Climate Change Prediction is bunk...

Larkin claims to understand what orders of magnitude are.

We are at least an order of magnitude better at our daily predictions with the satellites, radars, and computers than at any time when all we had was low res cloud patterns and someone's personal guess after years of education in the field. Maybe two orders. maybe more. Needless to say, it is a very good indicator of how little grasp he has on so many things all the while pulling the Donald J. Trump blatantly false claim of ultra-intelligence.

No, there's a thousand things that depend on temperature, and all your body surface is covered with sensors (presuming you're human). Neutrino flux is hard to measure. Temperature is easy.

If your pet theories need the protection of repeated falsehoods, science offers a solution: euthanize that pet.

Don't know when they predicted this, but it took them some time to prove it...

e:

e:

on't

,

le

te.

e

ive

ng

ught

f s

rked

f

the

at

on

ajor

f

of

s d

to

on a

he

he

st

king

e

ls -? has

ely

ghly

arding the

ith

roduce

ast.)

.

en

the input.

unknown

heat

ver

ing

n.

ons.

Well it's good to be skeptical. Trust but verify.

George H.

What's the tempearure in your house right now? What's the temperature of a heat sink, or a PC board? If you reply with a single number, you're wrong.

This is typical: you can see similar data all over the country:

The trend in the last 50 years has been to locate "official" weather stations at airports. The -2F outlier on my map is the Truckee airport, the official station, which is almost always the hottest or coldest station in the region. Here it is, center of image, just off the main runway:

The bare asphalt roasts it in summer, and it gets unshielded radiation cooling in the winter. They built the airport there because it was the only nearby site not forest.

When temperatures were recorded 100 years ago, the instrumentation was very different, and there was no Truckee airport.

The highest temperature ever recorded in the UK was at Heathrow airport. I recall that it was a single spike measurement, possibly jet wash hitting an RTD, possibly noise. RTDs are a lot faster than old mercury thermometers in whitewashed Stevenson boxes, and they are read a lot more often.

I design temperature measurement and simulation electronics, from liquid helium temps to jet engine guts. Measuring temperature to a fraction of a degree is hard.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

You're far too polite, Jim. It's utter BULLSHIT.

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Sure: "We have no idea how cold it will be in the next ten years."

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

Gore couldn't, in the US you have to prove damages except for statements falling in the categories of libel per se. I doubt there's been much damage created.

And even in the case of libel per se, eh, if you're a celebrity it's pretty much a non-starter.

Most celebrities understand that pursuing legal action against nobodies is a waste of time that just creates more bad press than anything it accomplishes.

I mean, except for Trump and his supporters, they love to see gorillas smash kittens.

Indeed Yes.

I currently design

What can be measured this afternoon is irrelevant to making a measurement of

11,485 years ago. We weren't there.

For example, to confirm carbon dating actually works, and is not just a nice idea, some artefacts can be dated because that actually have, say a date stamp on them.

-- Kevin Aylward

- SuperSpice

Bollocks. It tells you the temperature at the single point it was measured. Period. Anything else is pure conjecture. 100 metres away, it will be different.

One sensor every cubic mile is a f'ing large number of sensors, and aint enough.

-- Kevin Aylward

- SuperSpice

te:

ote:

u won't

an

Nye,

n's

ubtle

imate.

the

o give

being

taught

s of

was

e,"

ate

worked

, if

as the

that

on on

A major

two

s of

70% of

e is

loud

ing to

er on a

e," he

in

g the

west

re

asking

n

one

odels -? has

rately

.

highly

hly

iscarding the

s with

o produce

| | | | | |

ich

past.)

't.

ven

w the input.

unknown

heat

over

wing

n.

ns.

John Larkin promoting his own ignorance into a general principle.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Just because you couldn't understand the priciple doesn't mean that it isn't valid. The deuterium content of the snow that fell on Greenland and Antartica, two widely separated places, reflects the temperature of the planet as a whole.

As any literal-minded half-wit will tell you. The reality is a little more complicated than that, but the result is simple, and persuasive, if you take the trouble to read the explanation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That's why the discussion is about the surface temperature of the planet, averaged across the entire surface.

But it has proved possible to allow for the differences. Anthony Watts has said that he would accept the results of at least one of those reconciliation exercises, until it came out with an answer he didn't like.

The deuterium content of layers of ice from polar ice cores isn't easy to measure, but it does provide a tolerably precise measure of the average surface temperature of the surface of the earth's oceans.

And it's been done for sufficiently long ice cores to track back through an ice age or two.

You aren't sceptical, you are merely incorrigilbly ignorant, and complacent with it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

o

w=1

st-day-ever.html

the

e

There are temperature gradients inside most enclosures. Well stirred water baths can do better. Somebody once described a roughly cubical enclosure, w here all six walls were temperature controlled aluminium plates, and the ob ject in the middle didn't dissipate enough heat to create any worthwhile gr adients of its own.

The performance to beat - for well stirred water baths - is around a couple of microdegrees.

Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. ?A microcontroller

-based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK in th e range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensor? ? Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996)

didn't do as well, but our chunk of aluminium wasn't all that well insulate d. Your tenth of a degree Celcius stability doesn't sound as if you were tr ying very hard.

n

ile

But the deuterium content of the water that fell as snow reflects the avera ge temperature of the ocean surfaces, and comparison of the Greenland and A ntarctic ice cores does offer a cross-check.

Your fantasy is that you know what you are talking about. John Larkin is we ll-known to be a narcissist with delusions of expertise, but I'd thought be tter of you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Jim and Cursitor Doom compete to post links to sites presenting total bullshit.

Cursitor Doom is merely congratulating Jim for having come up with something even more misleading and deceptive than the rubbish Cursitor Doom regularly choses to offer for our attention.

It would be nice if they'd both stop, but the chance of either of them learning sceptical thinking at their ages is remote.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

lly build as prototypes. We start with the specified characteristics of t he dozen or so components, build a simulation and then build one in real l ife. How often do the two results agree? Often they don't. That's when the learning process begins. We start to add in the unspecified parasitic characteristics of the components and the connections, adjusting the model until it agrees with the observed performance in the lab. Only then can y ou say that you have an accurate model. And your model is going to have li mited ability to accurately predict operation in regions outside of what we tested.

0 y

g,

hat

Sure there is. Show you can accurately compute the climate. Or, if you can't, show that it's computationally feasible. Show the climate can be accurately modeled--so accurately that it can be predicted a century hence--with sparsely-sampled data points of realizable precision by computers of computational power.

But all you have to do is sample the source code of these models to see they're not accurate mathematical models of known physical processes. They' re that, plus piles of conjecture, simplifications, unexplained fudge-factors, and rules of thumb.

That's especially true of the feedbacks, which are the most important thing in something iterated a million times over. If the feedbacks are wrong, the output's soon pure fiction.

Cheers, James Arthur

Why was that harsh? I thought it an accurate statement of the problem.

But that's not correct. We don't know the net change in effect or distribution of clouds, for starters. We do not know the net albedo (and it's doubtful a single number would suffice). Even the supposed sensitivity to CO2 is a spread, not a single, accurately quantified number derived from basic principles.

I'm talking about the whole earth too. But, to use your example, it's not a matter assuming one can predict outflow given inflow, but of assuming a few extra twigs downstream slow the outflow enough to flood all creation two generations hence.

Grins, James Arthur