Well, forget that. It only supports up to CIS 15.7. We only have one seat of CIS (the layout guy uses it - incredibly useful, wot?) and we've moved on to
16.3 (needed for hierarchy). Oh, and it costs real money. ;-)
Are you saying that the statement was a typo?
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
Do you mean that the authors actually meant that climate is *not* chaotic, and that long-term prediction *is* possible? Even though it is followed by amplifications on the same theme? That's flat delusional.
It was edited out because it was too dangerous to the political mission of the IPCC. And because it's probably true.
The probable reality is that any perceived warming was normal climate noise, or decadal oscillations, or measurement artifacts, that we've been cooling for a decade or so, that the weather is no more extreme than it's always been, and that warming would be good for us and the planet, but we probably won't have any any time soon.
The CO2 is good.
John
As sincere as any other veiled insult you ever heaved.
Speaking of heaving (or NOT heaving), check out this 110 ton slab-o-concrete.
Not very much heaving save what is under examination there.
Just a glimmer...
uh huh... by your own standards, you retarded bastard, you have a scat fetish.
NO one is "up" to your scat standards, ScatMan.
PCC
th a
man
n of
of
al
y't
No. I'm not saying that the quote was a typo. What I am saying is that in the original text the authors were talking about climate as weather averaged over a long period, and pointing out that while weather is chaotic, it doesn't distribute itself randomly over all possible states but produces a predictable distribution of states with a predictable mean and a predictable standard deviation, which is to say climate is predictable even if weather isn't.
This is basically John van Neuman's point but he didn't bother with the diversion into statistical distributions.
I imagine that the original text was criticised because it was seen as a long-winded way of reiterating the obvious. The paragraph you quote seems to have been an unsuccessful attempt to precis the text that failed to preserve the distinction between weather and climate.
Because it could be misinterpreted. Nobody claims to be able to do "long-term prediction of future climate states". What they claim is to be able to predict are future climate ensembles - a much sloppier concept, but good enough to tell you whether you can still grwo the crops that you used to.
In your biased and inexpert opinion.
As if the Wall Street Journal is going to upset Exxon=3DMobil and other fats cats with lots of advertising money to spent by failing to put a denialist spin on the story.
The only relevant claim in the article is that "Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions." Since the relevant "climate alarmists" are actually journalists trying to sex up boring weather stories, this doesn't cut any ice.
A weather scientist is quoted as saying "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," but we are a long way short of that at the moment, so it is scarcely surprising that the extremes he is seeing aren't significantly different from what thye've been over the past hundred or so years - not least because extremes are by definition rare, and it takes a lot more of them to produce a statistically significant deviation, while boring old averages have been significantly different for some time now.
We haven't.
the underlying trend is still clearly rising.
Not actually testable, since extreme event are - by definiton - rare.
Almost certainly false. And its certainly true that it won't be good for some of us.
The planet doesn't care. It has survived pretty dramatic warmings before, as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Individual species of animals and plants had a rough time, but the planet as a whole was fine.
Wishful thinking, fuelled by an uncritical acceptance of any denialist propaganda that Exxon-Mobil and its friends manage to plant in the Wall Street Journal and similar right-wing media outlets.
Particularly for weeds. Our crop plants were carefully optimised - by centuries of selective breeding - to do well when the climate was as it was before the start of the industrial revolution. They aren't optimised for today's climate, and they will be even less at home in a warmer world with more CO2 in the atmosphere. Weeds have a much bigger gene pool.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
-- Well, the trick is in knowing when to apply the rules or, more properly, which rules apply to which situations.
These minor variations of state range from palm trees growing in Greenland to most of North America covered by glaciers. It's tricky to grow corn on or under a glacier.
John
Which is why we can't replace engineers with rule books.
John
-- Interesting... Banality disguised as platitude
Sno-o-o-o-ort ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Remember: Once you go over the hill, you pick up speed
Yes, your statement was pretty obvious.
The safest thing to do is assume that there are no rules. Well, believing in conservation of energy is usually safe. I did a big head-butt last week with a largish engineering organization, over a pretty simple analog signal wiring situation, and lost:
Me: Why can't we run the signals differential, over shielded pairs, into our box, and digitize them there? That has huge system and schedule advantages.
Them: It's against policy to run analog signals over twisted pairs.
Me: Who made that rule?
Them: We can't say.
Me: OK, would it really piss people off if I go to R*** (one of the two founders of the company) and ask him about it?
Them: Yes.
I may do it anyhow.
John
.
nd
tn IPCC
with a
term
e can
tion of
les of
of
eof
al
tical
d by
can't
it
Reinstating the Younger Dryas by turning off the Gulf Stream won't cover most of North America with glaciers - the Younger Dryas only lasted 1300 years, and that isn't long enough to grow a decent glacier
- but it would make a lot of it cold enough to dramatically decrease the north American grain harvest.
It's one of the possible outcomes of the anthropogenic global warming that you don't want to believe in, based on the climate models that you want to confuse with weather models.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
-- Creative snipping, huh, cheater? Here's the original: Me: Well, the trick is in knowing when to apply the rules or, more properly, which rules apply to which situations. You: Which is why we can't replace engineers with rule books. Me: Interesting... Banality disguised as platitude
IPCC
with a
of
of
You're wasting your life on this nonsense, you know.
John
me.
, and
not
f an IPCC
ate
ing with a
ng-term
t we can
ibution of
embles of
ent of
The
on of
new
tical
tistical
ound by
nd
ke can't
- it
ial
rs
tsed
esed
t t r y s oIt's not actually nonsense - as opposed to your ideas on the subject, which really are pernicious nonsense - and while preaching to the incorrigibly ignorant is a waste of time, you aren't of the whole of target audience, despite your narcissist delusions. If nothing else, I seem to have cheered up John Fields.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
IPCC
with a
long-term
can
distribution of
ensembles of
of
statistical
by
can't
Well, that's good. He's been awfully cranky lately.
John
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.