So what good are “climate scientists”?
Andre Jute
Q: Is there global warming?
A: No. The earth is cooler now than at any time since the middle
ages. Here are the official figures from the US NCDC drawn into a
graph from 1880.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html
We're still recovering from the Little Ice Age, which will be shown
lower down.
Q: But climate scientists claim that there was no medieval warm period
outside Europe.
A: They lie. Here is the evidence from other sciences that both the
medieval warm period and the little ice age were worldwide.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
Q: But then they say that it is sudden warming that is dangerous.
A: They saw a short term increase of temperature in the 1990s and
panicked. Temperature has settled down again.
http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-since-1995/
Q: Is CO2 responsible for global warming?
A: Anyone who says that is speculating against the evidence. CO2 is a
beneficial gas; the earth depends on it. It is true that CO2 is
increasing but, as the graph shows, there is no link between increase
in CO2 and temperature.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html
It isn’t even certain that CO2 increases come before temperature
increases!
Q: So when will it be time to worry?
A: When the earth again reaches the temperatures, much higher than
today, which were common in the Middle Ages, agriculture will become
much easier. When we have fed all the earth’s hungry, there may be a
population explosion as death rates fall. That will be a worry. But
that is generations away and may never happen, among other reasons
because the recent beneficial rate of increase in temperature has
proven to be a shortterm phenomenon, and the rate of increase has
already levelled off.
Q: Then why are the global warning wolf-criers still going on about
it?
A: Climate scientists, bureaucrats and politicians have gambled their
careers on “global warming”; it is their livelihood going down the
tubes with the downturn in global temperature rates. They’re fighting
to keep their little corner in wolf-crying, claiming that Global
Warming is Dead, Long Live Sudden Climate Change (Up or Down).
Q: Will they be able to forecast hurricanes like Katrina?
A: You’re joking, aren’t you? Those clowns can’t forecast the local
weather today week, never mind global weather a century ahead, or even
next year’s hurricanes.
Q: So what good are “climate scientists”?
A: That’s what everyone wants to know.
Andre Jute
Definitely not a “climate scientist”
Copyright 2009 Andre Jute
William Asher
news:f123b85d-d5be-4793...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
> Andre Jute
> Definitely not a "climate scientist"
Andre:
Thanks for pointing that out, but you didn't need to belabor the obvious.
--
Bill Asher
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:f123b85d-d5be-4793...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Andre Jute
> > Definitely not a "climate scientist"
>
> Andre:
>
> Thanks for pointing that out, but you didn't need to belabor the obvious.
Oh, I wouldn't want to join a bunch of clowns who cannot even catch
out one of their own who tells big whoppers, like Michael Mann did
with his Hockey Stick. That entire branch of "science" discredited
itself when it tried to set itself up as policy-makers and spenders of
the public purse, when it continued to take the IPCC's shilling after
it became clear that their honest original opinions were rewritten to
the diametric opposite by bureaucrats, when it failed to pull up Mann,
when it failed to protest the continued use by the IPCC of Hockey
Stick graphs, when it asked us to take on faith matters for which the
entire community knew there is not and will not in the foreseeable
future be proof, and on and on, a depressing catalogue of crimes
against real science. Those people traded in their integrity, and
science itself, for a few minutes of television exposure and a few
dollars from the IPCC. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that whores
as a profession have a higher moral standard than climate
"scientists".
Got any *proof* to the contrary of these points, Billy-boy?
A FEW INNOCENT QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE COMMON MAN
Q: Is there global warming?
A: No. The earth is cooler now than at any time since the middle
ages. Here are the official figures from the US NCDC drawn into a
graph from 1880.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html
We're still recovering from the Little Ice Age, which will be shown
lower down.
Q: But climate scientists claim that there was no medieval warm
period
outside Europe.
A: They lie. Here is the evidence from other sciences that both the
medieval warm period and the little ice age were worldwide.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-gl...
Q: But then they say that it is sudden warming that is dangerous.
A: They saw a short term increase of temperature in the 1990s and
panicked. Temperature has settled down again.
http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-si...
Andre Jute
Definitely not a “climate scientist”
Copyright 2009 Andre Jute
mike
f8193f...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, fiul...@yahoo.com says...
> A FEW INNOCENT QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE COMMON MAN
>
> Q: Is there global warming?
> A: No. The earth is cooler now than at any time since the middle
> ages. Here are the official figures from the US NCDC drawn into a
> graph from 1880.
> http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html
Did you even look at that graph? What it appears to show is that since
1880, 19 of the 20 years in which teh maximum Global Absolute Monthly
Mean Temperature exceeded 16 C occured since 1987.
> Q: But climate scientists claim that there was no medieval warm period
> outside Europe.
> A: They lie. Here is the evidence from other sciences that both the
> medieval warm period and the little ice age were worldwide.
> http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
> http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
And once again the MWP and the LIA. Lets just assume, for the moment,
that the evidence presented here is valid, and that the MWP and LIA wer
eglobal evemnts. Further, lets assume that they were in no way caused or
influenced by CO2 content in the atmosphere. ... Then, so what? You have
provided evidence that other things can also induce climate change - but
we already know that. What you haven't proven is that CO2 doesn't affect
climate any more than the fact that your living room gets warmer when
the sun shines in through the window could disprove the existance of a
central heating system in the house (or a fire in the basement for that
matter).
>
> Q: But then they say that it is sudden warming that is dangerous.
> A: They saw a short term increase of temperature in the 1990s and
> panicked. Temperature has settled down again.
> http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-since-1995/
>
Ooh, that one includes a lovely speech from Newt Gingritch. Is this what
you would consider a peer-reviewed article? A couple of graphs showing
short-term variation in temperature is hardly a predictor for
intermediate-term climate change. Just as a few cold days in spring
doesn't mean that summer is off.
> Q: Is CO2 responsible for global warming?
> A: Anyone who says that is speculating against the evidence. CO2 is a
> beneficial gas; the earth depends on it. It is true that CO2 is
> increasing but, as the graph shows, there is no link between increase
> in CO2 and temperature.
> http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html
> It isn?t even certain that CO2 increases come before temperature
> increases!
The same graph as before. You really believe that this proves that there
is no link between CO2 and temperature. Do you really expect that the
two curves would have to be coincident to prove that there was?
>
> Q: So when will it be time to worry?
> A: When the earth again reaches the temperatures, much higher than
> today, which were common in the Middle Ages, agriculture will become
> much easier. When we have fed all the earth?s hungry, there may be a
> population explosion as death rates fall. That will be a worry. But
> that is generations away and may never happen, among other reasons
> because the recent beneficial rate of increase in temperature has
> proven to be a shortterm phenomenon, and the rate of increase has
> already levelled off.
Hey why not just wait until you can grow date-palms in Dublin...and
think of the benefits for the Icelandic wine industry!
>
> Q: Then why are the global warning wolf-criers still going on about
> it?
> A: Climate scientists, bureaucrats and politicians have gambled their
> careers on ?global warming?; it is their livelihood going down the
> tubes with the downturn in global temperature rates. They?re fighting
> to keep their little corner in wolf-crying, claiming that Global
> Warming is Dead, Long Live Sudden Climate Change (Up or Down).
Yep - the Royal Society, the AIP, Nature, Science, climatologists,
meteorologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, even economists
and politicians who actually read and can understand research findings -
we are all part of a massive global conspiracy to keep you living in a
damp, cold place.
> Q: Will they be able to forecast hurricanes like Katrina?
> A: You?re joking, aren?t you? Those clowns can?t forecast the local
> weather today week, never mind global weather a century ahead, or even
> next year?s hurricanes.
This is another red herring (and a very weak one at that). Can you
predict what the weather will be next weekend? Can you predict if it
will be warmer or cooler where you live in 6 months time?
--Mike
Andre Jute
> In article <f123b85d-d5be-4793-ab05-
> f8193f1fe...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, fiult...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > A FEW INNOCENT QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE COMMON MAN
>
> > Q: Is there global warming?
> > A: No. The earth is cooler now than at any time since the middle
> > ages. Here are the official figures from the US NCDC drawn into a
> > graph from 1880.
> >http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html
>
> Did you even look at that graph? What it appears to show is that since
> 1880, 19 of the 20 years in which teh maximum Global Absolute Monthly
> Mean Temperature exceeded 16 C occured since 1987.
Yah, I know. Those buggers changed their reporting method a few years
ago. But one has to work with the published data. I take my method
from Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, the Green
Troublemaker Himself, and wherever possible use the IPCC data, or when
I cite secondary sources, prefer those which use the official data.
> > Q: But climate scientists claim that there was no medieval warm period
> > outside Europe.
> > A: They lie. Here is the evidence from other sciences that both the
> > medieval warm period and the little ice age were worldwide.
> >http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
> >http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-gl...
>
> And once again the MWP and the LIA.
You find them boring, do you? The real climatologists are so obsessed
with the MWP and the LIA that they tried to lie them out of existence,
as recounted in two concurrent threads:
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/86dbfab0351d4a29/30dda0f151cc4d7d?hl=en#30dda0f151cc4d7d
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/81ac8fa9f5f3fb1f?hl=en#
>Lets just assume, for the moment,
> that the evidence presented here is valid,
That's a zero-risk assumption. Wegman condemned only the
climatologists for incestuously dependent peer review practices. In
almost every other discipline one can expect to find that proper
scientific procedure has been observed, that selfsame proper procedure
from which the climatologist claim divine exemption.
>and that the MWP and LIA wer
> eglobal evemnts.
That is proven beyond a doubt. You may take it as an incontrovertible
fact of History itself.
>Further, lets assume that they were in no way caused or
> influenced by CO2 content in the atmosphere. ...
Why do we need to assume? We know there was no man-made CO2, which is
what Global Warming is all about.
>Then, so what?
I'm waiting for you lot in the Church of Saint Michael Mann of the Red
Noise Hockey Stick to tell me. Until you do, so what?
>You have
> provided evidence that other things can also induce climate change - but
> we already know that. What you haven't proven is that CO2 doesn't affect
> climate any more than the fact that your living room gets warmer when
> the sun shines in through the window could disprove the existance of a
> central heating system in the house (or a fire in the basement for that
> matter).
I don't have to disprove anything, Mike. That is what I mean by a
Marxist argument. It goes against natural law to demand that I
disprove a connection you propose. If you think there was manmade CO2
causing the Medieval Warm Period, prove it. If you think that manmade
CO2 somehow caused the LIttle Ice Age, prove it.
Until you do, the MWP and the LIA stand as pretty good arguments
against any panicky decisions on Global Warming. The MWP and the LIA
are ample proof that we have plenty of time for more mature scientists
than Mann and that discredited crowd of clowns at the IPCC to find out
what is really going on before we have to make any decisions.
Global warning is not, repeat not, an anvil falling from the sky.
> > Q: But then they say that it is sudden warming that is dangerous.
> > A: They saw a short term increase of temperature in the 1990s and
> > panicked. Temperature has settled down again.
> >http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-si...
>
> Ooh, that one includes a lovely speech from Newt Gingritch. Is this what
> you would consider a peer-reviewed article?
An American politician is subject to daily peer review, and a damn
good thing too. But the distinguished gentleman is only in a sidebar
or an ad or something, if I remember correctly (I haven't been on that
site for years -- I just reposted an old article to keep some of the
lesser players occupied on the sidelines, but if you want to take it
seriously, fine by me).
>A couple of graphs showing
> short-term variation in temperature is hardly a predictor for
> intermediate-term climate change. Just as a few cold days in spring
> doesn't mean that summer is off.
True. But Mann caused a panic about less than a decade of warm
weather. We've been in a cooling phase for as long now as the slightly
warmer phase which caused the Mann Panic.
> > Q: Is CO2 responsible for global warming?
> > A: Anyone who says that is speculating against the evidence. CO2 is a
> > beneficial gas; the earth depends on it. It is true that CO2 is
> > increasing but, as the graph shows, there is no link between increase
> > in CO2 and temperature.
> >http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabs1880.html
> > It isn?t even certain that CO2 increases come before temperature
> > increases!
>
> The same graph as before. You really believe that this proves that there
> is no link between CO2 and temperature. Do you really expect that the
> two curves would have to be coincident to prove that there was?
Coincident, temporally closely correlated (heh-heh), otherwise
correlated with a convincing explanation of any larger lag or lead
than say two generations a single lifespan of 70 years. Any longer
than that is absolutely useless for policymaking purposes because no
one can tell the shape of the world in another two generations. Anyone
who claims he knew in 1959 what the world would look like today is a
liar.
> > Q: So when will it be time to worry?
> > A: When the earth again reaches the temperatures, much higher than
> > today, which were common in the Middle Ages, agriculture will become
> > much easier. When we have fed all the earth?s hungry, there may be a
> > population explosion as death rates fall. That will be a worry. But
> > that is generations away and may never happen, among other reasons
> > because the recent beneficial rate of increase in temperature has
> > proven to be a shortterm phenomenon, and the rate of increase has
> > already levelled off.
>
> Hey why not just wait until you can grow date-palms in Dublin...and
> think of the benefits for the Icelandic wine industry!
Jesus, I wish I thought of that first.
> > Q: Then why are the global warning wolf-criers still going on about
> > it?
> > A: Climate scientists, bureaucrats and politicians have gambled their
> > careers on ?global warming?; it is their livelihood going down the
> > tubes with the downturn in global temperature rates. They?re fighting
> > to keep their little corner in wolf-crying, claiming that Global
> > Warming is Dead, Long Live Sudden Climate Change (Up or Down).
>
> Yep - the Royal Society, the AIP, Nature, Science, climatologists,
> meteorologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, even economists
> and politicians who actually read and can understand research findings -
> we are all part of a massive global conspiracy to keep you living in a
> damp, cold place.
Eh? I live in beautiful Bandon, gateway to West Cork. It rains often
here, but it is neither damp nor cold. You can't conspire against me,
anyhow, because I'm too sunny a character.
> > Q: Will they be able to forecast hurricanes like Katrina?
> > A: You?re joking, aren?t you? Those clowns can?t forecast the local
> > weather today week, never mind global weather a century ahead, or even
> > next year?s hurricanes.
>
> This is another red herring (and a very weak one at that). Can you
> predict what the weather will be next weekend?
It rains whenever I have a ride planned with several other cyclists. I
have one planned for Sunday. I'll let you know how it turns out.
>Can you predict if it
> will be warmer or cooler where you live in 6 months time?
Of course I can. Six months from now it will be winter. Now it is
summer. In the winter it will be cooler than it is in the summer. Ask
me a difficult one.
Andre Jute
You can ride only one bike at a time
Dan O
<snip>
If you're really so sure that you're right about Earth's climate
situation, why would you wasting so much time and energy arguing about
it here on a bicycle newsgroup... unless you're just trolling.
Andre Jute
Tell me, Danno, do you ever feel like a hypocrite? Do you know what a
hypocrite is? There are global warming threads all the time, so tell
us why it is only mine you feel you should condemn as off-topic?
Or are you a closet hanger-on of the Global Warmies who thinks that
this is his way of making a contribution to saving the Earth? You can
tell us. We won't laugh. Promise.
Oh, and if I were trolling, I caught and gaffed some really stupid-
looking fish, now gasping at my feet. Watching a limp toerag like
Asher weaseling and squirming as he goes into denial before the
inevitable conclusion (check these spaces!) is an entertainment
already.
Andre Jute
The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. it still will
long after Man is gone.
Phil H
> http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/...
weather are unpredictable but longer term trends in climate change are
"less" so.
Phil H
Global warming skeptic and Jute critic.
Andre Jute
I know, Phil, but thanks all the same.
I've answered the rest of your post in "Hubris runs riot in Global
Warmies" at
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/1e12f3feadd8815b?hl=en#
Enjoy!
Andre Jute
"Loonies like Asher will continue to shout 'Global Warming' until
they suddenly start shouting 'Global Cooling' as if they'd done that
from the beginning." -- Tom Kunich
"Oh, I've seen the loonies do that for half a century. Asher's
problem
is that he has such a poor grasp of history, he thinks the New
Apocalypse of Global Warming is brand spanking new and exciting." --
Andre Jute
Dan O
So you *are* just trolling. I thought so.
> The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. it still will
> long after Man is gone.
Obviously, but how long can Man live on Earth at this rate?
Clive George
news:496acf5c-172d-4e73...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> Oh, and if I were trolling, I caught and gaffed some really stupid-
>> looking fish, now gasping at my feet. Watching a limp toerag like
>> Asher weaseling and squirming as he goes into denial before the
>> inevitable conclusion (check these spaces!) is an entertainment
>> already.
>
> So you *are* just trolling. I thought so.
He's not very good at it though. A skilled troll, like Jobst has
demonstrated occasionally, can stir up a flame-fest from one brief post.
Michael Press
<e282de8d-d2b6-49dd...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Phil H <phol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You missed the point of his questions. Fluctuations in short term
> weather are unpredictable but longer term trends in climate change are
> "less" so.
Not so. A dynamical system with positive feed back
behaves chaotically.
For instance, take a record of some commodity price
that has been recorded for a century or more; e.g.
cotton. Take a time slice, be it days months, decades
and graph it without scale markers. You cannot tell
what the time slice is by reading that graph. This is
known as self similar behavior; one example of
fractals. Weather and climate is a dynamical system
with positive feed back mechanisms. Fluctuations
in climate over centuries is similar to fluctuations
over years, and cannot they be distinguished by examining
local behavior.
--
Michael Press
AMuzi
True but yelling "we're all gonna die!" has some appeal.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Bill Sornson
And effect amongst the hysteric and hidden agenda types.
Andre Jute
> > �Phil H <pholma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You missed the point of his questions. Fluctuations in short term
> >> weather are unpredictable but longer term trends in climate change are
> >> "less" so.
>
> > Not so. A dynamical system with positive feed back
> > behaves chaotically.
Ooh, perhaps that boy Press isn't as thick as I first thought.
> > For instance, take a record of some commodity price
> > that has been recorded for a century or more; e.g.
> > cotton. Take a time slice, be it days months, decades
> > and graph it without scale markers. You cannot tell
> > what the time slice is by reading that graph. This is
> > known as self similar behavior; one example of
> > fractals.
The track of any commodity price is influenced by many factors which
appear objective but on closer investigation is influenced by human
psychology more than anything else. For instance, it is perfectly
clear to everyone that a commodities trading floor is a place where
the psychology, some would say the lemming instinct, of the traders
has a huge influence on the prices, which at the best of times cannot
reflect anything more objective than expectations of future demand. I
disgraced myself halfway through a lecture by an eminent theorist of
markets by bursting out laughing when he said, "and of course they
discount to the present value" -- he had clearly never been to a
trading floor, and was horrified when I took him to visit a bourse; he
would never in his life again be naive enough to think a trader had
time for complicated present value discount calculations in that
madhouse.
> >Weather and climate is a dynamical system
> > with positive feed back mechanisms. Fluctuations
> > in climate over centuries is similar to fluctuations
> > over years, and cannot they be distinguished by examining
> > local behavior.
Nor forecast by examining local behaviour like a few rings from
unsuitable trees in Oregon -- but that is exactly what the IPCC is
trying to do.
To which Muzi in rabble-rousing style shouted out:
> True but yelling "we're all gonna die!" has some appeal.
Laughing aloud.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> � <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> � Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Hey, I know that fellow.
Positive feedback, eh? (For the innocent, it is an influence which
aggravates swings in response to a stimulus, until the mechanism
oscillates so gravely that it shakes itself apart. In short, a self-
destructive force.) Negative feedback (the opposite, a dampening,
levelling-out influence) is bad enough in the hands of clumsy audio
engineers...
LOL.
Be that smart for a week, Michael, without descending into juvenile
smartarsery, and I'll rehabilitate you right out of my killfile.
Andre Jute
Not everything in materials is dreamt of in Timoshenko
Andre Jute
> AMuzi wrote:
> > True but yelling "we're all gonna die!" has some appeal.
>
> And effect amongst the hysteric and hidden agenda types.
Also the affect (sic) on the impressionable. I was impressed with the
depth of Bill Asher's absolute faith in Michael Mann's Hockey Stick,
even after I showed him that the basis of his faith, which he
specified as NAS approval of for Mann, is totally false, and that both
the NAS Panels (Wegman and North) rejected Mann as an incompetent, and
rejected his findings, point by point, as unproven (with contempt in
Wegman's case). Blind faith such as Asher's is an exceedingly powerful
force, and may yet, when added to Muslim breeding power, entirely
overturn the current rational Western hegemony, at which point Global
Warming by manmade CO2 (if it were ever likely which no rational
person now believes) will become moot as industry is destroyed and we
revert to riding on camels (foul-tempered beasts who spit in one's
face at every opportunity...)
Andre Jute
Start reading the Koran now, fellers
Andre Jute
Indefinitely. The world has changed more in the 5000 years since
recorded history began than even in the worst miscalculation of the
IPCC it can change in the next third of a milennium. In fact, the
world has changed more since the Little Ice Age, which coincided with
the start of the Industrial Revolution, than it will even in the worst
miscalculation of the IPCC over the same period into the future.
I'm always amazed when people who write to me on a computer, via
landllines and satellites, blithely assume humans are the only fixed,
non-evolving species in the universe. Man rules this planet precisely
because he is the most adaptable animal who ever evolved.
And Man is still evolving.
Perhaps one day, if by some mischance the IPCC is proved right, we'll
evolve to breathe CO2, or perhaps we'll do it deliberately by cross-
genetic grafting with trees, which already turn CO2 into sugar. Of
course, this is an extreme case, and I don't really believe that CO2
threatens us, but I'm just showing you what is "plausible" -- the limp
test of the climatologists for what is "science" (LOL). Man's
ancestors didn't breathe free air or even have lungs.
Andre Jute
It isn't hopeless even when you're dead. Death is just the next
adventure.
Bill Sornson
Tim McNamara
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Dan O <danov...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. it still will
>>> long after Man is gone.
>> Obviously, but how long can Man live on Earth at this rate?
>
>
> How dare you suggest that the corporations don't own all rights to the
> planet or that man could affect the environment of the Earth in any
> negative way.
What are "=3Fclimate scientists=3F"?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Celebrity culture is an opposite of community, informing us
that these few nonsense-heads matter but that the rest of
us do not. - Jay Griffiths
bjwe...@gmail.com
> In article
> <e282de8d-d2b6-49dd-84c3-f86e74190...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > You missed the point of his questions. Fluctuations in short term
> > weather are unpredictable but longer term trends in climate change are
> > "less" so.
>
> Not so. A dynamical system with positive feed back
> behaves chaotically.
>
> For instance, take a record of some commodity price
> that has been recorded for a century or more; e.g.
> cotton. Take a time slice, be it days months, decades
> and graph it without scale markers. You cannot tell
> what the time slice is by reading that graph. This is
> known as self similar behavior; one example of
> fractals. Weather and climate is a dynamical system
> with positive feed back mechanisms. Fluctuations
> in climate over centuries is similar to fluctuations
> over years, and cannot they be distinguished by examining
> local behavior.
In order to make this argument rigorous
rather than a just-so story, one would need to
take a time series of temperature data and
show that it exhibits scale free behavior, for
example that it has equal fluctuation amplitude
on all time scales. That is, that the year to year
fluctuations are equal to decade to decade
fluctuations, and so on.
The data exist to do this, so you could try it.
I have not done a power analysis myself, but
from data I've seen, I think it isn't true.
Just as an example, we know that there are
long term coherent climate fluctuations - Ice Ages,
interglacial periods, and so on. This suggests
that there is a lot of fluctuation power on long
time scales. That is not a rigorous argument
either. It is just a suggestion that before you state
"Fluctuations in climate over centuries is similar
to fluctuations over years" as a fact, you might
want to test the hypothesis on data.
Ben
Ben C
[...]
> Perhaps one day, if by some mischance the IPCC is proved right, we'll
> evolve to breathe CO2, or perhaps we'll do it deliberately by cross-
> genetic grafting with trees, which already turn CO2 into sugar.
BTDT. You need to work out how big your leaves would need to be to get
enough energy that way.
There's a reason trees don't ride bikes.
Michael Press
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> "Dynamical"?
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<a9432172-f419-43c7...@i8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Michael Press wrote:
[...]
> > > Not so. A dynamical system with positive feed back
> > > behaves chaotically.
>
> Ooh, perhaps that boy Press isn't as thick as I first thought.
Yes, I am.
> Be that smart for a week, Michael, without descending into juvenile
> smartarsery, and I'll rehabilitate you right out of my killfile.
Relax. No need to take extreme measures.
--
Michael Press
Antisocial Miscreant
Michael Press
Still Just Me - <stillno...@stillnodomain.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Be that smart for a week, Michael, without descending into juvenile
> >smartarsery, and I'll rehabilitate you right out of my killfile.
>
>
> Quick Mike, quick, say something bad about Jute before he follows
> through on his threat!
Done.
--
Michael Press
Tim McNamara
Thanks for the reference. That's damnically scientifically interesting.
Michael Press
<1e643205-98b8-4d4b...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
The real job here is acquiring, validating, normalizing,
and defending the data.
Since I brought it up, I present an example of
positive feedback in weather/climate.
Consider the progression of east Pacific volcanic
eruptions culminating in the massive 1815 eruption
of Tambora. The SO2 injected into the atmosphere
reflected back so much sunlight that crops failed
in 1816 leading to famine in New England, China,
France, and Britain; to mention just a few where
the event was recorded. Nearly a foot (30 cm) of
snow was observed in Quebec City in early June.
That was a more dire event than you may imagine;
for imagine this. Suppose snow or frost were to lay
on the ground until autumn. Much of the summer
sunshine would be reflected into outer space, the
ground would chill, and the next winters snowfall
would lie on top of the previous ice. Now the
continent is in a positive feedback loop. Snowfall
builds upon snowfall, and the ice just grows.
While mountain glaciers run down hill, continental
ice sheets build from the ground up. There will not
be time to watch the continental ice sheet grind
down from Canada or Switzerland. It will jump you
like a thug out of an alleyway.
Further maunderings: the main cooling agent of a
volcanic eruption is SO2. Hence to combat global
warming our best efforts should be to injecting
trillions of tons per day of SO2 into the atmosphere.
--
Michael Press
William Asher
news:rubrum-19B9F3....@news.albasani.net:
>
> Further maunderings: the main cooling agent of a
> volcanic eruption is SO2. Hence to combat global
> warming our best efforts should be to injecting
> trillions of tons per day of SO2 into the atmosphere.
>
Not a good idea, if you're serious. The problem is that the cooling from
the sulfate aerosol will not be geographically distributed the same as
the radiative forcing from the trace gases. This will lead to shifts in
patterns of heat flows in the atmosphere. Climate is really the end
result of how heat redistributes from the equator to higher latitudes, so
by changing this pattern by injecting sulfate, you will again modify
climate in ways that might be as bad as the effects of warming.
Plus, all that SO2 oxidizing to sulfate is going to change atmospheric
chemistry, and maybe ocean surface chemistry when it rains out as
sulfuric acid.
If you're dealing with a highly nonlinear system, you don't tweak two
knobs at once. Especially if you don't have a complete manual describing
all the feedbacks between the control knobs.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
> In article
> <a9432172-f419-43c7...@i8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Jute
>
>> Be that smart for a week, Michael, without descending into juvenile
>> smartarsery, and I'll rehabilitate you right out of my killfile.
>
> Relax. No need to take extreme measures.
>
If you're in his killfile, why is he responding to you?
--
Bill Asher
Nate Nagel
> Andre Jute
> Not everything in materials is dreamt of in Timoshenko
GAAAH! flashback.
Seriously, just seeing that name immediately cued up a mental audio
track of a freshman-year professor saying "Gere and Timoshenko" in an
Aussie accent...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Michael Press
William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Andre did not respond to me, but to Andrew Muzi.
--
Michael Press
Andre Jute
> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in news:rubrum-
>
> > In article
> > <a9432172-f419-43c7-9d70-d6a6bd50f...@i8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> > Andre Jute
>
> >> Be that smart for a week, Michael, without descending into juvenile
> >> smartarsery, and I'll rehabilitate you right out of my killfile.
>
> > Relax. No need to take extreme measures.
>
> If you're in his killfile, why is he responding to you?
Doesn't your newsreader have threading, Asher? If you can't even work
out that I saw Press's post because Andrew Muzi quoted him, how can
you pretend to know about the complicated structures of global
warming?
Andre Jute
At least not that dumb
Michael Press
William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maunder, v.i. 1. to move or act in a dreamy, vague, aimless way.
2. to talk in an incoherent, rambling way; drivel.
--
Michael Press
Andre Jute
Yeah, those Australians and South African expats get everywhere,
though the South Africans sound just like BBC received pronunciation
so they aren't as easily spotted. I've been both an a South African
and an Australian (and suppose I still am, whatever it says on my
passport), and wherever else I live I tend to avoid the ghetto the
expats form, because I've observed that the cosmopolitans, the group I
naturally tend towards, adapt better to the modern world where one's
root isn't land but principle.
Speaking of dear old Timo, what has happened to the execrable lower
case "jim beam"?
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
bjwe...@gmail.com
It's well known that the temperature was cooler
in Europe during the period known as the Little Ice Age
because of a decrease in the population of pundits
(for example, the gap in the history of the McLaughlyne
Groupe, during which John of McLaughlyne could find
no fellow pundits to participate in his exchanges of
opinion pamphlets and broadsides) and the resulting
decrease in hot air production, which for obvious reasons
is known as the Maunder Minimum.
(Subsequent association of this phase with a
contemporaneous decrease in sunspots is ahistorical
and probably specious - nobody's ever demonstrated
a link between sunspot cycles and pundits, and the
amount of solar forcing expected is not sufficient to
chill pundit breeding-grounds enough to inhibit even
one year's cohort of new pundits. Unfortunately.)
Ben
Bill Sornson
Actually, he did respond to you (addressed you directly, in fact). It was
in Andrew's or another's post that he saw your words.
Bill "I'd think precision matters to a pedant" S.
William Asher
news:91c9ac84-1ffe-4fea...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> (Subsequent association of this phase with a
> contemporaneous decrease in sunspots is ahistorical
> and probably specious - nobody's ever demonstrated
> a link between sunspot cycles and pundits, and the
> amount of solar forcing expected is not sufficient to
> chill pundit breeding-grounds enough to inhibit even
> one year's cohort of new pundits. Unfortunately.)
I'm pretty sure that RealClimate.org has shown Republican membership in
congress is correlated to sunspots. It's in the "fun with time series"
post.
--
Bill Asher
AMuzi
Sure, no sunspots for over a year. As Ed Koch said "The
people threw me out and the people must be punished"
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
William Asher
news:h558tr$t4o$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
It was "Fun With Correlations" not time series.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/fun-with-correlatio
ns/
--
Bill Asher
Michael Press
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > In article <timmcn-783CF2....@news.iphouse.com>,
> > Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Dynamical"?
> >
> > <http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/John-Guckenheimer/Nonlinear-Oscillations-Dynamical-Systems-and-Bifurcations-of/0387908196.html>
>
> Thanks for the reference. That's damnically scientifically interesting.
The nomenclature is in the field.
Birkhoff, G.D. [1927] Dynamical Systems. A.M.S. Publications: Providence.
I do not like it either, but there you are.
The field is dazzling,
and the guys who built
it are among the most
puissant in 20th century
mathematics. Some from the 19th century.
Henri Poincaré
Aleksandr Mikhailovich Lyapunov
Gaston Julia
A.A. Andronov
A.N. Kolmogoroff
Vladimir Illyich Arnold
G. Duffing
Balthasar van der Pol <http://www.celebrity-pictures.ca/Celebrities/Anneliese-Van-Der-Pol/Anneliese-Van-Der-Pol-1088382.jpg>
No, not _that_ Van der Pol oscillator
Stephen Smale
Gerard Iooss
--
Michael Press