Climate II

[choff]

Referring to a previous thread that is now closed, the point I would make is that the people quoted who pushed climate change on the political front, starting late '60's, early '70's, are opposed to fusion research, and any cheap alternative energy solutions. That would include the energy solutions that you mentioned earlier, their solution to climate change is population reduction and more poverty, it doesn't help that the same people who funded climate research come from the same milieu that promoted eugenics. How certain can you be that these people haven't biased the results with pre-conceived ideas.

[Schneibster]

Referring to a previous thread that is now closed, the point I would make is that the people quoted who pushed climate change on the political front,

I'm not interested in this conversation. What's important is the science. Politicking in advance of the data has already hosed us. The only question is when we'll stop trying to lawyer global warming away and start figuring out what to do about it.

We have overwhelming evidence sufficient to convict a person of murder in court, that shows there's global warming and we did it. There's no lawyering your way out of it.

[choff]

We have overwhelming evidence that the earth has come out of the LIA and may be in between that cold snap and another warming period just like the MWP. The question isn't whether or not the climate will change, rather to what extent humanity plays a role if any.

The plain fact is that the earth hasn't warmed up to the degree predicted by the computer models. We need only look at the archived new reports from the last two decades and compare with the actual warming that has occured. Yes, it did warm up, but not even close to the minimums predicted.

[Schneibster]

We have overwhelming evidence that the earth has come out of the LIA and may be in between that cold snap and another warming period just like the MWP. The question isn't whether or not the climate will change, rather to what extent humanity plays a role if any.

The plain fact is that the earth hasn't warmed up to the degree predicted by the computer models. We need only look at the archived new reports from the last two decades and compare with the actual warming that has occured. Yes, it did warm up, but not even close to the minimums predicted.

I really have no idea what you're talking about; you appear to be trying to deny that this decade is the hottest decade ever, by implication, without ever actually denying it.

Sorry, this is the hottest decade in the history of measurement.

Next?

[choff]

This one might get honourable mention.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capita ... 1930s.html

[Schneibster]

This one might get honourable mention.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capita ... 1930s.html

So this proves, according to you, that this isn't the hottest decade in the history of measurement?

I just want to be sure of what you're claiming here. These things can be so confusing if you let people make claims that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[mvanwink5]

Epic Rap Battles of History....AGW (part played by Mikey Mann in a squeeky voice) vs End of the Holocene (played by Leaping Lord Monckton)...

[hanelyp]

As a software engineer I've studied a few things about computer models, even if I haven't looked at the climate models in depth. And 1 thing I've learned is NEVER trust a computer model that hasn't been validated within the scope of operation. Even if all the assumptions are correct, the discrete solution method used can make the models not entirely accurate. On top of which, anything as complex as the climate models must make simplifying assumptions, which can introduce their own errors. Given the failure of the climate models to predict what's actually happening, I must conclude the models are unreliable.

Add in the gross misanthropy and admitted deception by leading advocates of AGW theory, and the transparent disaster of their proposed "solutions", the warmist movement is of dubious validity.

[Schneibster]

End of the Holocene...

About 30,000 years from now, when the Milankovic cycle shifts to the next glaciation.

Assuming of course we don't use global warming to stop it.

[Schneibster]

As a software engineer I've studied a few things about computer models, even if I haven't looked at the climate models in depth.

Tell me your experience with computer models that involve Navier-Stokes equations.

ETA: I have to say a lack of response tends to indicate "none."

Given that climate simulations must include multiple sub-simulations based on the NS equations, in multiple different realms of the representation of reality, it's really straightforward: either you know the Navier-Stokes equations, and the methods of coding them, or you don't, and you have no understanding of climate code. Much less any other kind of fluid calculation. There are many real fluids in thermodynamics, and many conceptual fluids as well. These alone are enough to guarantee the presence of NS equations in the Fortran code, to the limit of reasonable simulation, for any climate model. You need eight or twelve different subroutines calculating NS equations for systems that serve as inputs to subsystems, times a hundred subsystems.

I have to stop here and point out that a model of a ballistic missile submarine propeller is written using the exact same NS equations that a model of upwelling at the Australian Great Barrier Reef uses. What amazes me is people are completely trusting of NS simulations of these propellers which allow them to make almost no noise, but think our calculations of warming are less exact.

For that matter we've done simulations-- models-- that come out looking pretty much like our universe, not in general terms but specific ones down to our neighbor galaxies and our own galaxy. And the huge gaps that exist in our universe, too.

They use these models to make football stadiums that are louder. To make new shapes for baseball bats and tennis rackets and shoes.

You really sound like a "you kids keep off my lawn" type to me.

[choff]

Simply that the 1930's get honourable mention in comparison to todays temps. Remember that computer modeling and global temperature recording are relatively recent innovations in human history, for anything over 200 years ago records are very sketchy. You have to drill ice cores, look at tree rings and other clues to create records previous. Things like, they used to have a wine industry in England that rivalled France.

I remember one documentary claiming the collapse of the Roman Empire and rise of Islam coincided with climate change. They showed a hundreds of years old abandoned dam in the middle of the Saudi desert. The decline of Islam as a threat to Europe was porported to have again coincided with changing climate.

[Schneibster]

Simply that the 1930's get honourable mention in comparison to todays temps. Remember that computer modeling and global temperature recording are relatively recent innovations in human history, for anything over 200 years ago records are very sketchy. You have to drill ice cores, look at tree rings and other clues to create records previous. Things like, they used to have a wine industry in England that rivalled France.

I remember one documentary claiming the collapse of the Roman Empire and rise of Islam coincided with climate change. They showed a hundreds of years old abandoned dam in the middle of the Saudi desert. The decline of Islam as a threat to Europe was porported to have again coincided with changing climate.

I'm sorry "becuz becuz teh 1930s1!11!one!" isn't going to cut it.

This is still the hottest decade in history.

[choff]

Your saying this is the hottest decade in history. How would this decade compare when the British had a wine industry competing with the French, or when the Greenlanders were growing Barley. They were farming in Greenland for over 400 years using medieval technology. They've been claiming global warming for barely 2 decades. 400 years is climate, two decades is weather.

By your own definition, claiming this is the hottest decade in history is a lie.

[TDPerk]

Choff, the facts in history mean nothing to the Troll.

He's chosen an agenda and whether he understand it's implications or not, he's going to push it.

He may even be clueless enough to imagine he's making his short life worthwhile by doing it, he's not very bright.

[choff]

Sorry TDPerk, my dad was Norwegian, I only know one way to deal with trolls, backing down and running away won't work for me.