OT: sea level rise in Florida

If that was your 'expectation', then you were wrong. The unfortunate fact is that they don't 'serve' us (anymore)--although they should however--rather than their money masters.

}snipped the usual farts{

Hahaha, don't I???

I got them all the time... But then, I'm not your friend, fortunately.

ANY model that is based on history and 'expectations' cannot predict a future that's diverging from history, unless it's by coincidence and/or pure luck, if that's something different.

joe

That's because they are introverts. But believe me, they do love CO2. :)

Who claimed that?

And you?

Those jobs are solely offered, not asked for.

joe

Luckily there's a lot more nitrogen in the air than CO2 (and oxygen for that matter), and no nitrogen deficiency can't be fixed with some nitrogen fixing bacteria.

joe

}snip{

Wow, mind if I quote you from time to time? :)

joe

By telling us that they are "wacky".

If you had wanted to claim that you had heard of finite element models, you might have said so. The formulation that "those were totally my words" jus t evades the question. I interpreted as meaning that you thought that I'd i nvented the phrase "finite element model" which would make you pretty unsop histicated about computer modelling, but everything you've said about the s ubject has suggested that you know very little about it.

Your incapacity to perceive what ought to be obvious is a fairly persistent feature of your output. It does suggest that you aren't all that intellige nt.

If the model isn't computationally tractable, you can't do anything with it , and "correct" and "comprehensive" don't come into the picture.

You don't get it. The lumps interact, and the ensemble of lumps behaves eno ugh like the real atmosphere (where the real lumps are rather smaller) to b e useful. Chaos theory does come into it but you don't care about the precise traject ory because you are modelling climate over months, rather than weather over days.

Actually, you don't. With the CO2 level set to current values, the climate model looks like current reality. With the CO2 level dialled down to the 18

0 ppm characteristic of an ice age, the climate model generates the kind of climate we had in an ice age. If you dial the CO2 level up to 450 ppm you get a rather warmer climate than we have at the moment, with different rain fall distributions.

Nobody is "predicting the future" by extrapolating from the past. They are seeing how a likely change in CO2 concentration might change the climate.

None of which you know anything about.

The pattern is perfectly obvious. You get your mis-information from deniali st web-sites, and recycle it here.

We've known about Hadley cells since 1735, and Madden Julian oscillations w ere first identified in 1971. Hadley Cells explain the trade winds.

If you had the most elementary grasp of the subject you'd have heard of the m - they showed up early in the first computational climate models, which t he model builders found comforting.

See above.

Joey Hey can now identify universal truths. It's entertaining to hear that he believes that it's a "universal truth" that only one of "n" models can b e right, when the whole point about computational models is that none of th em can be entirely right, though some can be more useful than others

Yes. You do persist in this mistake.

Mann's "hockey stick" curve looked like that when he originally published i t in the peer-reviewed literature. The IPCC didn't change it at all - that never was any part of their job.

Not from your point of view. Your pretensions to knowing what you are talki ng about get shown up a little too often.

You do want to think it's a "belief", but in fact it's rational consequence of understanding evidence that you don't know enough about.

No - as gullible idiots. Your crap about Mann's hockey stick curve is pure denialist nonsense, and if you had any capacity to think for yourself you'd be aware that the denialist doubts about it had long since been swept away by subsequent studies.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

We know what you like to believe, and we know how careful you are to align what you believe with what the evidence supports.

Joey Hey's "deep thinking" hasn't taken him far enough into what climate models do, and how they work, to let him realise that "calibration" doesn't come into it.

The "climate models" Joey Hey pontificates about exist only in his fevered imagination. He doesn't even know enough to imagine anything vaguely plausible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It's about as well-informed as your judgement ever gets. You'll need to hav e quite a bit of work done on your judgement before you can be safely let o ut on your own.

I'm looking at a couple of examples of people who have been manipulated int o believing mass-media induced theories - you and John Larkin.

Both seem to believe everything that the denialist propaganda machine pushe s into the less responsible end of the mass-media - notably the Murdoch own ed branch of it - and seem to be totally unconscious of the obvious fact th at they have been manipulated into championing ridiculous nonsense.

It's a depressing reminder that you can fool some of the people all the tim e.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

We do have a chunk of historical global warming to look at, as you'd know i f you had a clue about what you were talking about

The greenhouse gas involved seems to have been methane, rather than CO2, on the evidence of the isotope ratios, and the likely source sub-sea methane clathrates (which we've also got and which anthropogenic global warming wou ld eventually destabilise if it went far enough.).

It was 56 million years ago, but the geologists are working quite hard to e xtract all the information they can dig up.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

so, if the heat doesn't get us first, the plants will? :-)

Mikek

Of course, if nitrogen fixing bacteria were a universally practical solution, nobody would be paying good money for ammonium nitrate and urea, when in fact millions of tons of both get shipped around the world.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

'probably due to something we don't yet know much about'... Yeah, right... Sounds like the usual AGW non-logic again. You do indeed have a tendency to a religious explanation of things you don't understand. Don't blame it on 'something we don't yet know much about'.

I'm sure that with the same way of reasoning 'the Argo boys' will find a way to fit their data to the boundary conditions that their climate models have been a-priori constrained to. I.e.: Agw. My 'expectation' is that this goes a bit like this: "We, the Argo boys, recently have gotten a lot of data from our Argo buoys, and although we don't understand what it all means, we have the data now, so we are supposed to understand the changing ocean currents now, and they 'seem' to be 'probably' influenced (of course in a negative way) by anthropogenic CO2."

Pfew... for a moment I feared you'd written 'Anthropogenic Global warming'...

joe

You are wrong. Don't believe all the badmouthing that Bill Sloman is putting out here in order to quell any opposition to his opinions.

But anyway, if you don't want to have 'any' discussion with me, be my guest, or not...

joe

Yes. Well, I reconsidered it, no?

right :)

joe

Yes, totally true, I _have_ believed in the same shit as you currently do, but luckily I, unlike you, was able to wake up (or rather to be woken up).

Considering the level at which you're talking now, the same can be said of 'your side'.

That's not what Lincoln didn't say!

joe

Well, you admit it yourself: history is different from 'predicted' future. In your historical episode of GW it was methane, not CO2, that played the dominant role.

I rest my case.

At least until 'the geologist' got enough information to be able to say something meaningful about it.

2nd admission that the models are incorrect: you are still waiting for that data.

joe

It's work in progress

You don't know much about anything, do you.

There's nothing religious about the Argo buoy program. It was set up becaus e we don't know much about water currents in the deep ocean. We know about the Gulf Stream, which flows on the surface and we know that the water that goes north on the surface has go to flow back where to came from, but what the sub-surface currents look like is unclear - at the moment. We are in t he process of finding out more.

The interest is more in finding out how the short term fluctuations - like El Nino / La Nina and the Multidecadal Atlantic Oscillation - work. They ar en't well understood at the moment, and not all that predictable.

Any kind of global warming means more water evaporating from the oceans. Yo u need climate models to predict where it's likely to fall as rain, but the re's going to be more rain somewhere.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Wrong. What got into the atmosphere was methane, but methane's half-life in the atmosphere is about seven years - it oxidises to CO2 and water quite r apidly - so it was CO2 that was the dominant greenhouse gas.

The PETM came on fairly rapidly as geological processes go - less than 20,0

00 years - and hung around for a hundred thousand years or so

Pity that it was utterly worthless, reliant on the ignorant idea that metha ne sticks around as methane, rather than oxidising to CO2 and water with ha lf-life of seven years.

Nothing that we've found out about the PETM suggests that our climate model s are incorrect. We don't know an enormous amount about the climate 56 mill ion years ago, but nothing spectacularly odd seems to have happened - apart from a whole lot of methane getting into the atmosphere relatively rapidly .

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Wrong. You didn't have clue about anthropogenic global warming when you did believe in it, which is why you were ignorant enough to be suckered by denialist propaganda.

You really have no idea how depressingly ignorant you are. If you had known enough to believe in a quarter of the "shit" that I'm aware of, you wouldn't have been vulnerable to the rubbish propaganda that has sucked you in.

I do have to keep it simple enough for you to follow. Trying to interest you in more complex ideas - like finite element mathematical models and Hadley Cells - is a total waste of time.

It's the bit that's relevant here.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney