OT: sea level rise in Florida

that you think that methane that gets into the atmosphere and stays there a s methane (when in fact it oxidises to water and CO2 in a process with a ha lf 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.

Sure you do, and you are so proud of your English that you are happy to tel l me when I've got it wrong.

Nobody is perfect - I do make mistakes from time to time, but neither as ma ny or as fatuous as you.

When you post idiocy, and won't do the reading required to let you correct your idiocies, even the most dedicated enthusiast for educating the half-wi tted - which I am not - will get a bit terse.

Zealotry, religious fanaticsism and evangelism are all about religion. Scie nce isn't a religion, and I just keep on pointing that you are posting nons ense. Not just nonsense, but the same half-baked nonsense over and over aga in. You are the person that's posting the nonsense, and pointing out that y ou are posting nonsense is necessarily personal. This does happen to be par t of the practice of science and some of the more famous scientists - Newto n is a fairly horrible example - went in for it with unseemly enthusiasm.

We now all know that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and y our capacity of to be thoroughly fooled by denialist propaganda is a remind er that there are all too many gullible suckers in the population. Lincoln does seem to have said something to that effect, and Diderot put something much the same in French in his Encyclopedia roughly a century earlier. The reference is to the well-known fact, not any particular aphorism encapsulat ing it.

The "rapid" CO2 increase that's going on that the moment is superimposed on an annual variation of six or seven parts per million over every year, as the northern hemisphere vegetation soaks up CO2 in spring and early summer, then dumps it back in the atmosphere in autumn and winter.

Telling us that the current rate of rise in CO2 levels is new and different is just one more way that you remind that you don't knwo what you are talk ing about.

The only malicious wealth transfer going on a the moment is into the pocket s of the people who dig up fossil carbon and sell it as fuel. They get subs idies for this anti-social activity. Switching to renewable energy sources would leave them worse off, but should offer cheaper electricity to the poo r (and everybody else).

Your sincerity - or lack of it - isn't the problem. The problem is that yo u trust quite the wrong people, and have some unfortunately erroneous belie fs.

You don't think so, because you don't even know enough to pose the question in a way that suggests that you might know what you were talking about.

But you are happy trust any wacky bilge from a denialist webs-site.

Sadly, the "wrong" element in this picture is your dedication to disagreein g about stuff you don't know anything about. You think that "climate modell ing" is a sort of curve-fitting, and still expect to be taken seriously.

Happily for my ego, I happen to know that the geological deep history of ou r planet's climate includes periods when CO2 levels were a lot higher than they are now, and that the climate that prevailed then was warmer than the one that prevails know, but otherwise seems to have worked much the same wa y.

Since Joey Hey's grasp of fundamentals doesn't extend further than recyclin g nonsense from denialist web-sites, he probably doesn't appreciate this, l ike much else.

'Perceived' credibility, that is. :)

joe

Maybe if you'd stop insulting me that could be arranged. Now with every reply you're provoking me into explaining my position again, and again, and again.

joe

It's been that all along. The three of you post nonsense from denialist web

-sites and expect to be taken seriously. You do it independently, for diffe rent reasons, and with different levels of sophistication, but all three of you are making the same basic mistake.

You do keep on telling us that, but nothing you've posted show even an elem entary grasp of how they are put together and how they work.

That's an assertion, and a remarkably foolish one. Climate models model a p articular atmosphere over a long enough period for the numerical integratio n process to settle down.If you want to use them to predict what might happ en if there were more CO2 in the atmosphere, as is likely to happen soon an d has happened - for millions of years - in the remote past, you plug in th e different CO2 level and see what happens inside the model.

We seem to have gotten good enough at constructing models that the climate cycles they run through are useful approximations to what we know has happe ned in the past, and correspondingly sueful predictors of what might happen if we don't stop digging up fossil carbon and burning it as fuel.

Science can't "prove" anything. It can disprove - falsify - incorrect asser tions, if they are specific enough to be tested. Yours aren't even wrong.

But not much, and nowhere near enough to be able to mount a convincing crit ique of modern climate models.

I'm sure you do, but you've managed to demonstrate that you opinions are il l-informed to the point of being frivolous cat-calling.

The Julian-Madden Oscillation is a fairly subtle affair - if persistent. Th e paper was entirely about improving the models - how certain improvements had worked better than others.

Science isn't mathematics - though it exploits mathematical techniques - an d it doesn't, unlike math, offer proofs or "mathematical truth".

You need to grasp that. Until you do, you won't be asking the right questio n, and you won't have any chance of being taken seriously.

That's not your backyard! :)

joe

Why do you think that? Google promptly corrects it to "Madden-Julian Oscill ation" and the 1971 paper that first described it lists Madden and Julian a s its authors

Madden, R. A., and P. R. Julian, 1971: Detection of a 40-50 day oscillation in the zonal wind in the tropical Pacific.J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 702-708.

Getting the order of the authors wrong was mistake, but isn't going to con fuse anybody. Spelling Julian's name wrong is also a mistake, and vitiates your correction - though there is supposed to be a usenet convention where you have to put a mistake of your own into any pointless and pedantic corre ction.

whit's onto something bringing up oscillators, because the climate has several oscillators & resonances, coupled, plus various forcings, inputs and feedbacks.

But simulating even one simple oscillator isn't easy. I have an one I've used almost every day for years, that Spice said won't start. Or sometimes Spice says it will.

One of the early incidents leading to chaos theory involved wildly inconsistent results from a weather (IIRC) model, depending on the computer it ran on. The difference was traced ultimately to a tiny difference in floating point precision which, iterated, blew up the results.

Climate models iterate, and iterate, and iterate. Compounding your assumptions a giga times over leads to giga-in, giga-out.

We've already seen they quickly de-correlate with observed reality over spans of just a few years. Extrapolating *that* centuries is just silly.

Instead of inventing quantum mechanics to prove you can't know whether a cat's alive, wouldn't be easier just to ask the cat?

Cheers, James

We used to do that. My uncle Sheldon had a house on piers, over Lake Catherine.

Houses on piers make a lot of sense in wet places. The piers can extend all the way to the roof, which adds stiffness for hurricanes. The ground floor can be garage and mancave and such.

Lots of things can be extrapolated to predict disaster, if one assumes that nobody will adapt. Good excuse for panic and gloom, for the people who really need panic and gloom.

Spice doesn't measure things, it simulates things. Given an ideal ringing 1 Hz LC tank, one can predict its phase exactly 100 days from now without even using a calculator. Spice will get it wrong, but applying more compute power can make it as close as you want. There's no quantum mechanics involved. The only noise is floating point error.

What's chaotic about a simulated oscillator? If you change the start phase, or the frequency, the longterm state is changed accordingly. No surprises. In a truly chaotic system, a small initial change soon produces entirely different, unpredictable states that can't even be approximated.

So, buy more cat food or not buy more cat food?

I don't have much use for a simulation that reports the probability that my product will work. I do value a simulation that helps me set specification limits.

This is an electronic design group.

Connect an L across a C in LT Spice and start it ringing. At the default settings, the frequency will be a few per cent off the calculated resonant frequency. You can tweak params and slow down the sim and get that down to PPMs if you want to. Eventually floating-point error will getcha.

That's just one reason why weather models don't work. But there are much bigger problems.

The AGW fans disagree. They are clearly wrong. Reviewing their past simulations (like 'no snow in the UK after 2000' and 'mass starvation from crop failures in India' and 'arctic ice-free in 2005') is a record of folly. They have to keep raising the ante on horror predictions, but fewer and fewer people are paying attention; they are bundling up for football games at -5F.

If we put one of our cats in a box, we'd soon hear about it.

...or profit from it (when not inventing the Internet).

Bill assumes that everyone gets their opinions like he does, spoon-fed from a website.

I actually looked at the source code for one of the models, and at the published assumptions of a bunch of others.

The whole AGW argument hinges on a tiny fractional component, and then on assumptions that it accumulates, and further, feeds on itself.

It was painfully obvious actually looking at the models that the factors uncertain, unknown, and those wholly unaccounted for, absolutely overwhelm any alleged AGW component, which makes the whole thing silly. They're iterating guesses, with computers.

That doesn't mean the planet isn't warming, or that we're not part of it, but it does mean claims are being made based on models that can't possibly support those claims.

And those claims are used to support even more outlandish hyperbole and partisan nonsense. Why is everything AGW always end-of-the-world, evil, and *bad*? That by itself shows we're getting bias, not science.

Here's that 15-second MPEG of North American de-glaciation, starting 18 kya.

(home page for above:

I'd bet most Canadians prefer not living buried under a mile of ice, wouldn't you? I'd bet it helps their crops yields too.

Cheers, James Arthur

Question: Has the (same) 'hockey stick' ever appeared in history before?

joe

Yes, without the double-l of course.

Oh my God, Mr. Pedantic is complaining about somebody acting pedantic back to him.

Den tirsdag den 12. januar 2016 kl. 17.44.43 UTC+1 skrev Mark Zenier:

I'm guessing like humans who gets too many easy calories, they don't get super energetic, they just get fat

-Lasse

}snip{

Mathematical science can.

But the fundamental property is the duration, and I think you just showed that you're just pretending to know a lot about climate modelling science...

And again, it's not Julian-Madden, it's Madden-Julian.

I am doing nothing else than grasp 'that', that the people who develop climate models do not offer any proof of correctness, rather all models diverge from each other, but somehow they are 'assumed' to be correct... on average?

AGW priest: "Oh wait, let's 'correct' this model a bit more... Oh, and that model also is still lacking the newest physical phenomenon that we still don't fully understand, but we'll include it already because it gives such nice sensational results." ... "What, our models aren't correct? Ho! No! That's incorrect! Our models are correct, they're just not yet complete and ready! ... But count on a temperature increase of 5 degrees in the next n years." ... "No, make that n+20 years." ... "Oh, and after incorporating the newest data from our boys, we can run the model, and it says..., it says... (scratches his head)... Tomorrow??"

Yeah, good luck with your models. It's a show, it's a money extraction scheme, it's a believe.

joe

Or why not floating...

joe