting until we find out exactly by how much... is not a good option.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:41:01 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

99 percent of the people working on crystal spheres were "right" in
that they described the motions of the planets with reasonable
precision. That does not mean that they understood the physics behind
it.

Science works by testing models, not by people waving their arms about
and asserting that because they all agree they must be right.

>It is also an appeal to irrelevant authority. Engineers are not
>climatologists.

So you're saying that we should hold climatologists to a lower
standard than engineers?

The climatologists want us to disrupt society in major ways and doom
the Third World to eternal poverty all on their say-so. To my way of
thinking this requires more evidence than "my computer model says".
People who should know better nonetheless believe any pile of bullshit
as long as it came out of a computer.

There is, if past patterns are any guide, going to be Something Happen
very shortly that in previous times would have flipped the climate to
a cooling trend. If the climate models don't show that Something and
show that either it won't Happen or that when it does Happen then the
temperature will nonetheless continue to increase then they are
bullshit. All they really show is that it's been getting warmer for
10,000 years so it's going to keep getting warmer forever, but by some
miracle the last little bit has been our fault.

This sounds more like politics than physics.

[J. Clarke]

If they can't make predictions over that kind of timescale then they
are worthless. We are due for the cooling trigger. If the models
can't handle that then they are just fitting a curve to a trend.

[J. Clarke]

Not doing anything now _may_ affect the entire human race, or it may
be that next week the glaciation trigger hits and the cooling starts.
But doing the something that the climatologists want _will_ have major
effects. Telling the brown people with hydrogen bombs that they can't
have their piece of the pie may land those hydrogen bombs in the laps
of their oppressors, and that would include _you_.

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:05:36 -0500, J Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

|>It is now fifty two years since the first model predictions of warming, and the globe is indeed warming.
|
| It's been warming for 10,000 years. A model that shows that the
| status quo will continue is not particularly useful, nor is it a
| "success".

I've seen you say this at least twice. Are you deliberately trying to be
misleading?

Yes, it has been warming for the last 10,000 years, but the rate of
warming has not been constant over all that time, especially in the last
few decades.

Over the 10,000 year period, the models *don't* show that the status quo
will continue, rather that the warming rate will continue to increase.

In the 10,000 years prior to ~1980 the global average temp went up by
about 1.5 C ( if you go back 20,000 years that is 4.3 C )
In the ~40 years since 1980 the global average went up by almost 1 C

Not business as usual.

Check out a nice visual at https://xkcd.com/1732/


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:05:01 +1100, Paul Colquhoun
<newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:05:36 -0500, J Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>|>It is now fifty two years since the first model predictions of warming, and the globe is indeed warming.
>|
>| It's been warming for 10,000 years. A model that shows that the
>| status quo will continue is not particularly useful, nor is it a
>| "success".
>
>
>I've seen you say this at least twice. Are you deliberately trying to be
>misleading?
>
>Yes, it has been warming for the last 10,000 years, but the rate of
>warming has not been constant over all that time, especially in the last
>few decades.
>
>Over the 10,000 year period, the models *don't* show that the status quo
>will continue, rather that the warming rate will continue to increase.
>
>In the 10,000 years prior to ~1980 the global average temp went up by
>about 1.5 C ( if you go back 20,000 years that is 4.3 C )
>In the ~40 years since 1980 the global average went up by almost 1 C
>
>Not business as usual.
>
>Check out a nice visual at https://xkcd.com/1732/

Oh, GAWD, using xkcd as an _argument_? While I like xkcd, it is not
_evidence_.

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 11:26:31 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> The climatologists want us to disrupt society in major ways and doom
> the Third World to eternal poverty all on their say-so. To my way of
> thinking this requires more evidence than "my computer model says".

Oh, _that's_ quite true.

But:

a) It isn't "my computer model says". It's "my back-of-the-envelope calculation
says". The computer models just fill in the details. So there is indeed _no_
real level of uncertainty here that our current carbon dioxide emissions will
have catastrophic consequences.

b) The disruption to society, the economic consequences, can be kept to
reasonable levels. We may have to take trolley buses to work instead of driving
to work. Otherwise, nuclear power can produce abundant energy for the
industrialized world.

Some of that energy can be used for manufacturing carbon neutral fuel for the
Third World or otherwise supplying it with energy, to avoid proliferation risks.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 11:32:29 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> Telling the brown people with hydrogen bombs that they can't
> have their piece of the pie may land those hydrogen bombs in the laps
> of their oppressors, and that would include _you_.

Which brown people would those be?

As mainland China has nuclear capabilities (how would they get hydrogen bombs
without them) going away from fossil fuel use won't stop them from having their
"piece of the pie".

Anyways, military threats against fossil fuel using countries are rather late on
the list.

First, we need to go carbon-free ourselves, to set a good example, and to prove
it can be done *without* condemning anyone to poverty.

As it happens, "brown people" will be condemned to starvation by global warming
*long* before it has any significant or serious consequences for the
industrialized world.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:13:47 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 11:26:31 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> The climatologists want us to disrupt society in major ways and doom
>> the Third World to eternal poverty all on their say-so. To my way of
>> thinking this requires more evidence than "my computer model says".
>
>Oh, _that's_ quite true.
>
>But:
>
>a) It isn't "my computer model says". It's "my back-of-the-envelope calculation
>says". The computer models just fill in the details. So there is indeed _no_
>real level of uncertainty here that our current carbon dioxide emissions will
>have catastrophic consequences.

So you're saying that the computer models are irrelevant? And we
should disrupt society in major ways on the basis of some "back of the
envelope calculation"? Like the one that showed that bumblebees can't
fly?

>b) The disruption to society, the economic consequences, can be kept to
>reasonable levels. We may have to take trolley buses to work instead of driving
>to work. Otherwise, nuclear power can produce abundant energy for the
>industrialized world.

Somebody has to build and pay for all of those trolley buses. And how
do we get food from the farm to the city? More trolley buses? And
accepting nuclear energy will require a huge shift in public opinion.
Further, making fuel using nuclear is going to make fuel significantly
more expensive.

And to do this all in the timeframe the IPCC says is necessary will
involve immense expenditures.

>Some of that energy can be used for manufacturing carbon neutral fuel for the
>Third World or otherwise supplying it with energy, to avoid proliferation risks.

And what does the Third World use to pay for that fuel, or is it
supposed to be given to them gratis?

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:17:52 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 11:32:29 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>> Telling the brown people with hydrogen bombs that they can't
>> have their piece of the pie may land those hydrogen bombs in the laps
>> of their oppressors, and that would include _you_.
>
>Which brown people would those be?

Well let's see, brown people with hydrogen bombs include North Korea,
Pakistan, India, and it is likely that Iran will be joining the club
soon (although I find it difficult to count Iranians as "brown
people"--the ones I know are pretty pale if they haven't been out in
the sun recently). And then there's Israel--they're as brown as
Iranians. And when push comes to shove the Japanese can turn on the
production line too.

>
>As mainland China has nuclear capabilities (how would they get hydrogen bombs
>without them) going away from fossil fuel use won't stop them from having their
>"piece of the pie".

China isn't third world.

>Anyways, military threats against fossil fuel using countries are rather late on
>the list.

What does that even mean? English Quadi.

>First, we need to go carbon-free ourselves, to set a good example, and to prove
>it can be done *without* condemning anyone to poverty.

Which will be immensely expensive. But you seem to think it is all
going to be free. Here's a plan--you go find Harry Potter and
persuade him to use his magic wand to do all this stuff for free.

>As it happens, "brown people" will be condemned to starvation by global warming
>*long* before it has any significant or serious consequences for the
>industrialized world.

You say _will_. Do you have a TARDIS or something? You seem to think
that you know exactly how the future will play out. You don't.

[Scott Lurndal]

>On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 11:26:31 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> The climatologists want us to disrupt society in major ways

Cite? Or just bombastic embellishment?

>> and doom the Third World to eternal poverty all on their say-so.

And your research that shows this is the inevitable result of
the transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy is published
where, exactly?

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 16:40:36 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>

>>On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 11:26:31 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> The climatologists want us to disrupt society in major ways
>
>Cite? Or just bombastic embellishment?

It is well known that to avoid their supposed catastrophe they say
that we need to reduce CO2 emissions to 70 percent less than the 2010
level by 2050 and to zero by 2100. You can find this all over the
place, here's just one source among many.
<http://www.climatecentral.org/news/major-greenhouse-gas-reductions-needed-to-curtail-climate-change-ipcc-17300>
If you believe the assertion that they want to reduce emissions by
this amount to be at all questionable you have not been paying
attention.

Carbon emissions worldwide in 2010 were 9.246 teratons. Reducing that
by .70 gives us 2.773 teratons, roughly the 1963 level. But per
capita, the 1963 level was 854 tons per person, the 2010 level is
1334, but to cut back to the 1963 total level means per capita
emissions of 282 tons. That's the per capita level in roughly 1898.
(you can calculate these using the carbon emissions data from Earth
Policy Institute
<http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/xls/indicator7_2013_all.xlsx>
and the population figures from wikipedia.)

So tell us how we are going to get from current emission levels to
1898 emission levels in 32 years without massive disruption of
society.

>>> and doom the Third World to eternal poverty all on their say-so.
>
>And your research that shows this is the inevitable result of
>the transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy is published
>where, exactly?

Right here. Reduce emission levels to NINETEENTH CENTURY levels. In
32 years from now. Tell us how the Third World sustains growth with
no energy. You say it can be done, fine, show us how it can be done.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:h6083dd9gvvh5d3og...@4ax.com:

Even *with* massive disruption, you're talking about genocide on a
world wide scale.

And frankly, I believe that *is* their specific, conscious goal.

>
>>>> and doom the Third World to eternal poverty all on their
>>>> say-so.
>>
>>And your research that shows this is the inevitable result of
>>the transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy is published
>>where, exactly?
>
> Right here. Reduce emission levels to NINETEENTH CENTURY
> levels. In 32 years from now. Tell us how the Third World
> sustains growth with no energy. You say it can be done, fine,
> show us how it can be done.
>

Nuke them all, and finish the surivors off with anthrax.

[William Hyde]

So you're not even going to contest the successful predictions, Lynn?

No ideas on why the stratosphere is cooling?

>
> Your blessed models may be soundly based on physics (that is debatable
> from what I have seen)

You ain't seen nothin yet. Open your eyes and you might.

, but they do not encompass the entire energy and
> material balance around the Earth.

Second time you've made this fine-sounding claim. Care to back it up? What are we leaving out? Alien space bats?

William Hyde

[Moriarty]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 7:11:02 AM UTC+11, William Hyde wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:

<snip>

> > Your blessed models may be soundly based on physics (that is debatable
> > from what I have seen)
>
> You ain't seen nothin yet. Open your eyes and you might.
>
> , but they do not encompass the entire energy and
> > material balance around the Earth.
>
> Second time you've made this fine-sounding claim. Care to back it up? What are we leaving out? Alien space bats?

Jesus.

-Moriarty

[William Hyde]

I've already told you the validation. Predictions that have come true over fifty years, not only as to warming, but as to stratospheric cooling and the pattern of warming.

Hint--fitting a curve to 300
> years of data is not "successful modelling".

Hint - we didn't have 300 years worth of data when the first models were run. Though I do appreciate the passive-aggressive accusation of dishonesty on my part and that of all other scientists working in this field. Because I worked with a GCM group for a couple of years and never saw the curvefitting code. Guess I must be lying.

In any event, the models solve the equations of physics relevant to the problem, they do not curvefit. Model code is available for inspection.

Perhaps you should try curvefitting the data from 1660 to 1960 and extrapolating. I'd bet it won't look much like model output - there's a lot of variation in there which won't be well fit by an exponential curve. But if it does you can publish in a number of places. You'd be a hero!

> >> So, making bold predictions that the global temperatures are going to
> >> rise more than normal,
> >
> >It is now fifty two years since the first model predictions of warming, and the globe is indeed warming.
>
> It's been warming for 10,000 years.

In the past ten thousand years we've seen both warming and cooling episodes.

It has warmed about one degree C in the past century. If it had been warming at that rate for the past ten thousand years not only would the ice sheets be gone, but so would the oceans. Even at a tenth of that rate it would be a very different world.

What the models are predicting, and observations over the past few decades have shown, is not an extension of a long term trend.

You are numerate enough to see this.

A model that shows that the
> status quo will continue is not particularly useful, nor is it a
> "success".
>
> When it shows us something that (a) we don't already know

Warming of the stratosphere.

Fingerprint of warming that fits the cause, and does not fit other causes.

and (b) that
> we can test,

Done.

then it becomes useful.
>
> >More important than that, the pattern of the warming fits the early predictions. So if something else is warming the planet it must be something that fits the fingerprint of GHG induced climate change. There are no candidates for such a change. Solar constant increase, for example, is right out.
>
> Oh, GAWD, "solar constant increase is right out".

Yes it is. I gave the reason, just above. Did you read it?

Solar constant increase would increase stratospheric temperature, for example. The opposite has happened.

The timing of the
> glaciations does not fit some handy pattern in which ice melts when
> the sun is hot.

True, but nobody has made this sort of claim in 150 years.

There seems to be some kind of relationship but it
> has a long lag or a long lead in it.

With regard to ice ages and interglacials you really have no idea what you are talking about. The lags behind Milankovitch forcing, for example, were calculated 50 years ago.

> >
> >Stratospheric cooling was predicted fifty two years ago. It's happening, and happening for the reasons given fifty two years ago. I'd say that's a remarkably successful piece of work and entirely contradicts your claim that the system cannot be modeled.
>
> So how long had it been cooling before they decided to predict that it
> was cooling?

No observations. Somehow, before the era of flight, people forgot to compile a reliable database of stratospheric temperature. The first prediction was greeted with skepticism, until people figured out why it would happen.

And do you have *any* explanation for stratospheric cooling? I have one, and it makes physical sense.

>
> > that the oceans are going to rise many feet
> >
> >Actually IPCC calls for a few feet over a long time.
> >
> >The wild card is West Antarctica. One of it's three basins, holding an equivalent of two meters of sea level, could collapse in a matter of a few decades.
>
> God could sandwich us between two rogue planets in a few decades too.
> "Could" is not a prediction.

"Could" is a useful word. Houston "could" be hit by a category four storm in 2018. I would not say the same about London. A person deciding to relocate might be swayed by that "could". Insurance companies certainly are.

"Could" implies that in our estimation the probability of this occurring is significant. That is based on what we know of ice sheets.

Which is why I didn't say "could" about the other ice sheets. As far as we know, and we have a fair amount of knowledge on this, the chance of one of them collapsing before 2100 is tiny. Not worth worrying about. But they will, of course, lose mass through melting.


William Hyde

[William Hyde]

There are indeed people who have said that AGW won't happen because God won't let it.

Lynn isn't one of those, though.

William Hyde

[Scott Lurndal]

William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>> Your blessed models may be soundly based on physics (that is debatable=20

>> from what I have seen)
>
>You ain't seen nothin yet. Open your eyes and you might.
>

>, but they do not encompass the entire energy and=20

>> material balance around the Earth.
>

>Second time you've made this fine-sounding claim. Care to back it up? Wha=

>t are we leaving out? Alien space bats?
>

Come on now, it's Lynn. It's apocalyptic space bats.

OTOH, it would be nice if they modelled clouds with higher
fidelity.

[J. Clarke]

They obviously are unfamiliar with the story of Noah . . .

[Dimensional Traveler]

And the economic needs of the oil industry.

[Lynn McGuire]

I have to agree with you on the genocide thing. The best way to reduce
global carbon emissions is to kill off 90% of the world's population.
And then to restrict the global birth rate.

Population control has been a goal of the lefties for several decades.
https://www.amazon.com/population-bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/0345021711/

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

And has been disproven already.

http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Temperature_Timeline

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:57:51 -0800 (PST), William Hyde

I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by "predicting" 0.05 percent of a
100,000 year cycle in a period where in all previous cycles the same
thing has happened.

> Hint--fitting a curve to 300
>> years of data is not "successful modelling".
>
>Hint - we didn't have 300 years worth of data when the first models were run. Though I do appreciate the passive-aggressive accusation of dishonesty on my part and that of all other scientists working in this field. Because I worked with a GCM group for a couple of years and never saw the curvefitting code. Guess I must be lying.

So how much did you have, 250? 200? 100? You're still fitting a
curve to the data no matter what you think you are doing. You say you
"never saw the curvefitting code". So did you see _any_ code and
understand enough of what was going on to be able to make assertions
about it? They're huge, complex programs. The people making them may
not even know that that's what they're doing.

>In any event, the models solve the equations of physics relevant to the problem, they do not curvefit. Model code is available for inspection.

And when they don't fit the data they get tweaked until the do. The
result is pretty much curve fitting.

>Perhaps you should try curvefitting the data from 1660 to 1960 and extrapolating. I'd bet it won't look much like model output - there's a lot of variation in there which won't be well fit by an exponential curve. But if it does you can publish in a number of places. You'd be a hero!

Who said anything about "an exponential curve". Do read a text on
forecasting if you think "an exponential curve" is the only one
possible.

>> >> So, making bold predictions that the global temperatures are going to
>> >> rise more than normal,
>> >
>> >It is now fifty two years since the first model predictions of warming, and the globe is indeed warming.
>>
>> It's been warming for 10,000 years.
>
>In the past ten thousand years we've seen both warming and cooling episodes.

We've seen an increase with noise. Apply a low-pass filter and the
"cooling episodes" go away.

>It has warmed about one degree C in the past century. If it had been warming at that rate for the past ten thousand years not only would the ice sheets be gone, but so would the oceans. Even at a tenth of that rate it would be a very different world.

So? there has been a rapid spike at the end of several previous
interglacials. Show us that that is not what we are seeing?

>What the models are predicting, and observations over the past few decades have shown, is not an extension of a long term trend.
>
>You are numerate enough to see this.

What I am seeing is that model just says "it's going to get warmer".
It shows NO other possible outcome. Show me a model that yields a
peak and a long term cooling trend when you remove anthropogenic
carbon but shows that the long term cooling trend doesn't happen with
it and I'll be impressed. But any idiot can say "it was warmer
yesterday than the day before, so tomorrow will probably be a
scorcher".

>> A model that shows that the
>> status quo will continue is not particularly useful, nor is it a
>> "success".
>>
>> When it shows us something that (a) we don't already know
>
>Warming of the stratosphere.

I thought the stratosphere was cooling. How long have we been
measuring stratospheric temperatures? When was the first model that
"predicted" this created?

>Fingerprint of warming that fits the cause, and does not fit other causes.

So what other "causes" were tested? Do we know with certainty that
this did not happen at this stage of previous interglacials?

>and (b) that
>> we can test,
>
>Done.

For standards of "done" that would have any graduate committee in any
engineering school in the country laughing the doctoral candidate out
of the program.

> then it becomes useful.
>>
>> >More important than that, the pattern of the warming fits the early predictions. So if something else is warming the planet it must be something that fits the fingerprint of GHG induced climate change. There are no candidates for such a change. Solar constant increase, for example, is right out.
>>
>> Oh, GAWD, "solar constant increase is right out".
>
>Yes it is. I gave the reason, just above. Did you read it?

Yeah, it shows that you have not the tiniest clue about
paleoclimatology.

>Solar constant increase would increase stratospheric temperature, for example. The opposite has happened.

If the warming happened at the times of solar constant increase, which
has NOT been the case in previous glaciation cycles.

Pick up ANY text on paleoclimatology and read it. Solar forcing is
FAR more complicated than you want it to be.

>> The timing of the
>> glaciations does not fit some handy pattern in which ice melts when
>> the sun is hot.
>
>True, but nobody has made this sort of claim in 150 years.

You just made it.

> There seems to be some kind of relationship but it
>> has a long lag or a long lead in it.
>
>With regard to ice ages and interglacials you really have no idea what you are talking about. The lags behind Milankovitch forcing, for example, were calculated 50 years ago.

The timing and the mechanism are two different things. You claim to
KNOW the mechanism. And yet you go on about "solar constant"
completely ignoring the timing that you found out five minutes ago on
wikipedia has been known for a long time.

>> >Stratospheric cooling was predicted fifty two years ago. It's happening, and happening for the reasons given fifty two years ago. I'd say that's a remarkably successful piece of work and entirely contradicts your claim that the system cannot be modeled.
>>
>> So how long had it been cooling before they decided to predict that it
>> was cooling?
>
>No observations. Somehow, before the era of flight, people forgot to compile a reliable database of stratospheric temperature. The first prediction was greeted with skepticism, until people figured out why it would happen.

So you think 52 years ago was "before the era of flight"? People with
names like Gagarin and Glenn and Shepherd would disagree with you on
that point.

>And do you have *any* explanation for stratospheric cooling? I have one, and it makes physical sense.

Do you have ANY reason to believe that it has not been going on for
10,000 years? You've already admitted that there's no data.

>> > that the oceans are going to rise many feet
>> >
>> >Actually IPCC calls for a few feet over a long time.
>> >
>> >The wild card is West Antarctica. One of it's three basins, holding an equivalent of two meters of sea level, could collapse in a matter of a few decades.
>>
>> God could sandwich us between two rogue planets in a few decades too.
>> "Could" is not a prediction.
>
>"Could" is a useful word. Houston "could" be hit by a category four storm in 2018. I would not say the same about London. A person deciding to relocate might be swayed by that "could". Insurance companies certainly are.

No, insurance companies are not. You've picked the wrong guy to argue
with about insurance. We do not use the word "could" in reference to
actuarial calculations. We use probabilities or percentages depending
on the particular style of calculation being performed.

>"Could" implies that in our estimation the probability of this occurring is significant. That is based on what we know of ice sheets.

"Could" means nothing.

>Which is why I didn't say "could" about the other ice sheets. As far as we know, and we have a fair amount of knowledge on this, the chance of one of them collapsing before 2100 is tiny. Not worth worrying about. But they will, of course, lose mass through melting.

You are pretty much trying to fearmonger.

How do you know that "collapse of the West Antarctice Ice Sheet" is
not a necessary part of the process that ends interglacials?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:p11efs$r8m$2...@dont-email.me:

Or 100%. VHE aren't kidding, they're just too cowardly to lead the
way.

> And then to restrict the global birth rate.

Making humans go extince will do that.

>
> Population control has been a goal of the lefties for several
> decades.
> https://www.amazon.com/population-bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/0345
> 021711/
>

And they've been preicting the apocalypse if we don't - as they do
with *everything* the don't like - if we don't Do! Something!
Drastic! Right! Now! for just as long.

It really isn't about the environment, it's really about control.
Which is to say, controlling _everyone_ _else_.

[Lynn McGuire]

Yup. We were born free here in the USA. These people (and others) are
trying to change this.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

I'm pretty sure that that counts as "massive disruption".

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:p12045$779$1...@dont-email.me:

Heh. Yeah. This is a radically new concept that hasn't been around
for two centuries.

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 10:41:00 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> Right here. Reduce emission levels to NINETEENTH CENTURY levels. In
> 32 years from now. Tell us how the Third World sustains growth with
> no energy. You say it can be done, fine, show us how it can be done.

If only the Third World burned fossil fuels, they would have some room for growth
before world emission levels reached those of the Nineteenth Century.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Subsidizing the price to what they're now paying for fossil fuels is another
option.

However, now that you've opened things up to talk about the issue as an
*economic* problem, instead of merely an engineering problem:

Think of American farmers and food stamps.

Money isn't a real thing to the government, it can just print more. But not
having enough money is very real to you or I: we can't get away with
counterfeiting.

What _is_ real, even to a government, is foreign exchange. Governments can't
make gold out of thin air, nor can they get away with counterfeiting other
countries' money.

Giving away energy to the Third World is tied aid, or aid in kind. It doesn't force the government to contract the economy to reduce imports.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 03:49:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 8:31:42 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:13:47 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >Some of that energy can be used for manufacturing carbon neutral fuel for the
>> >Third World or otherwise supplying it with energy, to avoid proliferation risks.
>
>> And what does the Third World use to pay for that fuel, or is it
>> supposed to be given to them gratis?
>
>Subsidizing the price to what they're now paying for fossil fuels is another
>option.

Who subsidizes it? How is that subsidy not disruptive to whoever is
paying it?

>However, now that you've opened things up to talk about the issue as an
>*economic* problem, instead of merely an engineering problem:

The argument that the greenies are attempting to counter here is that
their proposal will be massively disruptive. There was no statement
anywhere that the discussion was to be limited to "engineering". From
an engineering viewpoint there are many solutions but they all will be
costly and some will be difficult to sell politically--somebody's
going to have to pay for them and getting them implemented in 32 years
will be a hugely expensive undertaking.

>Think of American farmers and food stamps.
>
>Money isn't a real thing to the government, it can just print more.

Now we know that you know as much about economics as you do about
women. The government can print all the money it wants but printing
more money doesn't create more wealth, it just creates more paper.
It's called "inflation" and while I haven't personally experienced
runaway inflation, my parents told me of walking around Shanghai
pushing a wheelbarrow full of money that was barely sufficient to buy
dinner, because the government had tried to solve an economic problem
by printing more money.

If the government printing all the money it wanted worked there would
be no taxes and no government debt, the government would just print
all the money it wanted.

> But not
>having enough money is very real to you or I: we can't get away with
>counterfeiting.

It is real to governments as well.

>What _is_ real, even to a government, is foreign exchange. Governments can't
>make gold out of thin air, nor can they get away with counterfeiting other
>countries' money.

Foreign exchange is mostly in dollars, which are not backed by gold.

>Giving away energy to the Third World is tied aid, or aid in kind. It doesn't force the government to contract the economy to reduce imports.

Where does the energy come from? Whoever is producting it expects to
be paid. And how does it get to where it is needed? Whoever is
transporting it expects to be paid.
>
>John Savard

[J. Clarke]

OK, tell us your plan for getting the rest of the world to _zero_
emissions in 32 years without massive disruption.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:35:02 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 03:49:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 8:31:42 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:13:47 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> >Some of that energy can be used for manufacturing carbon neutral fuel for the
> >> >Third World or otherwise supplying it with energy, to avoid proliferation risks.
> >
> >> And what does the Third World use to pay for that fuel, or is it
> >> supposed to be given to them gratis?
> >
> >Subsidizing the price to what they're now paying for fossil fuels is another
> >option.
>
> Who subsidizes it? How is that subsidy not disruptive to whoever is
> paying it?

Estimates are that renewables will be cheaper than coal power in the near future
http://theconversation.com/renewables-will-be-cheaper-than-coal-in-the-future-here-are-the-numbers-84433

also a lot of poorer countries don't have much of a transmission network and renewables don't need to be as centralised (you can put solar and wind at a village and get a lot of benefit)

>
> >However, now that you've opened things up to talk about the issue as an
> >*economic* problem, instead of merely an engineering problem:
>
> The argument that the greenies are attempting to counter here is that
> their proposal will be massively disruptive.
> There was no statement
> anywhere that the discussion was to be limited to "engineering". From
> an engineering viewpoint there are many solutions but they all will be
> costly and some will be difficult to sell politically--somebody's
> going to have to pay for them and getting them implemented in 32 years
> will be a hugely expensive undertaking.

Estimates are that the cost of not doing anything about climate change are far more expensive than going renewable

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 06:54:06 -0800 (PST), hamis...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:35:02 AM UTC+11, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 03:49:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 8:31:42 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:13:47 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Some of that energy can be used for manufacturing carbon neutral fuel for the
>> >> >Third World or otherwise supplying it with energy, to avoid proliferation risks.
>> >
>> >> And what does the Third World use to pay for that fuel, or is it
>> >> supposed to be given to them gratis?
>> >
>> >Subsidizing the price to what they're now paying for fossil fuels is another
>> >option.
>>
>> Who subsidizes it? How is that subsidy not disruptive to whoever is
>> paying it?
>
>Estimates are that renewables will be cheaper than coal power in the near future
>http://theconversation.com/renewables-will-be-cheaper-than-coal-in-the-future-here-are-the-numbers-84433
>
>also a lot of poorer countries don't have much of a transmission network and renewables don't need to be as centralised (you can put solar and wind at a village and get a lot of benefit)

Somebody still has to do it all in 32 years without massive
disruption. You got a plan for doing that?

>> >However, now that you've opened things up to talk about the issue as an
>> >*economic* problem, instead of merely an engineering problem:
>>
>> The argument that the greenies are attempting to counter here is that
>> their proposal will be massively disruptive.
>> There was no statement
>> anywhere that the discussion was to be limited to "engineering". From
>> an engineering viewpoint there are many solutions but they all will be
>> costly and some will be difficult to sell politically--somebody's
>> going to have to pay for them and getting them implemented in 32 years
>> will be a hugely expensive undertaking.
>
>
>Estimates are that the cost of not doing anything about climate change are far more expensive than going renewable

Other estimates are that the cost of not doing anything is zero.

You have a plan? You've got 32 years to get the world down to late
19th century per capita emission levels. Tell us how you're going to
do it.

[Lynn McGuire]

A bio-engineered flu virus that kills 99% of the worlds population.

Mildly disruptive. The worthy people will be inoculated before deployment.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

Are you trolling or just nuts?

[Lynn McGuire]

Yes.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 12/13/2017 1:56 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> https://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/12/12/scientists-warn-arctic-refrigerator-is-failing-with-global-consequences/
>
> isn't it?
>
> John Savard

"BREAKING: Trump to remove ‘climate change’ as a national security threat"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/15/breaking-trump-to-remove-climate-change-as-a-national-security-threat/

I love the cartoon.

Lynn

[Quadibloc]

He is not suggesting that action, he is on your side, and saying that it
is the sort of thing the greenies want but won't admit.

[Lynn McGuire]

I know. Things went south when the Whisky Tax was enacted.

But a fellow can dream, right ?

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 12/14/2017 11:47 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:34:54 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> Until one looks at the entire
>> picture around a process, one cannot make judgements that will affect
>> the ENTIRE human race on a casual basis.
>
> Not doing anything about Global Warming *now* _will_ affect the entire human race,
> and badly. Waiting until we find out exactly by how much... is not a good option.
>
> John Savard

How do you know that Global Warming is bad ?

I'll tell you what is bad. Glaciers in Kansas. Now that would be bad.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 12/15/2017 2:57 PM, William Hyde wrote:
...

> "Could" is a useful word. Houston "could" be hit by a category four storm in 2018. I would not say the same about London. A person deciding to relocate might be swayed by that "could". Insurance companies certainly are.
>
> "Could" implies that in our estimation the probability of this occurring is significant. That is based on what we know of ice sheets.
>
> Which is why I didn't say "could" about the other ice sheets. As far as we know, and we have a fair amount of knowledge on this, the chance of one of them collapsing before 2100 is tiny. Not worth worrying about. But they will, of course, lose mass through melting.
>
>
> William Hyde

The Texas Gulf Coast has been hit by several Cat 5 hurricanes in the
last 200 years. Many with large loss of life. One even wiped out a
town, Indianola, in 1886.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1886_Indianola_hurricane

The Texas Gulf Coast will be hit by more Cat 5 hurricanes in the next
200 years. This is nothing new, it happens.

Lynn

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 02:14:38 -0500, J Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:05:01 +1100, Paul Colquhoun
| <newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
|
|>On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:05:36 -0500, J Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
|>

|>|>It is now fifty two years since the first model predictions of warming, and the globe is indeed warming.
|>|

|>| It's been warming for 10,000 years. A model that shows that the

|>| status quo will continue is not particularly useful, nor is it a
|>| "success".
|>
|>

|>I've seen you say this at least twice. Are you deliberately trying to be
|>misleading?
|>
|>Yes, it has been warming for the last 10,000 years, but the rate of
|>warming has not been constant over all that time, especially in the last
|>few decades.
|>
|>Over the 10,000 year period, the models *don't* show that the status quo
|>will continue, rather that the warming rate will continue to increase.
|>
|>In the 10,000 years prior to ~1980 the global average temp went up by
|>about 1.5 C ( if you go back 20,000 years that is 4.3 C )
|>In the ~40 years since 1980 the global average went up by almost 1 C
|>
|>Not business as usual.
|>
|>Check out a nice visual at https://xkcd.com/1732/
|
| Oh, GAWD, using xkcd as an _argument_? While I like xkcd, it is not
| _evidence_.

No, as the easiest visualisation I could remember. If you don't like it,
ignore that URL that I clearly labeled as simply "nice visual" and reply
to the part about the rate of warming having changed drastically in the
last few decades. Or did you just want a convenient excuse to avoid
that?


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 12:26:19 +1100, Paul Colquhoun

A few decades is noise in the signal. Does it show up after you apply
a low-pass filter?

[hamis...@gmail.com]

it's J.Clarke if it disagrees with his conclusion he'll find some reason to ignore it

[J. Clarke]

He's basically giving the "hockey stick" argument and the hockey stick
has long since been debunked.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

Find the peer reviewed scientific papers disputing it, there are over 25 independent reconstructions that essentially agree with the reconstruction.
(there's some minor disagreement about the exact temperature reconstruction but there's nothing that changes the basic conclusions)

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On 12/13/2017 6:56 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We are all going to die !
>>>>
>>>> Well, at least if we're polar bears. But even that's bad
>>>> enough.

>Is there any evidence that polar bears are in any kind of distress?
>There are regular, surprised, stories about how well they're doing.

Polar bears live on the sea ice. People live on the land. People
seeing more bears than usual doesn't prove that the bears are doing
well. It means that more of them are being forced off the ice and are
being forced to try their luck as mal-evolved grizzlys.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[J. Clarke]

Here's a summary:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

You can find the sources yourself--there's enough information in the
article to allow it.

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 07:32:52 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> On 12/13/2017 6:56 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> McGuire wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We are all going to die !
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, at least if we're polar bears. But even that's bad
>>>>> enough.
>
>>Is there any evidence that polar bears are in any kind of distress?
>>There are regular, surprised, stories about how well they're doing.
>

You left out a word.


_Some_

>Polar bears live on the sea ice. People live on the land. People
>seeing more bears than usual doesn't prove that the bears are doing
>well. It means that more of them are being forced off the ice and are
>being forced to try their luck as mal-evolved grizzlys.

In any case, polar bears are relatively recent evolution--they are not
going to survive the end of the ice age whenever it happens. If this
is it then they're doomed now, if this isn't it, then they're doomed
later.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Pretty much ALL species are doomed to extinction eventually. That
doesn't mean that something isn't happening when high numbers of species
go extinct or starting heading for extinction in a very short period of
time.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[William Hyde]

You have to ask? Do you read this group?

William Hyde

[William Hyde]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 4:05:38 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:59:59 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 3:42:43 PM UTC-5, Moriarty wrote:
> >> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 7:11:02 AM UTC+11, William Hyde wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > > Your blessed models may be soundly based on physics (that is debatable
> >> > > from what I have seen)
> >> >
> >> > You ain't seen nothin yet. Open your eyes and you might.
> >> >
> >> > , but they do not encompass the entire energy and
> >> > > material balance around the Earth.
> >> >
> >> > Second time you've made this fine-sounding claim. Care to back it up? What are we leaving out? Alien space bats?
> >>
> >> Jesus.
> >
> >There are indeed people who have said that AGW won't happen because God won't let it.
>
> They obviously are unfamiliar with the story of Noah . . .

A fair point.

William Hyde

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:f9ndh7...@mid.individual.net:

So you're not aware of any, either.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:p16aq4$go1$1...@dont-email.me:

That, too, has happened before.

[David Johnston]

Post-apocalyptic fantasies are his jam.

[William Hyde]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 4:35:48 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:57:51 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 5:05:39 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:56:49 -0800 (PST), William Hyde

> >> >> Yup, you are totally correct, a very chaotic system.
> >> >
> >> >Weather is chaotic, climate is not.
> >> >
> >> > A system which
> >> >> cannot be modeled correctly today. Probably never.
> >> >
> >> >Except it's already been done successfully.
> >>
> >> By who? Show us the validation tests.
> >
> >I've already told you the validation. Predictions that have come true over fifty years, not only as to warming, but as to stratospheric cooling and the pattern of warming.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by "predicting" 0.05 percent of a
> 100,000 year cycle in a period where in all previous cycles the same
> thing has happened.

Nothing you imply above is true.

There is no evidence in the paleoclimatic record of the past few interglacials of anything like this. Our interglacial is different.

> > Hint--fitting a curve to 300
> >> years of data is not "successful modelling".
> >
> >Hint - we didn't have 300 years worth of data when the first models were run. Though I do appreciate the passive-aggressive accusation of dishonesty on my part and that of all other scientists working in this field. Because I worked with a GCM group for a couple of years and never saw the curvefitting code. Guess I must be lying.
>
> So how much did you have, 250? 200? 100? You're still fitting a
> curve to the data no matter what you think you are doing. You say you
> "never saw the curvefitting code". So did you see _any_ code and
> understand enough of what was going on to be able to make assertions
> about it? They're huge, complex programs. The people making them may
> not even know that that's what they're doing.

What an insufferably patronizing fool you are.

I *wrote* code for one of these models. Yes, I did understand the code I wrote and much else besides.

I wrote code, in fact for a number of models. I never curve fit in any of them. I did, in fact, write a number of curve-fitting programs. But they were not climate models. The difference is clear.

A friend did tell me about an engineering program he had to improve. Several thousand lines of code with a ten line curve-fit somewhere in the middle. Oddly enough, he spotted it, though the curve fitter already had his PhD and the University did not try to take it back.

>
> >In any event, the models solve the equations of physics relevant to the problem, they do not curvefit. Model code is available for inspection.
>
> And when they don't fit the data they get tweaked until the do. The
> result is pretty much curve fitting.

The response of the planet to doubled CO2 was predicted before *any* backtesting was done on the paleoclimatic record for the very good reason that computers simply were not fast enough for multi-year runs at the time. When I first started the more complex models were generally run for 90-120 simulated days, though Manabe at GFDL could do longer runs (and we were hugely envious!).

Early backtesting consisted of models simulating the ice age, and from the start they did a decent job at that.

At the time, aside from the instrumental record, we had no historical records which were quantitative enough to be of use - just qualitative ideas (e.g. 1-3 degrees C cooler in the little ice age).

For that matter the results were not that different from Svante Arrhenius' estimates in the 1890s. Though those, naturally, didn't deal with the stratosphere.

> >Perhaps you should try curvefitting the data from 1660 to 1960 and extrapolating. I'd bet it won't look much like model output - there's a lot of variation in there which won't be well fit by an exponential curve. But if it does you can publish in a number of places. You'd be a hero!
>
> Who said anything about "an exponential curve".

I note your surrender on this point.

> >> >> So, making bold predictions that the global temperatures are going to
> >> >> rise more than normal,

> >> >
> >> >It is now fifty two years since the first model predictions of warming, and the globe is indeed warming.
> >>
> >> It's been warming for 10,000 years.
> >

> >In the past ten thousand years we've seen both warming and cooling episodes.
>
> We've seen an increase with noise. Apply a low-pass filter and the
> "cooling episodes" go away.

And I suppose we should ignore the physics behind these cooling episodes? Why not apply a ten million year filter? That will make the climate very easy to explain.


> >It has warmed about one degree C in the past century. If it had been warming at that rate for the past ten thousand years not only would the ice sheets be gone, but so would the oceans. Even at a tenth of that rate it would be a very different world.
>
> So? there has been a rapid spike at the end of several previous
> interglacials.

Please cite for a one degree warming (and still continuing) over a century towards the end of interglacials. Planetary average, please, not a point measurement.

> Show us that that is not what we are seeing?

We have a simple cause for the current spike, soundly based in physics.

So explain to me why CO2 increase does not warm the planet, and explain what else is. Be specific: "Natural variation" is meaningless as is "a web site tells me it happened before".

>
> >What the models are predicting, and observations over the past few decades have shown, is not an extension of a long term trend.
> >
> >You are numerate enough to see this.
>
> What I am seeing is that model just says "it's going to get warmer".

As I have told you, it says more than that. It predicts the pattern of warming, including stratospheric cooling. You must have read that.

Are you just trolling? Because if so, I'm sure Terry would be happy to play with you again.


> It shows NO other possible outcome. Show me a model that yields a
> peak and a long term cooling trend when you remove anthropogenic
> carbon but shows that the long term cooling trend doesn't happen with
> it and I'll be impressed.

Prepare to be impressed. I've written models that do this. All decent models will.

On creation models are run for a long time with constant forcing, to ensure that they don't drift. Add greenhouse gases and they warm up. Take the gases away and they cool down. Not necessarily to the initial state. Melted ice is not restored immediately, and ocean circulation changes may be persistent.

> >> A model that shows that the
> >> status quo will continue is not particularly useful, nor is it a
> >> "success".
> >>

> >> When it shows us something that (a) we don't already know
> >
> >Warming of the stratosphere.
>
> I thought the stratosphere was cooling. How long have we been
> measuring stratospheric temperatures? When was the first model that
> "predicted" this created?

Pardon me, typo. Cooling of the stratosphere, as I said earlier.

I don't see the point of your scare quotes. Manabe in 1965 did the first modern model study of the climatic effect of doubled CO2. One result of this study was that while the troposphere would warm, the stratosphere would cool. This was, as I said elsewhere, not expected by the community, though we can see that it makes physical sense.

Stratospheric cooling is well observed. It was in fact used against me by a GW denier here some years ago, who did not believe it was consistent with GW, and thought that I was lying when I said it had been long predicted. Whether he believed me after I gave him the citations I do not know. He was only here for a few months, IIRC.
>
> >Fingerprint of warming that fits the cause, and does not fit other causes.
>
> So what other "causes" were tested?

Solar constant change, aerosol loading change, ocean upwelling change. Feel free to suggest more.

Do we know with certainty that
> this did not happen at this stage of previous interglacials?

No, and that doesn't matter. Proxy temperature records from the Eemian are not good enough, and probably won't be until someone invents a time machine.

It is for you to explain why the current warming isn't due to CO2, to give a cause, and to explain why this cause has the same pattern of warming as CO2.

>
> >and (b) that
> >> we can test,
> >
> >Done.
>
> For standards of "done" that would have any graduate committee in any
> engineering school in the country laughing the doctoral candidate out
> of the program.

You may assert that, but it isn't true.

> > then it becomes useful.
> >>
> >> >More important than that, the pattern of the warming fits the early predictions. So if something else is warming the planet it must be something that fits the fingerprint of GHG induced climate change. There are no candidates for such a change. Solar constant increase, for example, is right out.
> >>
> >> Oh, GAWD, "solar constant increase is right out".
> >
> >Yes it is. I gave the reason, just above. Did you read it?
>
> Yeah, it shows that you have not the tiniest clue about
> paleoclimatology.

Beautiful trolling. Unless you mean it, in which case you're a fool.

Fingerprint studies have nothing to do with paleoclimatology - as I said elsewhere, stratospheric paleotemperatures failed to fossilize.

>
> >Solar constant increase would increase stratospheric temperature, for example. The opposite has happened.
>
> If the warming happened at the times of solar constant increase, which
> has NOT been the case in previous glaciation cycles.

Try again, in English.

>
> Pick up ANY text on paleoclimatology and read it.

You mean like "Paleoclimatology" by Crowley and North? Or R. S. Bradley's "Quaternary Paleoclimatology" or even Flint's "Glacial and Quaternary Climatology", or Lamb, or Budyko?

Yeah, done that.

Solar forcing is
> FAR more complicated than you want it to be.

The point - and listen closely - is that the fingerprint of solar forcing is very different from that of the current warming. Among other things, an increase in solar forcing results in stratospheric warming, the opposite of what is actually happening.

And note that I am talking solar constant change here. Not Milankovitch cycles which, important as they are, are far too slow to account for current climate change.

> >> The timing of the
> >> glaciations does not fit some handy pattern in which ice melts when
> >> the sun is hot.
> >
> >True, but nobody has made this sort of claim in 150 years.
>
> You just made it.

You are deluded.


> > There seems to be some kind of relationship but it
> >> has a long lag or a long lead in it.
> >
> >With regard to ice ages and interglacials you really have no idea what you are talking about. The lags behind Milankovitch forcing, for example, were calculated 50 years ago.
>
> The timing and the mechanism are two different things. You claim to
> KNOW the mechanism.

With regard to the current warming, yes. What is your proposed substitute?

>And yet you go on about "solar constant"

No, I merely pointed out that solar constant increase cannot account for the current warming. It's one thing for you not to agree with my point, that's expected, but you don't even seem to understand the first thing I am saying.

Are you even trying?

> completely ignoring the timing that you found out five minutes ago on
> wikipedia has been known for a long time.

You are so laughably wrong I'm almost sorry for you.

If you have an interest in one of the key papers (on ice ages, not global warming):

https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/EART_206/09-0303/Hays%20et%2076%20Science%20194-1121.pdf

> >> >Stratospheric cooling was predicted fifty two years ago. It's happening, and happening for the reasons given fifty two years ago. I'd say that's a remarkably successful piece of work and entirely contradicts your claim that the system cannot be modeled.
> >>
> >> So how long had it been cooling before they decided to predict that it
> >> was cooling?
> >
> >No observations. Somehow, before the era of flight, people forgot to compile a reliable database of stratospheric temperature. The first prediction was greeted with skepticism, until people figured out why it would happen.
>
> So you think 52 years ago was "before the era of flight"? People with
> names like Gagarin and Glenn and Shepherd would disagree with you on
> that point.

I assumed you were intelligent enough to get the point. My bad. Yes, we've been flying for a long time, putting balloons up for even longer - but not measuring stratospheric temperatures even on a point basis over enough years to spot a trend, let alone on a worldwide basis.

When Manabe ran his model, in other words, there was no historical record for him to look at. Which would have been irrelevant anyway, as he was simply studying the effect of doubled CO2, not running a hindcast.

>
> >And do you have *any* explanation for stratospheric cooling? I have one, and it makes physical sense.
>
> Do you have ANY reason to believe that it has not been going on for
> 10,000 years? You've already admitted that there's no data.

What possible difference would it make if it had? A prediction was made, and fulfilled. And we know why. Your point is monumentally irrelevant.


> >> > that the oceans are going to rise many feet
> >> >
> >> >Actually IPCC calls for a few feet over a long time.
> >> >
> >> >The wild card is West Antarctica. One of it's three basins, holding an equivalent of two meters of sea level, could collapse in a matter of a few decades.
> >>
> >> God could sandwich us between two rogue planets in a few decades too.
> >> "Could" is not a prediction.

> >
> >"Could" is a useful word. Houston "could" be hit by a category four storm in 2018. I would not say the same about London. A person deciding to relocate might be swayed by that "could". Insurance companies certainly are.
>

> No, insurance companies are not. You've picked the wrong guy to argue
> with about insurance.

Don't be so modest! You're the wrong guy to argue with about anything! You know more than experts do about their own fields! I know because you say so!

To make things clear for you:

I think there is a less than 50% chance that one basin of the West Antarctic ice sheet will collapse before 2100. I don't think the chance is 0.1%.

But based on previous cases, if I am wrong it is probably that I was too conservative. Over the past couple of decades most predictions of ice sheet mass loss have erred on the conservative side.


> You are pretty much trying to fearmonger.

Nope.

But once again, thanks for assuming I'm dishonest. I really appreciate it. From you it's praise indeed.

>
> How do you know that "collapse of the West Antarctice Ice Sheet" is
> not a necessary part of the process that ends interglacials?

What is the relevance of this question? I'm talking about the current warming, for which we have a mechanism. There is absolutely no evidence that this is in any way associated with the end of the current interglacial.

In point of fact the last interglacial occurred at a time of higher orbital eccentricity than the current one. Thus when perihelion was in local summer, temperatures at high latitudes in the appropriate hemisphere were warmer than during the Holocene optimum.

The West Antarctic ice sheet was indeed seriously reduced in size in the warmest part of the interglacial though as far as I am aware records are not detailed enough to say if it melted slowly or collapsed, in whole or in part. But it grew again towards the end of that era.

And what is this mystical "process" you speak of? Please be specific.

William Hyde

[William Hyde]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 8:18:02 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 12/15/2017 2:57 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> ...
> > "Could" is a useful word. Houston "could" be hit by a category four storm in 2018. I would not say the same about London. A person deciding to relocate might be swayed by that "could". Insurance companies certainly are.

> >
> >

> > William Hyde
>
> The Texas Gulf Coast has been hit by several Cat 5 hurricanes in the
> last 200 years. Many with large loss of life. One even wiped out a
> town, Indianola, in 1886.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1886_Indianola_hurricane
>
> The Texas Gulf Coast will be hit by more Cat 5 hurricanes in the next
> 200 years. This is nothing new, it happens.

Also totally irrelevant to the point being discussed.

But you knew that.

William Hyde

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 16:08:23 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What an insufferably patronizing fool you are.

I'd just like to state my appreciation for your attempts at education -
I've taken many interesting dives through the science starting from info
in your posts. Thank you for giving these irregular updates on the state
of climate science.

But for the sake of your blood pressure, you probably ought to stop
fighting these particular greased pigs and leave them to their ignorance
and denialism. It's their culture, they can't help having their fingers
jammed into their ears to the fourth knuckle.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"How do you like your blue-eyed boy now, Mr Death?" - e e cummings/Tom Baker

[Dimensional Traveler]

Yes, and the period afterward has not been pleasant for the survivors.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 12/17/2017 4:19 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 16:08:23 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What an insufferably patronizing fool you are.
>
> I'd just like to state my appreciation for your attempts at education -
> I've taken many interesting dives through the science starting from info
> in your posts. Thank you for giving these irregular updates on the state
> of climate science.
>
> But for the sake of your blood pressure, you probably ought to stop
> fighting these particular greased pigs and leave them to their ignorance
> and denialism. It's their culture, they can't help having their fingers
> jammed into their ears to the fourth knuckle.
>

*counts the knuckles on his fingers, decides he does not wish to pursue
that thought any farther*

[J. Clarke]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 16:08:23 -0800 (PST), William Hyde

<wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 4:35:48 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:57:51 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 5:05:39 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:56:49 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>
>> >> >> Yup, you are totally correct, a very chaotic system.
>> >> >
>> >> >Weather is chaotic, climate is not.
>> >> >
>> >> > A system which
>> >> >> cannot be modeled correctly today. Probably never.
>> >> >
>> >> >Except it's already been done successfully.
>> >>
>> >> By who? Show us the validation tests.
>> >
>> >I've already told you the validation. Predictions that have come true over fifty years, not only as to warming, but as to stratospheric cooling and the pattern of warming.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by "predicting" 0.05 percent of a
>> 100,000 year cycle in a period where in all previous cycles the same
>> thing has happened.
>
>Nothing you imply above is true.
>
>There is no evidence in the paleoclimatic record of the past few interglacials of anything like this. Our interglacial is different.

Only in the apparent height of the terminal spike.

If there are other differences in the pattern please identify them.

>> > Hint--fitting a curve to 300
>> >> years of data is not "successful modelling".
>> >
>> >Hint - we didn't have 300 years worth of data when the first models were run. Though I do appreciate the passive-aggressive accusation of dishonesty on my part and that of all other scientists working in this field. Because I worked with a GCM group for a couple of years and never saw the curvefitting code. Guess I must be lying.
>>
>> So how much did you have, 250? 200? 100? You're still fitting a
>> curve to the data no matter what you think you are doing. You say you
>> "never saw the curvefitting code". So did you see _any_ code and
>> understand enough of what was going on to be able to make assertions
>> about it? They're huge, complex programs. The people making them may
>> not even know that that's what they're doing.
>
>What an insufferably patronizing fool you are.

Ooh, getting annoyed are we?

>I *wrote* code for one of these models. Yes, I did understand the code I wrote and much else besides.

So what code did you write, specifically?

>I wrote code, in fact for a number of models. I never curve fit in any of them. I did, in fact, write a number of curve-fitting programs. But they were not climate models. The difference is clear.

Believe what you want to. You've got 300 years of data, you predict
that the same thing is going ot happen for another hundred. You can
claim that it's all physics based, but how many variables do you have
to adjust to fit the data?

>A friend did tell me about an engineering program he had to improve. Several thousand lines of code with a ten line curve-fit somewhere in the middle. Oddly enough, he spotted it, though the curve fitter already had his PhD and the University did not try to take it back.

You're clearly so busy being defensive that you are missing the point.

>> >In any event, the models solve the equations of physics relevant to the problem, they do not curvefit. Model code is available for inspection.
>>
>> And when they don't fit the data they get tweaked until the do. The
>> result is pretty much curve fitting.
>
>The response of the planet to doubled CO2 was predicted before *any* backtesting was done on the paleoclimatic record for the very good reason that computers simply were not fast enough for multi-year runs at the time. When I first started the more complex models were generally run for 90-120 simulated days, though Manabe at GFDL could do longer runs (and we were hugely envious!).

So let's see, you have a model that hasn't been verified that
"predicted" something and you take that prediction as valid.

So did it exactly match in "backtesting" on the first run?

>Early backtesting consisted of models simulating the ice age, and from the start they did a decent job at that.

So did they predict the temperature spike and subsequent cooling?

>At the time, aside from the instrumental record, we had no historical records which were quantitative enough to be of use - just qualitative ideas (e.g. 1-3 degrees C cooler in the little ice age).

So you admit you couldn't validate your model but we're still supposed
to accept it as true.

>For that matter the results were not that different from Svante Arrhenius' estimates in the 1890s. Though those, naturally, didn't deal with the stratosphere.

So why are you doing all this fancy computer modeling? If it's
something simple enough to do by hand then maybe you should stick with
that.

>> >Perhaps you should try curvefitting the data from 1660 to 1960 and extrapolating. I'd bet it won't look much like model output - there's a lot of variation in there which won't be well fit by an exponential curve. But if it does you can publish in a number of places. You'd be a hero!
>>
>> Who said anything about "an exponential curve".
>
>I note your surrender on this point.

What surrender? Nobody but _you_ said anything about an "exponential
curve". Informing you that "exponential curves" are not the only
kinds of curve to which data can be fitted is not "surrender", it is
pointing out that for all the heap big expert you're claiming to be
you don't know diddly about curve fitting.

>> >> >> So, making bold predictions that the global temperatures are going to
>> >> >> rise more than normal,
>> >> >
>> >> >It is now fifty two years since the first model predictions of warming, and the globe is indeed warming.
>> >>
>> >> It's been warming for 10,000 years.
>> >
>> >In the past ten thousand years we've seen both warming and cooling episodes.
>>
>> We've seen an increase with noise. Apply a low-pass filter and the
>> "cooling episodes" go away.
>
>And I suppose we should ignore the physics behind these cooling episodes? Why not apply a ten million year filter? That will make the climate very easy to explain.

So does your model accurately predict every single one of those
"cooling episodes"?

>> >It has warmed about one degree C in the past century. If it had been warming at that rate for the past ten thousand years not only would the ice sheets be gone, but so would the oceans. Even at a tenth of that rate it would be a very different world.
>>
>> So? there has been a rapid spike at the end of several previous
>> interglacials.
>
>Please cite for a one degree warming (and still continuing) over a century towards the end of interglacials. Planetary average, please, not a point measurement.

Find me a record with that kind of precision.

>> Show us that that is not what we are seeing?
>
>We have a simple cause for the current spike, soundly based in physics.

No, we have an assertion that the current spike has a known cause.
Yes, one can argue from physics. But that doesn't mean that the
physics is right. You are dealing with massive-scale chaotic
phenomena or so the climatologists want us to believe. How do you
know that your physics is right?

>So explain to me why CO2 increase does not warm the planet, and explain what else is. Be specific: "Natural variation" is meaningless as is "a web site tells me it happened before".

Explain to me what warmed the planet in the last half dozen ice ages.
Explain what has been warming it for the last 10,000 years. Once you
have done that, and ONLY after you have done that, then explain what
is different _this_ time.

>> >What the models are predicting, and observations over the past few decades have shown, is not an extension of a long term trend.
>> >
>> >You are numerate enough to see this.
>>
>> What I am seeing is that model just says "it's going to get warmer".
>
>As I have told you, it says more than that. It predicts the pattern of warming, including stratospheric cooling. You must have read that.
>
>Are you just trolling? Because if so, I'm sure Terry would be happy to play with you again.

Yes, I've read your statement. You have not answered my question
about how long stratospheric cooling was known before this model that
allegedly "predicted" it was created. All I got was that there was no
interest in the stratosphere prior to the invention of airplanes,
which assertion is ludicrous unless the airplane was invented after
the first spaceflight.

>> It shows NO other possible outcome. Show me a model that yields a
>> peak and a long term cooling trend when you remove anthropogenic
>> carbon but shows that the long term cooling trend doesn't happen with
>> it and I'll be impressed.
>
>Prepare to be impressed. I've written models that do this. All decent models will.

So show me a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that describes
such an outcome. According to your model when does the cooling start
if humans didn't exist, and what happens at that point when human
activity is added into the mix, and what is the exact mechanism that
brings about the cooling.

>On creation models are run for a long time with constant forcing, to ensure that they don't drift. Add greenhouse gases and they warm up. Take the gases away and they cool down. Not necessarily to the initial state. Melted ice is not restored immediately, and ocean circulation changes may be persistent.

So what? That is not what I asked. I'm sures your model heats up
when you add carbon and cools down when you take it away because that
is the narrative you are trying to sell.

DOES IT SHOW THE INTERGLACIAL ENDING, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE?

If it does not then it is BULLSHIT.

>> >> A model that shows that the
>> >> status quo will continue is not particularly useful, nor is it a
>> >> "success".
>> >>
>> >> When it shows us something that (a) we don't already know
>> >
>> >Warming of the stratosphere.
>>
>> I thought the stratosphere was cooling. How long have we been
>> measuring stratospheric temperatures? When was the first model that
>> "predicted" this created?
>
>Pardon me, typo. Cooling of the stratosphere, as I said earlier.
>
>I don't see the point of your scare quotes.

"scare quotes"? Oh, _please_ tell me I "triggered" you with my nasty
old quotation marks.

"Manabe in 1965 did the first modern model study of the climatic
effect of doubled CO2. One result of this study was that while the
troposphere would warm, the stratosphere would cool. This was, as I
said elsewhere, not expected by the community, though we can see that
it makes physical sense."

OK, that was 1965. And nobody noticed cooling prior to that time?

>Stratospheric cooling is well observed. It was in fact used against me by a GW denier here some years ago, who did not believe it was consistent with GW, and thought that I was lying when I said it had been long predicted. Whether he believed me after I gave him the citations I do not know. He was only here for a few months, IIRC.

So it's well observed and fits your narrative, but you have not
demonstrated that it was unknown prior to this model.

>> >Fingerprint of warming that fits the cause, and does not fit other causes.
>>
>> So what other "causes" were tested?
>
>Solar constant change, aerosol loading change, ocean upwelling change. Feel free to suggest more.

Something we don't know about. What causes interglacials to end?

>> Do we know with certainty that
>> this did not happen at this stage of previous interglacials?
>
>No, and that doesn't matter. Proxy temperature records from the Eemian are not good enough, and probably won't be until someone invents a time machine.

In other words you admit that we don't know if this is normal, despite
asserting above that this time it is different. So which is it? Do we
have records that let us know with certainty that this time is
different or don't we? You can't have it both ways.

>It is for you to explain why the current warming isn't due to CO2, to give a cause, and to explain why this cause has the same pattern of warming as CO2.

Nope, it is for you to convince me that we should massively disrupt
society on your sayso. You want to change the world, it's up to you
to convince the rest of us that it needs changing, not for us to
convince you that you are full of crap.

>> >and (b) that
>> >> we can test,
>> >
>> >Done.
>>
>> For standards of "done" that would have any graduate committee in any
>> engineering school in the country laughing the doctoral candidate out
>> of the program.
>
>You may assert that, but it isn't true.

You may believe that you but you have not convinced anybody who was
not already convinced.

>> > then it becomes useful.
>> >>
>> >> >More important than that, the pattern of the warming fits the early predictions. So if something else is warming the planet it must be something that fits the fingerprint of GHG induced climate change. There are no candidates for such a change. Solar constant increase, for example, is right out.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, GAWD, "solar constant increase is right out".
>> >
>> >Yes it is. I gave the reason, just above. Did you read it?
>>
>> Yeah, it shows that you have not the tiniest clue about
>> paleoclimatology.
>
>Beautiful trolling. Unless you mean it, in which case you're a fool.

Oh, I mean it. You're claiming that warming such as we are seeing
can't be associated with solar constant, and yet in the last several
interglacials warming nonetheless occurred in the absence of an
increase in solar constant. The funny thing is that you don't know
this.

>Fingerprint studies have nothing to do with paleoclimatology - as I said elsewhere, stratospheric paleotemperatures failed to fossilize.

Who said anything about "fingerprint studies"? If you are going to
throw in some buzzword known only to you please define it.

>> >Solar constant increase would increase stratospheric temperature, for example. The opposite has happened.
>>
>> If the warming happened at the times of solar constant increase, which
>> has NOT been the case in previous glaciation cycles.
>
>Try again, in English.

That was English. Maybe you should try TOEFL.

>> Pick up ANY text on paleoclimatology and read it.
>
>You mean like "Paleoclimatology" by Crowley and North? Or R. S. Bradley's "Quaternary Paleoclimatology" or even Flint's "Glacial and Quaternary Climatology", or Lamb, or Budyko?

Yep. READ them. Every word this time, not skim the chapter headings
and do the bare minimum necessary to pass the test.

>Yeah, done that.

Obviously not very well if you think that interglacials occur at
periods of high solar constant.

>> Solar forcing is
>> FAR more complicated than you want it to be.
>
>The point - and listen closely - is that the fingerprint of solar forcing is very different from that of the current warming. Among other things, an increase in solar forcing results in stratospheric warming, the opposite of what is actually happening.

The point, and YOU listen closely, is that in the real world the solar
forcing does NOT happen when the temperature is rising. If you had
actually READ all those texts you claim to have read you would know
that this is one of the major issues in paleoclimatology, why the
warming lags the increase in solar constant by such a large timespan.
Your bleating about "solar forcing" shows you to be rather ignorant.

>And note that I am talking solar constant change here. Not Milankovitch cycles which, important as they are, are far too slow to account for current climate change.

So what are Milankovitch cycles if not solar constant change? And if
they are "too slow to account for the current climate change" then
they must have been "too slow" to account for the climate change in
the last several interglacials.

I hate to quote Terry, but DUMBASS.,

>> >> The timing of the
>> >> glaciations does not fit some handy pattern in which ice melts when
>> >> the sun is hot.
>> >
>> >True, but nobody has made this sort of claim in 150 years.
>>
>> You just made it.
>
>You are deluded.

You don't seem to be able to follow your own argument. We are in an
interglacial. The temperature is rising. We are not at a period of
peak insolation. The same was true when the temperature was rising in
the last interglacial and the one before that. So why are you
bleating about "solar constant" when it was not high during those
previous periods of warming. Why is it that in THIS ONE, unlike ANY
OTHER, it must be high?

>> > There seems to be some kind of relationship but it
>> >> has a long lag or a long lead in it.
>> >
>> >With regard to ice ages and interglacials you really have no idea what you are talking about. The lags behind Milankovitch forcing, for example, were calculated 50 years ago.
>>
>> The timing and the mechanism are two different things. You claim to
>> KNOW the mechanism.
>
>With regard to the current warming, yes. What is your proposed substitute?

Whatever caused the warming in the last interglacial and the one
before that and the one before that. If your model can't tell us what
that was then it can't tell us that this one is different.

>>And yet you go on about "solar constant"
>
>No, I merely pointed out that solar constant increase cannot account for the current warming. It's one thing for you not to agree with my point, that's expected, but you don't even seem to understand the first thing I am saying.

In that case it has never accounted for warming in an interglacial and
so it would seem to be a straw man.

>Are you even trying?

Apparently you find me very trying.

>> completely ignoring the timing that you found out five minutes ago on
>> wikipedia has been known for a long time.
>
>You are so laughably wrong I'm almost sorry for you.
>
>If you have an interest in one of the key papers (on ice ages, not global warming):
>
>https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~pkoch/EART_206/09-0303/Hays%20et%2076%20Science%20194-1121.pdf

Nice paper. Note the quarter-cycle lag in the 40K cycle? Warming now
would be the result of high insolation 10,000 years ago. Your
observations of low insolation now tell us that it may be cooler
10,000 years from now but aren't all the relevant to the present.

>> >> >Stratospheric cooling was predicted fifty two years ago. It's happening, and happening for the reasons given fifty two years ago. I'd say that's a remarkably successful piece of work and entirely contradicts your claim that the system cannot be modeled.
>> >>
>> >> So how long had it been cooling before they decided to predict that it
>> >> was cooling?
>> >
>> >No observations. Somehow, before the era of flight, people forgot to compile a reliable database of stratospheric temperature. The first prediction was greeted with skepticism, until people figured out why it would happen.
>>
>> So you think 52 years ago was "before the era of flight"? People with
>> names like Gagarin and Glenn and Shepherd would disagree with you on
>> that point.
>
>I assumed you were intelligent enough to get the point. My bad. Yes, we've been flying for a long time, putting balloons up for even longer - but not measuring stratospheric temperatures even on a point basis over enough years to spot a trend, let alone on a worldwide basis.

So when did "we" start measuring stratospheric temperatures?

>When Manabe ran his model, in other words, there was no historical record for him to look at. Which would have been irrelevant anyway, as he was simply studying the effect of doubled CO2, not running a hindcast.

Or so you tell us.

>> >And do you have *any* explanation for stratospheric cooling? I have one, and it makes physical sense.
>>
>> Do you have ANY reason to believe that it has not been going on for
>> 10,000 years? You've already admitted that there's no data.
>
>What possible difference would it make if it had? A prediction was made, and fulfilled. And we know why. Your point is monumentally irrelevant.

If it's been going on for 10,000 years and if "why" is those nasty ol
humans, then what caused it for the 10,000 years in which carbon
emissions by humans were negligible?

>> >> > that the oceans are going to rise many feet
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually IPCC calls for a few feet over a long time.
>> >> >
>> >> >The wild card is West Antarctica. One of it's three basins, holding an equivalent of two meters of sea level, could collapse in a matter of a few decades.
>> >>
>> >> God could sandwich us between two rogue planets in a few decades too.
>> >> "Could" is not a prediction.
>> >
>> >"Could" is a useful word. Houston "could" be hit by a category four storm in 2018. I would not say the same about London. A person deciding to relocate might be swayed by that "could". Insurance companies certainly are.
>>
>> No, insurance companies are not. You've picked the wrong guy to argue
>> with about insurance.
>
>Don't be so modest! You're the wrong guy to argue with about anything! You know more than experts do about their own fields! I know because you say so!

I don't claim to know more than experts do. I do claim that when
people in labcoats with computer models want us to make drastic and
disruptive changes in society they need to do more than join ranks and
say "the science is done".

>To make things clear for you:
>
>I think there is a less than 50% chance that one basin of the West Antarctic ice sheet will collapse before 2100. I don't think the chance is 0.1%.

On what experience do you base that estimate? And why should we
believe you?

>But based on previous cases, if I am wrong it is probably that I was too conservative. Over the past couple of decades most predictions of ice sheet mass loss have erred on the conservative side.

And you take it as a given that ice sheet mass loss is a bad thing
caused by humans and not a normal part of the process by which
interglacials end.

>> You are pretty much trying to fearmonger.
>
>Nope.

You can deny it all you want to.

>But once again, thanks for assuming I'm dishonest. I really appreciate it. From you it's praise indeed.

You may be fearmongering from conviction, it's still fearmongering.

>> How do you know that "collapse of the West Antarctice Ice Sheet" is
>> not a necessary part of the process that ends interglacials?
>
>What is the relevance of this question? I'm talking about the current warming, for which we have a mechanism. There is absolutely no evidence that this is in any way associated with the end of the current interglacial.

You keep talking about "the current warming" as if it is not part of
warming that has been going on for the past 10,000 years and which
according to the chronology of previous glaciations is due to be
ending right about now. You keep refusing to recognize that
particular inconvenient truth. Something should be happening around
now to cause a cooling trend to start. You have not given any
indication that your models address this and if they don't then you
have no basis on which to assert that what is happening is not part of
that process other that your own wishful thinking.

But rather than listen and look at your fancy model and try to
actually address the point, you continue to stick your head in the
sand.

>In point of fact the last interglacial occurred at a time of higher orbital eccentricity than the current one. Thus when perihelion was in local summer, temperatures at high latitudes in the appropriate hemisphere were warmer than during the Holocene optimum.

So? You're assuming that you, unlike any paleoclimatologist on the
planet, completely understand the mechanisms by which an interglacial
ends.

>The West Antarctic ice sheet was indeed seriously reduced in size in the warmest part of the interglacial though as far as I am aware records are not detailed enough to say if it melted slowly or collapsed, in whole or in part. But it grew again towards the end of that era.

It grew toward the end of the interglacial? You mean it got bigger as
the temperature rose? Is that what you are saying?

>And what is this mystical "process" you speak of? Please be specific.

The process by which interglacials end. You, being the world's expert
on climate modelling, should certainly be able to tell us what that
process is, after all your climate model that we are supposed to
believe infallibly tells us what the climate will do over the next
century or so _must_ take all phenomena associated with the ending of
an interglacial into account. If you don't know what that process is
then how am I supposed to know?

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:19:17 +0000, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 16:08:23 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
><wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What an insufferably patronizing fool you are.
>
>I'd just like to state my appreciation for your attempts at education -
>I've taken many interesting dives through the science starting from info
>in your posts. Thank you for giving these irregular updates on the state
>of climate science.
>
>But for the sake of your blood pressure, you probably ought to stop
>fighting these particular greased pigs and leave them to their ignorance
>and denialism. It's their culture, they can't help having their fingers
>jammed into their ears to the fourth knuckle.

And so we have cheers from the peanut gallery.

Hint--if you actually want to implement the changes that you think are
needed to fix the climate, you need to quit sneering at people who
disagree with you and learn to listen to what they are saying and
address it with something other than "believe me little boy because I
am a scientist".

[J. Clarke]

So you don't consider your live to be pleasant? After all, it is not
all that long after the extinction of mammoths, giant sloths, and
quite a lof of other critters.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in

news:p17245$gvs$3...@dont-email.me:

But it's impossible to argue that that has only happened as a
result of human activity. Or, at least, impossible to argue that
without being laughed at.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ut7e3ddmo111ps597...@4ax.com:

A lot of greenies have an explicit goal of the extinction of the
human race. I suspect it's rooted a very deep (and well founded)
self hatred.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Then its a good thing that is not what I'm arguing.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in

news:p178p0$iqj$2...@dont-email.me:

Heh.