Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
robinessex said:
You’ve been told many times you can’t mathematically represent a chaotic system.
This is even better than your normal claim that you can't simulate a chaotic system.
In case you missd it
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. "Chaos" is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Texas.
Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate. It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic. This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, anthropology, sociology, physics, environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, and self-assembly processes.
"Antarctica is melting at a more terrifying rate than anyone expected"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/speedread...
So says a study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Of course the "professors" on here will have quickly conducted their own study to contradict this and be publishing it right here on this thread in the next few hours in the form of a summary post.
CO2 is back with a bang.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/speedread...
So says a study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Of course the "professors" on here will have quickly conducted their own study to contradict this and be publishing it right here on this thread in the next few hours in the form of a summary post.
CO2 is back with a bang.
Edited by gadgetmac on Tuesday 15th January 10:25
gadgetmac said:
"Antarctica is melting at a more terrifying rate than anyone expected"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/speedread...
So says a study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Of course the "professors" on here will have quickly conducted their own study to contradict this and be publishing it right here on this thread in the next few hours in the form of a summary post.
CO2 is back with a bang.
I'm not terrified. Who is though ? I also note the use of the guessing word 'expected'https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/speedread...
So says a study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Of course the "professors" on here will have quickly conducted their own study to contradict this and be publishing it right here on this thread in the next few hours in the form of a summary post.
CO2 is back with a bang.
Edited by gadgetmac on Tuesday 15th January 10:25
PS. The last paragraph of that report. Fictious reasons there one notes.
"Monday's publication yet again displays the dangers of warming ocean waters, an issue that largely stems from human-made climate change. Beyond the devastation that rising sea levels bring, warming temperatures also produce more extreme storms, droughts, and wildfires. Read more at The Washington Post. Kathryn Krawczyk"
Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 15th January 10:44
Re wildfires caused by CC
California Power Company to File for Bankruptcy Over Wildfire Liabilities
https://www.voanews.com/a/california-power-company...
California's largest power company is declaring bankruptcy as it faces billions of dollars in liabilities linked to catastrophic wildfires over the past two years.
Pacific Gas and Electric made its announcement Monday, a day after the resignation of company chief executive Geisha Williams.
U.S. officials are investigating whether equipment from the power company sparked the November wildfire in northern California that led to the deaths of 86 people — the deadliest and most destructive blaze in California history. Investigators have also blamed the power company for wildfires in October 2017.
PG&E officials say liabilities from the fires could potentially reach $30 billion.
The company said Monday that declaring insolvency is "ultimately the only viable option to restore PG&E's financial stability to fund ongoing operations and provide safe service to customers."......continues
California Power Company to File for Bankruptcy Over Wildfire Liabilities
https://www.voanews.com/a/california-power-company...
California's largest power company is declaring bankruptcy as it faces billions of dollars in liabilities linked to catastrophic wildfires over the past two years.
Pacific Gas and Electric made its announcement Monday, a day after the resignation of company chief executive Geisha Williams.
U.S. officials are investigating whether equipment from the power company sparked the November wildfire in northern California that led to the deaths of 86 people — the deadliest and most destructive blaze in California history. Investigators have also blamed the power company for wildfires in October 2017.
PG&E officials say liabilities from the fires could potentially reach $30 billion.
The company said Monday that declaring insolvency is "ultimately the only viable option to restore PG&E's financial stability to fund ongoing operations and provide safe service to customers."......continues
deeps said:
TB, what do you make of this comment from that article, maybe one for the science thread but really I think it's relevant here...
He's the messiah alright...Commenter said:
“There must be something within the theory itself that can be disproved.”
While climate change itself can’t be falsified, significant climate change arising from CO2 emissions can be falsified in many ways since all the prognostications of doom are based on a range of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity that itself can be falsified in multiple ways.
Consider the lower limit of 0.4C per W/m^2 which requires surface emissions to increase by 2.2 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing. Even the IPCC acknowledges that if the ECS is less than this, no action against CO2 emissions are necessary and in fact, it was this threshold that set the presumed lower limit in the first place.
Since all solar Joules are equivalent, the atmosphere has no internal source of power and any power in excess of solar forcing returned to the surface making it warmer than it would be otherwise must have originated from the surface sometime in the past. This limits the total amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere to the total amount of energy emitted by the surface.
The atmosphere is semi-transparent where the radiant emissions at TOA are always more than half of the radiant BB emissions of the surface below and this is true even when the coldest cloud tops cover the surface. If the emissions at TOA were as little as 1/2 of the surface emissions below, the maximum possible surface emissions increase per W/m^2 of forcing would be 2 W/m^2 which is already less than the 2.2 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing required to support the IPCC’s minimum ECS.
Since all Joules are equivalent, if each of the 240 W/m^2 of solar forcing resulted in 2.2 W/m^2 of surface emissions, the average surface emissions would be 528 W/m^2 corresponding to an average surface temperature of 311K, which is obviously much too large. Confusion arises as the IPCC considers CO2 to be a forcing influence on its own when in fact, only the Sun forces the system and by their accounting, doubling CO2 is EQUIVALENT to about 3.7 W/m^2 more solar forcing keeping CO2 concentrations constant.
Don’t be confused by claims that the system is more complicated than I say. It’s not and claims that it is are only made to misdirect you away from a simple and otherwise unavoidable truth. Any legitimate scientist knows that there’s no law of physics that can override COE or the SB Law, relative to matter absorbing and emitting energy, yet the IPCC requires some kind of unknown and implausible physics to support their position. Any legitimate scientist knows that Joules are Joules and that the planet has no way to distinguish incremental Joules such that the next W/m^2 of forcing can increase surface emissions between 2.2 and 8.6 W/m^2, while all the others only contribute 1.6 W/m^2 to those emissions, yet the IPCC requires the next Joules to be far more powerful at warming the surface than any of the others, even at the presumed minimum ECS.
Don’t be fooled by the fools. The nebulous excess complexity they assert is only there so that they can obfuscate these obvious violations of first principles physics. Challenge alarmists on this unavoidable truth and don’t let them get away with their BS.
While climate change itself can’t be falsified, significant climate change arising from CO2 emissions can be falsified in many ways since all the prognostications of doom are based on a range of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity that itself can be falsified in multiple ways.
Consider the lower limit of 0.4C per W/m^2 which requires surface emissions to increase by 2.2 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing. Even the IPCC acknowledges that if the ECS is less than this, no action against CO2 emissions are necessary and in fact, it was this threshold that set the presumed lower limit in the first place.
Since all solar Joules are equivalent, the atmosphere has no internal source of power and any power in excess of solar forcing returned to the surface making it warmer than it would be otherwise must have originated from the surface sometime in the past. This limits the total amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere to the total amount of energy emitted by the surface.
The atmosphere is semi-transparent where the radiant emissions at TOA are always more than half of the radiant BB emissions of the surface below and this is true even when the coldest cloud tops cover the surface. If the emissions at TOA were as little as 1/2 of the surface emissions below, the maximum possible surface emissions increase per W/m^2 of forcing would be 2 W/m^2 which is already less than the 2.2 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing required to support the IPCC’s minimum ECS.
Since all Joules are equivalent, if each of the 240 W/m^2 of solar forcing resulted in 2.2 W/m^2 of surface emissions, the average surface emissions would be 528 W/m^2 corresponding to an average surface temperature of 311K, which is obviously much too large. Confusion arises as the IPCC considers CO2 to be a forcing influence on its own when in fact, only the Sun forces the system and by their accounting, doubling CO2 is EQUIVALENT to about 3.7 W/m^2 more solar forcing keeping CO2 concentrations constant.
Don’t be confused by claims that the system is more complicated than I say. It’s not and claims that it is are only made to misdirect you away from a simple and otherwise unavoidable truth. Any legitimate scientist knows that there’s no law of physics that can override COE or the SB Law, relative to matter absorbing and emitting energy, yet the IPCC requires some kind of unknown and implausible physics to support their position. Any legitimate scientist knows that Joules are Joules and that the planet has no way to distinguish incremental Joules such that the next W/m^2 of forcing can increase surface emissions between 2.2 and 8.6 W/m^2, while all the others only contribute 1.6 W/m^2 to those emissions, yet the IPCC requires the next Joules to be far more powerful at warming the surface than any of the others, even at the presumed minimum ECS.
Don’t be fooled by the fools. The nebulous excess complexity they assert is only there so that they can obfuscate these obvious violations of first principles physics. Challenge alarmists on this unavoidable truth and don’t let them get away with their BS.
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
I'm not terrified. Who is though ? I also note the use of the guessing word 'expected'
PS. The last paragraph of that report. Fictious reasons there one notes.
"Monday's publication yet again displays the dangers of warming ocean waters, an issue that largely stems from human-made climate change. Beyond the devastation that rising sea levels bring, warming temperatures also produce more extreme storms, droughts, and wildfires. Read more at The Washington Post. Kathryn Krawczyk"
"Fictious"PS. The last paragraph of that report. Fictious reasons there one notes.
"Monday's publication yet again displays the dangers of warming ocean waters, an issue that largely stems from human-made climate change. Beyond the devastation that rising sea levels bring, warming temperatures also produce more extreme storms, droughts, and wildfires. Read more at The Washington Post. Kathryn Krawczyk"
Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 15th January 10:44
Careful, our resident
El stovey said:
gadgetmac said:
And yet when they call a particular scientist a "liar" and are given the contact email address to write and tell him he's a liar with their reasons why they definitely WON'T be contacting him.
Laughable.
Isn’t it defamation to say x is a liar especially if it’s about some research or whatever he’s doing, on a public forum? Seems very unwise to then be telling posters to email him and tell him. Each to their own though. Laughable.
t issued by officialdom as evidenced by mann vs steyn. From agw supporters' favourite journalist/media combination, doubling the opportunitites for shooting messengers 
There's a convenient link to an archive with what's claimed to be The Independent's most downloaded article (David Viner) though I haven't tried it out as I have a copy already
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/01/12/myster...
There's a convenient link to an archive with what's claimed to be The Independent's most downloaded article (David Viner) though I haven't tried it out as I have a copy already
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/01/12/myster...
gadgetmac said:
"Antarctica is melting at a more terrifying rate than anyone expected"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/speedread...
So says a study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Of course the "professors" on here will have quickly conducted their own study to contradict this and be publishing it right here on this thread in the next few hours in the form of a summary post.
CO2 is back with a bang.
you mean all the ice is going to melt like the arctic . . . . . oh wait https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/speedread...
So says a study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Of course the "professors" on here will have quickly conducted their own study to contradict this and be publishing it right here on this thread in the next few hours in the form of a summary post.
CO2 is back with a bang.
Edited by gadgetmac on Tuesday 15th January 10:25
robinessex said:
Re wildfires caused by CC
California Power Company to File for Bankruptcy Over Wildfire Liabilities
https://www.voanews.com/a/california-power-company...
California's largest power company is declaring bankruptcy as it faces billions of dollars in liabilities linked to catastrophic wildfires over the past two years.
Pacific Gas and Electric made its announcement Monday, a day after the resignation of company chief executive Geisha Williams.
U.S. officials are investigating whether equipment from the power company sparked the November wildfire in northern California that led to the deaths of 86 people — the deadliest and most destructive blaze in California history. Investigators have also blamed the power company for wildfires in October 2017.
PG&E officials say liabilities from the fires could potentially reach $30 billion.
The company said Monday that declaring insolvency is "ultimately the only viable option to restore PG&E's financial stability to fund ongoing operations and provide safe service to customers."......continues
there is no end to the power of magic tax gas. it can manipulate companies into avoiding their responsibilities now. it hasn't been on holiday after all, it has been infiltrating californian energy providers California Power Company to File for Bankruptcy Over Wildfire Liabilities
https://www.voanews.com/a/california-power-company...
California's largest power company is declaring bankruptcy as it faces billions of dollars in liabilities linked to catastrophic wildfires over the past two years.
Pacific Gas and Electric made its announcement Monday, a day after the resignation of company chief executive Geisha Williams.
U.S. officials are investigating whether equipment from the power company sparked the November wildfire in northern California that led to the deaths of 86 people — the deadliest and most destructive blaze in California history. Investigators have also blamed the power company for wildfires in October 2017.
PG&E officials say liabilities from the fires could potentially reach $30 billion.
The company said Monday that declaring insolvency is "ultimately the only viable option to restore PG&E's financial stability to fund ongoing operations and provide safe service to customers."......continues
edited for speeling mistake just in case.
Edited by wc98 on Tuesday 15th January 13:23
gadgetmac said:
So you won't be giving him your revelatory insight into his reports shortcomings.
Thought not.
Quick to call him a liar though...not incompetent, but an actual liar.
Internet warriors eh?
the liar call is based on the fact he is a highly intelligent man that i have conversed with previously. it's no revelation ,just a sound assumption anyone that actually read beyond the soundbites would make,ie not propaganda parrots.Thought not.
Quick to call him a liar though...not incompetent, but an actual liar.
Internet warriors eh?
internet warrior ? height of hypocrisy coming from you on this topic. gadgetmac, saviour of climate science integrity on the internet. well you might be if it had any integrity in the first place.
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
Not much. What baseline would you like them to use and what difference would it make?
Really? I mean, you are not just trying to be sarcastic here right? You actually can not see the issue?
Jinx said:
durbster said:
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-glob...
But that was a few years ago, and what do they know eh. Appeal to authority, right.
Meanwhile, I wonder how the most recent satellite data looks.
http://www.remss.com/blog/lower-tropospheric-tempe...
Oh, it supports AGW.
Actually it supports the concept of warming - irrespective of cause.But that was a few years ago, and what do they know eh. Appeal to authority, right.
Meanwhile, I wonder how the most recent satellite data looks.
http://www.remss.com/blog/lower-tropospheric-tempe...
Oh, it supports AGW.
). But surely you agree that this temperature data - like the other temperature data - is supportive of AGW?turbobloke said:
durbster said:
Meanwhile, I wonder how the most recent satellite data looks.
There has been significant external pressure on satellite datasets for years.
freecar said:
... added nothing to the debate and was content with just repeating the same diatribe over and over and it was pointless. Clearly an attempt at killing the thread with noise.
That's pretty much all they do, a daily barrage of snide comments to which the others in the pack then feed from.I never knew Loony, but it's difficult to imagine he was worse than the current pack, I'll take your word for it though.
durbster said:
Erm, of course the data doesn't attribute cause (how could it ). But surely you agree that this temperature data - like the other temperature data - is supportive of AGW?
In a nutshell no. Put the years back in order and compare with CO2 concentrations and there is no correlation. No correlation = no first order causation. The temperature data shows the El Nino step changes and without a causative link to El Nino's (sunlight hours/lack of clouds yes - CO2 no) then there is no AGW finger print in the data.). But surely you agree that this temperature data - like the other temperature data - is supportive of AGW?robinessex said:
In case you missd it
Hard to miss it when you've copied and pasted the same bit of wikipedia about 20 times. I've explained your misconception but you don't understand it and you're never going to understand it because you're convinced you're right. It's the problem with this thread in a nutshell. The statement I was laughing at was "You’ve been told many times you can’t mathematically represent a chaotic system". Any physicist knows this statement is ridiculous.
You've decided that a huge number of scientists who are experts in their field are wasting their time and/or lying to you based on a fundamental misconception. This feeling is reinforced because you look around and various other people have the same or similar misconception to you. Or pretend to for propaganda purposes.
Why not read some stuff that's not a blog?
hairykrishna said:
robinessex said:
In case you missd it
Hard to miss it when you've copied and pasted the same bit of wikipedia about 20 times. I've explained your misconception but you don't understand it and you're never going to understand it because you're convinced you're right. It's the problem with this thread in a nutshell. The statement I was laughing at was "You’ve been told many times you can’t mathematically represent a chaotic system". Any physicist knows this statement is ridiculous.
You've decided that a huge number of scientists who are experts in their field are wasting their time and/or lying to you based on a fundamental misconception. This feeling is reinforced because you look around and various other people have the same or similar misconception to you. Or pretend to for propaganda purposes.
Why not read some stuff that's not a blog?
2. Complex system that shows sensitivity to initial conditions, such as an economy, a stockmarket, or weather. In such systems any uncertainty (no matter how small) in the beginning will produce rapidly escalating and compounding errors in the prediction of the system's future behavior. To make an accurate prediction of long-term behavior of such systems, the initial conditions must be known in their entirety and to an infinite level of accuracy. In other words, it is impossible to predict the future behavior of any complex (chaotic) system.
Any chance you can give me tonight’s winning lottery numbers then. And the weather on Xmas day this year.
Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 15th January 15:34
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff