More respian developer insanity

More likely they're just members of the pubberlick who live in cities and take no notice of the weather apart from wearing a mack if the forecaster says it will rain, i.e. most deniers are 'just plain folks' who take no notice of the weather, and so have no baseline to judge what's happening.

Here's a concrete example of a change which is obvious if you've kept an eye on longer term effects but doubtless totally ignored by people who aren't balloon pilots, glider pilots, hang-glider pilots or meterrologists, which is unfortunsate, because it affects medium-term UK weather patterns.

We used to get decent soaring conditions (a cold, dry northerly blowing down the East coast in bright sun and nice morth-south cloud streets) in May. These conditions correlated quite well with a southerly jetstream flow down the UK east coast. However, I haven't seen those conditions since around 2010, which is about when the jetstream started to slow down and shift south in summer.

Currently the main northern jet stream, initially discovered in WW2 by its effect on bombers streams attacking Japan, has changed out of all recognition since around 2000. I started using it as a guide to UK flying weather around 2003, when it was still stable and relatively unkinked. Then it remained well North of the UK during summer and pretty much over the UK during winter. By 2015 it had moved south (more of less over France in winter and further north in summer. Now its quire unpredictable and much weaker.

Currently there's a huge meander south of Iceland, with both Northern lips covering Greenland and extending south almost to Spain.

You have fallen for the bait and switch. No one denies climate

The alternative thesis, that climate models are simply too crap to accurately model climate at all, and there are other issues they don't address that are far more significant than greenhouse gases, is never aired, simply because it doesn't lead to the desired political and economic result.

Well to be fair that's almost inevitable, it's a chaotic system after all so the models can only work in the smooth bits because the messy bits require complete data at infinite precision and perfect calculation. IOW they can't be modelled - just like the path of a perfect billiard ball on a frictionless table with perfect cushions alone in the universe apart from a stray electron at an unknown distance, after a week or so you can have no idea where the ball is because of the unknown pull of that electron.

Regarding the theoretical billiard ball and uncertainty factor, I don't have a source, so if anyone does have a source for this, it would be greatly appreciated. Back in college within a few years of the disco era, someone with a physics background told me that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would compound so rapidly that after the cue ball had experienced 15 collisions nothing could be predicted about its direction.

Absolutely correct statement. It is Communism v2.0 we experience in the west now. The only weather model that works is not from the west (and I am not telling you from where it comes, because I don't want to get involved in political discussions) However the models in the west are crap, because they use "normalization" exactly for the political and not for objective reasons. This approach was criticized, but without success. Another issue is the UN lead program on altering the weather. Apparently Switzerland stated it and another 12 states object this program for its controversial results. We know this program as "chem trails" So .. somehow it is indeed men made issue and one can argue if the results are byproduct or deliberate destruction of the climate.

That one I think I can debunk. For a few years I lived above a club with a very well maintained slate bed billiards table (covers and cushions were replaced every year). My father insisted that I develop some skill before playing on it and so the first thing I was expected to achieve was to send the ball down the spots and have it return along them. The second thing was to send the ball round at least all six cushions - at my best I could sometimes manage nine cushions before the ball was too slow and going in the wrong direction (yes it was a very good table).

I think that if I was able to manage nine collisions on a real table with a real ball (where imperfections, air currents and vibrations would all be many orders of magnitude larger than uncertainty effects) that fifteen on an ideal table should pose no problem despite the best that Heisenberg can do.

The example I cited with the stray electron was assuming Newtonian physics and I have seen and followed the maths behind it (a long time ago when I was a maths student - no way could I reproduce that kind of analysis now). There are a *lot* of collisions in a week of travel.

Also, Heisenberg decidedly does not play a role in billiards, even when multiplied 15 times. It's just macro uncertainty because of imperfections of ... everything.

Yes. one doesn't need to get down to quantum level fluctuations in position mass and velocity when a speck of hair on a cushion is so much more effective...

Kindly provide a link to this physicist's academic tenure and publication.

Searches find a lot of Robert Browns with degrees, mostly medical and non- scientific plus a few engineers, but no phyicists. The Wikipedia 'Robert Brown' disambiguation page doesn't list any physicists either.

Did you put also the two words climate change in your search?

Amazing how people shape the search engines with their behavior.

I guess "Robert D. Brown" was meant from TAMU.

And as we speak hundreds of ships polute the earth to make China and "capitalists" reacher, so that you and I can buy affordable mobile phone or other crap with planned obsolescence embedded. This is how far the hypocrisy reached.

I recommend you stop this discussion.

No, of course not: TNP referred to Robert Brown as a physicist, so of course I looked for a physicist with that name and didn't find one. Replacing the 'physicist' search term with 'climate change' got just two hits for "Robert Brown":

- one is an Australian politician, medical doctor and environmentalist.

- the other is a Landscape Architect and Urban Planner at Texas A&M

Since I can't find anything about such a physicist, I naturally posted a response asking TNP to provide links to the guy's academic tenure and citation list because I'd like to read his published papers.

I also recently switched search engines since Duck Duck Go, which I have been using seems to have become merely a front end for Bing, which I don't trust an inch, and haven't yet much experience with the new one.

No I am not.

Yes but I am talking about the behaviour of an ideal billiard ball on an ideal table with precisely known initial velocity. In an otherwise empty universe the path of the billiard ball may be predicted indefinitely. However if you add one randomly placed electron to that universe the errors from ignoring its pull will mean that after a week or so you have no idea where the ball is on the table or what its velocity direction is.

A real billiard ball on a real table is vastly more complex, subject to far greater unknown influences and won't run for a week no matter what you do.

Yes of course - this example is to demonstrate that a tiny unknown will eventually make an otherwise simple and perfectly predictable system completely unpredictable after a surprisingly short time. Climate is far less predictable.

I wonder why people make statements that are so obviously untrue. Global climate is very predictable, very stable. Chaotic behaviour is generally local and or short term, it is generally mean reverting.

The problem is not chaos, per se, the problem is that we do not understand long term climate effects, the drivers of long term changes. Chaos makes it harder to study and measure long term effects, but it is very unlikely long term changes in the weather happen purely by chance, chaotically. In the medium term, global climate is complex rather than chaotic.

I suppose it is possible, a chaotic effect could push us out of a stable local equilibrium, but that is very unlikely, given previous stability. Unlikely compared to a clear unusual mechanism like CO2 increase driving global temperature change, with unknown long term consequences.

I believe, he is - or was then - colorado tenured professor.

But why would who he was make a difference to what he said?

I wonder why you made a statement that is so obviously untrue.

I see you haven't a clue about the true nature of chaos mathematics.

Thanks for that: it turns out that his published work is connected with Heisenberg's model of ferromagnetism and not a lot else. IMO this makes his comments about climate modelling interesting but scarcely definitive.

His remarks are about a problem in physics and the modelling thereof.

He knows far more about that than any 'climate scientist', most of whom are practically innumerate.

Hmm. Be careful: sounds a lot like you're saying is that if he's not a published climate scientist then you're happy to ignore what he says. I don't recall that Feynman was a rocket scientist either.