At this point kicking me off looks like a cowardly move.

[GIThruster]

At this point, kicking such a doughbag off T-P is mercy.

[JLawson]

Models are not reality. Even in electronics we consider a model good if it is within 5% and excellent if it comes in within 1%. And electronics is not nearly as complicated as climate. And electronics can be constrained.

That's the thing that's always made me question the AGW doomsayers - their utter and complete reliance on models to justify every single aspect of what they were proposing.

It'd be like someone riding a roller coaster being CERTAIN they were going to die of anoxia, because the initial slope of the coaster was up - and would totally continue because there was this CHAIN! And it was dragging them UP! And if it didn't stop, they were going to be above the atmosphere!

There was never a natural limit, there was never any possibility of negative feedback loops, or other processes that might alleviate the situation - they saw the whole system as two needles balanced point to point, and the slightest disturbance wrecking the entire setup sending it completely out of control...

[Schneibster]

S. has not even come close to that level of effort. But I do understand. It is the environment S. is used to.

I can adapt.

It's the conservatives that can't. They burn with hatred. I don't; AFAIC most people aren't very bright. It would be like blaming my cats.

You are without bias or hate. The perfect being. I'm in awe.

Well, without hate anyway-- at least where it doesn't touch me personally. I don't see any point in it. Certainly not for ethnic, national, religious, sexual, or "racial" groups; that's a real waste of time.

I consider it more a matter of what's wrong with you that you cannot imagine not having these kinds of hatred.

Like anyone I can be brought to hate an individual who has done me wrong; but hate Republicans, or conservatives, or Libertardians, or gays, or blacks, or whites, or Iranians, or Jews? No, sorry, I don't hate huge masses of people I've never met and never will.

I don't think anyone can claim to be free of bias. This is just you being silly.

[Schneibster]

Models are not reality.

They're all we're ever going to know of it.

Even in electronics we consider a model good if it is within 5% and excellent if it comes in within 1%. And electronics is not nearly as complicated as climate. And electronics can be constrained.

You don't know squat about chip foundries, do you?

Do you know what is involved in optical inspection? Are you aware it's almost entirely automated today? Are you aware that a 1% variation in the silane concentration can destroy a million dollars worth of chips in about ten seconds? You can't even turn it off, that ruins them too once they've been brought to processing temperature. And a 1% variation in the resistance of a VLSI can be the difference between it working and it melting, in the circuit.

The reason for 5% and 1% accuracies is not for our inability with models, but for coverage of the useful range. At 5% you need only eight or ten values to cover an order of magnitude; at 1% you need more like fifty. And for obvious reasons, 5% resistors cost a lot less; if you can use them, you should. So basically you've misunderstood an entire engineering discipline, and the reason for deliberate inaccuracy and limiting analysis to the first or second approximation.

I suggest you picked a pretty bad example, mostly because you don't actually understand it.

[Schneibster]

Models are not reality. Even in electronics we consider a model good if it is within 5% and excellent if it comes in within 1%. And electronics is not nearly as complicated as climate. And electronics can be constrained.

That's the thing that's always made me question the AGW doomsayers -

Who's a doomsayer? I predict the human race will survive and while the diversity of life may be restricted for a while it'll grow back.

[Schneibster]

their utter and complete reliance on models to justify every single aspect of what they were proposing.

You mean other than the climate history of the Earth, and understanding of the factors that made it that way.

I suppose, for example, that you can tell us the reason for the Cryogenian. Even a theory.

It'd be like someone riding a roller coaster being CERTAIN they were going to die of anoxia, because the initial slope of the coaster was up - and would totally continue because there was this CHAIN! And it was dragging them UP! And if it didn't stop, they were going to be above the atmosphere!

Straw man argument detected. Deflector shields engaged.

There was never a natural limit, there was never any possibility of negative feedback loops, or other processes that might alleviate the situation - they saw the whole system as two needles balanced point to point, and the slightest disturbance wrecking the entire setup sending it completely out of control...

Not on Earth. You made that up.

Furthermore climate effects aren't immediate, as any fool could clearly see if they thought about it for a second. It's more like when this needle goes up, that one goes up later.

[Schneibster]

So lets see 1% of 300 deg K = 3 deg K. But the climate modelers claim much better "accuracy" than that.

So you claim to be an engineer? Explain for me the difference between accuracy and precision. And show me (quote and link) where you claim they were confused by a scientific source.

Out of measurements that are not as accurate as can be done with electronics. And with such stupidities (because of some of the older data sets) as assuming the average temperature of a place is the average of the high and the low readings for a given day. All we really can know FOR SURE is that the average is >= the low and <= the high. Since the high and low are usually roughly 20 deg F or more apart (might be 10 - might be 40) that gives a lot of room for inaccuracy to creep in.

Except there's all these inconvenient Arctic meltings and Antarctic ice shelves collapsing and islands drowning and stuff.

Maybe you should consider not ignoring evidence. It's a bad habit and it will lead you... well, it has led you, into error.

You guys keep trying to put it off five years, and then five years, and then five years. It's pretty transparent, you know.

And you are aware of the initial conditions problem in computation. Especially in a chaotic system. All you need is non-laminar flow to introduce chaos. And mixing.

So if you know so much more than the geophysicists, how about you tell us what's missing in the latest GISS AOGCM. The code is public, you know: I'd give you the address but you guys did this shutdown thing and it's offline. Good luck with your temper tantrum BTW.

And averaging a number of chaotic computer runs tells you nothing about what the real system will do.

How do you know? You haven't even looked at the program. I have. I understand how it works. I can see the things they left out, and in fact I know that models are being made for them, too, which will when they are complete be incorporated, just as earlier models have been subsumed into it.

It is unpredictable,

Horse droppings. You guys have been ignoring chaos science for decades. It's getting a bit old, don'cha think, sport?

Yes there are strange attractors. But when and under what conditions are jumps between attractors made? Indeterminate. Too many variables. Too dependent on initial conditions.

You're pretending that just because you can't quantify how wide the border is, there's no border? Do you seriously misunderstand chaos math that badly?

The faithful get fewer every day.

Yeah, they keep learning about reality. Unfortunately, from your POV. Fortunately, from mine. As they do they stop needing faith and start using reasoning.

I can't believe you think anti-global-warming is a "faith." And that you're willing to represent yourself as a nuclear engineer after you have.

And "The Consensus"? A meaningless concept if you are doing science. Useful though if you are doing politics. An appeal to consensus tells me immediately which camp a person belongs in (science or political science).

The 14000 to 25 is not scientists, or "the consensus," or anything more sinister than a wave of worker ants showing up to mine the fallen fruit, or dead bird, or whatever. It's the number of papers the two sides have written. That's not a consensus; it's a fact. Most people knowledgeable enough to write papers look at this and know global warming is right.

You just don't have the balls to admit it.

And don't try to represent Bussard fusion as anything like this; there's only a very small minority of scientists going around denying the polywell. It's nothing like global warming, or its antithesis.

[choff]

I noticed Sir Bob Geldolf was saying we're all going to be dead in 30 years, and CBS claimed things could warm up to 212 degrees, not that anybodies trying to start a panic or anything. Meanwhile they had a power failure at Fukishima, and the Japanese won't object to outside help.

[Schneibster]

I noticed Sir Bob Geldolf was saying we're all going to be dead in 30 years, and CBS claimed things could warm up to 212 degrees,

Links and quotes or it never happened.

Meanwhile, the media are unreliable on scientific subjects, at best, and Bob Geldof is not a climate scientist. So even if you prove what you say, it's meaningless.

Hey @MSimon, thought you guys never lied. Thought you were all perfectly scientific all the time.

[choff]

Fine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... umans.html


http://www.mrc.org/articles/networks-em ... pcc-report

Just for fun I added this one, I know you'll like it.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/zei ... 76626.html

[paperburn1]

I have seen this game before.....

[Stubby]

yeah
something about weapons of mass destruction...
fear can sell a lot of commercials and fighter jets.


whoever allowed that CBS station to air that 'statistic'... ffs
great fact checking right there. I wonder where it came from?

[choff]

Here's another that demonstrates misdirected priorities.


http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/b ... e_10082013

[Teahive]

Observing climate change is one thing.
Showing that it's significantly influenced by human action is another.
Coming up with technically feasible ways to favorably influence climate is a third.
Political feasibility is yet another thing.
And then you have to consider costs and benefits of different courses of action, including unintended consequences.

[choff]

Here's more on Viking settlement and the MWP, especially from Iceland where settlement didn't die off and not leave written records behind.

Take note, the author believes in AGW.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia ... eland.html

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia ... e_age.html