Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 4:19:30 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/27/2016 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:


Those crooks that you're trying to protect, oh good and loyal, oh gullible Franki-boy, have altered the historic record and thrown away the original (1) in an attempt to make it look like there is global warming...

That sounds amazingly similar to "God put those dinosaur bones in the
earth when he created it 6,000 years ago."

Well then, Franki-boy, why don't you produce the original, unaltered record of spot terrestial temperature readings. Oh, by the way, we notice you sneer automatically before you even ask me to specify which "historic record" referring to. In short you sneer without even knowing what you're sneering at.

When you're that easily caught out, time and again, I'm not surprised that you pretend not to read what I write:

I stopped reading after the Jute sentence above. Sorry, Andre. I don't
bother reading much Jute****.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I quite understand, Franki-boy. You have no answers, and I catch out your stupidies, like the one above, every time, so you pretend not to see the questions.

Andre Jute
Scourge of third-raters and other global warmies

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:53:33 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:19:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/27/2016 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:


Those crooks that you're trying to protect, oh good and loyal, oh gullible Franki-boy, have altered the historic record and thrown away the original (1) in an attempt to make it look like there is global warming...

That sounds amazingly similar to "God put those dinosaur bones in the
earth when he created it 6,000 years ago."

I stopped reading after the Jute sentence above. Sorry, Andre. I don't
bother reading much Jute****.

I stopped reading the famous author years ago and strangely I have no
feelings of loss.
--
cheers,

John B.

Pity that, Slow Johnny, as further up the thread I was in fact at least partly agreeing with you, and in surprise at you getting something half right, overlooking the half that you got wrong.

Never mind, you're probably too old to learn anything new.

Andre Jute
Jesus, save me from jumped-up mechanics who know everything

"W. Wesley Groleau" writes:

On 10-27-2016 10:34, Joy Beeson wrote:
There is a disease -- I've forgotten the name -- in which the patient
absorbs too much iron, and the cure is regular bloodletting. I've
often wondered whether the disease renders the blood unfit for
transfusion. It would be cool if all the patient needed was exemption
from the mandatory recovery period between donations, but odds are
he's on enough drugs to render the question moot.

When I went to donate, they took a finger sample, and dropped a little
into some clear fluid. Said they were checking for iron. Didn't say
whether they were looking for too little or for too much.

I have found they will disqualify you if they find too little. It would
not surprise me to find that too much also disqualifies.

--

Phil Lee writes:

DougC considered Wed, 26 Oct 2016 02:32:56
-0500 the perfect time to write:

On 10/25/2016 11:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2016 8:05 PM, DougC wrote:
On 10/24/2016 4:19 PM, sms wrote:

There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
Trump blinders.

Sure--in principal.

In the same way that a butterfly's wings *might* cause a hurricane.

Red herring. I don't think there are many serious climate scientists
nor much data linking butterflies with hurricanes. There's copious data
and solid science linking carbon dioxide emissions with rising
temperatures.

[ ... ]

Also: the greatest influence on Earth's climate is (scientifically)
estimated to be the /sun/, which is currently still beyond the scope of
human control {and that may be a good thing}.

The problem is how much of the solar energy that hits the earth's
atmosphere is retained. It's a scientific fact that different mixes
of gases change that rate, and CO2 emissions have been responsible for
a huge increase in the energy retained in the atmosphere. Some of
that gets passed on to the oceans (although so does the CO2, which
causes acidification of seawater and kills off a lot of sea life) but
despite that, average global temperatures are increasing. This is a
measure of the total energy in the climate, so extremes of high winds,
high temperatures, and (because of the way in which currents in both
air and sea get changed) some places will actually get colder.

The change in PCO2 can only explain about a quarter of the predicted
catastrophic changes in the global energy balance -- the remainder is
explained by "feedbacks", in humidity, cloud cover, and so forth. It's
not impossible that some of these positive feedback effects actually
exist, but there hasn't been any evidence presented for them either.

Note that the feedbacks are of temperature, not of PCO2.

The climate models that use them show no skill, that is, have made no
falsifiable predictions that have stood the test of time, whatsoever.
They're not science, they're more like ouija boards.

The oft repeated butterfly allusion is to the fact that the global
climate is chaotic; a change in initial conditions too small to be
represented in any global climate model can cause a large deviation in
the future trajectory.

It doesn't follow that simulation of chaotic systems is always useless.
For example, numerical weather prediction has improved a great deal in
the past 40 years or so. The reason it has improved is that failure has
been punished hence lessons from the real world have been repeatedly
incorporated into the models.

This has not and is not happening with climate models. Long term
simulation of chaotic systems without theoretical understanding or
actual observation is nothing more than machine-assisted mental
masturbation.

As a very simplistic measure, just look at the amount of ice which
we've been losing over the last few decades, both glacial ice and
polar ice-caps. It's hard to explain how that could be happening
unless it is genuinely getting warmer, and we know that the increase
tracks the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere quite closely.

And yet ice cover has waxed and waned many times over history and
prehistory. No one sane claims that it has not become warmer over the
last 150 years, the discussion is over what that means, and what might
happen.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

We go through periods of increased sunspot activity on a fairly
regular basis. We don't have any record of this causing anything like
the amount of warming we are currently seeing during any former period
of high sunspot activity, despite looking extremely hard for it.

Actually the recent solar cycle 24 and the current cycle 25 have been
periods of remarkably low solar activity. What this bodes remains to be
seen.

--

On 10/28/2016 10:14 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Phil Lee writes:

DougC considered Wed, 26 Oct 2016 02:32:56
-0500 the perfect time to write:

On 10/25/2016 11:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2016 8:05 PM, DougC wrote:
On 10/24/2016 4:19 PM, sms wrote:

There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
Trump blinders.

Sure--in principal.

In the same way that a butterfly's wings *might* cause a hurricane.

Red herring. I don't think there are many serious climate scientists
nor much data linking butterflies with hurricanes. There's copious data
and solid science linking carbon dioxide emissions with rising
temperatures.

[ ... ]

Also: the greatest influence on Earth's climate is (scientifically)
estimated to be the /sun/, which is currently still beyond the scope of
human control {and that may be a good thing}.

The problem is how much of the solar energy that hits the earth's
atmosphere is retained. It's a scientific fact that different mixes
of gases change that rate, and CO2 emissions have been responsible for
a huge increase in the energy retained in the atmosphere. Some of
that gets passed on to the oceans (although so does the CO2, which
causes acidification of seawater and kills off a lot of sea life) but
despite that, average global temperatures are increasing. This is a
measure of the total energy in the climate, so extremes of high winds,
high temperatures, and (because of the way in which currents in both
air and sea get changed) some places will actually get colder.

The change in PCO2 can only explain about a quarter of the predicted
catastrophic changes in the global energy balance -- the remainder is
explained by "feedbacks", in humidity, cloud cover, and so forth. It's
not impossible that some of these positive feedback effects actually
exist, but there hasn't been any evidence presented for them either.

Note that the feedbacks are of temperature, not of PCO2.

The climate models that use them show no skill, that is, have made no
falsifiable predictions that have stood the test of time, whatsoever.
They're not science, they're more like ouija boards.

The oft repeated butterfly allusion is to the fact that the global
climate is chaotic; a change in initial conditions too small to be
represented in any global climate model can cause a large deviation in
the future trajectory.

It doesn't follow that simulation of chaotic systems is always useless.
For example, numerical weather prediction has improved a great deal in
the past 40 years or so. The reason it has improved is that failure has
been punished hence lessons from the real world have been repeatedly
incorporated into the models.

This has not and is not happening with climate models. Long term
simulation of chaotic systems without theoretical understanding or
actual observation is nothing more than machine-assisted mental
masturbation.

As a very simplistic measure, just look at the amount of ice which
we've been losing over the last few decades, both glacial ice and
polar ice-caps. It's hard to explain how that could be happening
unless it is genuinely getting warmer, and we know that the increase
tracks the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere quite closely.

And yet ice cover has waxed and waned many times over history and
prehistory. No one sane claims that it has not become warmer over the
last 150 years, the discussion is over what that means, and what might
happen.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

We go through periods of increased sunspot activity on a fairly
regular basis. We don't have any record of this causing anything like
the amount of warming we are currently seeing during any former period
of high sunspot activity, despite looking extremely hard for it.

Actually the recent solar cycle 24 and the current cycle 25 have been
periods of remarkably low solar activity. What this bodes remains to be
seen.


+1 nice summary

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10-27-2016 22:19, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/27/2016 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:


Those crooks that you're trying to protect, oh good and loyal, oh
gullible Franki-boy, have altered the historic record and thrown away
the original (1) in an attempt to make it look like there is global
warming...

That sounds amazingly similar to "God put those dinosaur bones in the
earth when he created it 6,000 years ago."

I stopped reading after the Jute sentence above. Sorry, Andre. I don't
bother reading much Jute****.

If it's wrong, convince us.
Having a similarity to an unrelated issue is neither a valid refutation
nor valid support.


--
Wes Groleau

On 10/28/2016 4:29 PM, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 10-27-2016 22:19, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/27/2016 9:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:


Those crooks that you're trying to protect, oh good and loyal, oh
gullible Franki-boy, have altered the historic record and thrown away
the original (1) in an attempt to make it look like there is global
warming...

That sounds amazingly similar to "God put those dinosaur bones in the
earth when he created it 6,000 years ago."

I stopped reading after the Jute sentence above. Sorry, Andre. I don't
bother reading much Jute****.

If it's wrong, convince us.

:-) And while I'm at it, convince a dedicated socialist that Trump
would be the best president? And convince a neo-Nazi that Clinton would
be the best president?

Again, I don't read much Jute****, so I'm not going to wade through it
for point by point rebuttals. As I said, I prefer facts on the ground.
I recently posted about half a dozen links with evidence of
unprecedentedly rapid changes that seem convincingly tied to human
activity. If you think those are all wrong, I won't be able to convince
you.


--
- Frank Krygowski