[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-March-20, 07:17, said:

Unlike Barney Google, I don't ever think that I hold the exact truth to anything. Nor am I interested in giving lectures on any topic. Providing viewpoints and references will ellicit sufficient response from those with whom exchange is worthwile...as for the rest, I am happy to not engage with their inanities.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

It is this fast and loose attitude to the truth that has cemented your poor reputation on this site. I think it is disappointing because it genuinely interests me to hear of the legitimate concerns being raised on the skeptical side, such as from Judith Curry. In the end, when the vast majority of the arguments being put forward on the skeptical side are demonstrably bogus, it only reinforces the idea that everything is settled, which ends up weakening the position you are supporting rather than strengthening it.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-March-20, 10:42, said:

It is this fast and loose attitude to the truth that has cemented your poor reputation on this site. I think it is disappointing because it genuinely interests me to hear of the legitimate concerns being raised on the skeptical side, such as from Judith Curry. In the end, when the vast majority of the arguments being put forward on the skeptical side are demonstrably bogus, it only reinforces the idea that everything is settled, which ends up weakening the position you are supporting rather than strengthening it.

Okay, no problem. My rep notwithstanding, are climate models (the source of "confirmation" of climate catastrophe) reliable and to be trusted as a guide to how to remedy, if possible, our deleterious effect on global climate?

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-March-20, 12:31, said:

Okay, no problem. My rep notwithstanding, are climate models (the source of "confirmation" of climate catastrophe) reliable and to be trusted as a guide to how to remedy, if possible, our deleterious effect on global climate?

Every area of science uses a model. Newton's Laws are a model, as are relativity and quantum mechanics. So I have no issue with the use of models. Where I think there is legitimate concern at present is in terms of the sensitivity. There have been a number of papers in the last years pointing towards a sensitivity figure lower than the majority of models are using and the teams behind them have seemingly been slow to react to this, probably believing this to be a temporary anomaly rather than a solid figure. This sensitivity issue also points to one of the serious issues with the models - despite their complexity, a relatively simple adjustment has a huge impact on the long-term trend and the complexity seems to come back as "noise" around this long-term trend. That may be unavoidable, of course, but it means that getting the underlying sensitivty figure correct is absolutely praamount to the models making reliable estimates.

There are also still some other open questions too - clouds is one that gets mentioned often and is still controversial. Perhaps even more important is the question of ocean current cycles. It is well known that some of these have a major impact on climate but it is doubtful that we are currently modelling all of the interactions. Once these are fully udnerstood, we should be able to recalibrate the factors in the models for greatly increased accuracy.

Perhaps the resulting models will show a warming trend that is negligible or even non-existent. Or perhaps we are even underestimating at present. Modelling is absolutely the correct approach though, whichever side of the debate you stand on.

As for a guide on how to remedy the situation, that is a different question entirely and goes somewhat beyond the science itself. It is my considered belief that we possess the technology already to do so if we were really to want to, for example by building aeroforming devices (aka artificial trees). The question is more about who pays, when and in what form. But that moves over into the political sphere rather than the scientific one.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-March-21, 03:59, said:

Every area of science uses a model. Newton's Laws are a model, as are relativity and quantum mechanics. So I have no issue with the use of models. Where I think there is legitimate concern at present is in terms of the sensitivity. There have been a number of papers in the last years pointing towards a sensitivity figure lower than the majority of models are using and the teams behind them have seemingly been slow to react to this, probably believing this to be a temporary anomaly rather than a solid figure. This sensitivity issue also points to one of the serious issues with the models - despite their complexity, a relatively simple adjustment has a huge impact on the long-term trend and the complexity seems to come back as "noise" around this long-term trend. That may be unavoidable, of course, but it means that getting the underlying sensitivty figure correct is absolutely praamount to the models making reliable estimates.

There are also still some other open questions too - clouds is one that gets mentioned often and is still controversial. Perhaps even more important is the question of ocean current cycles. It is well known that some of these have a major impact on climate but it is doubtful that we are currently modelling all of the interactions. Once these are fully udnerstood, we should be able to recalibrate the factors in the models for greatly increased accuracy.

Perhaps the resulting models will show a warming trend that is negligible or even non-existent. Or perhaps we are even underestimating at present. Modelling is absolutely the correct approach though, whichever side of the debate you stand on.

As for a guide on how to remedy the situation, that is a different question entirely and goes somewhat beyond the science itself. It is my considered belief that we possess the technology already to do so if we were really to want to, for example by building aeroforming devices (aka artificial trees). The question is more about who pays, when and in what form. But that moves over into the political sphere rather than the scientific one.

A decent primer on models and their utility....for science. For non-linear chaotic systems they can be used to tune parameters for past climates perhaps but their predictive capacity and therefore usefulness for the task at hand (determining if certain societal approaches might have an effect on climate) shows them to be without merit other than for studying model dynamics and our $ is better spent elsewhere.
The best bet is to improve energy efficiency and delivery to ensure prosperity. The.rest is pretty much eco fantasy.

[PassedOut]

Oh oh, the word has gotten out: Everyone will move to Michigan in 2100 due to climate change, Popular Science says

Quote

Michiganders know how wonderful it is to live in the Great Lakes State in 2017.

But according to Popular Science, the longtime publication about science, technology and more, Michigan will be the United States' most-desired state to live in by 2100.

The finding - based on weather patterns, temperatures and natural disasters - was presented in video format on March 10.

There goes our elbow room. On the other hand, property values will go up. (Canada looks good too.)

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2017-March-23, 09:08, said:

Oh oh, the word has gotten out: Everyone will move to Michigan in 2100 due to climate change, Popular Science says


There goes our elbow room. On the other hand, property values will go up. (Canada looks good too.)

When the climate refugees fail to materialize, push their arrival dates even further into the future. Seriously? Nothing but promises (of impending disaster) yet the SLR fail to accelerate as "projected", the temperatures rise naturally as they have for centuries UNLIKE the climate models indicate and species adapt to a changing climate (polar bears anyone?) as they always have.

[Cyberyeti]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-March-21, 04:55, said:

A decent primer on models and their utility....for science. For non-linear chaotic systems they can be used to tune parameters for past climates perhaps but their predictive capacity and therefore usefulness for the task at hand (determining if certain societal approaches might have an effect on climate) shows them to be without merit other than for studying model dynamics and our $ is better spent elsewhere.
The best bet is to improve energy efficiency and delivery to ensure prosperity. The.rest is pretty much eco fantasy.

It really depends how chaotic the systems are, and you can kinda test that, my guess is that they're pretty chaotic, but when lots of different models predict the same thing off slightly different assumptions ...

[Al_U_Card]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-March-24, 16:50, said:

It really depends how chaotic the systems are, and you can kinda test that, my guess is that they're pretty chaotic, but when lots of different models predict the same thing off slightly different assumptions ...

There are quite a few good descriptions of climate model strengths and weaknesses. The most accurate (closest to actual observations) have CO2 with the least effect of them all. This, however, denies the need to tax CO2 and thus cannot be useful for alarmist mitigation strategies. Unfortunate or what?

[jogs]

 PassedOut, on 2017-March-23, 09:08, said:

Oh oh, the word has gotten out: Everyone will move to Michigan in 2100 due to climate change, Popular Science says

Will the EPA solve the Flint water crisis by 2100?

[Al_U_Card]

 jogs, on 2017-March-29, 07:04, said:

Will the EPA solve the Flint water crisis by 2100?

Perhaps, now that they are no longer the policy arm of the government climate change agenda, they may well get around to this sort of thing in a timely manner...

[jogs]

This is the future for cleaner air.

[PassedOut]

 jogs, on 2017-March-31, 08:39, said:

This is the future for cleaner air.

And this.

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2017-March-31, 12:17, said:

And this.

Green as in color? Converting a muscle-car seems to be a contradiction in terms. Either way, loss in efficiency going from wind/solar to charge the batteries (they wouldn't dare use coal-fired electrons, would they???) turns the green into $$$ but they come from subsidies that our taxes provide. Lose-lose I would say

[jogs]

The rest of the world doesn't have sufficient land space for surface green parking.
Hong Kong has 7.13 million living in 427 sq miles.

[Zelandakh]

 jogs, on 2017-April-01, 07:51, said:

The rest of the world doesn't have sufficient land space for surface green parking.
Hong Kong has 7.13 million living in 427 sq miles.

The rest of the world is a big place. The numbers for North Africa and Antarctica paint a somewhat different picture.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-April-01, 11:25, said:

The rest of the world is a big place. The numbers for North Africa and Antarctica paint a somewhat different picture.

Indeed, the greening of the Sahel (and the rest of the planet) bodes well and the Antarctic has lots of room for sea-ice expansion, whichever way global temps go. If eco-zealots get their way, we will all be subsistance farmers and hunter gatherers anyway so....

[PassedOut]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-April-01, 16:21, said:

... the Antarctic has lots of room for sea-ice expansion, whichever way global temps go.

Especially now: Polar sea ice hits record new low

Quote

Arctic sea ice in March reached a new record low: the area of frozen ocean at the height of winter on 7 March reached a new maximum low for the third year running, according to NASA scientists.

Only a few days earlier, on 3 March, Antarctic sea ice reached its own new record summer low since satellite observations began in 1979.

[Al_U_Card]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-April-01, 16:21, said:

Indeed, the greening of the Sahel (and the rest of the planet) bodes well and the Antarctic has lots of room for sea-ice expansion, whichever way global temps go. If eco-zealots get their way, we will all be subsistance farmers and hunter gatherers anyway so....

Are we doomed yet? Latest "last chance to save humanity" has been pushed back yet again.
Meanwhile, climatocrats are panicking over the thought of Trump pulling funds from their schemes.
We can only hope that we are not running out of time to save our economy from the rain-makers and their ilk.

[PassedOut]

Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts

Quote

It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world’s most precious seeds from any global disaster and ensure humanity’s food supply forever. But the Global Seed Vault, buried in a mountain deep inside the Arctic circle, has been breached after global warming produced extraordinary temperatures over the winter, sending meltwater gushing into the entrance tunnel.

The vault is on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen and contains almost a million packets of seeds, each a variety of an important food crop. When it was opened in 2008, the deep permafrost through which the vault was sunk was expected to provide “failsafe” protection against “the challenge of natural or man-made disasters”.

But soaring temperatures in the Arctic at the end of the world’s hottest ever recorded year led to melting and heavy rain, when light snow should have been falling. “It was not in our plans to think that the permafrost would not be there and that it would experience extreme weather like that,” said Hege Njaa Aschim, from the Norwegian government, which owns the vault.

Losing permafrost also releases methane, another greenhouse gas. Not good, as we say...

[blackshoe]

deleted.