What? Extinction of LIfe?
My friend, I am here in the Philippines today, and my roof temperature is 48C.
Last month it was over 50C. The sun is beating down on all our crops and quite
obviously, they are not dead. What are you talking about?
Let me tell you what a 42.8C temp will do. It will open up vast temperate
areas of US land for triple cycle cropping, like we have here in
thePhilippines. Crops grow faster in warmer climates. Food production will
increase to meet the increase in demand from over 12 Billion people or more.
There was a study I was aware of a few years back. It was commissioned by the
UN before it was taken over by the Illuminati agenda. The study concluded that
it would take the area the size of Texas to produce enough food for all the
people of the world at that time - 2 Billion. Heck, we certainly will have 3
times Texas land area for cropping today. We can feed over 6 billion today
with just the available farm land we have. There is no overpopulation nor
Global Warming problem. That's a lie from the Illuminati elites because they
want to depopulated the Earth for their own use alone. They want to reduce
human population to 50 million. A few thousand elites being served by the rest
as slave labor force.
My friend, it would serve you well to refrain from hyperbole such as this.
This will only serve to destroy your credibility in any discussion.
Jojo
PS. I think you meant 42.8C not 42.8F. 42.8F is very close to freezing.
----- Original Message -----
From: CB Sites
To: vortex-l
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?
Jojo, I really think you miss the point. Let assume a moment the global
average temperature was 6C above average. That is 42.8 degrees Fahrenheit!
You and the deniers have got to get an understanding of what that means. It
means extinction of life as we know it. I know you deniers think some how man
kind will survive. To be honest, I think that is doubtful. Economic systems
will not survive, food supplies will not provide, and warring political systems
will doom the planet.
I really don't need to say much more, reality will take control and play out
future events that the deniers will bitch about all the way to the extinction
of man.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
Eric, I realize how complex the problem that these guys are facing must be.
That is the root cause of their problem. You have listed several good points
and I will take them into consideration.
My main issue with the current models is that new processes and
interactions are being uncovered frequently which modify the behavior of the
models in a significant manner. I ask what would be the output of a model at
the end of this century that had all of the known and unknown pertinent factors
taken into consideration? The recent acknowledgement of a new factor that
allows for a 30 year pause in temperature rise is not an issue to be taken
lightly. It also inflicts upon me the concern that there are likely more of
these factors that remain hidden as of today.
I suspect you have relied upon curve fitting routines in the past and
realize that enough variables can be chosen and adjusted to match any set of
input data as closely as desired as long as that data is sparse. You also
probably realize that a polynomial fit to a high power order yields
coefficients that vary depending upon the order of the polynomial chosen. Many
combinations of coefficients will fit the input/output data over a restricted
range. The problem shows up once you use those different coefficients to
project the curve forwards into unknown future points.
We are now clearly in witness to an example of the type of problem that I
am speaking of. The old data apparently matched the functional relationship
that the modelers have chosen to an excellent degree until the pause. They
were confident that no pause would appear and many suggested that they would be
worried if the pause lasted for more than about 5 years. As we know that time
period came and passed and the pause continued which forced many of these guys
to seek an explanation.
Now, after several more years of unexpected pause, they have come up with
their best explanation due to the 30 year Atlantic current cycle. Where was
this cycle included during the long hockey stick period? Some might consider
that the high rate of heating during the earlier period might have come about
due to added heating by this same cycle. That certainly makes sense to me.
So, I can not help but to question predictions that have been based upon a
defective model. Furthermore, how confident can you possibly be that these
guys now have all the important factors included within their models? The
proof can only be demonstrated by the performance of the models during a period
of time where they show reasonable results that compare to the real world. We
are seeking knowledge of the world's climate in 100 years time as we make plans
to counter the expected dangers. It is non sense to trust a model that does
not work 20 years into the future for this purpose. The past fits are trivial
and can always be obtained by curve fitting. The future fit reveals how good
the model actually performs. That is where they are lacking.
Eric, when I design an electrical network that is built and tested I expect
it to perform as my model predicts. If I measured results that were seriously
in error I would not recommend the circuit to others for the same application
with known problems. Instead I would dig deeper into the model and devices
until the results match the model fairly well. I have in fact done this on
several occasions. Only then is the model useful to generate predictions of
value.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 24, 2014 4:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming?
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:43 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
Eric, I suppose the difference between your beliefs and mine amounts to
my expectation that the climate change scientists should be held to a high
standard as is required of most other endeavors. You apparently are willing to
give them a free pass since you have a gut feeling that they are right to some
degree.
I don't think anyone is arguing for giving climate scientists a free pass
for anything they want to do, anymore than we would argue here for giving
physicists a free pass to endlessly pour money into ITER or the National
Ignition Facility; certainly not me. I'm arguing for humility before expertise
gradually developed in understanding a wicked problem. We can question policy
and funding decisions that are based on uncertain conclusions. But stepping in
and saying that we (the general public) are in as good a position to weigh the
data as capable climate scientists is to lose a sense of the proportion in the
face of the amount of time and effort that must be expended to discern signal
from noise in a complex domain.
Without such humility, we are prone to a little bit of unintentional
hubris. It is similar to making the following statements as members of the
general public:
a.. What you electrical engineers are saying about instantaneous power is
bunk. I know that if the sine and the cosine fluctuate too rapidly, they'll
jam together like the keys on a typewriter and throw the power out of hoc.
b.. Making a practical quantum computer is not as hard as you guys make
it out to be, for I have built one out of an erector set and rubber bands and
know something about the basic principles involved.
c.. Moore's law is not at all insurmountable. The electrical engineers
are simply failing to see that if you add in some refrigeration lines, the
temperature will be sufficiently decreased to allow a continued exponential
increase in circuit density. This is simple thermodynamics.
This is probably what we sound like to people who have studied climate
science when we interject with our analyses without having spent years of our
lives trying to understand the nuances of the problem. One hesitates to do
something similar in the context of LENR, and only does so because almost no
one who has the proper qualifications is willing to undergo the stigma that
will attach to anyone in physics who publicly examines LENR.
The overfitting of a model to a set of data is a generally known risk, and
ways of avoiding it are taught in undergraduate courses. If we do not give
climate scientists the benefit of the doubt on this one, we will be proceeding
from an assumption that they're incompetent.
In trying to understand what climate scientists are doing, I would draw an
analogy to using our knowledge of radioactive decay half-lives to understand
how much of a radionuclide will exist after a certain amount of time. Because
the process is a stochastic one, the knowledge of the half-life is close to
useless in predicting whether an individual nucleus will decay at a certain
time. But over a period of time, the half-life will allow one to calculate the
amount of the original radionuclide remaining to within a high degree of
precision. I doubt that this ability was something that was acquired
overnight. It probably took a few years of trial and error to empirically
tease out the exponential decay relation. But even when they were working with
less than reliable models, I'm guessing they were able to discern the general
trend.
Another analogy to what climate scientists are trying to do is to that of a
mechanical engineer attempting to predict the temperature of an engine that has
been running for a certain period of time. It is probably difficult to predict
the temperature at a specific thermocouple at an instance in time beyond a
certain broad range. But I'm guessing that it's not too hard to anticipate the
average temperature across the thermocouples after one has become familiar with
the operating characteristics of the engine in question. Climate scientists
are doing something similar, but at a stage when the laws of thermodynamics
were less well understood. Nonetheless general trends can be discerned.
I would not at all be surprised if the relevant time ranges for useful
predictions in climate change models were on the order of decades. Each system
being modeled has its own range of times within which statements are relevant.
In some nuclear decays, the time range for some decays is on the order of 10^-8
- 10^-20 seconds. I would be surprised, in fact, if climate scientists were
able to bring model predictions to within less than tens of years, given the
great amount of latency involved for changes to show up in the system.
As for climate scientists adjusting their models periodically in the face
of new facts, I am reminded of a quote attributed to Keynes, who was responding
to a similar complaint: "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions.
What do you do, sir?"
Eric
