OT: more evidence of AGW scam

[Cursitor Doom]

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 13/07/19 10:57, Cursitor Doom wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

Russia is a petrol station with a flag attached.

It is unsurprising that Russia Today's financial backers
want to continue to sell oil.

Conclusion: "well, they would say that, wouldn't they".

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2019 11:36:51 +0100) it happened Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in <7viWE.364083$ql7.54515@fx35.am4>:

On 13/07/19 10:57, Cursitor Doom wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

Russia is a petrol station with a flag attached.

It is unsurprising that Russia Today's financial backers
want to continue to sell oil.

Conclusion: "well, they would say that, wouldn't they".

Bull,
the usual 'Russia dunnit' crap.
First, if you did read it, the paper is Finnish.
Second climate change is not caused by humming beans and neither by human beings
but it is the simple sum of the effects of orbital changes
https://old.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
scroll down all the way, see the simple addition of sinewaves.
we are, it seems, near a maximum?


Third, accessing rt.com from here is difficult, had to reload the page for anything to happen..
~# host rt.com
rt.com has address 82.202.190.90
rt.com has address 82.202.190.91

~ #traceroute 82.202.190.90
1 raspberry (192.168.178.1) 0.842 ms 0.949 ms 1.093 ms
2 * * *
3 * * *
4 145.54.66.133 (145.54.66.133) 335.234 ms 335.374 ms 336.441 ms
5 145.54.66.124 (145.54.66.124) 338.821 ms 338.614 ms 339.024 ms
6 * * *
7 * 193.239.118.168 (193.239.118.168) 29.756 ms rostelecom.newtelco.nl-ix.net (193.239.118.50) 36.541 ms
8 ae1-3.RT.MR.MSK.RU.retn.net (87.245.232.129) 66.467 ms 70.254 ms 70.189 ms
9 GW-Indrik.retn.net (87.245.253.219) 71.830 ms 5.143.255.218 (5.143.255.218) 78.873 ms 82.883 ms

traceroute goes via Moscow, from
~ # whois 87.245.253.219
inetnum: 87.245.253.0 - 87.245.254.215
netname: RETN-RU-MSK-2
descr: ReTN external interconnections in Moscow
and takes a long time,
after that I had to restart my fvwm file manager in Linux,
it became unresponsive, so maybe they install spyware.

I wanted to write a comment but you need to log in,
and last time I commented there I got the impression talking to
let's say a bit shortsighted people, so I did not bother this time.


Back to Climate Crap, It is big business, maybe invented by Polar Bear Gore,
selling 'solutions',
and the idea of taxing people goes down well with any ruler.

The fun thing (looking at it from a cosmic POV) is that as it gets warmer mass migration will happen.
and then as it gets colder several thousand years later mass migration (if anybody is left) will happen again.
And I am sure that will be taxed too, to make more CO2?
Such a lot of crap.
We had the hottest day in June here since measurement began,
when I was a kid I went skating, not much ice here this winter.
FWIIW

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 5:57:42 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice."

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like they made the assumption there was no AGW to start the study. What other source of CO2 is responsible for the CO2 increase over the last 200 years?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 06:06:54 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like they made the assumption
there was no AGW to start the study. What other source of CO2 is
responsible for the CO2 increase over the last 200 years?

The data I've collected shows CO2 levels haven't increased *at all* since
1900, but for those who still insist they have, the obvious answer to
your question is aggressive deforestation world-wide and farming
practices that have destroyed hedgerows and turned meadows into great,
featureless plains in the interests of efficiency and obtaining greater
yields per acre of land.

But there will always be those who doubt this and prefer to believe their
own "truths" and I cannot be bothered to argue with them. As far as I'm
concerned, they can believe what the hell they like.




--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:35:58 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 06:06:54 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like they made the assumption
there was no AGW to start the study. What other source of CO2 is
responsible for the CO2 increase over the last 200 years?

The data I've collected shows CO2 levels haven't increased *at all* since
1900, but for those who still insist they have, the obvious answer to
your question is aggressive deforestation world-wide and farming
practices that have destroyed hedgerows and turned meadows into great,
featureless plains in the interests of efficiency and obtaining greater
yields per acre of land.

But there will always be those who doubt this and prefer to believe their
own "truths" and I cannot be bothered to argue with them. As far as I'm
concerned, they can believe what the hell they like.

But that sounds like what you are doing. You wave "rain forest" around like you have collected some data when you have none. CO2 started increasing with the industrial revolution. The rise in CO2 since then maps pretty well to the rise in temperature. That alone is more evidence than crying "rain forest".

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2019 14:35:54 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Cursitor
Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in <qgcq8a$133$2@dont-email.me>:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 06:06:54 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like they made the assumption
there was no AGW to start the study. What other source of CO2 is
responsible for the CO2 increase over the last 200 years?

The data I've collected shows CO2 levels haven't increased *at all* since
1900, but for those who still insist they have, the obvious answer to
your question is aggressive deforestation world-wide and farming
practices that have destroyed hedgerows and turned meadows into great,
featureless plains in the interests of efficiency and obtaining greater
yields per acre of land.

But there will always be those who doubt this and prefer to believe their
own "truths" and I cannot be bothered to argue with them. As far as I'm
concerned, they can believe what the hell they like.

The art of taxing is to make people believe it is good for them,
so that they INSIST to pay for it (to save the climate).

Well done job!!

 

You are attacking people's religion. It is very oppressive religion based on assumptions that are not allowed to be questioned by scientists.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/13/19 6:36 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 13/07/19 10:57, Cursitor Doom wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

Russia is a petrol station with a flag attached.

It is unsurprising that Russia Today's financial backers
want to continue to sell oil.

Conclusion: "well, they would say that, wouldn't they".

Sometimes I feel like the one of the best thing ever done for the
environment was restricting leaded gasoline; my unscientific theory is
threads like these result from all the lead fumes these old-timers were
huffing day in and day out for 25 years prior.

Ironically the effect of long-term lead exposure to the CNS probably
results in the firm conviction that leaded gasoline is the best.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/13/19 10:48 AM, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:35:58 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 06:06:54 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like they made the assumption
there was no AGW to start the study. What other source of CO2 is
responsible for the CO2 increase over the last 200 years?

The data I've collected shows CO2 levels haven't increased *at all* since
1900, but for those who still insist they have, the obvious answer to
your question is aggressive deforestation world-wide and farming
practices that have destroyed hedgerows and turned meadows into great,
featureless plains in the interests of efficiency and obtaining greater
yields per acre of land.

But there will always be those who doubt this and prefer to believe their
own "truths" and I cannot be bothered to argue with them. As far as I'm
concerned, they can believe what the hell they like.

But that sounds like what you are doing. You wave "rain forest" around like you have collected some data when you have none. CO2 started increasing with the industrial revolution. The rise in CO2 since then maps pretty well to the rise in temperature. That alone is more evidence than crying "rain forest".

The obvious conclusion is that CD is simply a sharper data analyst than
the bulk of climate scientists in the world, who are engaged in a
massive cover-up they have all been sworn to secrecy about.

This passes Occam's Razor test for plausibility very well.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/13/19 12:29 PM, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:

You are attacking people's religion. It is very oppressive religion based on assumptions that are not allowed to be questioned by scientists.

"not allowed"? AGW is questioned by scientists (usually not in the field
of climate science, but sometimes with advanced degrees in some other
field) all the time. It's not illegal. Nobody puts a gun to your head or
throws you in jail for doing it.

They do tend to get ostracized from the mainstream scientific community
for doing it because a) their evidence/theories/models to the contrary
are generally poor and b) you tend to get ostracized from any group of
people when you implicitly call all your colleagues frauds but don't
back up your claim very good.

The same thing would happen in the National Society of Lumber
Scientists, too, if you said the bulk of lumber scientists were
publishing fraudulent data/claims about lumber.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 14:35:54 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 06:06:54 -0700, Rick C wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like they made the assumption
there was no AGW to start the study. What other source of CO2 is
responsible for the CO2 increase over the last 200 years?

The data I've collected shows CO2 levels haven't increased *at all* since
1900, but for those who still insist they have, the obvious answer to
your question is aggressive deforestation world-wide and farming
practices that have destroyed hedgerows and turned meadows into great,
featureless plains in the interests of efficiency and obtaining greater
yields per acre of land.


But there will always be those who doubt this and prefer to believe their
own "truths" and I cannot be bothered to argue with them. As far as I'm
concerned, they can believe what the hell they like.

CO2 has certainly increased, and most of that is man-made, but it
doesn't follow that man-made CO2 is increasing temperatures much, or
that the added CO2 is bad for the planet. Lots of people want it to
be, for various reasons.

This is real

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg

and so is this:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 13:11:41 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/13/19 6:36 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/07/19 10:57, Cursitor Doom wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

Russia is a petrol station with a flag attached.

It is unsurprising that Russia Today's financial backers
want to continue to sell oil.

Conclusion: "well, they would say that, wouldn't they".


Sometimes I feel like the one of the best thing ever done for the
environment was restricting leaded gasoline; my unscientific theory is
threads like these result from all the lead fumes these old-timers were
huffing day in and day out for 25 years prior.

Ironically the effect of long-term lead exposure to the CNS probably
results in the firm conviction that leaded gasoline is the best.

Leaded gas was bad, as were the old cars without emission controls.
When one of the "classics" passes down the street, it really stinks.
100% of the cars on the road used to be that nasty. Diesel trucks and
busses were horrible; most are better now.

Added CO2 is probably a net benefit to Earth. The other gunk wasn't.
The Popular Press uses "CO2" and "carbon" and "pollution"
interchangeably.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[bitrex]

On 7/13/19 5:30 PM, bitrex wrote:

Leaded gas was bad, as were the old cars without emission controls.
When one of the "classics" passes down the street, it really stinks.
100% of the cars on the road used to be that nasty. Diesel trucks and
busses were horrible; most are better now.

I think a lot of the vintage pieces you see around now are "worse" than
they were, their owners like to tune the timing and air/fuel for high
RPM performance and they were made long before the time of variable
valve timing and lift. and they think they sound cool driving around at
low speed rumbling, spluttering and popping on a fuel-rich mixture

addendum: there are a lot of ways you can "tune" a car to perform worse
than it does from the factory, I believe e.g. BMW enthusiasts have found
most of them by now.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/13/19 3:07 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 13:11:41 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 7/13/19 6:36 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 13/07/19 10:57, Cursitor Doom wrote:

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Conclusion: it's all a load of old bollocks.

Russia is a petrol station with a flag attached.

It is unsurprising that Russia Today's financial backers
want to continue to sell oil.

Conclusion: "well, they would say that, wouldn't they".


Sometimes I feel like the one of the best thing ever done for the
environment was restricting leaded gasoline; my unscientific theory is
threads like these result from all the lead fumes these old-timers were
huffing day in and day out for 25 years prior.

Ironically the effect of long-term lead exposure to the CNS probably
results in the firm conviction that leaded gasoline is the best.

Leaded gas was bad, as were the old cars without emission controls.
When one of the "classics" passes down the street, it really stinks.
100% of the cars on the road used to be that nasty. Diesel trucks and
busses were horrible; most are better now.

I think a lot of the vintage pieces you see around now are "worse" than
they were, their owners like to tune the timing and air/fuel for high
RPM performance and they were made long before the time of variable
valve timing and lift. and they think they sound cool driving around at
low speed rumbling, spluttering and popping on a fuel-rich mixture

Added CO2 is probably a net benefit to Earth. The other gunk wasn't.
The Popular Press uses "CO2" and "carbon" and "pollution"
interchangeably.

If the Popular Press were experts in emissions controls and climate
science they'd be climate scientists, in the vein of what you could say
about many other topics they report on
>

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:13:48 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

This is real

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg

and so is this:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-
greening-earth

This is a nice excerpt from Robert Brown a leading physicist.

"Let me tell you in a few short words why I am a skeptic. First of all,
if one examines the complete geological record of global temperature
variation on planet Earth (as best as we can reconstruct it) not just
over the last 200 years but over the last 25 million years, over the
last billion years - one learns that there is absolutely nothing
remarkable about today's temperatures! Seriously. Not one human being on
the planet would look at that complete record - or even the complete
record of temperatures during the Holocene, or the Pliestocene - and
stab down their finger at the present and go "Oh no!". Quite the
contrary. It isn't the warmest. It isn't close to the warmest. It isn't
the warmest in the last 2 or 3 thousand years. It isn't warming the
fastest. It isn't doing anything that can be resolved from the natural
statistical variation of the data. Indeed, now that Mann's utterly
fallacious hockey stick reconstruction has been re-reconstructed with
the LIA* and MWP** restored, it isn't even remarkable in the last
thousand years!


Furthermore, examination of this record over the last 5 million years
reveals a sobering fact. We are in an ice age, where the Earth spends 80
to 90% of its geological time in the grip of vast ice sheets that cover
the polar latitudes well down into what is currently the temperate zone.
We are at the (probable) end of the Holocene, the interglacial in which
humans emerged all the way from tribal hunter-gatherers to modern
civilization. The Earth's climate is manifestly, empirically bistable,
with a warm phase and cold phase, and the cold phase is both more likely
and more stable. As a physicist who has extensively studied bistable
open systems, this empirical result clearly visible in the data has
profound implications. The fact that the LIA was the coldest point in
the entire Holocene (which has been systematically cooling from the
Holocene Optimum on) is also worrisome. Decades are irrelevant on the
scale of these changes. Centuries are barely relevant. We are nowhere
near the warmest, but the coldest century in the last 10,000 years ended
a mere 300 years ago, and corresponded almost perfectly with the Maunder
minimum in solar activity.


There is absolutely no evidence in this historical record of a third
stable warm phase that might be associated with a 'tipping pointâ'and
hence 'catastrophe'(in the specific mathematical sense of catastrophe,
a first order phase transition to a new stable phase). It has been far
warmer in the past without tipping into this phase. If anything, we are
geologically approaching the point where the Earth is likely to tip the
other way, into the phase that we know is there - the cold phase. A
cold phase transition, which the historical record indicates can occur
quite rapidly with large secular temperature changes on a decadal time
scale, would truly be a catastrophe. Even if 'catastrophic' AGW is
correct and we do warm another 3 C over the next century, if it
stabilized the Earth in warm phase and prevented or delayed the Earth's
transition into cold phase it would be worth it because the cold phase
transition would kill billions of people, quite rapidly, as crops failed
throughout the temperate breadbasket of the world.


Now let us try to analyze the modern era bearing in mind the evidence of
an utterly unremarkable present. To begin with, we need a model that
predicts the swings of glaciation and interglacials. Lacking this, we
cannot predict the temperature that we should have outside for any given
baseline concentration of CO2, nor can we resolve variations in this
baseline due to things other than CO2 from that due to CO2. We don't
have any such thing. We don't have anything close to this. We cannot
predict, or explain after the fact, the huge (by comparison with the
present) secular variations in temperature observed over the last 20,000
years, let alone the last 5 million or 25 million or billion. We do not
understand the forces that set the baseline 'thermostatâ'for the Earth
before any modulation due to anthropogenic CO2, and hence we have no
idea if those forces are naturally warming or cooling the Earth as a
trend that has to be accounted for before assigning the 'anthropogenic'
component of any warming.


This is a hard problem. Not settled science, not well understood, not
understood. There are theories and models (and as a theorist, I just
love to tell stories) but there aren't any particularly successful
theories or models and there is a lot of competition between the stories
(none of which agree with or predict the empirical data particularly
well, at best agreeing with some gross features but not others). One
part of the difficulty is that the Earth is a highly multivariate and
chaotic driven/open system with complex nonlinear coupling between all
of its many drivers, and with anything but a regular surface. If one
tried to actually write *the* partial differential equation for the
global climate system, it would be a set of coupled Navier-Stokes
equations with unbelievably nasty nonlinear coupling terms - if one can
actually include the physics of the water and carbon cycles in the N-S
equations at all. It is, quite literally, the most difficult problem in
mathematical physics we have ever attempted to solve or understand!
Global Climate Models are children's toys in comparison to the actual
underlying complexity, especially when (as noted) the major drivers
setting the baseline behavior are not well understood or quantitatively
available.


The truth of this is revealed in the lack of skill in the GCMs. They
utterly failed to predict the last 13 or 14 years of flat to descending
global temperatures, for example, although naturally one can go back and
tweak parameters and make them fit it now, after the fact. And every
year that passes without significant warming should be rigorously
lowering the climate sensitivity and projected AGW, making the
probability of the 'Câ'increasinginly remote.


These are all (in my opinion) good reasons to be skeptical of the often
egregious claims of CAGW. Another reason is the exact opposite of the
reason you used 'denier'in your article. The actual scientific question
has long since been co-opted by the social and political one. The real
reason you used the term is revealed even in your response " we all
'should' be doing this and that whether or not there is a real risk of
'catastrophe'. In particular, we 'should' be using less fossil fuel,
working to preserve the environment, and so on.


The problem with this 'end justifies the means'argument - where the
means involved is the abhorrent use of a pejorative descriptor to
devalue the arguers of alternative points of view rather than their
arguments at the political and social level - is that it is as close
to absolute evil in social and public discourse as it is possible to
get. I strongly suggest that you read Feynman's rather famous 'Cargo
Cult' talk:



http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm


In particular, I quote:

"For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a
friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology
and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the
applications of this work were. 'Well,'I said, 'there aren't any.'
He said, 'Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of
this kind.'I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're
representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to
the layman what you're doing, and if they don't want to support you
under those circumstances, then that's their decision."


One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind
to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should
always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only
publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look
good. We must publish both kinds of results.


I say that's also important in giving certain types of government
advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether
drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it
would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a
result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're
being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the
government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument
in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish
it at all. That's not giving scientific advice.


Time for a bit of soul-searching, Dr. Bain. Have you come even close to
living up to the standards laid out by Richard Feynman? Is this sort of
honesty apparent anywhere in the global climate debate? Did the 'Hockey
Teamâ'embrace this sort of honesty in the infamous Climategate emails?
Do the IPCC reports ever seem to present the counter arguments, or do
they carefully avoid showing pictures of the 20,000 year thermal record,
preferring instead Mann's hockey stick because it increases the alarmism
(and hence political impact of the report)? Does the term 'denierâ'have
any place in any scientific paper ever published given Feynman's rather
simple criterion for scientific honesty?


And finally, how dare you presume to make choices for me, for my
relatives, for my friends, for all of the people of the world, but
concealing information from them so that they make a choice to allocate
resources the way you think they should be allocated, just like the
dishonest astronomer of his example. Yes, the price of honesty might be
that people don't choose to support your work. Tough. It is their money,
and their choice!


Sadly, it is all too likely that this is precisely what is at stake in
climate research. If there is no threat of catastrophe — and as I
said, prior to the hockey stick nobody had the slightest bit of luck
convincing anyone that the sky was falling because global climate today
is geologically unremarkable in every single way except that we happen
to be living in it instead of analyzing it in a geological record —
then there is little incentive to fund the enormous amount of work being
done on climate science. There is even less incentive to spend trillions
of dollars of other people's money (and some of our own) to ameliorate a
'threatâ'that might well be pure moonshine, quite possibly ignoring an
even greater threat of movement in the exact opposite direction to the
one the IPCC anticipates.


Why am I a skeptic? Because I recognize the true degree of our ignorance
in addressing this supremely difficult problem, while at the same time
as a mere citizen I weigh civilization and its benefits against
draconian energy austerity on the basis of no actual evidence that
global climate is in any way behaving unusually on a geological time
scale.


For shame."


* Little ice age. A cold period from the 16th to 19th centuries (more or
less) when the Thames froze over.


** Mediaeval warm period. A warm period when the Vikings colonized
Greenland..only to abandon it when it got too cold to grow crops.





--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 07:48:15 -0700, Rick C wrote:

But that sounds like what you are doing. You wave "rain forest" around
like you have collected some data when you have none. CO2 started
increasing with the industrial revolution. The rise in CO2 since then
maps pretty well to the rise in temperature. That alone is more
evidence than crying "rain forest".

You must have missed the point I was making so I'll repeat it for you:
YOU CAN BELIEVE WHAT THE HELL YOU LIKE.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/13/19 5:09 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

This is a hard problem. Not settled science, not well understood, not
understood. There are theories and models (and as a theorist, I just
love to tell stories)

Yep, all they ever do is talk shit for attention all day long and never
present any substantive research of their own.

theories or models and there is a lot of competition between the stories
(none of which agree with or predict the empirical data particularly
well, at best agreeing with some gross features but not others). One
part of the difficulty is that the Earth is a highly multivariate and
chaotic driven/open system with complex nonlinear coupling between all
of its many drivers, and with anything but a regular surface. If one
tried to actually write *the* partial differential equation for the
global climate system, it would be a set of coupled Navier-Stokes
equations with unbelievably nasty nonlinear coupling terms - if one can
actually include the physics of the water and carbon cycles in the N-S
equations at all. It is, quite literally, the most difficult problem in
mathematical physics we have ever attempted to solve or understand!

OMG, did you know that the vast majority of practical physics problems
applicable to the real world, and not simplified toy systems, are
complex multivariate PDEs with "nasty nonlinear coupling" that don't
have closed-form solutions? this habitual man-splainer acts like this is
news to somebody other than anti-AGW beard-stroking head-nodders who are
impressed he can use those big words.

If the climate were not described by that kind of equation then the
climate would show almost no interesting behavior worth predicting. duh!

Global Climate Models are children's toys in comparison to the actual
underlying complexity, especially when (as noted) the major drivers
setting the baseline behavior are not well understood or quantitatively
available.

Being anti-AGW pundit, is easy job, like being "pro-life." Don't
actually have to ever do anything. Just have to run your mouth and
collect checks.

 

[bitrex]

On 7/13/19 5:09 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 12:13:48 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

This is real

https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/4keeling3.jpg

and so is this:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-
greening-earth



This is a nice excerpt from Robert Brown a leading physicist.

"Let me tell you in a few short words why I am a skeptic. First of all,
if one examines the complete geological record of global temperature
variation on planet Earth (as best as we can reconstruct it) not just
over the last 200 years but over the last 25 million years, over the
last billion years - one learns that there is absolutely nothing
remarkable about today's temperatures! Seriously. Not one human being on
the planet would look at that complete record - or even the complete
record of temperatures during the Holocene, or the Pliestocene - and
stab down their finger at the present and go "Oh no!". Quite the
contrary. It isn't the warmest. It isn't close to the warmest. It isn't
the warmest in the last 2 or 3 thousand years. It isn't warming the
fastest. It isn't doing anything that can be resolved from the natural
statistical variation of the data. Indeed, now that Mann's utterly
fallacious hockey stick reconstruction has been re-reconstructed with
the LIA* and MWP** restored, it isn't even remarkable in the last
thousand years!

<snip>

Egomaniacs love to talk, but this one uses a truly impressive amount of
grumpy old man egomaniac ranting to say almost nothing.

It's kind of sad and painful to read like a transcript of Larry Niven
and Jerry Pournelle talking with each other and telling each other how
great they are for 3 hours at a sci fi book convention

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 14/07/19 00:17, bitrex wrote:

On 7/13/19 5:09 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

This is a hard problem. Not settled science, not well understood, not
understood. There are theories and models (and as a theorist, I just
love to tell stories)

Yep, all they ever do is talk shit for attention all day long and never present
any substantive research of their own.

theories or models and there is a lot of competition between the stories
(none of which agree with or predict the empirical data particularly
well, at best agreeing with some gross features but not others). One
part of the difficulty is that the Earth is a highly multivariate and
chaotic driven/open system with complex nonlinear coupling between all
of its many drivers, and with anything but a regular surface. If one
tried to actually write *the* partial differential equation for the
global climate system, it would be a set of coupled Navier-Stokes
equations with unbelievably nasty nonlinear coupling terms - if one can
actually include the physics of the water and carbon cycles in the N-S
equations at all. It is, quite literally, the most difficult problem in
mathematical physics we have ever attempted to solve or understand!

OMG, did you know that the vast majority of practical physics problems
applicable to the real world, and not simplified toy systems, are complex
multivariate PDEs with "nasty nonlinear coupling" that don't have closed-form
solutions? this habitual man-splainer acts like this is news to somebody other
than anti-AGW beard-stroking head-nodders who are impressed he can use those big
words.

Based on CD's technical background and achievements that he
himself has stated, I doubt he did know that.

But then his opinion is "just as valid" as anyone else's.
Isn't it?

If the climate were not described by that kind of equation then the climate
would show almost no interesting behavior worth predicting. duh!

Global Climate Models are children's toys in comparison to the actual
underlying complexity, especially when (as noted) the major drivers
setting the baseline behavior are not well understood or quantitatively
available.

Being anti-AGW pundit, is easy job, like being "pro-life." Don't actually have
to ever do anything. Just have to run your mouth and collect checks.

Just so.