Talk-Polywell.org

I still think this is the best title. It doesn't lean either way.

Now let's try this again, this time we'll stick to the science, OK?

A majority of the climate geophysicists working in the field today have written a report for the United Nations IPCC, stating that:
a) The climate is getting warmer.
b) CO2 is going up.
c) a is the result of b.
d) Human burning of fossil fuel and deforestation is causing b.
e) The certainty of these four assertions is 95%, enough in court to convict a murderer "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I am prepared to present evidence confirming all five of these facts, in exhaustive detail. Is there anyone here who thinks they can successfully deny it? And let's try, as I said, to stick to the science this time.

Since I have no idea why anyone would not, errr, "believe in" climate change, aka global warming, I can't predict what arguments you might bring. Therefore this seems to me the only way to start. If someone finds this insulting please tell me why; it seems like nothing but the facts to me.

Have you actually bothered to READ IPCC AR5. There seems to be a problem with (a) in the latest IPCC report.

Schneibster wrote:I still think this is the best title. It doesn't lean either way.

Now let's try this again, this time we'll stick to the science, OK?

A majority of the climate geophysicists working in the field today have written a report for the United Nations IPCC, stating that:
a) The climate is getting warmer.
b) CO2 is going up.
c) a is the result of b.
d) Human burning of fossil fuel and deforestation is causing b.
e) The certainty of these four assertions is 95%, enough in court to convict a murderer "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I am prepared to present evidence confirming all five of these facts, in exhaustive detail. Is there anyone here who thinks they can successfully deny it? And let's try, as I said, to stick to the science this time.

Since I have no idea why anyone would not, errr, "believe in" climate change, aka global warming, I can't predict what arguments you might bring. Therefore this seems to me the only way to start. If someone finds this insulting please tell me why; it seems like nothing but the facts to me.

Houston, we have a problem:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... -emissions
The models are not tracking properly. They never have.

Jccarlton wrote:Have you actually bothered to READ IPCC AR5. There seems to be a problem with (a) in the latest IPCC report.

Climate is not weather.

How often have you been told that?

Furthermore, your "proof" it's "cooling off" is cherry-picked. In fact, this is the hottest decade on record. http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/23/gl ... -on-record

That's from last month.

For the more sophisticated, what's happening is:
1. ENSO oscillates from El Nińo mode, storing heat in the North, which is where all our sensors are and where most of the land is, so we see it heating up "fast," to La Nińa mode, storing heat in the South, which is mostly ocean. In fact, the ocean has been heating up the last few years while the land wasn't and so we think we see a hiatus (note: it's still getting warmer, just not as fast, it is by no means "cooling off") in warming; but really, we're still absorbing the same amount of heat, just into the ocean, not into the atmosphere.
2. Just when it went to La Nińa mode, it so happened (because ENSO is chaotic but only pseudo-random, with its likelihood of switching modes increasing the longer it stays in one mode, but the Solar Cycle is regular every 11 years) that we reached solar minimum. That was just a couple years ago. Now we're on the increase targeted for solar maximum in a few more years. Meanwhile, ENSO keeps sucking heat into the Southern Ocean and so we have a short while more in this hiatus; then, to make up for it, we can expect another sharp increase very fast, especially after solar maximum when there's the most heat available.

(I may have gotten El Nińo and La Nińa modes backwards; I know what it does in California, but it has higher effects one place and lower ones another, and it's spread all over the darn Pacific and halfway across the adjacent continents, high here and low over there, and it's therefore very easy to get them confused. I haven't talked about ENSO in quite a while; usually there's no audience for the more esoteric details. But I sense an audience here.)

Jccarlton wrote:Houston, we have a problem:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... -emissions
The models are not tracking properly. They never have.

That's strange, the models of submarine propellers, weather (weather!!!), galaxy formation after the Big Bang, plate tectonics, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and the ΛCDM Model of the universe all seem to be working fine. What's so special about climate? It's no more complex than those; certainly it's far less complex than either particle physics or plate tectonics. Not to mention, you know, the universe. I mean, dude, the universe. Are you seriously pretending the climate on Earth is "complex" compared to the universe???

Really?

Looks like someone made up some propaganda and you're repeating it to me.

ETA: Just let me mention the weather again. Weather forecasting has gone from today and maybe tomorrow, to this week, to this week and next week, since the 1960s. Know why? More and more sophisticated models. Guess where they came from?

That's right, sonny, they improved the weather forecasting models using facts they found out from climate models, and now they get ten day forecasts instead of two.

Go ahead and dis those models some more. Anybody who knows anything is laughing up their sleeve.

Schneibster wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Have you actually bothered to READ IPCC AR5. There seems to be a problem with (a) in the latest IPCC report.

Climate is not weather.

How often have you been told that?

Furthermore, your "proof" it's "cooling off" is cherry-picked. In fact, this is the hottest decade on record. http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/23/gl ... -on-record

That's from last month.

You said that you had gobs of scientific evidence, well where is it? And I didn't cherry pick anything, that 's the chart right out of the IPCC AR5 report, with guess what, the real average temps against the computer models showing much higher temps than have actually happened.

Jccarlton wrote:

Schneibster wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Have you actually bothered to READ IPCC AR5. There seems to be a problem with (a) in the latest IPCC report.

Climate is not weather.

How often have you been told that?

Furthermore, your "proof" it's "cooling off" is cherry-picked. In fact, this is the hottest decade on record. http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/23/gl ... -on-record

That's from last month.

You said that you had gobs of scientific evidence, well where is it? And I didn't cherry pick anything, that 's the chart right out of the IPCC AR5 report, with guess what, the real average temps against the computer models showing much higher temps than have actually happened.

Sorry you're having trouble understanding the term "average."

Be numerate. You're cheating. If you're not numerate enough to know why, you're not numerate enough to argue about geophysics. Stop playing games.

You're taking two years and pretending it's a meaningful data set. Two years isn't climate; it's weather.

And it's still the hottest decade on record. Noticed you never denied that, just tried to draw attention away from it. More dirty tricks from the climate cranks.

Schneibster wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Houston, we have a problem:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... -emissions
The models are not tracking properly. They never have.

That's strange, the models of submarine propellers, weather (weather!!!), galaxy formation after the Big Bang, plate tectonics, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and the ΛCDM Model of the universe all seem to be working fine. What's so special about climate? It's no more complex than those; certainly it's far less complex than either particle physics or plate tectonics. Not to mention, you know, the universe. I mean, dude, the universe. Are you seriously pretending the climate on Earth is "complex" compared to the universe???

Really?

Looks like someone made up some propaganda and you're repeating it to me.

ETA: Just let me mention the weather again. Weather forecasting has gone from today and maybe tomorrow, to this week, to this week and next week, since the 1960s. Know why? More and more sophisticated models. Guess where they came from?

That's right, sonny, they improved the weather forecasting models using facts they found out from climate models, and now they get ten day forecasts instead of two.

Go ahead and dis those models some more. Anybody who knows anything is laughing up their sleeve.

Which doesn't seem to include you. As for computer models, I've probably been there done that on machines so long ago you've never heard of them. Know what a VAX is? And in places where, yes we used computer models to do some incredible stuff. I've done optics with the people that design the optics that the big camera companies use to measure their optics, Physics with high energy physicists throwing beam down the tube, modeled helicopter engines for the army, designed cutting edge scientific instruments and been playing with science for the last 30 years or so. What's your experience? You haven't demonstrated any here.
As for climate models, I've looked at enough of the papers involved and the equations use to see the glitch that every model has and why they all have that runaway temperature. They tie CO2 to temperature and then use as a coefficient for temperature which causes a mathematical instability and a runaway, which can't happen in reality because temperature is an energy relation and energy relations have to balance. But then you believe what you believe and all you want to do is throw tantrums and personal attacks. You want to talk facts, well bring them in. If you just want to troll, find some friends that agree with you and have your little monkee poo throwing contests somewhere else.

Jccarlton wrote:

Schneibster wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Houston, we have a problem:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... -emissions
The models are not tracking properly. They never have.

That's strange, the models of submarine propellers, weather (weather!!!), galaxy formation after the Big Bang, plate tectonics, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and the ΛCDM Model of the universe all seem to be working fine. What's so special about climate? It's no more complex than those; certainly it's far less complex than either particle physics or plate tectonics. Not to mention, you know, the universe. I mean, dude, the universe. Are you seriously pretending the climate on Earth is "complex" compared to the universe???

Really?

Looks like someone made up some propaganda and you're repeating it to me.

ETA: Just let me mention the weather again. Weather forecasting has gone from today and maybe tomorrow, to this week, to this week and next week, since the 1960s. Know why? More and more sophisticated models. Guess where they came from?

That's right, sonny, they improved the weather forecasting models using facts they found out from climate models, and now they get ten day forecasts instead of two.

Go ahead and dis those models some more. Anybody who knows anything is laughing up their sleeve.

Which doesn't seem to include you.

Oh, yes, I'm laughing all right.

Jccarlton wrote:As for computer models, I've probably been there done that on machines so long ago you've never heard of them. Know what a VAX is?

Actually I have a DEC senior system admin certificate for VMS 4 and have programmed graphical database conversion on them. I also have a senior system admin certificate for SunOS 1.3.

They're also very, very old.

Meanwhile I have been working with virtual machine software, Xen and VMWare, and own several Linux boxes. Most of the software I've written has been server software, mostly for Internet servers, mostly three-tier systems backed by disk farms. Pretty much exclusively for the Fortune 1000, worldwide.

Sorry, I don't name names. This place is for amusement not business, otherwise I'd use my real name.

Jccarlton wrote:What's your experience? You haven't demonstrated any here.

Sigh.

We did the math thing earlier. Know any relativity math? Tell us all what lambda is.

Jccarlton wrote:As for climate models, I've looked at enough of the papers involved and the equations use to see the glitch that every model has and why they all have that runaway temperature. They tie CO2 to temperature and then use as a coefficient for temperature which causes a mathematical instability and a runaway, which can't happen in reality because temperature is an energy relation and energy relations have to balance.

Gobbledygook, and I have studied the Fortran source code, which is public or would be if your buddies hadn't shut down the government again for spite against the black President.

The fact you haven't done that tells me you don't want to know the truth. Fortran isn't very hard to understand. And it should be pretty familiar to an old hack like you claim to be. How come you didn't actually check the program source code?

Jccarlton wrote:But then you believe what you believe

No, that's a copout. I know what I know. You haven't even read the source code, and you don't. Simple as that. You're talking out your hat.

Jccarlton wrote:and all you want to do is throw tantrums and personal attacks.

Proving you're wrong isn't a "personal attack." Get over yourself.

Jccarlton wrote:You want to talk facts, well bring them in.

Right up there.

Jccarlton wrote:If you just want to troll, find some friends that agree with you and have your little monkee poo throwing contests somewhere else.

I'm gonna let this go once. The next one gets reported.

Typical climate crank, tries a lie and when it's rejected tosses out an insult and leaves.

This is actually worth demolishing:

Jccarlton wrote:As for climate models, I've looked at enough of the papers involved and the equations use to see the glitch that every model has and why they all have that runaway temperature. They tie CO2 to temperature and then use as a coefficient for temperature which causes a mathematical instability and a runaway, which can't happen in reality because temperature is an energy relation and energy relations have to balance.

What, exactly, in equations, does "tie CO2 to temperature" mean?

And what, in the English language please, does "And then use as a coefficient for temperature" mean? Did you mean to specify some quantity is being used as a coefficient for temperature? Surely you don't mean CO2; CO2 is not a coefficient, it's a gas. Do you even know what a "coefficient" is in the first place? Did you mean some other term?

What mathematical instability? What runaway? What are you talking about? A minority of geophysicists think there might be a possibility of more global warming gas released due to heating of the continental shelves decomposing methane hydrates collected there. Is this what you're referring to? I really can't tell from what you're writing. It's really unclear, and looks like obfuscation.

What does "temperature is an energy relation" mean? This is complete physics jargon generator material. Temperature is a function of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance surrounding a particular point at a particular time. Yes, it is increased with an increase in energy; but the relation is anything but linear, as your claim it has to be "balanced" requires. I don't think you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. You appear to be making sciency-sounding stuff up.

ETA: Sorry for the previous misspelling of your handle.

Pro Tip™: Read the source code always. Get charts if you can. Ask for the database normalization diagram. If they don't have one get a new job.

I'll be frank: I think most climate cranks are lying, deceived, or both. They are typical conspiracy theorists. This time the conspiracy is all the climate geophysicists.

It's kind of like saying that the tailors are all in a sekrit super-nefarious insidious collusion to take over the world, and they're all hiding it. After all, they clothe all the most important people!!!111!!one! They have enormous influence! Be afraid of the tailors!!!111!

Stop being silly. Thousands of climate geophysicists aren't faking their entire discipline. It's insane. People who think everyone's out to get them need medication, not encouragement.

You have obviously never hat to read some of the source code I've had to use. I still have nightmares in basic over some of it.

Schneibster wrote:Pro Tip™: Read the source code always. Get charts if you can. Ask for the database normalization diagram. If they don't have one get a new job.

Jccarlton wrote:You have obviously never hat to read some of the source code I've had to use. I still have nightmares in basic over some of it.

Schneibster wrote:Pro Tip™: Read the source code always. Get charts if you can. Ask for the database normalization diagram. If they don't have one get a new job.

Yeah but GCMIV isn't like that. They actually got congress to give them a bit of money for a code cleanup.

OTOH, the activity that produces the most bugs is optimization, and the next most are from code cleanup.

But I have to say it looks pretty clean. You can do it right if you care. Maybe coders at NASA care a bit more than commercial coders.

But the thing about it is, you also have to know the physics, because otherwise you can't tell what has to be in there. It's easy enough to say, well they got the atmospheric mixing thing right, and they got the scattering function for the IR off the CO2 molecules right, but you have to know the physics to say, no, they forgot to put in the correction for the average doppler effect on the average CO2 molecule and whether it does or does not pick up a photon of this moiety and what the scattering angle is when it's re-emitted.

So you have to know the physics, and be able to state them exhaustively, or else you can't check if the code is complete; you can only check if it's correct.

Thing is, we know all the physics. And we can prove it because we've confirmed the Standard Model at the LHC.

ETA: Seriously, some of the old stuff is spaghetti code. It's considerably cleaned up in version III and by now, version 5, it's much cleaner. If they discover modifications, or have to add new principles, it can be easily done and easily checked. Some actual software engineers joined up, not these jumped up Java technicians from barber colleges.