OT: nuclear fusion might not be quite as far off in the futu

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 8:21:41 AM UTC+11, Kevin Aylward wrote:

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:e65905b4-87b0-4e95-8e0a-e3b74992cc8b@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 7:56:40 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 20:25:48 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:8a30e51d-b382-4a64-b6c4-744bd16fcc33@googlegroups.com...

.....
Since climate change has played a part in making this year's forest
fires
particularly extensive...

Twaddle.

There is no credible way to correlate an alleged 0.9 deg C average planet
surface temperature increase with a forest catching fire.

There's no direct connection. What happened in Australia was that climate
change influenced the behavior of the Indian Ocean Dipole, which produced
a particularly long >drought, which made the forests more inflammable.

Yeah... read some of that. Its twaddle. Self-engendered "lets give answers
that will get as funding".

Typical its "Here we show that the frequency increases linearly as the
warming proceeds, and doubles at 1.5 °C warming from the pre-industrial
level (statistically significant above the 90% confidence level)..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03789-6#Abs1

Total twaddle, as impressive sounding as it is. For example, they note that
out of 13 models that they use, 11 predicted a increase.

If this was a Physicist claiming that he had 11 models for the existence of
the Higgs boson, but all with different actual results and 2 that
contradicted them he would be laughed out of the auditorium.

Physicists have it easy. The butterfly effect means that no weather simulation is an exact replication of actual weather, and the size of the models means that it makes sense to over-simplify them more than physicists need to, and work with a variety of different oversimplifications to get some idea of how the models fall short of reality.

You are comparing apples and oranges, and should have enough sense to know it.

I have run, literally, millions of spice simulations, with models verified
to extensive precision. They still have this inconvenient habit of failing
to predict oscillation in the real world.

So what. You aren't running climate simulation models, which have different problems.

Weather simulations are orders of magnitude more unreliable. They are
nonlinear, statistical partial differential equations. They have hundreds of
parameters, with no way of accurately measuring them.

That's why climate scientists run a lot more of them, some of them on much bigger computers.

Maybe a 1 deg raise does that or this, maybe it don't. Any scientist that
claims otherwise, knows, essentially, nothing about what science is or is
not.

What Kevin is saying here is that he knows essentially nothing about climate science, not even enough to realise that his ignorance means that his opinion is worthless.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 11:37:24 AM UTC+11, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 1:21:41 PM UTC-8, Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:e65905b4-87b0-4e95-8e0a-e3b74992cc8b@googlegroups.com...

There's no direct connection. What happened in Australia was that climate
change influenced the behavior of the Indian Ocean Dipole, which produced
a particularly long >drought, which made the forests more inflammable.

Yeah... read some of that. Its twaddle. Self-engendered "lets give answers
that will get as funding".

That's an arrogant dismissal, and looks like a claim that all professional work
is tainted somehow. Get a job, tell us again after you've done some real work for pay. Skeptical philosophy isn't useful in making ANY predictions, and utility does matter.

Kevin is seriously good at what he does for money. Like John Larkin, he thinks that his success in one area entitles him to express remarkably ill-informed opinions about unrelated subjects. Spice simulations (and Kevin's SuperSpice worked really well for me) have something in common with climate simulations, but nowhere near enough, to justify Kevin's fatuous pontifications on the subject. There he's obviously pig-ignorant.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney