John Larkin is an ignorant person, who thinks that the denialist nonsense s pread by the Murdoch press is revealed truth, and doesn't appreciate how it tawdry it looks to the better-informed.
If he were better-informed, he might appreciate precisely how contemptible his gullibility actually is, but I'm afraid that my intelligence is merely giving my emotions more outrage to feed on, rather than my emotions having any effect on what I perceive. Science and engineering are all about having rude facts destroy a beautiful theory, and I've gotten used to seeing that happen to lots of my more attractive ideas over the years.
Some have survived the process (and I've got a couple of patents to prove i t) but a lot of attractive - but wrong - ideas ended up on the cutting room floor.
John Larkin's BS detector doesn't seem to have had as much exercise, and cl early doesn't work anything like as well.
I do seem to have negative interactions with fools who think that getting v accinated is more dangerous than not being vaccinated, that drinking unpast eurised milk is a good idea, and that anthropogenic global warming isn't ha ppening.
The problem with these clowns is that they are convinced that they are spre ading a revealed truth, rather than serving as unwitting shills for crimina l money-making schemes.
You seem to be unwilling to face that particular fact, and in fact probably are too dumb to follow the logic involved, but you do have enough sense to be unhappy about being characterised as a fool, no matter how strong the e vidence supporting that - fairly obvious - conclusion.
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson hasn't computed the aggregate probability of the train of events required. Trump has yet to win the Republican nomination as their presidential candidate.
The Republicans have shot themselves in the foot before, so it's not impossible, but it's pretty unlikely. If Trump became the Republican candidate for the US presidency, he'd still have to win the election, which is even less likely.
If - as US president - he wanted to round up US citizens and set them to manual rock-crushing, he'd have to get new laws passed. If he wanted to round up Australian citizens, he'd have to invade Australia first.
Jim would to have to wait quite a long time to see his dream come true, and it's a very implausible dream, even by Jim's standards.
And he's a bit fat for the role of Don Quijote, though Arizona is a hot and arid as la Mancha.
Well, my main argument, the inherent incorrectness of the climate models, is very reasonable, although some may not like to hear that.
And what you stated, that they did not make the 'error' over overdetermination of a polynomial approximation function has nothing to do with it.
The models _may_ be based on _some_ correct reasoning, but the fact that they need tweaking and adjusting, you can call this calibration, but forget that word if you don't like it, implies there are some incorrect parts in it, plain wrong, of not completely understood. That doesn't matter.
Now I'm quite sure--although this might bring the foam back on your mouth like a dog with rabies--that you can consider a model like that to be a superposition of an incorrect on top of a _correct_ model, the outcome of which has to be 'calibrated' by superposing yet another model, a (multivariable and multidimensional) polynomial function in order to correct for the errors introduced by working with an incorrect model.
This polynomial function can be used to finally adjust the model into giving the correct results, i.e. the results correspond with the historical values.
Now, we all know, notwithstanding the claims of some Bill Sloman to the contrary, that with the correct order of the polynomial, a nice, smooth approximation of the historical values can be obtained, while also nicely interpolating correct values in between the calibration points.
In other words: the polynomial was not overdetermined. So far all is well.
However, if you want to use that adjusted polynomial function to give an estimate outside the range of where the calibration points were located, it guaranteedly will give incorrect results, and the worse the further we go outside the calibration range, i.e. further into the future as far as climate models are concerned.
And things are even worse, because Mr. Bill Sloman doesn't even have a clue how this superposed model would look like, even if he would psychologically be able to even consider the concept of it.
So how the AGW lobby can maintain with so much certainty that the temperature will be x degrees in 2030 is totally beyond me.
Ok, there is some 'confidence' among _them_, because 5 or so 'different' (oh, really?) models 'seem to' point in the same direction, yeah right.
And ok, you can use this approach in order to lure an investor into financing your constructing an airplane wing or a wind turbine blade, for which the strength calculations of the laminated polyester are very difficult to model, so in order to build confidence you can present models which are based on different approaches but give results going in the same direction.
Just to give one (real world) example.
I've been there, seen it, and I've also seen how much guess work such approach involves.
But if you talk about the certainty that we are blowing up the world with a few ppm of CO2 extra in the atmosphere, and you talk about extremely far reaching consequences as introducing a world wide prohibition of CO2 production, unless you pay dearly for it, and the people who profit the most from such a scheme are shouting the loudest how 'necessary' it is, and that 'the science is in', and that Antarctica would be molten away by 2014 or whatever, then in order to convince me you'd need some more 'hard' science, thank you very much.
Not some estimate of the highly variable cloud cover.
Good luck with that. And I didn't even as much as mention the religion card... oops, I guess I just did. :)
joe
And now wait for some *really* foam spitting asinine response...
Sadly, it isn't. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
But you claimed that it did.
I explicitly denied that it's called "calibration".
All computer models are over-simplifications - they wouldn't be useful if t hey weren't - so they can't be "correct". This doesn't stop them being usef ul.
formatting link
The above is talking about short term climate models, where the El Nino/ La Nina alternations matter.
The El Nino/La Nina alternations are driven by ocean currents. We can see ocean currents when they more water at the ocean surface, but the deep curr ents are hidden. We've now got the Argo buoys out looking at the deep curre nts - we've had some 3000 floating around since 2007 - but there's a lot of ocean and 3000 buoys isn't all that many.
formatting link
In the long term the ocean currents don't matter all that much - the averag e amount of heat getting from the equator to the poles by any given route a verages out to a constant figure over a few centuries.
Your gibbering about "polynomials" is just an ignorant attempt to generalis e something you've done (or seen done) into the area of climate modelling t hat you know absolutely nothing about.
Yes, I never denied that short term climate models could 'work', as they are used within the range of parameters and variable excursions where they are adjusted to give results consistent with history.
The fact that you cite short term climate models in order to try to justify the use of that method of modelling and the tweaking thereof is totally inappropriate with respect to long term climate modelling, where the intention is to use the models _outside_ their range of 'tweaking' (as you don't want to call it calibration) and adjusting.
That's the whole point, sir.
Hey! I did not 'snipe' your over-useless explanations of short term climate models in El Nino/La Nina phenomena, not to mention the non-applicability in this respect.
Congratulations with the well-behavedness of your reply.
Since you don't have a clue how the models work or what the modellers are a djusting, who cares what you think?
The same models work fine for explaining how the climate flips between ice ages and interglacials and they are still working fine - give or take a few deep ocean currents which we can't yet directly see and don't so far model - with atmospheric CO2 levels up to 400ppm from the 180 ppm of ice ages an d the 270ppm of normal interglacials. Your imagined "polynomials" don't exi st anywhere outside your rather restricted imagination.
It's not any kind of "point". It's load of pretentious rubbish, totally dis connected from any kind of reality.
Very kind of you. The explanation might have been useless to you but somebo dy even marginally better informed might have appreciated the link to real climate modelling. Your bleating about "calibration" and "polynomials" is a worthless waste of bandwidth.
I'm clearly not making the depth of your ignorance and the fatuity of your pretensions as obvious as I should be. Perhaps you are too dim to appreciat e the magnitude of the contempt I'm expressing.
ng vaccinated is more dangerous than not being vaccinated, that drinking un pasteurised milk is a good idea, and that anthropogenic global warming isn' t happening.
spreading a revealed truth, rather than serving as unwitting shills for cri minal money-making schemes.
ably are too dumb to follow the logic involved, but you do have enough sens e to be unhappy about being characterised as a fool, no matter how strong t he evidence supporting that - fairly obvious - conclusion.
Two pig-ignorant Jamie's or one? Why should I bother telling them apart? I suspect that it's really the same moron posting from two different addres ses, but I'm really not interested enough to find out.
I normally post directly onto Google groups, but from time to time I use Th underbird to post via eternal September. Google thinks that I'm a different poster when I post via eternal September.
Why bother? Separating indistinguishable idiots is even more of a waste of time than jeering at them.
On eternal September you mostly come up as jamie snipped-for-privacy@charter.net, and I can't be bother looking far enough to find your fabled alter-ego (who seems to be just as moronic as the regular version).
We had these discussions here maybe ten years ago. You can take the FFT of any historical record--or curve-fit a polynomial--and extract coefficients that accurately reproduce what already happened, but which have zero predictive value.
Truth is that global climate models aren't anything close to accurate models of actual physical processes--some of those processes still aren't even known. The models reflect the guesses of the people who wrote them, filtered through the requirement any outputs match the approved 'correct' predictions.
That doesn't mean AGW is wrong, or right. But the climastrophic predictions aren't founded on science.
Ages ago *all* this carbon was in the air. Life blossomed. The Earth loved it.
A climate model might include thousands of observations from each of thousands of weather reporting agents, and have millions of matrix elements relating those observations with ... tomorrow's forecast.
Those observations are incomplete, of course; the color of a crop or the smoke from a wildfire, or a fluctuation of ocean currents, won't be included, though there is a weather effect. So, in addition to physics, you use experience to fine-tune the millions of matrix elements. That tuning NEVER STOPS, and never should- a forest that changes from hardwoods to palm-oil plantations would never get captured in the model if you stopped evolving the model's elements.
Incomprehension is easy; to really refute such a model, you have to do better than that.
Making a simile, with an animal? Not acceptable in civilized discussion.
Now, you're personalizing the authority of climate science, and tagging it on an individual? That's cheating, too. The heresy trial of Galileo, and his recantation, might have been a victory over a person, but we still call those moons of Jupiter the 'Galilean moons', because authority resides in the OBSERVATION Galileo made, not in his person.
Ah, that's to be expected. There's probably a few thousands of climate scientists who've made contributions on the subject, but a refutation is ALSO a contribution (science is funny that way)... and if thousands can make contributions, that means that billions of us cannot reach that standard. You're one of the billions.
All he has to do is show that the model (or any vital aspect of it) fails to predict *anything.* That is, if it disagrees with observed reality, the model fails.
Deep ocean currents are currently being measured - by the Argo buoys - but while ocean currents do shift the route and rate of heat transfer from the equator to the poles, it all averages out over a couple of centuries, and c urrent climate models are are quite good enough to explain why an ice age i s colder than an interglacial, and to predict that raising atmospheric CO2 levels from the 180ppm characteristic of an ice age to the 270ppm character istic of a normnal interglacial to the 400ppm (and rising rapidly) that we' ve got now will produce significant further temperature rises.
ons.
The models do quite a bit more than that, and the peer-review process activ ely looks for outputs that don't match the general concensus about what's g oing on. In that sense, science is a branch of the entertainment industry, and rewar ds those who can surprise the scientifically sophisticated audience.
The approved 'correct' predictions are boring, and nobody makes a brilliant career out of boring people. If James Arthur know anything about science h e'd be aware of that ...
formatting link
montcrieff_en.html
talks about the Madden-Julian oscillations in the tropics. It's not about a pproved or 'correct' predictions, but rather about why some large scale phe nomena are difficult to model. Quite a long way from Joey Hey's "polynomial s".
Not on any science that James Arthur can understand, but James Arthur knows about as much about science as John Larkin does, which isn't much, and he' s prepared to ignore what he does know when what it says leads to political conclusions he doesn't like. He's not the first to exhibit this attitude.
formatting link
d it.
A lot of the fossil carbon we are now burning was laid down in the Carbonif erous epoch (whence the name) some 300 to 360 million years ago.
The sun was little smaller then (though it's surface temperature would have much the same) and thus emitting somewhat less heat.
"Life" in general might do better with more CO2 in the air and the conseque nt warmer climate. Human civilisation and agriculture is rather finely tune d to exploit the climate we've had since the end of the last ice age.
Changing it dramatically over a century or two isn't prudent, no matter how much money the fossil carbon extraction industry spends on propaganda deny ing this fact.
That depends on what you are using the model to predict. Every mathematical model is a simplification of reality - and has to be to make the computati onal load small enough to be manageable - so it can't predict observed real ity perfectly.
All the the model needs to do is to capture the important physical features of the process going on in a way that lets us see what is actually going o n.
Climate models have let us see how the tiny Milankovitch Effect
formatting link
can produce the large climate change between ice ages and interglacials, an d lets us see that our changing one of the key variables - atmospheric CO2 level - from the 270 ppm characteristic of an interglacial (as opposed to t he 180 ppm characteristic of an ice age) to the current 400 ppm - is going to have an appreciable (and undesirable) effect on the surface temperature of the planet.
Quibbling about "predictive accuracy" when you haven't got a clue about wha t the model is being used to predict is an empty rhetorical device - partic ularly when you don't specify what level of accuracy the prediction would h ave to achieve to be - in some sense - useful.
I prefer to do it with understanding, instead of with *wrong* numbers. }snip{
Exactly my point... Keep adjusting, but don't go outside that parameter space in which you've adjusted your approximative model, because the outcome will be garbage.
}snip{
The sole referral to 'authority' absolutely weakens one's argument in science.
}snip{
At least I explained, or argued or opined if you like, how it can *not* accurately predict the temperature in 2030 under the *assumption* of AGW...
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.