Hmmm - "OT: Antarctic ices sheets are loosing mass"

Idiot. The flip from an ice age to an interglacial is a complicated process, and the primary variable and driving force is ice cover in the northern hemisphere.

Once the ice cover is reduced, the climate warms up, more CO2 comes out of the ocean, and the climate warms up some more. That's what did happen back then.

What we are doing is dumping lots of extra CO2 into the atmosphere which produces direct warming (and reduces ice cover in the northern hemisphere).

Cause and effect have been flipped.

It's no kind of argument that extra CO2 in the atmosphere now isn't causing warming now - extra CO2 produced extra warming back then too, and the mechanism is perfectly obvious.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman
Loading thread data ...

Extrapolation with a polynomial is usually wrong. You can salvage a bit of the bogosity by Chebyshev weighting, if it's important.

Accelerating trends are often exponential, like a snow avalanche, and there's no way to model that with a polynomial that makes good sense. The avalanche eventually runs out of snow, and stops, which also isn't predictable from the 'trend', unless you have a model that includes a limited snow supply.

... I've also been tempted to try the odd

Well, yeah, that's a trick, but a bad one; the odd order polynomial in elder times blows up in the negative direction, so we know it's historically wrong. You want a model that, with a limited number of terms, predicts the near-constant interregnum between ice ages, don't you? So, why use a polynomial? A few sines and cosines would be more appropriate. Each sine term is an infinite series of odd-order polynomial type, cosine is an infinite series of even-order.

Reply to
whit3rd

There's fifty-six references, and one of them has 'model' in the title? And, you imagine that is a problem, somehow? No, it's a reference to work explained elsewhere...

How can you support 'absurd'? Only an error estimate that differs from the one given could challenge the measurement. You've done zero math, neither estimated nor calculated any terms or totals. That's not criticism, it's denial and ignorance.

Reply to
whit3rd

It's kind of cool what real sticks do. In a slapshot, the player hits the ice in front of the puck and puts weight on it so the stick flexes, storing energy, and when the blade lets go the shaft and blade snaps back to straight and flings the puck with increased kinetic energy. Sort of like a bow and arrow.

formatting link

There should be great opportunities for remediation and reconstruction if the worst-case scenarios come to pass. Buy Komatsu and maybe Caterpillar.

--Spehro Pefhany

Reply to
speff

We have one study, cited by BS, that claims a hockey-stick loss of ice mass. And the Nasa study, cited by me, that shows gain. One must be absurd. I'm guessing it's the alarmist one.

Alarmists usually turn out to be wrong.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Nobody is going to publish a climate simulation that doesn't hindcast well against some chosen past-climate reconstruction. So what gets published may well be a (millions of lines of code) curve fit to estimated data, with extrapolation.

Excel can curve fit.

The current "unprecedented" warming is well below past interglacial peaks, and has a different shape, flat on top.

And we *are* late in an interglacial. It's going to get very cold. Maybe hydrogen fusion can save us.

Do any of the AGW simulations hindcast those glacial/interglacial curves?

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

No, the older study just doesn't have as many inputs as the newer one. Neither is alarmist (whatever that word means).

When an alarm is sounding, DO NOT HESITATE, rather find your way to safety and then investigate. Survivors of WTC, 9/11/2001, are the ones didn't guess that the alarm was absurd.

Reply to
whit3rd

Oh, more inputs to a model must make it better. You can get parts per million accuracy if you have enough inputs.

It means predicting the end of the human race in 10 years.

I worked with a fire alarm company in Freehold NJ. A sign on the wall said

IN CASE OF FIRE RUN, YELL "FIRE!"

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

the one given could challenge

ed

Dated 2019.

Dated 2015. And it wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal

They are clearly looking at slightly different data - which doesn't make ei ther of them "absurd". The more recent study, from the peer-reviewed Procee dings of the National Academy of Sciences, is more likely to be right

What's "alarmist" about pointing out that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass?

It's 13.9 +/- 2mm of sea level rise since 1979.

James Hansen's claim that the ice sheets will eventually slide off a lot fa ster, and deliver some 10 metres of sea level rise (as other ice sheets did at the end of the last ice age) is alarmist, but in the context that we've got a lot of time to slow down the mass loss, if we get going now.

Not this time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

The error budget is certainly well covered (read the papers) in the second one. Random musings about accuracy aren't a substitute for calculation.

Very gracious of you, to agree that neither is alarmist. The clickbait era, alas, would better receive your retraction if it was explicit rather than veiled.

Reply to
whit3rd

Enough of the right inputs.

The PNAS paper certainly didn't do that.

Sounds sensible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

I have it on expert authority that we'll all be extinct in 18 to 34 months. Let's max out our credit cards and party meanwhile.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

formatting link

108 MPH sounds dangerous.

Ice hockey is a bizarre sport, but most team sports are goofy.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Authority? Not in science, not until the peers have the details to review! What you cite, is the kind of authority Nostradamus has: bogus.

Reply to
whit3rd

Don't call Bloggsy bogus!

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

.

nd one.

era, alas,

ed.

Since when has Fred Bloggs been an expert authority? His expertise is a lot more visible than John Larkin's, but his pessimism is perhaps even more ex treme than John Larkin's optimism, and rather cuts into his authority. Not as much as John Larkin's optimism cut into whatever authority he might have , but still enough that I'm not going to max out my credit cards.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

ew!

He's real enough, and the information he cites is real - which is where he really does differ from John Larkin - but the conclusions he draws from it are extremely pessimistic, where the extremity verges on psychopathology, s o an informed observer has to allow for the obvious bias.

John Larkin isn't any kind of informed observer.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

No, it'll take 12 years. AOC said so and she's at least as smart as Blobbs.

Reply to
krw

e.

ond

t
r

formatting link

She's obviously more electable than Fred Bloggs. Quite what krw imagines sh e might have said is anybody's guess.

"In July 2018, conservative news outlet CRTV published a video produced wit h heavily edited footage of Ocasio-Cortez from a previous interview with PB S. The editing made it appear as though Ocasio-Cortez was giving nonsensica l answers to questions read by CRTV commentator Allie Stuckey. The outlet a nd conservative media sources called the video satirical, though some comme ntators pointed to it as an example of fake news."

Krw isn't the most sophisticated observer around.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

"Occasional Cortex"

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.