Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[jjlynn27]

Jasandjules said:

You appear to lack the intellectual ability to understand what was a simple point, I regret I am unable to state it more clearly than I already have. I can see why you consider AGW to be factual.

Jasandjules said:

I can direct you to three people close to me who had severe medical issues which the doctors could not work out. Homeopathy fixed it.

The irony. Unless; "severe medical issues"=dehydration.

Cultists, always so predictable.

[turbobloke]

hairykrishna said:

robinessex said:

Here's why climate models are bks, and always will be bks.

We've done this conversation before. You don't understand chaos theory or modelling. Chaos theory tells you that you can't predict an exact future state from given starting conditions. It doesn't tell you that you can't make useful predictions about a chaotic system. See, as an example, all aerodynamic modelling involving turbulent flow.

I see robinessex has already replied, beyond that you don't understand the level of understanding applicable here, which is somewhere you've been before. Beyond fluid mechanics it's not good.

Climate models omit forcings completely, don't understand other forcings (IPCC acknowledges both), have inadequate spatial and temporal resolution - can't cope with clouds or land cover changes - get feedbacks wrong cf satellite data, require many tens of 'tuned' paramaterisations rather than science, work from random spin-up starting points, and as such the outputs are not validated and are not predictions (as IPCC also acknowledges). Pooling this ignorance offers nothing worthwhile, I'd say they may as well guess but they already do that too.

Remember "long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" (IPCC) and no amount of waffle will change that.

Apart from the above lethal limitations do you understand the discretisation issues? The use of discretisation represents approximations cf known science (put aside less well understod science) and is equivalent to the introduction of artificial boundary conditions. Discretisations of continuous variable problems may possibly work if there is a sufficient ability to compute stepwise refinements. That ability is lacking. Whatever the approach to discretisation, inter alia it limits the spatial and temporal resolution of a GCM and these resolutions remain inadequate (see above).

Don't take my word for it, check it out, recalling that the need is for many simultaneous solutions in 3D not an isolated 1D or 2D example.

[hairykrishna]

robinessex said:

I just checked this with our ANSYS FLUENT for turbulent flows. The following was stated at the end of the various methodologies for this available

“There is not yet a single, practical turbulence model that can reliably predict all turbulent flows with sufficient accuracy.”

Unless something is predictable, and repeatable, it’s useless. Might as well guess then.

Do you use FLUENT? Personally I've found it very useful for simulating systems with very turbulent flows. Why do you have it if it's useless for most practical problems?

[hairykrishna]

turbobloke said:

Remember "long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" (IPCC) and no amount of waffle will change that.

You keep repeating this statement. Do you not understand it or is it a deliberate attempt to mislead?

[wc98]

El stovey said:

What was your job before you retired or before you became unemployed?

You seem to think banging on about my job gives you an insight into how I think, I’m trying to understand how your job and your training might influence your view on climate change and make you think the way you do?

i was trying to work out how someone that is obviously well educated (far better than i) intelligent and usually takes a fair view while being open to others opinions on other topics ( the mh 370 thread excepted where your replies to one person in particular have been a good read and faf) yet on this one subject you won't have a word spoken against against a consensus that in reality isn't and even if it was would mean nothing.

I know a few ex airline pilots(well three), i don't know any that are supporters of agw,maybe it is a generational thing or maybe you are an outlier

i used to work in the industrial ceramics industry. having a hand in designing the manufacturing process and equipment for a particular component that the entire industry said couldn't be made does make one cynical about group consensus.

i used to accept the line on agw as like most people i just accepted scientists knew what they were talking about. the lack of certainty surrounding the veracity of the data used, the modeling used that is far outside the bounds that would be accepted when modeling in say the engineering industry and the fact that proclamations of various doom like increased extreme weather have not come to pass all tend to indicate,to me anyway, there might be a problem.

if you want to have a go at tb every day , bash on. he is a big boy and will cope. that is what your posts look like on this thread,again to me,having a go at an individual rather than debating the topic.

[robinessex]

hairykrishna said:

robinessex said:

I just checked this with our ANSYS FLUENT for turbulent flows. The following was stated at the end of the various methodologies for this available

“There is not yet a single, practical turbulence model that can reliably predict all turbulent flows with sufficient accuracy.”

Unless something is predictable, and repeatable, it’s useless. Might as well guess then.

Do you use FLUENT? Personally I've found it very useful for simulating systems with very turbulent flows. Why do you have it if it's useless for most practical problems?

I never said it was useless, it's like many other mathematical solutions to an engineering problem. It gives answers that represent a pretty good SIMULATION of the problem. Thus, for many engineering requirements, it's ok. Pop a few factors in, check it practically with some test, etc. What you can't do is extract EXACT numerical answers at some time. Thus the AGW mob saying the at date X, the planet temperature will be Y is bks.

As an illustration, I believe that McLaren's F1 problem with their car, is that CFD, wind tunnel tests, and actually running the car don't agree/corelate. And that ‘science’ is pretty well understood these days.

[jet_noise]

LoonyTunes said:

jet_noise said:

Climate models have been designed to show an alarmist level of +ve temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentrations.
So they do.

Can you please demonstrate that what you've just said is true and not just your opinion? There are hundreds of models so I'll take a top 10 of models that have been proven to have been deliberately set-up to show an "alarmist level of temperature sensitivity" (whatever that might be).

I define an "alarmist level of temperature sensitivity" as one which exceeds that observed, many to a preposterous degree (pun intended ).

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

In other news, the independently apolitical UN has bowed to pressure from activists and ditched a video about climate change because it was unable to resist green pressure objecting to attempts at humour about a subject greens consider far too serious for any applied jocularity. I mean, seriously? Apparently the 'Climate Neutral Now' effort was interpreted as mocking green lifestyle choices (eek) and downplaying the urgency of the climate challenge. PHers on the thread who go in for facebooking and twittering may have seen it while the rest of us have descriptions to work from. Apparently the vid shows a man trying to give up his car, flights, steak and even breathing to cut his carbon footprint. Hmmm. Either way the video is settled! The time for amusement is over!! Immediate action is needed so recycled hair shirts on now and forget that Sunday roast!!!

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/08/29/keep-c...

to be fair it is better than the one blowing up school kids and employees dissenting from the consensus.

[wc98]

El stovey said:

It’s not a belief system. It’s the overwhelming scientific view and thus the scientific consensus.

Your’s is a belief system based on your politics.

it is exactly that, a belief system.in what other branch of science will you hear scientists say modeled results not matching actual observations means the physical observations must be wrong. the models model the input, not the actual climate.i don't care what someones credentials are, if climate modeling factors were used in engineering/design of critical components worrying about co2 induced warming would be way down the list of things to worry about.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

Exactly, you feed in what data you do have, run the program and see what pops out. Only it never seems to pop out the result the deniers would like it too which is either a ‘positive influence’ or maybe just a ‘neutral influence’.

the underlying assumption affecting all the models is co2 causes warming. if you put an increasing level of co2 into a model that recognises it should cause it to get warmer, what do you think will happen ?

the model that apparently gets closest to reality is a russian model that doesn't have co2 as a key player. make of that what you will. i don't put any credence in modeling of the earths atmosphere as there are too many unknowns. projection vs prediction. when they start predicting, and doing it accurately my opinion will change.

[turbobloke]

gadgetmac said:

Exactly, you feed in what data you do have, run the program and see what pops out. Only it never seems to pop out the result the deniers would like it too which is either a ‘positive influence’ or maybe just a ‘neutral influence’.

Feed in what data you have, is that adjusted or non-adjusted?
Run the programme, is that the programme with missing forcings, inadequate representation of other forcings, tens of tuned paramaterisations in place of science, inadequate spatial and temporal resolution and an appalling track record of inadequacy?
See what pops out, beautiful and magical, such faith is toucing (cloth), what pops out is model gigp popping out of the real world as shown previosuly for 70+ climate models.

wc98 said:

the underlying assumption affecting all the models is co2 causes warming. if you put an increasing level of co2 into a model that recognises it should cause it to get warmer, what do you think will happen ?

Quite so, it's been pointed out so many times that what climate models do even partly well is reproduce faithfully the erroneous assumptions of the modellers.

wc98 said:

the model that apparently gets closest to reality is a russian model that doesn't have co2 as a key player. make of that what you will. i don't put any credence in modeling of the earths atmosphere as there are too many unknowns. projection vs prediction. when they start predicting, and doing it accurately my opinion will change.

Fair last point and in addition to the Ruskies, out of Hansen A/B/C, Hansen C only works as a reasonable fit to the data with CO2 on holiday from the turn of the century. Right-ish for the wrong reasons is wrong.

[hairykrishna]

robinessex said:

I never said it was useless, it's like many other mathematical solutions to an engineering problem. It gives answers that represent a pretty good SIMULATION of the problem. Thus, for many engineering requirements, it's ok. Pop a few factors in, check it practically with some test, etc. What you can't do is extract EXACT numerical answers at some time. Thus the AGW mob saying the at date X, the planet temperature will be Y is bks.

As an illustration, I believe that McLaren's F1 problem with their car, is that CFD, wind tunnel tests, and actually running the car don't agree/corelate. And that ‘science’ is pretty well understood these days.

None of the 'AGW mob' by which I mean actual scientists including the IPCC report authors give a fixed temperature at a fixed date. They give a likely future temperature range for a given set of forcings. Despite what this thread would have you believe the models actually correlate quite well over the limited range we have so far.

Given the models are the best predictive tool we have, what do you suggest? We're causing lots more energy to be dumped into the system. Models tell us that this will cause a significant temperature rise. You think it won't. Based on?

[wc98]

hairykrishna said:

We've done this conversation before. You don't understand chaos theory or modelling. Chaos theory tells you that you can't predict an exact future state from given starting conditions. It doesn't tell you that you can't make useful predictions about a chaotic system. See, as an example, all aerodynamic modelling involving turbulent flow.

i don't disagree with that statement at all.the output of a climate model is representative of the input. that neither are accurate representations of the physical situation doesn't appear to matter to some.

[Diderot]

hairykrishna said:

robinessex said:

I never said it was useless, it's like many other mathematical solutions to an engineering problem. It gives answers that represent a pretty good SIMULATION of the problem. Thus, for many engineering requirements, it's ok. Pop a few factors in, check it practically with some test, etc. What you can't do is extract EXACT numerical answers at some time. Thus the AGW mob saying the at date X, the planet temperature will be Y is bks.

As an illustration, I believe that McLaren's F1 problem with their car, is that CFD, wind tunnel tests, and actually running the car don't agree/corelate. And that ‘science’ is pretty well understood these days.

None of the 'AGW mob' by which I mean actual scientists including the IPCC report authors give a fixed temperature at a fixed date. They give a likely future temperature range for a given set of forcings. Despite what this thread would have you believe the models actually correlate quite well over the limited range we have so far.

Given the models are the best predictive tool we have, what do you suggest? We're causing lots more energy to be dumped into the system. Models tell us that this will cause a significant temperature rise. You think it won't. Based on?

You could play a big game of pin the tail on the donkey and that would likely yield more accurate results.

On a slightly more serious note HK, given that models are wrong (and can never be correct) do you not think that basing policy decisions which involve trillions of dollars on their fantastical outputs, with deleterious economic, geo-political, social and health impacts, is a little idiotic?

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

I’m not talking about the data Doc Jock. Data are data. I specifically questioned the significance of the baseline in my original comment. Durbster et al seem unable to respond to that, instead deploying the usual diversionary tactics.

Well, you failed this simple test so I think we can safely put you in the "nothing to contribute" section. Next troll please.

Which simple test was that then Durbster? I don't recall you setting me any simple tests? I recall you swerving away from a legitimate question regarding the significance of baselines and types of graphs that were posted. Oh and of course we all recall you and your acolyte's continued denial that the models are wrong and that the pause didn't happen.

[LoonyTunes]

When are the effects of this Solar minimum supposed to set in, only:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/weather/uk-weather-...

[robinessex]

hairykrishna said:

robinessex said:

I never said it was useless, it's like many other mathematical solutions to an engineering problem. It gives answers that represent a pretty good SIMULATION of the problem. Thus, for many engineering requirements, it's ok. Pop a few factors in, check it practically with some test, etc. What you can't do is extract EXACT numerical answers at some time. Thus the AGW mob saying the at date X, the planet temperature will be Y is bks.

As an illustration, I believe that McLaren's F1 problem with their car, is that CFD, wind tunnel tests, and actually running the car don't agree/corelate. And that ‘science’ is pretty well understood these days.

None of the 'AGW mob' by which I mean actual scientists including the IPCC report authors give a fixed temperature at a fixed date. They give a likely future temperature range for a given set of forcings. Despite what this thread would have you believe the models actually correlate quite well over the limited range we have so far.

Given the models are the best predictive tool we have, what do you suggest? We're causing lots more energy to be dumped into the system. Models tell us that this will cause a significant temperature rise. You think it won't. Based on?

What do I suggest? Lets define the problem before we have the solution. Does it matter if the planets temp (what ever that is), is a minute bit higher a 100 years from now?

[dickymint]

LoonyTunes said:

When are the effects of this Solar minimum supposed to set in, only:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/weather/uk-weather-...

2019/2020 according to NASA do you have a problem with that them?

Edited by dickymint on Monday 3rd September 15:41

[robinessex]

Todays Beeb non story

Heatwave: 2018 was the joint hottest summer for UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45399134

2018 was the joint hottest summer on record for the UK as a whole, and the hottest ever for England, the Met Office has announced.
It said highs for summer 2018 were tied with those of 1976, 2003 and 2006 for being the highest since records began in 1910.
England's average temperatures narrowly beat those seen in 1976, they added.
The heatwave saw soaring temperatures across much of the UK throughout June and July.
Dry, sweltering conditions for weeks on end gave way to a more average August, said the Met Office........continues

Is this actually news?

[LoonyTunes]

dickymint said:

LoonyTunes said:

When are the effects of this Solar minimum supposed to set in, only:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/weather/uk-weather-...

2019/2020 according to NASA do you have a problem with that?

I'm looking forward to the big-cooling. It's coming right? Definitely...yes?