Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 28 Nov 2009 17:13 On Nov 27, 10:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Nov 26, 5:26 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > James Arthur thinks that climate models can't predict any more than a > > > fortnight ahead before they blow up. Oddly enough they can, but > > > weather models can't. > > > If I ever wrote that, it was a mistake. But I don't believe I ever > > did. (But since you keep saying it, and Joerg lives in Oregon, it > > must be true.) > > You said it all right. You seem to have - very wisely - requested that > your post was not to be archived, and have managed to contain your > outrage at being caught making a fool of yourself until the original > evidence had evaporated. No, if I said it, it's still here in the archives. Maybe you've confused me with someone else. My information on GCMs came from reading their summaries (supplied by each GCM group), reading as much of one global climate model's FORTRAN spaghetti source-code as I could stand, and, mostly, _directly_ from one of the world's preeminent experts, who works on them. So, I've always known the difference. > > > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:08:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > As a second measure of global climate models (GCM), we know from > > actual life how poorly the models predict El Nino, or hurricanes, or > > other near-term phenomena that depend on accurate understanding of > > real temperature, deep ocean currents, or other quantities critical to > > long-term projections (if those are even possible), but which are not > > known well enough to make even short-term predictions. > > As a 3rd measure of GCM, before you graced s.e.d. with your inquiries, > > I related that I got that same info (above) from one of the persons > > *responsible* for one of the main climate models. That person said > > GCM are important and useful tools in understanding climate, and for > > making predictions as far as several weeks into the future. Beyond > > that, says (s)he, the models quickly diverge uselessly from reality. > > James Arthur doesn't know the difference between a global climate > model, which predicts over a span of year and a global weather model > which falls to pieces in about two weeks. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect > > http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm I know the difference. But suppose I didn't--it still doesn't matter. Cast aside your irrelevant bile and consider: we're in a 10- year cooling trend. I don't remember any stern warnings from climastrologists this was imminent, do you? Quite the opposite. But your memory is better than mine--you remember things that didn't even happen. Maybe you could cite those warnings for us. Or is 10 years "just weather," and not climate? > > I'd have to ask the person who writes them exactly how far in the > > future GCMs go these days before diverging uselessly into chaos, but > > IIRC they gave some useful, broad indications as much as a few months > > in advance. Not accurate, but enough. > > James Arthur "improving" what he remembers. I already stated I don't remember exactly. And part of it is that I can't be too particular without revealing my source, which I am entrusted not to do. That person is a scientist, not a politician, and doesn't want to be sacrificed on the altar of AGW political correctness. The point being that the things fall apart in a few months, and they're being used to forecast 50-500x that timespan and more. It doesn't matter whether the 20-year forecast fell apart at t=two months or three, or even four or five months, does it? Obviously they're no good even at predicting in the 1-10 year timeframe, or they would've predicted the current cooling. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 17:39 On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:48:36 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:45:03 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>On Nov 22, 5:14 am, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >On Nov 22, 12:00 am, John Larkin >>> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:54:05 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>> >>> >> <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> >The global warming hoax revealed: >>> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partne... >>> >>> >> ><Quote from that article> >>> >> >This shows these are people willing to bend rules and >>> >> >go after other people's reputations in very serious ways,' he said. Spencer >>> >> >R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research >>> >> >on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as 'great material >>> >> >for historians.' >>> >> ><end quote> >>> >>> >> >LOL. >>> >> >Some science! >>> >>> >> >And that in a leftist newspaper! >>> >>> >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenew.... >>> >>> >> "In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to >>> >> arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in >>> >> scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times >>> >> appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by >>> >> other scientists whose findings they disagreed with." >>> >>> >Most scientists have a fair idea of who might be asked to review their >>> >papers, and adjust the papers to encourage editors to go for the more >>> >constructive and well-informed of the likely referees. >>> >>> >They also have opinions about the kind of work that other people do, >>> >the reliability of the results that other scientists claim, and the >>> >quality of the papers that they produce. Some people are bad enough >>> >that they end up trying to publish in journals on the edges of their >>> >field, where the editors won't know how untrustworthy they are. >>> >Personal contacts often mean that they don't get away with it. >>> >>> >> Some good stuff here: >>> >>> >>http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com.... >>> >>> >> " The other paper by MM is just garbage as you knew. De Freitas >>> >> again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to >>> >> the mad Finn as well frequently as I see it. I cant see either of >>> >> these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out >>> >> somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature >>> >> is ! " >>> >>> >Obviously not intended for publication, but why would you ever think >>> >that because scientists are obliged to publish sober and rational >>> >arguments, they aren't emotionally involved in their work? >>> >>> Because they respect the scientific method? Because they honor truth? >> >>There's no contradiction between emotional involvement and respecting >>the scientific method. >> >>> I thought they were obliged to publish their actual measured results, >>> not cherry-picked or outright fudged data. >> >>They are. Adjusting papers to persuade editors to select constructive >>referees is primarily a matter of choosing the right papers to cite in >>the introduction of the paper and and in the discusion of the >>conclusions. >> >>For preferred referees you cite papers for which they are first >>authors and you try to avoid citing non-preferred referees or a least >>confine yourself to papers where they aren't first authors. Careful >>choice of synonyms can also be useful in in directing an editor's >>thoughts towards the righ referee. >> >>> Apparently not. >> >>Wrong. Cherry-picking and fudging data is a career-wrecking crime, and >>since such data doesn't replicate when somebody else does the >>experiment, you have to be an idiot as well as a psychopath to try it. > >But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has >tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by >experiment. > >John Even sociology is subject to real world verification, and AGW fails with amazing consistency. Experiment, per se, is not always necessary (or even doable), but real world testing (does this model predict historical data correctly and has it predicted recent experience and many other verification tests). The AGW models also have failed this with amazing regularity. Yea, yea, i know, preaching to a mixture of the choir and unfaithful.
From: dagmargoodboat on 28 Nov 2009 17:44 On Nov 27, 10:19 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Nov 26, 9:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Nov 26, 5:26 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > Of course you can see that easily, independently, if you just look at > > the models, see how incomplete they are, how rudimentary our > > understanding of critical processes is, how loose the parameters are, > > how many arbitrary and unexplained factors they apply, and so forth. > > Not having spent years working on the models, I doubt very much that I > could see anything of the sort. I had enough trouble with the much > simpler simulation I wrote in 1968 to model the chemical reaction in > the reaction cell I used in my Ph.D. work. > > If James Arthur can produce this model which he claims to know so much > about we could - of course - test this hypothesis, but since neither > of us has spent our professional careers improving climate models our > opinions are unlikely to be even useful, let alone decisive. So, your argument is that you're a poor judge of source code when you see it, and that it's all over your head anyhow. And, you can say this without reading the code, or trying to see if it makes sense. Therefore, the code is reliable. You argue from faith: blind faith, sight unseen, in people you don't know, their measurements, their adjustments, their understanding of the processes, their integrity, and their code. All these are necessary. I've seen the code I critique; you say it's pure, though you've never looked. That's faith. I argue from knowledge, confirmed and supported by an expert with impeccable recommendations from someone I know, trust, and respect. I've linked to the code zillions of times before. Here's a starting vector: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ipcc_model_documentation..php From there you can get descriptions of each model, FROM its AUTHORS, see the obvious limitations in summary form, and access source code where it's available. > > Or look at how well the climate models predicted the current cooling > > transient--they didn't. In fact they predicted more and more heat and > > hurricanes, didn't they? And we were supposed to brace ourselves for > > those, to spend money and prepare, but they never came. The models > > were wrong. > > The models aren't precise, and they aren't designed to to produce > accurate predictions over periods of a few years. They failed to > predict the current slowing in the rate of global warming because > didn't allow for the movement in the ocean circulation that the Argo > project is only now beginning to telling us about. You'll notice that I pointed that shortcoming out years ago, here? And you, with no knowledge, denied it. > The excursion away from the smooth and continuous heating strawman > prediction that James Arthur is trying to set up is small, of the You're leaping to a conclusion. I never said or intended that. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 17:50 On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:43:49 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Nov 23, 1:10 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:23 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Nov 22, 8:44 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> On Nov 22, 8:07 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> > On Nov 22, 1:48 pm, John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> > > But climate is not subject to experiment. Historically, science has >> >> > > tended to be erratic, faddish, and usually wrong until corrected by >> >> > > experiment. >> >> >> > These guys want to replace confirmation by experiment with proof by >> >> > correlation. Which they're in a unique position to ensure. >> >> >> Astronomy has had to struggle with exactly the same problem. I presume >> >> you also are going to rip down all the observatories and insist that >> >> the sun really does go around the earth. >> >> >Astronomy is easily confirmed, repeatably, to high accuracy, by >> >multiple observers around the world. >> >> >Climatrology can't predict a decade-long cooling trend even once it's >> >begun, nor can it explain it. >> >> Climatology can't "predict" history, yet some idiots want to use it to >> control everyone. Politicians (are) like that. > >Climatology predicts history fine with a little bit of curve-fitting. >Climatrology, like astrology (or maybe let's call it climatrollogy), >looks into the future. SOL James, but it doesn't, at least if you use the same model the AGW group does. Even others that contain any of the canonical presumptions of AGW fail to reconcile with well documented history. Fortunately, there are a few disparaged models that do reconcile with history. > >> >If your model contradicts Nature, your model is wrong. >> >> Wrong is often useful (see above). > >That's Mencken's game-- >"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed >(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an >endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken > >Martin likes that quote too--wonder where he went. I think i will buy another book of Menken quotes. Some did not age very well though.
From: JosephKK on 28 Nov 2009 18:05
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:34:59 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise(a)example.net> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:19:07 -0800, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:18:03 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>On Nov 26, 5:26 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >>>> James Arthur thinks that climate models can't predict any more than a >>>> fortnight ahead before they blow up. Oddly enough they can, but weather >>>> models can't. >>> >>>If I ever wrote that, it was a mistake. But I don't believe I ever did. >>>(But since you keep saying it, and Joerg lives in Oregon, it must be >>>true.) >>> >>>I'd have to ask the person who writes them exactly how far in the future >>>GCMs go these days before diverging uselessly into chaos, but IIRC they >>>gave some useful, broad indications as much as a few months in advance. >>>Not accurate, but enough. >>> >>>And it was the same expert GCM worker who said GCMs were completely >>>useless beyond a few months, because they diverge, and specifically, are >>>completely inapplicable and unreliable over even a year, much less the >>>decades-to-centuries they're being used for. >> >> The only way one can predict the desired dire consequences of CO2 is to >> conjecture a number of positive feedback mechanisms. Those same positive >> feedbacks make the models unstable. >> > >Just this morning I saw an AGW preach on edjamacaishunal teevee, and I >swear I saw them do this: > >1. Take some raw data: >http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/images/gw-1.gif > >2. Cherry-pick what suits your purposes: >http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/images/gw-2.gif > >3. Extrapolate: >http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/images/gw-3.gif > >Of course, they only showed it from step 2 to step 3. > >I wonder if(when?) the mainstream media are going to clue up to >Climategate? > >Thanks, >Rich Ain't going to happen. It will be a real problem for historians 300 years from now. |