Roger Chapman wrote:
On 29/11/2011 00:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
On 28/11/2011 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

But sea levels are NOT rising.

Or not by anything like what the model says they should be.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703220.pdf

Makes interesting reading.

Well no..once again its a set of arguments based on an unproven
assertion: Namely that the IPCC predictions on temperature rise are
accurate, and likewise that the modelling being used includes all
relevant data. and the correct weightings..and probably that the
relationship is broadly linear.

Well that is your opinion but I didn't make that quote just to give you
a chance to vent your prejudices. You claim sea levels are not rising,
or at least not as much as the models predict but provide nothing to
support you claim. So where are the models you dispute and the evidence
that you are correct?

Hansen refers to evidence on melting of both Greenland and Antarctic
icecaps and suggests why this might be non linear which, after all, is
only to be expected with positive feedback.

Er no. Non linearity and positive feedback are entire distinct concepts.

Though I doubt Hansen understands that.


Even te simplest of thongs - a loaded column - can be shown to have
instability failure modes..that completely negate in certain scenarios
the actual compressive stress failure modes. Fail to appreciate that and
your church or cathedral falls down. That was noted years before Euler
finally used calculus to nail the problem in a correct mathematical form

Climate change models for sure LOOK impressive, but in reality they are
crude as ****.

So you keep on saying but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and
the latest models at least fit quite well what has happened in the
recent past which is the only period we have accurate primary data for.

Of course they do, the data a little and the coefficients a LOT have
been adjusted to ensure that they do.

But a curve fitting excercise with the wrong number of elements in the
wrong relation is not a truth. It remains a curve fitting exercise -
mere mathematical sleight of hand.

If you know anything, you know that you can make a polynomial
approximation as close ass you lie to any data set. That doesn't mean
that the terms of that equation have any significance whatsoever, nor
that their predictions will in any way be accurate.



Those who claim that they are inaccurate have prejudices rather than
more accurate models to support their assertions.

Not inaccurate, just meaningless.

About as meaningless as Gordon brown, noting year on year GDP growth of
whatever, announcing 'no more boom and bust'. Of course he was correct.
It's been a case of 'bust and more bust' ever since.

I cannot believe how you can be fooled by this sleight of hand.

A curve fit is not a theory, and a correlation is not a cause.

It has been noted in Wisden, going back many years, that the cost of
corn followed the incidence of drawn cricket matches in any given year*.

A Nu Laber solution to that would be to change the rules of cricket to
eliminate drawn matches.

A Hansen theory would be that psychic players anticipating hunger play
with no verve or something.


*wet summers give drawn matches and poor crops

Positive feedback of the order that Hansen has had to use, would make
the climate now, and historically, really unstable. It simply hasn't
been that unstable.