John hasn't been paying attention. If the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets were kind enough to melt in place, it would take several thousand ye ars for them to contribute their 10 metres of potential sea level rise.
As James Hansen pointed out recently, what more likely to happen is that th e ice sheets will become mechanically unstable, and slide off into the ocea n. This is what happened to the Laurentian ice sheet at the end of the last ice age, and the there are four "melt-water pulses" during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial where sea level went up q uite rapidly as bits of the ice sheets slid off into the sea to become ice bergs.
This kind of event is more difficult to model than having the ice melt in p lace, and the IPCC played safe by not saying anything about it, but Hansemn makes the point that we'll get our ten metres of sea level rise over a few hundred years rather than a few thousand, and that the sea will rise rapid ly when any of the ice sheets starts moving fast.
Joey Hey, John Larkin and James Arthur all assert this. None of them show m uch evidence of knowing what a climate model does. James Arthur has pulled stuff out of the Climategate files about a graduate student programming san dbox, and claimed that it's a revelation of what goes into the climate mode ls that get described in peer-reviewed journal articles.
In each case the problem is that they are recycling denialist propaganda, r ather than any posting their own - non-existent - insights into climate mod elling.
ate
der
Probably true. But climate science doesn't go in for that kind of mindless modelling, much though it would suit James Arthur's political preferences i f they were silly enough to settle for that.
formatting link
This isn't a story being told by people "throwing fudge-factors into a blen der". They are looking at the capacity of climate models to simulate a quite subt le features of the global circulation - the Julian-Madden Oscillation - whi ch persists for more than half a year (despite the butterfly effect) both i n reality and in the better climate models.
Spice suffers from floating-point errors and from the requirement to use coarse time steps - like one entire picosecond - to limit computation time. But most electronic oscillators are pretty tame systems, so phase accuracy gets progressively and predictably better as you apply more compute horsepower.
The atmosphere is a chaotic system with un-knowable initial conditions, causalities, and forcings, and its complexity wildly exceeds any collection of electronic components. Around here, even
12-hour weather forecasts are terrible. Next-years rainfall is a random guess.
I simulate a lot of circuits. Some can be modeled to parts per million over the time span of interest. Some, the fun ones, can't be usefully modeled at all. We make the most money on the latter.
As noted, some models are useless. It is good to know which are useful and which aren't.
It does invalidate any model that concerns the state of the cat.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
John Larkin gets told from time to time that our planetary system is chaoti c, but still pretty predictable.
Climate prediction is a different ball game from weather prediction - all t hat's required is that you predict the right number of rainstorms going ove r per growing season, not when they go over - so next year's rainfall isn't a random guess, a fact that farmers have been relying on for the last few thousand years.
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere changes the climate in ways that are pred ictable - it gets warmer - and others, like where most of the rain ends up falling - which are less predictable.
Ignorant repeated claims that climate is weather and weather is unpredictab le aren't a useful contribution to the debate.
At least not by John Larkin.
Equating climate modelling with weather prediction isn't the kind of mistak e made by people who know what they are talking about. It would be good if John Larkin learned enough about climate modelling to stop posting total no nsense, but if he did that he'd have to admit he'd been posting moronic non sense for years, and his ego couldn't survive that.
te
That's a matter of opinion. John Larkin's opinion happens to be wrong here, too.
That's your claim. You don't explain what you mean by "whacky" and you know so little about climate science that you think that methane that gets into the atmosphere stays there as methane (when in fact it oxidises to water a nd CO2 in a process with a half life of seven years).
You are so obviously ill-informed that you would do everybody a favour - yo urself included - if you stopped advertising the fact that you have foolish "opinionS" about subject you know very little about.
But a plausible one.
That's what you like to claim. In fact you got brainwashed by some denialis t propaganda, and were too dumb to recognise it as nonsese.
Pity about that. You haven't come up with any "correct reasoning" and you a re too dumb to realise that "proven to be correct" doesn't happen in scienc e - it does happne in mathematics, which is an art rather than a science, t hough mathematical techniques are frequently very useful in science.
In science a theory has either been falsified - proven incorrect - or hasn' t yet been falsified. Newton's Law of Gravitation wasn't falsified until Ei nstein's Special Theory of relativity did the job better, and Newton;s Law of Gravity is still accurate enough for most jobs.
"Correct" isn't meaningful in a scientific discussion. New data can always
- in theory - falsify an existing theory. "Comprehensive" has the same prob lem. There's always the theoretical possibility that something's going on t hat we hadn't noticed.
Nor can there be. This is science, not mathematics.
You aren't even talking sense.
It's not "my" model, and I don't know what the modellers were predicting. O ne degree Celcius of global temperature rise means 7% more water vapour in the air immediately above the oceans, and most of that is eventually going to fall as rain, so pretty much any model that could work would have to pre dict more rain.
Switching to renewable energy will decrease the price of electricity in the long term - which is to say as soon as we've multiplied the renewable ener gy equipment manufacturing sector by a factor of ten to make it big enough to supply most of our energy, the cost per unit renewable energy generator will roughly halve. It's already happened a couple of times with solar cell s - the Germans geared up to make ten times more than anybody else a few ye ars ago, halving the cost of photovoltaic energy in the process, and the Ch inese trumped the Germans in the same way a few years ago.
So nobody is going to extract trillions of dollars from poor civilians. At the moment the fossil carbon extraction industry gets billions of dollars i n government subsidies, and most of that's going to go away when we stop ge tting most of our energy from burning fossil carbon. Those billions of doll ars in subsidy are already coming from "poor civilians", so you really don' t know what you are talking about.
You can state anything you like, but that doesn't make it either true or ev en vaguely plausible. I get my information from all over. Right now I'm loo king a book - "The Long Thaw" ISBN 978-0--691-14811 by David Archer,a geoph ysicist at the University of Chicago - about the end of the last ice age. H e's not into scaring people about anthropogenic global warming, but he does make it clear that any sea level rise that we do see will be driven by ice sheets sliding off into the sea, rather than melting in place.
So you haven't done any science. Why am I not surprised.
Science doesn't do "unproven". The best it can manage is "non-falsified". Asking for "proof" is taking a religious attitude to the whole process, whi ch Joey Hey exhibits with enthusiasm, while complaining that scientific the ories are being treated as articles of faith - which really doesn't happen.
Every scientific theory starts off as a guess. Scientists then collect evid ence to show whether or not it's a useful guess - and if they can find it t hey promote the guess to the status of a hypothesis and tell other people a bout it. If other people take it seriously it becomes a theory. Anthropogenic global warming is an extensively tested theory.
You lack the wit and the education to appreciate how thoroughly it has been tested, and have been suckered by denialist propaganda into putting forwar d fatuous arguments that you imagine justify not taking it seriously.
The figures would have been derived from different papers - as you could ha ve worked out if you had actually looked at the reports you claim to be cit ing, when you are actually quoting some more denialist drivel.
The IPCC 1991 was reporting stuff that had been published before 1991. IPCC 1995 reported stuff that had been published before 1995.
Mann's hockey stick curve was publsihed in 1998 and 1999 got into the IPCC
1999 report, Unsurprisingly, the later report did look different from the e arlier ones. The IPCC exists to report on the current state of the science
- it's not there to propagate an agreed dogma.
It seems very likely. She probably didn't understand how science tests gues ses against evidence, and discards the guesses that are clearly wrong. You don't even understand that concensus is the core of science, and real scien ce depends on sharing knowledge and reconciling apparent contradictions.
You want to see it as a revealed religion for some reason - probably becaus e it makes it easier to attack it.
Do tell us exactly what you mean. My guess (or working hypothesis) is that you are complaining that the IPCC's 1995 report isn't identical with IPCC 1
999, and you are too stupid to realise that it shouldn't be. Scientific und erstanding changes and improves as people keep on working on the problems, and new people come in and make their own contributions.
Be careful. Don't just take every vaccination because it's available, but judge its need against possible adverse effects, if not divulged by the pharmceutical company and mass media itself, then through the alternative media and various scientists and doctor-scientists who regularly ventilate their warnings about them.
For instance, hepatitis-B vaccination of a newborn baby who is born from a middle class woman with a fair education, fair level of hygiene and no near relatives with hepatitis is in my opinion not indicated.
HPV vaccine has from a public health viewpoint a marginal effect but is able to destroy a lot of lives in a dramatical way.
Polio vaccine I wouldn't refuse.
Measle vaccination I don't find really necessary, nor chicken pox.
Whooping cough I'm not really sure about.
What I am against is when a scientist studies people with disturbed bowels and apparent autism symptoms finds that there is a link with a combined MMR vaccin, gets totally destroyed because some pharmaceutical industry, and their friends in government, are afraid to see a reduction in their financial bottom lines.
Try other things to help your (child's) innate immune system--how about healthy food--overcome the threatening of an upcoming viral infection.
Do what's absolutely necessary, but do no more than that.
Me non-native indian. Me non speaking the English tongue like you. Me not having clue about what you meaning.
Me expect your English being perfect as you suggest in your critiques.
}fart{
If a scientist discusses some scientific theory, he poses the theory he stands for. So far so good. But if he starts getting personal when his conversation partner doesn't agree with him then he isn't practising science anymore, but zealottery and some sort of religious fanaticism and evangelism.
}snip{
people
If it's never been said, then how can it be a reminder?
And the next step is to trust that the model is accurate in its prediction. And that is a step from science into believe, religion, or whatever you like to call it.
One important flaw in the models is the assumption that a quick increase in CO2 will be dealt with in the same way as a slow increase. The model simply hasn't been tested for the dynamics under which you want to operate it.
The model can be 'useful' from an engineering point of view, but to base a world-wide decision to another few trillions to the malicious wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, based on these conditions, is highly dubious and even suspect.
I just don't trust the system that generates these models. Does that make me insincere? I don't think so. Does that invalidate my main critique, that the models aren't proven to be valid and correct? I don't think so.
'Useful' is nice for a scientist who plays around in his ivory tower, but a model created by scientists who 'are comfortable with' the state of their knowledge, don't yet fully understand the mechanisms of the various circulations around the globe and are still waiting for data from 'the Argo b(u)oys' doesn't instil trust in me.
And Bill's bullying, name calling, badmouthing people in unrelated threads and his dismissively arrogant behaviour when confronted with someone who disagrees, is another signal that something with this picture is just totally wrong.
Nor would your ego ever accept the notion that climate models can't predict a future which is fundamentally different from the history on which it is based.
I know exactly what your models do. They 'predict' the history, and not a different future. They can't. Admit it, or prove they can.
You're misled by your hate, I came up with that argument about the models totally independent of any website (a bit disingenuous here) I've read about climate. But I really think it's the most important argument against the AGW's 'predictions'.
Then you better correct your models, because it's 30-90 days (if that's not a fudge factor...). Was this the 'fine tuning' you need to get the models to agree more or less with history? Changing that maddening Jullian's period from 2-3 months into half a year?
'Better' is nice, but not proven correct. Give me the mathematical truth, then I'll 'surrender', if I don't find errors in it, of course.
The stupidity lies in the people who shout that 'the science is in' while in all the past the science had to add correction to correction all the time. This may be the biggest proof that the climate models can never be assumed correct.
No, it's not just because of floating-point errors; no measurement ever gives exact values, only some limited precision. That includes the phase variable, which is a time measurement, interacting with energy uncertainty (like, (C* V**2)/2 uncertainty) and the product is always greater than Planck's constant over two*pi. Even if you could do twenty-decimal calculations, there's no more than sixteen-decimal inputs available.
Phase of an oscillator is chaotic, based on what we know of physics. The only way to push the chaos down, has calculable limits.
No, because the 'value' of a model is not the true/false value that one might give to a proposition in formal logic. There are no physical theories or models that ARE propositions in formal logic. The value of a model is in its usefulness. Quantum mechanics, giving (statistical-only) vague outputs regarding the cat, IS valid.
There is no logic principle which asserts that the cat's state is predictable.
Schrodinger's Cat might simply not be soluble in other-than-statistical fashion.
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.