Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
durbster said:
robinessex said:
durbster said:
You missed the point. The oceans are a "chaotic system", agreed?
Typical Durbster swerve. You got it catastrophically WRONG, and now trying to wriggle out.Edited by durbster on Friday 18th January 21:09
robinessex said:
durbster said:
Speaking of wriggling out of things, I'll ask you for the third time: do you agree the oceans are a chaotic system?
Chaotic is what aspect? What chaotic behavour are you asking about?durbster said:
robinessex said:
durbster said:
Speaking of wriggling out of things, I'll ask you for the third time: do you agree the oceans are a chaotic system?
Chaotic is what aspect? What chaotic behavour are you asking about?hairykrishna said:
robinessex said:
Are you serious? The tides are caused by the moon, which, when I last checked, was pretty regular in it circumnavigation of our planet. Even my grandkids know that. Says a lot about your (lack of) knowledge, doesn’t it ?
Obviously his point was that we can predict the general response of a highly chaotic system (the oceans) to external forcings. I wonder what else this could be relevant to?Unfortunately it's you showing your ignorance and lack of understanding of things you cut and paste because the moons orbit is also chaotic. It just has a very long Lyapunov time.
Then again the IPCC and their fellow travellers get things badly wrong on decadal timescales which is more pertinent - there are initial value and boundary value issues to cope with in the planet's atmosphere and our choatic non-linear coupled climate system.
See (below) what the score is said to be, given given a perfect model
and near perfect knowledge of the initial conditions The first chortle is obvious while the second is due to the fact that models are 'spun up' for a run to check for sufficient stability, such that the initial model run conditions after the spin-up don't relate to the actual initial climate conditions at the time of the run. As agw supporters will know this, no source is needed, but anyone can check it out for themselves. One potential source has been mentioned in the Aay to Zee of this and other climate threads at least a couple of times.Readers may appreciate 'some lead time' and may note the weasel words at the end of the abstract, suspiciously like something needed to pass gatekeeping/peer review in this arena, though it's barely worth the effort.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-0...
Link said:
The study therefore represents an estimate of the upper limit of the predictability of climate (appropriate to the initial value problem) given a perfect model and near perfect knowledge of the initial conditions. It is found that, on average, surface air temperature anomalies are potentially predictable on seasonal to interannual time scales in the tropical regions and are potentially predictable on decadal time scales over the ocean in the North Atlantic. For mid-latitude surface air temperature anomalies over land, model trajectories rapidly diverge and there is little sign of any potential predictability on time scales greater than a season or so.
Would you add anything, Lyapunov-ish or otherwise, regarding Earth's atmosphere and the point that weather forecasts get decidedly hinky (non-scientific term) at and beyond 5 days, while there are conditions that give significant uncertainty from one day to the next?robinessex said:
On predicting planetary orbits
A number of studies have shown that the inner solar system is chaotic, with a Lyapunov time scale of about 5 million years. This 5 million year time scale means that while one can somewhat reasonably create a planetary ephemeris (a time-based catalog of where the planets were / will be) that spans from 10 million years into the past to 10 million years into the future, going beyond that by much is essentially impossible. At a hundred million years, the position of a planet on its orbit becomes complete garbage, meaning that the uncertainties in the planetary positions exceed the orbital radii.
I think being able to predict the moons trajectory for the next 10,000,000 years is good enough to bat out chaotic behaviour for all practicable purposes.
You probably shouldn't plagarise stack exchange comments to cover for your own ignorance.A number of studies have shown that the inner solar system is chaotic, with a Lyapunov time scale of about 5 million years. This 5 million year time scale means that while one can somewhat reasonably create a planetary ephemeris (a time-based catalog of where the planets were / will be) that spans from 10 million years into the past to 10 million years into the future, going beyond that by much is essentially impossible. At a hundred million years, the position of a planet on its orbit becomes complete garbage, meaning that the uncertainties in the planetary positions exceed the orbital radii.
I think being able to predict the moons trajectory for the next 10,000,000 years is good enough to bat out chaotic behaviour for all practicable purposes.
You keep insisting that the climate is chaotic so predictions of it are nonsense yet now you've acknowledged two systems, the moons orbits and ocean currents, where useful predictions of future behaviour can be made even though they are chaotic.
hairykrishna said:
robinessex said:
On predicting planetary orbits
A number of studies have shown that the inner solar system is chaotic, with a Lyapunov time scale of about 5 million years. This 5 million year time scale means that while one can somewhat reasonably create a planetary ephemeris (a time-based catalog of where the planets were / will be) that spans from 10 million years into the past to 10 million years into the future, going beyond that by much is essentially impossible. At a hundred million years, the position of a planet on its orbit becomes complete garbage, meaning that the uncertainties in the planetary positions exceed the orbital radii.
I think being able to predict the moons trajectory for the next 10,000,000 years is good enough to bat out chaotic behaviour for all practicable purposes.
You probably shouldn't plagarise stack exchange comments to cover for your own ignorance.A number of studies have shown that the inner solar system is chaotic, with a Lyapunov time scale of about 5 million years. This 5 million year time scale means that while one can somewhat reasonably create a planetary ephemeris (a time-based catalog of where the planets were / will be) that spans from 10 million years into the past to 10 million years into the future, going beyond that by much is essentially impossible. At a hundred million years, the position of a planet on its orbit becomes complete garbage, meaning that the uncertainties in the planetary positions exceed the orbital radii.
I think being able to predict the moons trajectory for the next 10,000,000 years is good enough to bat out chaotic behaviour for all practicable purposes.
You keep insisting that the climate is chaotic so predictions of it are nonsense yet now you've acknowledged two systems, the moons orbits and ocean currents, where useful predictions of future behaviour can be made even though they are chaotic.
turbobloke said:
zygalski said:
gadgetmac said:
You need to start putting your sources in.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/22/weather-station-data-raw-or-adjusted/Straight from 'Spam's favourite right wing blog site WUWT.
The above WUWT nonsense arises from your own standard failure to understand and cope with secondary and primary sources.
The primary source I used is (and was, the last two or three times this attrition loop has been looped) Dr Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph.
https://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.ht...
It's such common knowledge that any respectable agw supporter should either know it by now or remember it from the last loop. McKitrick's uni webpage above gives more details.
Good to see the Svalbard glacier propaganda bust going down so well.
Meanwhile...from Dr Ian Plimer (primary source) via The Australian and GWPF (secondary sources):
It is often claimed that 97 per cent of scientists conclude that humans are causing global warming. Is that really true? No. It is a zombie statistic.
97% of Scientists Agree on Nothing
https://www.thegwpf.com/ian-plimer-97-of-scientist...
Blowing apart the nonconsensus said:
The 97 per cent figure derives from a survey sent to 10,257 people with a self-interest in human-induced global warming who published “science” supported by taxpayer-funded research grants. Replies from 3146 respondents were whittled down to 77 self-appointed climate “scientists” of whom 75 were judged to agree that human-induced warming was taking place. The 97 per cent figure derives from a tribe with only 75 members. What were the criteria for rejecting 3069 respondents? There was no mention that 75 out of 3146 is 2.38 per cent. We did not hear that 2.38 per cent of climate scientists with a self-interest agreed that humans have played a significant role in changing climate and that they are recipients of some of the billions spent annually on climate research.
More about the nonconsensus said:
Another recent paper on the scientific consensus of human-induced climate change was a howler. Such papers can be published only in the sociology or environmental literature. The paper claimed that published scientific papers showed there was a 97.1 per cent consensus that man had caused at least half of the 0.7C global warming since 1950. How was this 97.1 per cent figure determined? By “inspection” of 11,944 published papers. Inspection is not rigorous scholarship. There was no critical reading and understanding derived from reading 11,944 papers. This was not possible as the study started in March 2012 and was published in mid-2013, hence only a cursory inspection was possible. What was inspected? By whom? The methodology section of the publication gives the game away...conceived as a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the Skeptical Science website.
. . .
As part of a scathing critical analysis of this paper by real scientists, the original 11,944 papers were read and the readers came to a diametrically opposite conclusion. Of the 11,944 papers, only 41 explicitly stated that humans caused most of the warming since 1950 (0.3 per cent). Of the 11,944 climate “science” papers, 99.7 per cent did not say that carbon dioxide caused most of the global warming since 1950. It was less than 1 per cent and not one paper endorsed a man-made global warming catastrophe.
. . .
As part of a scathing critical analysis of this paper by real scientists, the original 11,944 papers were read and the readers came to a diametrically opposite conclusion. Of the 11,944 papers, only 41 explicitly stated that humans caused most of the warming since 1950 (0.3 per cent). Of the 11,944 climate “science” papers, 99.7 per cent did not say that carbon dioxide caused most of the global warming since 1950. It was less than 1 per cent and not one paper endorsed a man-made global warming catastrophe.
Doesn’t it bother you that you are hemmed in on all sides to choosing from a select few sources???
Looney had a list of the deniers sources on here and you never seem to deviate from it. Every name thats linked to by deniers was and still is on it as they are reposted ad infinitum.
Why not one Scientific Institute from around the globe.
As for the 97% it seems to me obvious that the papers you quote disputing it originate from the 3% ie Dr Ian Plimmer
He who was humbled on Aussie TV and is a fav of, yes you’ve guessed it, the GWPF Yet a f
king again.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonb...
Most attrition loops on here start and end with your quoting of these types of source.
You’ll do it again tomorrow and the next day and the next.
Is the climate system “stable” / “in a singular natural equilibrium state” with no additional carbon dioxide?
The answer is clearly 'No' given that there has been far more carbon dioxide than now for millions of years in the past and...
The answer is clearly 'No' given that there has been far more carbon dioxide than now for millions of years in the past and...
Rial et al in Nonlinearities Feedbacks and Critical Thresholds within the Earth Climate System said:
The Earth’s climate system is highly nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not proportional, change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and multiple equilibria are the norm.
alsoTattersall said:
Ever since Darwin’s day, everyone has agreed that shifting - sometimes dramatically shifting - climates have marked features of Earth’s history and have also been major determinants of the evolutionary patterns we see in the fossil record. Certainly the period during which the human family, Hominidae, has been around has witnessed huge oscillations in environmental circumstances all over the globe.
The notion of stabilising climate by micromanaging carbon dioxide emissions via taxation is bunky junk of the highest order, and that's said in the presence of serious competition e.g. 'trapped heat' in an open (energy) system...mass exchange as found i.e. relatively minor is another matter - even so that's practical not theoretical and for energy transfers open is open.robinessex said:
durbster said:
You keep stating the atmosphere is a "chaotic system". I am asking you whether the oceans are also a chaotic system, according to your definition.
The oceans are basically a chaotic system. However some of the ocean flows are pretty well fixed, just that they wander around a bit. For example, the Gulf streams flow from the Gulf of Mexico/West indies up across the Atlantic towards the UK. However, it’s more precise attributes, direction speed and intensity does vary virtually at random as it is chaotic based. If you stuff ocean currents into Google, and look at images, you’ll see the paths of them. But as I said, it’s only a general directing, they do wobble about chaotically about their nominal flow parameters.Now, your repeated assertions:
robinessex said:
...I said Chaotic system can't be predicted.
robinessex said:
...What you can't do is predict the future of a chaotic system.
robinessex said:
... The whole conclusion is based on useless climate models that are trying to predict/mimic a chaotic system. bks. You’ve been told many times you can’t mathematically represent a chaotic system. Talk about head in the sand! And the inevitable projections of course! Surprised they never tossed a coin as well. The wheels have just fell off your bandwagon.
Therefore, by your rules it's impossible to predict the tides, ocean currents, sea levels, and it's impossible to know what will happen if you apply additional forces e.g. gravity, pollution, temperature changes, ice melt etc.ks. You’ve been told many times you can’t mathematically represent a chaotic system. Talk about head in the sand! And the inevitable projections of course! Surprised they never tossed a coin as well. The wheels have just fell off your bandwagon.Is that correct?
Your problem seems to be you can't sort out in Chaotic systems what happens over different times scales. The oceans tides are caused by the moon, it's chaotic orbit happens over an enormous time scale so tides are predictable. The day to day small variations/deviations in the planets current flow(s) is chaotic, and varies over a very short time scale, so is unpredictable. Engineers often call this noise in system(s). Go look at the maths.
robinessex said:
Your problem seems to be you can't sort out in Chaotic systems what happens over different times scales. The oceans tides are caused by the moon, it's chaotic orbit happens over an enormous time scale so tides are predictable. The day to day small variations/deviations in the planets current flow(s) is chaotic, and varies over a very short time scale, so is unpredictable. Engineers often call this noise in system(s). Go look at the maths.
Explain to me how you think you have stumbled upon this earth shattering flaw in Global Warming research whilst thousands of highly qualified Scientists and Scientific Institutions have not.gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Your problem seems to be you can't sort out in Chaotic systems what happens over different times scales. The oceans tides are caused by the moon, it's chaotic orbit happens over an enormous time scale so tides are predictable. The day to day small variations/deviations in the planets current flow(s) is chaotic, and varies over a very short time scale, so is unpredictable. Engineers often call this noise in system(s). Go look at the maths.
Explain to me how you think you have stumbled upon this earth shattering flaw in Global Warming research whilst thousands of highly qualified Scientists and Scientific Institutions have not.ks.robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Your problem seems to be you can't sort out in Chaotic systems what happens over different times scales. The oceans tides are caused by the moon, it's chaotic orbit happens over an enormous time scale so tides are predictable. The day to day small variations/deviations in the planets current flow(s) is chaotic, and varies over a very short time scale, so is unpredictable. Engineers often call this noise in system(s). Go look at the maths.
Explain to me how you think you have stumbled upon this earth shattering flaw in Global Warming research whilst thousands of highly qualified Scientists and Scientific Institutions have not.ks.Are you actually still a stressman?
Decisions, decisions, some are more tricky than others, not least the choice of 'Wackiest Silliest Climate Bill Hooks of 2018' as in GWPF's compeition, where there was an incredibly rich vein of daftness to tap into, but there is a winner.
https://www.thegwpf.com/we-have-a-winner-climates-...
More peachy dreck can be laughed at via the above link.
https://www.thegwpf.com/we-have-a-winner-climates-...
Decision said:
...the unanimous decision of the judges was that the tallest climate tale of the year was Mark Prigg’s bizarre suggestion, for Mail Online, that ‘Climate change is causing blue whales to sing louder as they struggle to be heard over breaking sea ice'...
Super. More peachy dreck can be laughed at via the above link.
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Your problem seems to be you can't sort out in Chaotic systems what happens over different times scales. The oceans tides are caused by the moon, it's chaotic orbit happens over an enormous time scale so tides are predictable. The day to day small variations/deviations in the planets current flow(s) is chaotic, and varies over a very short time scale, so is unpredictable. Engineers often call this noise in system(s). Go look at the maths.
Explain to me how you think you have stumbled upon this earth shattering flaw in Global Warming research whilst thousands of highly qualified Scientists and Scientific Institutions have not.ks.Are you actually still a stressman?
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
see below one of the first structures I ever used a Finite Element programme for.
Looks cool.Was that for allowing turbobloke to receive and share GWPF transmissions and other propaganda in the cult HQ, before click and paste came about?
P.S. Ever flown an A350 ?
With regard to the Wacky Climate Story comp for 2018, where the misplaced headline about agw causing the size of men's equipment to shrink must have been a close second, there's already a prime candidate for 2019.
Apparently,. in a paper that managed to get published in Science Advances, some researchers warn about the not-actually-coffee situation and advise beefing up existing conservation plans because seed storage for plants not used to make coffee would be too costly as a result of the liquid nitrogen needed.
Meanwhile, as adjustments to the global near-surface temperature database increase, what's happening to actual coffee production?
Belinda Smith and Nick Kilvert for ABC Australia said:
Most coffee species at risk of extinction due to climate change, scientists warn
“Grab a latte while you still can”Apparently,. in a paper that managed to get published in Science Advances, some researchers warn about the not-actually-coffee situation and advise beefing up existing conservation plans because seed storage for plants not used to make coffee would be too costly as a result of the liquid nitrogen needed.
Timely comment from Jo Nova said:
In full, the true catastrophe is that if the models that are always wrong get something right, some wild coffee relatives, but not actual coffee crop plants, might go extinct. We don’t use them for coffee but you never know, we might one day use them as breeding stock. It’s that serious. And we can’t save the seeds because apparently liquid nitrogen is too expensive.
The claim about seed storage and expensive liquid N2 is pure manure, in parts of the world where seeds could be stored, bulk liquid nitrogen is cheaper than bottled mineral water at a claimed 1 dollar 5 cents USA per gallon (just remember not to order in Dewars). Health warming: branded products are more expensive on Amazon Meanwhile, as adjustments to the global near-surface temperature database increase, what's happening to actual coffee production?
turbobloke said:
Decisions, decisions, some are more tricky than others, not least the choice of 'Wackiest Silliest Climate Bill Hooks of 2018' as in GWPF's compeition, where there was an incredibly rich vein of daftness to tap into, but there is a winner.
https://www.thegwpf.com/we-have-a-winner-climates-...
More peachy dreck can be laughed at via the above link.
I see you got your weekly copy of Cult Comics through the letterbox this morning.https://www.thegwpf.com/we-have-a-winner-climates-...
Decision said:
...the unanimous decision of the judges was that the tallest climate tale of the year was Mark Prigg’s bizarre suggestion, for Mail Online, that ‘Climate change is causing blue whales to sing louder as they struggle to be heard over breaking sea ice'...
Super. More peachy dreck can be laughed at via the above link.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff