OT: sea level rise in Florida

The 'calibration' comes into play where the scientists are 'not yet fully comfortable' with the results of the model, I guess that means that the warming up isn't as fast as they would like, and then make up some 'newly discovered' physical mechanism that could contribute to an AGW outcome of the models. Every adaptation is a contribution to the calibration of the model into predicting an apocalyptic event of AGW, but not too fast or too far to make it too incredible.

There is no proof of correctness and every outcome is as good a guess as every other, but is claimed 'a confirmation of the correctness of the theory', even if the outcomes of the different models deviate from each other, something that 'correct models' don't tend to do.

You have come with a physically sound explanation of all the mechanisms in the earth's atmosphere, the oceans and the land areas regarding to climate. You also have to prove that there are no other mechanisms at play. Then you have to produce an incredibly fine-grained network for the measurements of the variables involved. But I'll let you get away without that if you can predict, based on the formulas you have developed above, what is the temperature at my location 5 years from now, as well as humidity, CO2 and CH4 levels, insolation, wind speed and direction, as well as rate of change in time of all those. Then you'll have to wait 5 years to see whether you were correct or not with your theory. Oh, and don't forget to give the accuracy range of your prediction.

When that was correct, then I might 'believe' you.

That's right, I need a lot more imagination to be able to absorb your models in it.

But why the word 'fevered'? Are you trying to sneak in a derogatory comment about my state of mind?

joe

Yes, somehow a lot of people simply hate 'organic'.

Probably for the same reason why they hate people who don't buy all the vaccines that are made available, never mind the contents, never mind running the risk to ruin the life of your perfectly healthy daughter while trying to prevent her from getting one of 2 or 4 specific viruses that she'd probably recover from anyway.

No no, we hate organic, let's give our child as much jabs as we can, preferably 8 at the same visit.

And let's stick a needle or two in them immediately after they get out of the womb too. Never mind they don't even have an immune system yet.

You just don't see the stupidity in all that?

joe

What is your position on vaccinations? (Your position on climate change is clear),

I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind about the credibility of people and the veracity of their opinions, thank you.

Your reply is as empty as usual. :)

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

Rising sea level, more fish to eat.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:50:47 -0800, John Larkin Gave us:

It is not that big a deal

Assuming that humans forget how to build levees, Florida will be in trouble in about 2000 years.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

Audry II?

$806 estimated (that was Sunday's number anyway) one-time payout for Wednesday. Figure 40-50% for taxes, depending on the State, of course.

Yes. They pretend they're harmless, make you dig up & emit carbon for them, and then they come for your nitrogen.

Cheers, James Arthur

For anyone who doesn't believe global warming is real, the tiny .mpg animation on this page shows North America's galloping glacial retreat from 18k to 8k years ago.

It's no wonder the wooly mammoth population has taken a dive, Yosemite's a nice valley, you can never find a saber-toothed cat when you need one, and what ever happened to the Californian camel?

I blame Al Gore and his industrial revolution.

Cheers, James Arthur

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:32:15 -0500, krw Gave us:

Yeah, my number was from like thursday.

Funny thing is the PowerBall folks are pushing drug use. The video about the payouts show a little red and blue pill and the guy eating one or the other to depict the way one gets paid.

It is really funny... or not.

And I heard of a study that tested plants under a higher CO2 environment that found that many turn the extra energy they get into producing more defensive chemicals instead of growing more edible parts.

The "Plants do better with more CO2" came from a disinformation campaign from the Wyoming Coal industry, according to a lecture I heard from one of the _Merchants of Doubt_ authors. John should try there.

I figure that he doesn't believe in global warming because he lives in a microclimate, (sitting next to a two mile deep patch of cold ocean), that's the climactic equivalent of an International Rectifier Power FET power dissipation test rig, (immersed in liquid nitrogen or however they get those magic numbers). The last place on Earth to notice global warming.

Mark Zenier snipped-for-privacy@eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

Groan.

Completely untrue, of course. Scientific theories and models always have a basis in observations (and those are history unless you know how to see the future). When a scientific theory makes a prediction, it's not luck (I'll accept bets). It's not coincidence, either, but you'd have to know something about statistics to be sure of that.

Accurate prediction of a known system is not luck or coincidence, and you'll know a lot about statistics if you place bets the way you claim. Me, I'll bet you're being insincere.

A relatively simple thing, like tides maybe, can do good predictions based on observation of past behavior. You can do a regression analysis (call that a "model" if you prefer) of a noisy, chaotic system, and hindcast accurately, but the model will not be predictive.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

You can make a complex model (Spice) of a lot of components and predict that it oscillates. The exact phase of that oscillation, two days later, cannot be predicted by Spice, not accurately, but the frequency can be predicted. So, is 'the model' 'predictive'?

Models are USEFUL. Never believe you can ignore them, someone who knows how to use 'em will eat your lunch. Lame excuses for ignoring them, won't save your lunch. Snarky comments about models having flaws, are an example of a lame excuse.

The example of Schrodinger's Cat comes to mind: quantum mechanics cannot tell us whether the cat is alive, or not. That doesn't invalidate quantum mechanics.

All true, but irrelevant to climate modelling, where the models are designed to generate the sort of climate that you see at particular CO2 levels, ice cover and continent distributions.

There's no opportunity for regression analysis. Using the models to predict what's likely to happen with higher higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere involves plugging in the higher CO2 level and looking a the climate the model evolves.

Joey Hey makes the same mistake. It must be a feature of the denialist propaganda you both soak up, and you post links to here from time to time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney