nightmare

So you deny powerlineblog.com has a clear bias? Yes, of course you do.

It's always amusing when someone responds to a poster they have killfiled. JL seems to think what I post isn't worth reading, but when he does he feels it is important enough to reply to. lol Talk about burying your head in the sand.

Not sure why you fell fact checking is so new. Snopes has been around for a long time. The sites you seem to be talking about didn't show up until a bout the same time the main stream media started publishing fake news. Don 't you think it is important to reveal their lies? Oh, right, you just wan t to target the main stream media and not reveal the lies of others the mai n stream media is reporting on.

You miss the point as usual. Of course it's important that lies be exposed, from whichever source they may originate. You will get no opposition from me on that issue.

If the processes were known, why wouldn't you?

I can certainly read a model's code, see that it's based on a pile of arbitrary assumptions, and conclude that it's not an accurate model of known physical processes.

One of NOAA's model-writers told me they'd started off modelling with a set of energy-balance assumptions that initially had the earth alternately melting lead or freezing atmosphere, sensitively depending on the settings, then proceeded to twiddle various fudge-factors from there until they got something with a room-temperature equilibrium.

That guessclimateology doesn't produce accurate models of known physical processes.

You can curve-fit the stock market's past pretty well if you use an arbitrary polynomial of high enough order. But that doesn't mean you've created an accurate model of the stock market that predicts future results, much less 50 years in the future.

It's all arguing over how many angels fit on a head of a pin, and little to do with physical reality.

Cheers, James Arthur

Here's a simple test: if someone only harps on the costs of a thing or only the 'benefits', you know you're getting an agenda and not an objective discussion on the merits.

Cheers, James Arthur

Perhaps they should call themselves "Imcluelesspleaseleadme.org."

Cheers, James

Ignore him. He's a hater, not an electronic designer.

Ok, we are in agreement then. So what are you complaining about?

BTW, no one said, "anything you read from alternative sources may be fake", just the fake stuff, same as any source.

On 2019-09-08 19:17, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote: [Snip!]

That seems apocryphal. Simply balancing solar radiation input against black body radiation gets a first approximation of

Jeroen Belleman

Actual earth average temp is about 288K.

I *did* say this was only a first approximation. The point is that we're not even close to melting lead or freezing air, and I can't believe that anyone trying to model the climate would come up with anything like that.

I don't trust any climate model pretending to predict mean global temperature to a fraction of a degree, but they can't be *that* far out.

Jeroen Belleman

I'm afraid Bill is wholly immune to that.

NT

Solar input has been measured widely and there are reasonably good models for net global energy absorption (both atmospheric absorption and surface). Net radiation is much harder to estimate (because it's black body + variable reflection), and the current best estimates have an error margin of about 1%. Further variation arises in estimates of internal self-heating from nuclear reactions.

The upshot is that the global averages for net energy inflow and outflow are both about 400W per square metre. The 1% margin (based on our current best measurement technologies) means it could be 389W in, 402W out, or vice versa. Any small change in either inflow or outflow would not be very noticable, but over time would mount up quite quickly.

The above information I got when I met (a couple of years ago) the Australian scientist who one an award for his 35 year career primarily focused on measuring solar energy inflow. Can't recall his name at present.

Clifford Heath.

Cursitor Doom likes to think this. In reality there are people around who are less gullible than Cursitor Doom, John Larkin and James Arthur, who can do their own versions of fact-checking.

umb.

om the Koch brothers, whose fortune depends on the fossil carbon fuel indus try being able to keep on selling fossil carbon as fuel.

of

of the Climategate files which he's been misrepresenting as a research gra de climate simulations ever since. I've called him on it before, but he kee ps on lying about it.

r one of

, and the Climategate files did include exactly such a sandbox.

You haven't said when you got it, where you got it or when you posted your version of the story here.

Whatever you did post can be retrieved from the google archives, and I'm to lerably confident that you won't bother to do that because it won't look mu ch like what you are claiming here.

n initiative instigated by the Obama administration into the astro-turfing exercise by the Koch brothers which created the Tea Party faction in the Re publican Party. The Koch brothers had covered their tracks well enough that nobody got prosecuted, but the only lunatic aspect of the story was the Ko ch brothers destroying the Republican Party (and letting in Trump) in their effort to reshape it.

The Koch brother's astro-turfing of the Republican Party with the Tea Party movement is fact. Not the kind of fact that you will acknowledge because y ou played a small part in it, but fact none-the-less.

You won't like the Guardian as a source or George Monbiot as a reporter - b oth are committed to presenting real facts of the kind you don't like, but that's a symptom of your mental disorder.

You aren't stupid, but that doesn't stop you from having your head way up y our behind.

Are you really trying to compete with AlwaysWrong? You're doing a great job of it, if so.

Hint: John was responding to Joseph Gwinn.

Starting point for studying hurricanes: they spin counterclockwise in the US area. Observations came before any formal physical analysis (before the theoretic tools for multivariate analysis, like big computers). The study of weather is older than our knowledge of atmospheric chemistry, or ability to characterize the ocean of air (or those of water) with any precision.

Basis in science is always observations. The pile of 'assumptions' is a set of approximations, necessary to get any result, as in the familiar example of 'a spherical cow radiating milk in all directions'. Models are useful. Accurate models, if not usable, ought to be discarded. The judgment call on what models to use is a fine art, not suitable for casual inspect-and-reject criticism.

Says a casual critic, who does not have a productive model to offer as an alternative, on a planetary scale. Lots of the details that matter are not the laboratory-susceptible 'known physical processes'.

John Larkin seems to be talking about a friend of James Arthur who started off in the business but seems to have been really bad at it, and left.

The story came out here a few years ago, and James Arthur seems to have adopted his friend's face-saving attitude, which was that everybody else was as incompetent as his friend, but lied about their results.

Joseph Fourier is perhaps the first to point out this difference, which is normally attributed to the greenhouse effect.

In reality the effective emitting altitude is a couple of miles up into the atmosphere, which is cooler than the surface.

Trust John Larkin to be unaware of this elementary fact.

Yeah, so 'simply balancing' and black-body approximation gives two significant digits, the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere fills in the next one, and fancy layered-atmosphere/chemical-makeup/carbon-pollution fills in further. That's progress, science-style.

Modeling a complex system starting with simple bits, and growing into something complex and hard to express in a sound bite... that's why science reporting is a difficult discipline, and why dramatists try to play up conflict and controversy instead.