A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Maybe OT Tesla



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #341  
Old Yesterday, 10:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On 5/25/2018 5:14 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:


SNIP

There are a considerable number of climate scientists (and other
people) who right now are arguing whether we will be into the next
climate minimum in 2025 (in which case it will relatively short and
mild) or into a deeper and longer minimum starting somewhere between
2040 and 2060. A problem is that there is disagreement about how the
sun works. The iron sun is regaining favour.

As far as disturbing the oceans is concerned, their mass is enormous
and the depths are cold. The rate at which heat can be transferred
from 1 or 2 degrees increase in temperature is very slow. No one in
this news group will see even the beginning of the effects.


Yep! Screw future generations. We have no responsibility for them. Let's
grab as much as we can. No wonder you cannot see the danger in trumpism.

--
PeterN
  #342  
Old Today, 03:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,238
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On Fri, 25 May 2018 07:09:52 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 12:40:23 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2018 16:00:25 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote:
Eric Stevens writes:
-hh wrote:
Indeed, its only pictures, for they didn't even do a good job in
faking their picture for their 'greening of the desert' claim: it
isn't hard to see that all of the major deserts on Earth didn't
even change color on their 'greening' scale.

There is no doubt that the Sahel is greening.

But that’s merely one arid/desert out of many. If the
cause of greening was CO2, because CO2 is homogeneously
distributed, they should *ALL* be greening. They’re not.


You can't hang your argument on just one desert. It's a planetwide
phenomenon.


I agree that you can't hang your argument on just one desert,
but that's precisely what you did with citing the Sahel.

So the, just where's the credible scientific reports which
quantitatively demonstrate that this alleged greening actually
*is* occurring planetwide, including in all arids/deserts, due
to elevation of CO2 levels?

Yes, this means that the climate-driven changes in rainfall do
have to be normalized out.


There is much debate
over why this should be. Google 'greening sahel'.

Nope. It’s because of more rain. The monsoons have increased because
the water in the Mediterranean is warmer (guess why it’s warmer!).


Only a few people are denying that the planet is warming. I certainly
am not.


Thanks for that clarification, but then how are you advocating for
Lord Monckton, who is a denialist?


No he is not. His group has reworked the mathematics of the greenhouse
effect of CO2 and concluded that it is only about a third of that
claimed by the IPCC. Monckton et al still acknowledge that there is an
effect.


As far as I can tell, what he says is correct. It also seems to be
lining up with analysis by others of empirical data. It seems there is
little doubt that the IPCC is wrong.

If our world leaders think as you do, on that subject, my kids don't
stand a chance.

What many people don't understand about the climate science is that
the datapoints of warming are direct measurements and thus are
historical fact and incontrovertible.

What many people don't know is that historical data has been
systematically massaged before being republished and used.

Of course it had, because it wasn’t a homogeneous baseline: over the
decades/centuries, the measurement technologies have changed.


The mercury in glass thermometer was invented in in 1714 by Fahrenheit
and it quickly became a reliable and accurate instrument. Since the
invention of the Stevenson Screen in the mid 1800s the design of
meteorological enclosures has stabilised. Meteorological records have
been consistent in their accuracy for 200 years or more.


And yet you can't conceive that a mercury thermometer that's located
in a ship's hot engine room just might result in a systematic bias?


I have generally been refering to land based measurements, not the
vexed question of sea surface temperatures.


Some of the story came out in the 'Climategate' files.

Copied from the original scientific journals where it was published.


You don't know what you are talking about.


Such factors aren't kept as secrets that are only discovered when
some vigilantes go break into a secret government lab to steal papers.
That stuff only happens in books of fiction.


Which universe are you living in?

In fact the source of the Climategate leak is not known but it is
believed to be a person on the inside who could no longer tolerate the
fraud and corruption which was going on.


More can be determined by examining the progressively changing
versions published at various times in the past.

Such as how with the advent of powered ship engine rooms are hot, so
using the “incoming seawater coolant” temperature gage records resulted
in a bias (high) in that data set.


Adjustments are always required when you are using two different data
sets.


Yet you're trying to claim it is a "mess" ... and furthermore imply that
no data can ever be trusted because of some deliberate, malicious conspiracy...


You are right: it's a mess. But you are wrong to say no data can be
trusted. Some is much more trustworthy than others but no sets of data
should be taken at face value.


This includes observations
on historical rates of change being at all-time maximums.

This is the most damning evidence IMO.


What then do you make of the temperature hiatus when there was no
significant increase (Dates for this vary but typically 1998 to 2015)?


Don't know, for its not my professional scientific field of study.
Is it your's?


Evasion of the question. Is it too hard to answer?


Thus said, I'd posit that there's many possible causes, with the
most likely simple factor summary being that it is the contribution
from a variable that had not been previously accounted for in the model.


There are many of those, some known and many not. Then there phenomena
such as thunder storms which are too small for even the super
calculators to take them into account. This is important as they are
an important mechanism for transferring heat between low and high
altitudes. As I mentioned before, there remain the question of clouds
and solar variability. Another which has just emerged is long term
variations in the optical density of the atmosphere. Apparently it is
much clearer now than it was thirty years ago.

Plausibly something that was either a "too hard", data void, and/or
something that wasn't a priority to model because the prior evidence
had identified it as a secondary or tertiary factor.

However, we do know that a pause couldn't have been due from a sudden
cessation of CO2 presence in our atmosphere, since there is direct
measure on that, and we generally have validated the basic physics
underlying the greenhouse gas heating loop.


The basic physics is far from validated.

As such, its reasonable
to conclude that it isn't on the supply side, so it by process of
elimination, it has to be on the receive, and being affected by our
limitations in qualitatively measuring every possible heat sink.


We only need to measure temperature.

In other words, its a good bet that the data observation is due to a
sequestering of heat into something that we had previously disregarded
as not significant, were unaware of, or had set aside as 'too hard' to
develop an accounting method for. In time, with additional research
and data, the observation will invariably be accounted for.


You cannot describe as "not significant" something which can absorb 17
years of global warming. That's a contradiction in terms. According to
the hypothesis that global warming is only due to manmade CO2 the
hiatus has not occurred. The fact that the hiatus has occurred shows
that factors other than CO2 have a major effect on global temperature
and that it cannot be attributed primarily to CO2.

For a notional example, consider a deep ocean current which reached
a tipping point causing some change such that it now is interacting
more with surface currents/temperatures, so it now has a measurable
effect on the overall heat transfer system. Exactly where this is,
how much it contributes and so forth have yet to be discovered: all
we've seen so far is the indirect 'total system level' effect which
is effectively the scientific evidence that it must exist.


That it 'could' exist. All you have is a hypothesis. Now you need the
evidence. There is lots of data out there now. All you have to do is
find the parts which support your hypothesis.


What people are trying to criticize are the models which are then
taking that empirical data and, with physics based first principles,
then develop scientifically valid basis to try to explain *why*
the earth system is acting the way it is, as a means to try to
develop the best models to predict the future.

They have developed many models to predict the future.

Yup, in every scientific field, not just climate. Do you really think that
that Newton got the gravity constant correct on his first try?


If you knew the history you would know that it started well before
Newton. Kepler deserves major credit.


True, but the general public has heard of Newton.


Unfortunately sufficient time has now passed to determine whether
or not the predictions have been accurate. *All* the models have
been found to be wrong.

And will always be wrong, because this is a statistical analysis,
not deterministic.


A statistical analysis of the future? Come on. You gotta be joking.


I've personally been doing this professionally for years, such as in
conducting risk analysis, etc. And a colleague has a stock market
picker tool that's doing substantially better than 50% probability
of success in predicting tomorrow's stock prices to within ~10%.


When all the climate scientists in the world with their massed super
computers and multi-billion dollar computers can show they have
achieved the same order of accuracy they may be listened to more
seriously.


There is a chart somewhere on the web illustrating the wide range of
predictions with the actual temperature. Only one of many predictions
is anywhere near correct and from memory that came from Russia.


How many of them credibly predict a thermal decline that's roughly as
steep as the last century's rise?


None. With the possible exception of the Russian prediction, they are
all based on the IPCC hypothesis that global warming is due only to
anthropogenic CO2.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #343  
Old Today, 03:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,238
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:50:52 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/25/2018 5:14 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:


SNIP

There are a considerable number of climate scientists (and other
people) who right now are arguing whether we will be into the next
climate minimum in 2025 (in which case it will relatively short and
mild) or into a deeper and longer minimum starting somewhere between
2040 and 2060. A problem is that there is disagreement about how the
sun works. The iron sun is regaining favour.

As far as disturbing the oceans is concerned, their mass is enormous
and the depths are cold. The rate at which heat can be transferred
from 1 or 2 degrees increase in temperature is very slow. No one in
this news group will see even the beginning of the effects.


Yep! Screw future generations. We have no responsibility for them. Let's
grab as much as we can. No wonder you cannot see the danger in trumpism.


We are quite happy to screw future generations with inflation, a
phenomenon which is under our control and clearly understood. We are
now propsing to further tighten the generational screw with
multi-billion dollar burdens on the basis of a hypothesis which has
been clearly inadequate from the start and which for the last several
years has demonstrably shown to be incorrect. This isn't science: it's
religion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #344  
Old Today, 05:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On 5/25/2018 10:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:50:52 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/25/2018 5:14 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:


SNIP

There are a considerable number of climate scientists (and other
people) who right now are arguing whether we will be into the next
climate minimum in 2025 (in which case it will relatively short and
mild) or into a deeper and longer minimum starting somewhere between
2040 and 2060. A problem is that there is disagreement about how the
sun works. The iron sun is regaining favour.

As far as disturbing the oceans is concerned, their mass is enormous
and the depths are cold. The rate at which heat can be transferred
from 1 or 2 degrees increase in temperature is very slow. No one in
this news group will see even the beginning of the effects.


Yep! Screw future generations. We have no responsibility for them. Let's
grab as much as we can. No wonder you cannot see the danger in trumpism.


We are quite happy to screw future generations with inflation, a
phenomenon which is under our control and clearly understood. We are
now propsing to further tighten the generational screw with
multi-billion dollar burdens on the basis of a hypothesis which has
been clearly inadequate from the start and which for the last several
years has demonstrably shown to be incorrect. This isn't science: it's
religion.


That sounds like a imperial "we."

--
PeterN
  #345  
Old Today, 06:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,238
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On Sat, 26 May 2018 14:00:10 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 25 May 2018 07:09:52 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 12:40:23 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2018 16:00:25 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote:
Eric Stevens writes:
-hh wrote:
Indeed, its only pictures, for they didn't even do a good job in
faking their picture for their 'greening of the desert' claim: it
isn't hard to see that all of the major deserts on Earth didn't
even change color on their 'greening' scale.

There is no doubt that the Sahel is greening.

But that’s merely one arid/desert out of many. If the
cause of greening was CO2, because CO2 is homogeneously
distributed, they should *ALL* be greening. They’re not.

You can't hang your argument on just one desert. It's a planetwide
phenomenon.


I agree that you can't hang your argument on just one desert,
but that's precisely what you did with citing the Sahel.

So the, just where's the credible scientific reports which
quantitatively demonstrate that this alleged greening actually
*is* occurring planetwide, including in all arids/deserts, due
to elevation of CO2 levels?

Yes, this means that the climate-driven changes in rainfall do
have to be normalized out.


There is much debate
over why this should be. Google 'greening sahel'.

Nope. It’s because of more rain. The monsoons have increased because
the water in the Mediterranean is warmer (guess why it’s warmer!).

Only a few people are denying that the planet is warming. I certainly
am not.


Thanks for that clarification, but then how are you advocating for
Lord Monckton, who is a denialist?


No he is not. His group has reworked the mathematics of the greenhouse
effect of CO2 and concluded that it is only about a third of that
claimed by the IPCC. Monckton et al still acknowledge that there is an
effect.


As far as I can tell, what he says is correct. It also seems to be
lining up with analysis by others of empirical data. It seems there is
little doubt that the IPCC is wrong.

If our world leaders think as you do, on that subject, my kids don't
stand a chance.

What many people don't understand about the climate science is that
the datapoints of warming are direct measurements and thus are
historical fact and incontrovertible.

What many people don't know is that historical data has been
systematically massaged before being republished and used.

Of course it had, because it wasn’t a homogeneous baseline: over the
decades/centuries, the measurement technologies have changed.

The mercury in glass thermometer was invented in in 1714 by Fahrenheit
and it quickly became a reliable and accurate instrument. Since the
invention of the Stevenson Screen in the mid 1800s the design of
meteorological enclosures has stabilised. Meteorological records have
been consistent in their accuracy for 200 years or more.


And yet you can't conceive that a mercury thermometer that's located
in a ship's hot engine room just might result in a systematic bias?


I have generally been refering to land based measurements, not the
vexed question of sea surface temperatures.


Some of the story came out in the 'Climategate' files.

Copied from the original scientific journals where it was published.

You don't know what you are talking about.


Such factors aren't kept as secrets that are only discovered when
some vigilantes go break into a secret government lab to steal papers.
That stuff only happens in books of fiction.


Which universe are you living in?

In fact the source of the Climategate leak is not known but it is
believed to be a person on the inside who could no longer tolerate the
fraud and corruption which was going on.


More can be determined by examining the progressively changing
versions published at various times in the past.

Such as how with the advent of powered ship engine rooms are hot, so
using the “incoming seawater coolant” temperature gage records resulted
in a bias (high) in that data set.

Adjustments are always required when you are using two different data
sets.


Yet you're trying to claim it is a "mess" ... and furthermore imply that
no data can ever be trusted because of some deliberate, malicious conspiracy...


You are right: it's a mess. But you are wrong to say no data can be
trusted. Some is much more trustworthy than others but no sets of data
should be taken at face value.


This includes observations
on historical rates of change being at all-time maximums.

This is the most damning evidence IMO.

What then do you make of the temperature hiatus when there was no
significant increase (Dates for this vary but typically 1998 to 2015)?


Don't know, for its not my professional scientific field of study.
Is it your's?


Evasion of the question. Is it too hard to answer?


Thus said, I'd posit that there's many possible causes, with the
most likely simple factor summary being that it is the contribution
from a variable that had not been previously accounted for in the model.


There are many of those, some known and many not. Then there phenomena
such as thunder storms which are too small for even the super
calculators to take them into account. This is important as they are
an important mechanism for transferring heat between low and high
altitudes. As I mentioned before, there remain the question of clouds
and solar variability. Another which has just emerged is long term
variations in the optical density of the atmosphere. Apparently it is
much clearer now than it was thirty years ago.

Plausibly something that was either a "too hard", data void, and/or
something that wasn't a priority to model because the prior evidence
had identified it as a secondary or tertiary factor.

However, we do know that a pause couldn't have been due from a sudden
cessation of CO2 presence in our atmosphere, since there is direct
measure on that, and we generally have validated the basic physics
underlying the greenhouse gas heating loop.


The basic physics is far from validated.

As such, its reasonable
to conclude that it isn't on the supply side, so it by process of
elimination, it has to be on the receive, and being affected by our
limitations in qualitatively measuring every possible heat sink.


We only need to measure temperature.

In other words, its a good bet that the data observation is due to a
sequestering of heat into something that we had previously disregarded
as not significant, were unaware of, or had set aside as 'too hard' to
develop an accounting method for. In time, with additional research
and data, the observation will invariably be accounted for.


You cannot describe as "not significant" something which can absorb 17
years of global warming. That's a contradiction in terms. According to
the hypothesis that global warming is only due to manmade CO2 the
hiatus has not occurred. The fact that the hiatus has occurred shows
that factors other than CO2 have a major effect on global temperature
and that it cannot be attributed primarily to CO2.

For a notional example, consider a deep ocean current which reached
a tipping point causing some change such that it now is interacting
more with surface currents/temperatures, so it now has a measurable
effect on the overall heat transfer system. Exactly where this is,
how much it contributes and so forth have yet to be discovered: all
we've seen so far is the indirect 'total system level' effect which
is effectively the scientific evidence that it must exist.


That it 'could' exist. All you have is a hypothesis. Now you need the
evidence. There is lots of data out there now. All you have to do is
find the parts which support your hypothesis.


What people are trying to criticize are the models which are then
taking that empirical data and, with physics based first principles,
then develop scientifically valid basis to try to explain *why*
the earth system is acting the way it is, as a means to try to
develop the best models to predict the future.

They have developed many models to predict the future.

Yup, in every scientific field, not just climate. Do you really think that
that Newton got the gravity constant correct on his first try?

If you knew the history you would know that it started well before
Newton. Kepler deserves major credit.


True, but the general public has heard of Newton.


Unfortunately sufficient time has now passed to determine whether
or not the predictions have been accurate. *All* the models have
been found to be wrong.

And will always be wrong, because this is a statistical analysis,
not deterministic.

A statistical analysis of the future? Come on. You gotta be joking.


I've personally been doing this professionally for years, such as in
conducting risk analysis, etc. And a colleague has a stock market
picker tool that's doing substantially better than 50% probability
of success in predicting tomorrow's stock prices to within ~10%.


When all the climate scientists in the world with their massed super
computers and multi-billion dollar computers can show they have


--- Oops! "multi-billion dollar budgets" ----

achieved the same order of accuracy they may be listened to more
seriously.


There is a chart somewhere on the web illustrating the wide range of
predictions with the actual temperature. Only one of many predictions
is anywhere near correct and from memory that came from Russia.


How many of them credibly predict a thermal decline that's roughly as
steep as the last century's rise?


None. With the possible exception of the Russian prediction, they are
all based on the IPCC hypothesis that global warming is due only to
anthropogenic CO2.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #346  
Old Today, 06:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,238
Default Maybe OT Tesla

On Sat, 26 May 2018 00:13:20 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/25/2018 10:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:50:52 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/25/2018 5:14 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:


SNIP

There are a considerable number of climate scientists (and other
people) who right now are arguing whether we will be into the next
climate minimum in 2025 (in which case it will relatively short and
mild) or into a deeper and longer minimum starting somewhere between
2040 and 2060. A problem is that there is disagreement about how the
sun works. The iron sun is regaining favour.

As far as disturbing the oceans is concerned, their mass is enormous
and the depths are cold. The rate at which heat can be transferred
from 1 or 2 degrees increase in temperature is very slow. No one in
this news group will see even the beginning of the effects.


Yep! Screw future generations. We have no responsibility for them. Let's
grab as much as we can. No wonder you cannot see the danger in trumpism.


We are quite happy to screw future generations with inflation, a
phenomenon which is under our control and clearly understood. We are
now propsing to further tighten the generational screw with
multi-billion dollar burdens on the basis of a hypothesis which has
been clearly inadequate from the start and which for the last several
years has demonstrably shown to be incorrect. This isn't science: it's
religion.


That sounds like a imperial "we."


Count me out. I'm not happy with any of this.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.