Computer simulations of poorly defined chaotic systems with unknown forcings are not anything as rigorous as a trig theorem. In fact, they tend to be very wrong.
It's ludicrous to call this settled science.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Not a criticism: 'very wrong' means there's error bars, so try to recalculate some of those if you want.
Not to a scientist it isn't. The error bars are good enough to support conclusions, and the forcings that ARE known are considerable. So, it is (has been for decades) appropriate to cease denial and to consider (greenhouse gas sources, in particular).
You can make a multiple-choice question, with wrong and right answers. Climate and heat flow are NOT multiple-choice questions. Judging something 'wrong' or 'very wrong' is, like denial, not a criticism. Einstein was once asked to consider a pamphlet entitled "A Hundred Authors Against Einstein" (or the German equivalent). He replied "Why a hundred? If I was wrong, one would be enough". It was clear from context that there was no convincing criticism known to the editor...
The climate sims are not subject to experimental verification, and have historically made really stupid predictions. Like giant hurricanes, clear water on the north pole, no snow again in England, perpetual drought in California, global famine, radical temperature rises, massive flooding. All wrong.
Pointing out that the sims have been consistantly wrong is "denialism"?
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
You're skating perilously close to Godwin territory there. The pamphlet you cite was published in 1931, more than a decade after Sir Arthur Eddington' s celebrated 1920 paper announcing that the gracitational bending of starli ght by the Sun fit the GR value and not the Newtonian one.
GR had previously explained the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury. The two completely independent lines of observational evidence provided c lear demonstrations that contradicted the previously accepted theory and su pported GR.
So what triumphant experimental verification of climate models can you prod uce to support your comparison?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Me: The supercomputer weather forcasts for next week, next month, next winter are essentially useless.
True Believer: Well, weather is chaotic, but it averages out so that climate is predictable.
Me: But the climate predictions from 5 years, 10 years, 20 years ago have all been wrong.
TB: But the models are so much better now.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
There's no more "experimental verification" that Darwinian evolution operates over long time scales the way evolutionary biologists say it does than there is "experimental verification" the climate operates over long time scales the way climate scientists say it does. We have a data point of one, and within that what we have is a historical record (fossils) and computer models.
And yet most people seem to (grudgingly) accept that it occurred the way science says it did, and will continue to do so.
Yes, if you take as your axioms materially untrue statements like "long range forecasts are useless" and "all the predictions were wrong" then yes, I suppose one can hardly argue.
Mine came today! It's great!
Well, let's see if it's still going strong after 40 years, as my good ol' Tek 475 is. Somehow I doubt it.
We have over 100 unit-years of Rigol scopes so far, no problems at all.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Just out of curiosity, which would you say are Rigol's most useful models to have around on the bench for R&D purposes?
Tek 475s are amazing scopes but no match for modern DSO/MSOs.
The word "essentially" is a weasel word. It means that those forecasts are not useless, in your opinion.
Not a bad observation, there. I once remarked to a fellow plane passenger "45 degrees and rainy" while the PA system was announcing the situation in Seattle. The official report was "48 degrees and rainy". It wasn't necessary to have the report, it was Seattle, and it was February.
How do you take a complex weather map and determine that it is 'right' or 'wrong'? How does the data fit such a simplistic binary model? It doesn't. Fit determination can be done, and IS done, but can never be an answer.
Other unanswerable questions: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Will Rhett and Scarlett ever reconcile?
Doesn't matter, of course. If models ALL say 'global warming', no single fault in a model invalidates the general conclusions. There aren't any credible models that suit you, so feel free to enjoy confusion.
But, if you fly into Seattle in February, be prepared for rain. Smart is better than confused.
I keep the modern crap as well and use it (only) when called for, but still prefer the old classic gear. I'm in the process of trying to resurrect a 466 at the moment. Fab!
All of them. The cheap 100 MHz guys are great for general bench fiddling. The 500 MHz 4-channel is our standard for automated test sets. The 1 GHz monster is great for fast stuff.
We really don't buy them as cheap scopes.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
I've got a Kikusui and a Tektronix 2215 60 MHz analog boatanchors as backups now; the Kik was manufactured all the way back in 1983 and still chugging along fine. I think I'll survive the Scopepocalypse OK.
oduce to support your comparison?
Oh, I'm not familiar with any of the climate models under discussion. It' s only the abuse of logic and reason that motivates me. In particular, one only needs the Stefan-Boltzman radiative heat transfer and atmosphere composition to complete a greenhouse-gas argument. That isn't really a climate model at all, and it's over a century old well-tested science. That calculation, only t akes a page of paper.
The reason for creating and maintaining big complex models (of the big comp lex planet with big complex weather) is to have some forewarning of the inevita ble changes. While that's nice, it's MORE important to get the atmospheric composition back to normal, and the climate models don't do that.
Anthropogenic: from industrial records, we know the coal/hydrocarbon input that creates CO2 output. We can see the atmospheric composition changes. Global: couple of hundred nations have put eyes on the problem, and decided on action. Warming: weather reports (not climate models) and icemelt say it's true.
So, the so-called AGW result isn't dependent in any way on a climate model. Denial of climate models is an example of straw man argument, a nearly complete misdirection of energy.
Cool. Explain this:
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
See the last hundred forty million years has CO2 and temperature running pretty much highly correlated. Before that, there's no reason to believe atmospheric composition was dominated by that particular greenhouse gas.
Rapid dips, in particular, probably aren't periods where the various feedbacks caused any kind of stability. But those excursions presumably burned out some of their causative agents, because they don't repeat.
We don't want a rapid excursion, where WE'RE the causative agents, for that reason.
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.