three-body problem

No, indeed! Firstly, there's 'model' information attributed to IPCC that predates the IPCC's existence by decades. Secondly, the 'observations' aren't attributed clearly, but ARE from exactly six datasets. That looks like cherry-picking of the observations to me. Unless, of course, one expects that the world's weather and climate records are held in only six places?

The graphic is a hoax.

I agree. There are strong negative reputational consequences to posting false information.

For example, see Trump.

Don't models hindcast? Very well, in fact.

Secondly, the 'observations' aren't attributed

Other unadjusted records show the same pattern, the "hiatus."

That looks like cherry-picking

Have you got a data set that shows the climate models to be predictive?

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

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

A fun partial climb-down by some prominent warmists who apparently finally figured out that the jig was up:

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Not in my pocket, nor do I have a data set that shows Spice to be predictive. Nor would you care, having told the world that you would ony accept '200 years of satellite data'.

Apply, rather, to the Tralfamadorian embassy for that information.

If you have a question about a climate model, NAME THE MODEL. And don't make a pugnacious demand, just ask a simple question.

'Pugnacious' is the behavior of dogs.

The lady on the left is cute. Maybe a little heavy on the make-up.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

I do. I build physical circuits that behave as Spice predicted, to impressive accuracy.

I asked the question in a polite, unemotional manner. I merely asked if you had any examples of demonstrated predictive climate models.

Your answer is no.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

No, that was NOT what you asked. Winters are cold, summers are hot. That's a good predictive climate model, and of course I've seen it happen.

'the climate models' presumably means you have some particular model or models to be concerned about, and if you can't name 'em, no one could possibly look into the question. It's too vague.

Since the early-nineties work on greenhouse effect made some scary predictions, we've seen a string of 'hottest year on record' events. So, all those predictions of warming have confirming data (but, like 'summers are hot...'. you already know that).

Briebart? You read that crap?

e:

te:

ical

f

es before you accept that the climate has changed for the worse as predicte d by the models. I was at a site last weekend where you can see sustained p eriods of certain prehistoric sea levels as raised beaches from a warmer er a when the seas were much deeper than today.

e)

th at JPL and in Paris where VSOP87 was the first semianalytic perturbation solution that really cut the mustard. It really only affects lunar and int erplanetary missions (and observing pulsars close to the sun or Jupiter/Sat urn).

he Moon race and so had to find ingenious slower but lower energy transfer orbits to get their probes there. Numerov developed some cute tricks for th em. A more recent take on the subject which might interest some readers is here:

uting the development of the universe from the Big Bang with a remarkable d egree of agreement with what we observe. They were still struggling to get individual galaxies to behave themselves properly in my day. It only takes one really close encounter and you very easily end up with a choice of incr edibly stiff equations with infinitesimal time steps or failure to conserve energy. Various tricks were developed over the years that allow such thing s to work within the limits of what can sensibly be computed.

rs want to shoot the scientific messengers because they don't like the mess age.

lity.jpg?raw=1

You don't have to know much to notice that the graph has the name J.R.Chris ty, University of Alabama in one corner.

He does seem to have selected the models he chose to graph and the region o ver which he graphed them.

f

- all 126 pages of it - talks a lot about CMIP-5 climate models, amongst ot hers, and their defects. I didn't see the graphs the Christy has produced, but he probably had a different, and rather less sophisticated audience in mind, and may have wanted to create a rather different effect.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Breitbart is rather more predictable than the climate.

Observers with less of an axe to grind have jumped to rather fewer conclusions.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I quite like Breitbart. They're a business like any news organization, of course.

It's just referring to the Nature Geosciences paper.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs 
Principal Consultant 
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC 
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 

160 North State Road #203 
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 

hobbs at electrooptical dot net 
http://electrooptical.net

But with a particular target market - not one that goes in for critical thinking.

With a certain amount of spin.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It's hard to argue with data. I heard some climate guy talking (Sam Harris pod cast) and he said that (at least) the warming we see is consistent with CO2. In that the lower atmosphere is increasing in temperature and the upper atmosphere cooling.

George H.

Read again, and look at content. There's a quotation in there that seems to be the article author quoting... himself. And loaded language ('admit' usually goes with misfeasance or malfeasance), and a paean to 'skeptics'.

But the original paper apparently just does a four-years-out review of a five-years-out prediction, and finds a particular scary number (1.5 degrees) less likely now. You ought to expect a continuous improvement in error bars as time passes, and if there's five updates, one or two will say 'no change' in the centroid, one or two will say 'goes up', and one or two will say 'goes down'.

The breathless excitement over a single 'goes down' report is ... unwarranted. Foolisn, excessive, warped could also apply. Skeptics who say 'i don't know' aren't proven right, because they didn't say anything provable, so that reference probably refers to deniers who prefer to call themselves 'skeptics'.

The troule is, deniers make the prediction '0.0 degrees change', and there's nothing at all to suggest THEY could be right. Conversely, the folk who wrote the referenced article aren't 'alarmists', they call themselves scientists. I call them that, too.

I'm not aiming for 'excessive', or 'warped', or 'foolish', though: that's Breitbart's job.

Have a nice day.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

On a sunny day (Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:33:45 -0700 (PDT)) it happened whit3rd wrote in :

Look there is a simple logic reason for climate change:

anybody here ?? (I hope) can add a few sinewaves (scroll to bottom of that page). So it is not directly related to Bill Sloman's excessive use of his computer.

As to breadboard, ehh I mean breitbard, eehh breitbart I did post a few times there but got censored when I did not praise trumpaman . Or maybe it was because I used 4 letter words in his context. Anyways US is finished, it will turn all black, IQ drop below absolute zero, some black warlords, and Kim hitting that supervolcano.

Now get on with life. And tronix.

ooopps

I wish that were true. The trouble with weather data is that it's noisy on all time scales. The argument is polluted by political and financial interests and all interested parties doctor the data to support their own viewpoints. Opponents mainly argue by calling each other names, and we see the echoes of that abundantly in this newsgroup.

The often heard argument that 'climate' and 'weather' are somehow different doesn't hold water. It makes no sense to distinguish them by some arbitrarily chosen timescale. The only correct way is spectral analysis. If there is some obvious breakpoint in the spectrum at some frequency, that might be a basis for assigning different terms to the associated timescales. Even then, I have a suspicion that breakpoints are most likely to occur where the source of the data switches from one method to another.

Jeroen Belleman

This would be an extremely damaging allegation, if you could validate it. The weather services would probably sue you if you made the allegation anywhere that mattered. They were set up before climate change was even an idea, and they are committed to the integrity of their data.

John Larkin posts links to well-known denialist web-sites. Their financing is detailed at

Pointing this out isn't "name-calling". He's been suckered by a long-running scandal

If you haven't taken this on board, you haven't been paying attention.

John von Neumann managed to see a difference back in 1955. The butterfly effect makes long term weather forecasts impossible, but von Neumann managed to simulate the longer-term features of Earth's atmospheric circulation back then.

Weather is unpredictable. Climate is predictable enough that farmers can make money and feed the rest of us, or has been, so far.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney