Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational:  Memescape that

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cephus0

Interesting* little side-bar:
Limulus (i.e. horseshoe crab) hemolymph is blue because instead of our bright red, iron-containing hemoglobin to collect and deliver oxygen to tissues, they have copper-containing hemocyanin.

* well, to me, anyway.

The same is true of the rest of phylum Arthropoda.  And phylum Mollusca too.
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
Mayhap you're overthinking this one F X.  There is no reasonable doubt about the tidal driving force - as outlined by Gamow - but the World is a messy complicated place.  What we observe in your global oceanic tide plots is the resultant of those tidal forces on the variable depth oceans broken up by the irregular continental land masses.
Science / Re: The Tides ... Take 5
There's a slim volume by fizyxcyst George Gamow titled 'Gravity' which is a good intro to that subject for the lay reader, written in Gamow's signature clear and accessible style.  In one section he deals specifically with how the Moon raises ocean tides on Earth.

I figured this post would go ignored on TR, but I guess the two AGW deniers are especially interested in it? That's interesting.

It's just a boring shitpost.  The post isn't interesting.  My response telling you it isn't interesting isn't interesting.  The only remotely interesting thing about the whole sorry affair is that you think any of it is interesting.
:staregonk:  Imagine how awful it must have been during the Holocene Optima  or the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods!  Oh wait - it wasn't.

Imagine how all of those warm periods were driven by the devil gas carbon dioxide.  Oh wait - they weren't.

Wake the fuck up.
You tell us Alan.  When this particular nugget of anti-scientific nonsense is no longer in the 'news' and it's back to shellfish dissolving in acid oceans.
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Meanwhile, back in reality land
Tell me it's not true, FX!

Gulf Stream current at its weakest in 1,600 years, studies show

Wtf do you mean by "true" here?  The junk media article you reference is attempting to be alarmist about a study which is yet another CMIP5 GCM effort.  So if you want to believe that the output from a model ensemble with zero demonstrated predictive skill in a coupled nonlinear dynamical system may be ascribed the value "true" then that's your problem.

"This weakening is revealed by a characteristic spatial and seasonal sea-surface temperature 'fingerprint'--consisting of a pattern of cooling in the subpolar Atlantic Ocean and warming in the Gulf Stream region--and is calibrated through an ensemble of model simulations from the CMIP5 project".

Meanwhile all of the actual measured data gathered over recent years clearly indicates that AMOC is doing anything but slowing down.

This weakening AMOC trope is one of the many alarmist zombie 'facts' and they cannot ever let it go.  When the data flatly refutes it then as usual they go with a model which says whatever they want it to say and that is what the compliant media report.  Twice today I heard worried groups of people talking about the Gulf Stream shutting down because it's all over one of the most extreme propaganda falsehood machines in the world known as the BBC.

The junk media typified by the Guardian tirelessly seek out junk science typified by climate modelling in order to support their endless alarmist narrative and will go nowhere near actual empirical data which falsifies it.
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
If the Gulf Stream collapses that will entail adverse consequences for me so notwithstanding it's the Grauniad let us have a look.

The first study found significant Amoc weakening after the end of the little ice age in about 1850, the result of natural climate variability, with further weakening caused later by global warming.

The second study suggests most of the weakening came later, and can be squarely blamed on the burning of fossil fuels

However, it is already clear that human-caused climate change will continue to slow Amoc, with potentially severe consequences. "If we do not rapidly stop global warming, we must expect a further long-term slowdown of the Atlantic overturning," said Alexander Robinson, at the University of Madrid, and one of the team that conducted the second study. He warned: "We are only beginning to understand the consequences of this unprecedented process - but they might be disruptive."

So we have a bunch of assertions to the effect that an observed AMOC weakening is caused by fossil fuel use.  Now you know by now what I'm going to ask for don't you.  The article also states

He [Dr. David Thornally] said current climate models do not replicate the observed slowdown, suggesting that Amoc is less stable that thought.


The [current] climate models don't predict [an Amoc shutdown] is going to happen in the future - the problem is how certain are we it is not going to happen? It is one of these tipping points that is relatively low probability, but high impact.

The models fail to predict it - in a truly shock result - so it apparently lies outside of what anthropogenic-driven climate science thinks it understands.  What then is the evidence in support of the assertion that this reported AMOC excursion is driven by human fossil fuel use?
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Easily an 8/10 climate discussion troll and sets an early spring high bar.
Science / Re: Intelligence predicted through DNA?
A supplementary paper on racial variance in neurogenesis and myelination and eugenics is back in style.


Intelligence is predictive of health states, including mortality; [3, 4] a lower level of cognitive function in youth is associated with earlier death over the next several decades.

Who knew  :dunno:
Evolution of the system is about tipping points. It's not telling people weather reports, it's looking at feedback loops that affect attractor basins. i.e. stable patterns we associate with climate in this case.

You're preaching to the wrong choir.  I have a deal of sympathy for your position here but it's the modelers you need to be berating.

Those models are concerned with boundary conditions and state flip.

Ah, no, the model used in the OP paper is a General Circulation Model (GCM).

Modelling the impact of a Southern Ocean freshwater pulse
Our simulations used the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Mark version 3L (CSIRO Mk3L) climate system model version 1.2, comprising fully interactive ocean, atmosphere, land and sea ice sub-models22, 63, 64. CSIRO Mk3L employs a reduced horizontal resolution and is designed for millennial-scale climate simulations. The ocean model is a 'rigid lid' model (i.e., the surface is fixed), with a horizontal resolution of 1.6˚ latitude × 2.8˚ longitude and 21 vertical levels, while the atmosphere model has a horizontal resolution of 3.2˚ latitude × 5.6˚ longitude and 18 vertical levels. A smoothed version of the 2-Minute Gridded Global Relief Data (ETOPO2v2) topography ( was used for the simulations (Supplementary Fig. 7). Despite the reduced horizontal resolution, the model has a stable and realistic control climatology and has demonstrated utility for simulating the past, present and future evolution of the climate system63,64,65.

This particular GCM is described here

The development of Mk3L from these components is described in detail by Phipps (2006). The resulting model is computationally efficient, portable across a wide range of computer architectures, and suitable for studying climate variability and change on millennial timescales.


The model physics is described in Section 2.2,

And while revealing this to be a very impressive beast of a GCM, nowhere is there any mention of attractor basins or state flips.  These models operate by solving the relevant equations - or what are taken to be the relevant equations - across grid boundaries using finite element and/or finite difference techniques.  It's a brute computational force solution.

At least, that's what it means to predict the evolution of a dynamic system. You can't predict future points even on a Lorenz attractor, let alone an open dynamic system. That's a different kind of predictive value.

I also have deep reservations about the likelihood of success of this kind of modelling effort given the nature of the coupled dynamical system under consideration.
Here we see a cameo of everything that has gone so horribly wrong with climate science.  Now we codify a model in a deeply non-linear system with ill-understood or unknown feedbacks, don't demonstrate any predictive skill yet claim it has some relevance. 

The model used in this paper was not created to make predictions or forecasts,


Despite the reduced horizontal resolution, the model has a stable and realistic control climatology and has demonstrated utility for simulating the past, present and future evolution of the climate system

and the paper does not offer any predictions or forecasts.

The whole fucking paper is a modeled prediction starting from the last glacial melt water pulse you halfwit.  Now I understand Lamian's old sig.  You are a truly implacable waste of groceries.
Also, when your timescales are decades and centuries... well...
This is where Hari Seldon's model broke down!

And that is really about where we are with climate modelling.  It's pure science fiction yet is for some bizarre reason completely isolated from the normal strictures of science.
you can't predict a nonlinear system.

Yes you can.  If you understand the nonlinearities.  The acid test of course is can you make reliable predictions over more than a few timesteps.  It's a testing thing you know.  If people think they can for a coupled nonlinear system like the climate then they should make the predictions and let's see.  I know it's a bit backwards to express scepticism when people say they can predict the future but just indulge me anyway.
Yes indeed.  We humanzee throwbacks have that wild primitive hypothesis testing notion even now in the brave new modelworld.  We subscribe to the embarrassingly archaic view that hypotheses should reliably predict things.
Here we see a cameo of everything that has gone so horribly wrong with climate science.
I disagree.  They are trying to figure out why things happened as they did, in the past.  The deep ocean conveyor is a very important thing to understand.

I've no problem whatsoever with people trying to get a handle on things using numerical simulations.  The problem is that modern climate science goes on from there to treat the output of what are at best sketchy speculation as some sort of actual result.  None of it is any kind of a result until it progresses to the level of highly significant predictive skill.

Additionally whenever you see the word 'ensemble' with respect to climate modelling you know that you are dealing with zero predictive skill and this is the fudge to cover for that dismal fact.  Either you have a model which makes accurate predictions or you don't.  Having ensembles covering all conceivable system behaviours and using post hoc weightings which track the actual as-measured climate is becoming the new norm and obviously enough will never be wrong in the present but will likely never predict a thing correctly - but that doesn't matter because you simply adjust accordingly using your real world data-modified ensemble weightings in the future.
No one said that.  It's a typically stupid straw man.  The global temperature mean - whatever physical meaning you may wish to ascribe to taking an average temperature of the entire planetary fluid systems using thermometry - is quite possibly increasing.  I'd expect it is following the LIA.  I'd certainly hope it is because if it isn't that likely spells a return to a new local minimum which isn't good news at all.  In other news there are areas which appear not to be following the generalised trend and running counter to the predictions of the AGW hypothesis  The primary point is that when a record gets adjusted on a rolling permanent basis then it isn't a record at all.  It is a reflection of certain hypotheses advanced by those doing the adjusting.  The secondary point is that if you wish to ascribe the putative temperature rise to some causative agent then you need to provide the evidence to support those claims.  And the tertiary point is of course that NH winter cooling would be evidence refuting the AGW hypothesis.
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
After the fact no longer though.  The Mandarins of the Models can now predict snow eight months in advance.

Forecasts can generally predict how much precipitation an area may have several months in advance, but when it comes to specifically predicting snowfall, we're more in the dark. However, a new model may offer more advanced warning when it comes to the white stuff.

Take that Farmer's Almanac.

Science / Re: NH winter cooling
You see?  Facts just aren't going to matter at all.

The current crop of alarmists just doesn't care to know.

Yabut here we see the alarmist fanatical mindset laid well and truly bare.  Like a naked singularity it sits immovable, revealed as a monstrous implacable information-destroying entity.  No person of scientific curiosity can gaze upon such a spectacle without awe and wonderment.
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
I'm unclear that there are many "facts" established.

The only facts under discussion currently are related to what the prevailing scientific position was on temperature trends of the 1970's and I provided those facts above.

Aren't there a variety of estimates, projections as to what the climate changes may be in the future, if any?  But since projections may not include some complex or not understood interactive climate effects, we really just have to wait and watch for the facts to emerge.

That is my view yes and I'm a very long way from being alone in that.

I think we can take it as fact that our industrial activities are increasing the atmospheric C02 content at a significant rate as far as the numbers go.  But what does it mean?  My main take-away from scientific concerns dated to 1980 was that we were in effect running an experiment on our own nest.  Outcome uncertain, could involve undesirable climate changes, and if industry and population continued their growth patterns, and we make no efforts to curb carbon emissions, we will not be able to roll conditions back if we end up with bad climate results.

If there were evidence supporting the view that small changes in percentage composition of an atmospheric trace compound which underpins multicellular life and which is currently as low as it has ever been over the entire Phanerozoic is going to adversely impact the climate then these discussions would not be happening.  I for one certainly don't wish for the World to end and Big Coal are way overdue in paying me to say these things.

Maybe we will get lucky and it will eventually become clear that atmospheric C02 content is not much of a driver.  If we are not so lucky, there isn't much we can do about it at such a later date.

There isn't much we can do about it now - short of declaring nuclear war on India, China and the rest of the developing world because they aren't going to stop using hydrocarbons.  In addition you may like to have a look at projections of what effect we might in reality levy on global temperatures were we all to immediately and completely stop using hydrocarbons today?  Even if you accept that carbon dioxide drives temperature against all the available evidence and go with projections from absolutely worst case alarmist scenarios in which all of their so far unevidenced positive feedbacks turn out to be true.  You will probably be surprised.

Science / Re: NH winter cooling

Here's where Stewart and Glanz refer to actual scientific literature, although not any specific research:
Fueling the new-found political interest in climate was the debate that was then raging
in journals, meetings, conferences, and ultimately in the popular press about whether the
global climate was changing. Was it becoming warmer (with the appearance of book titles
like Hothouse Earth) or were we moving toward an Ice Age (with book titles like The
Cooling)? Still others, seeing the issue surrounded by a high degree of scientific uncertainty,
suggested strategies to cope with climate variability and change regardless of direction
(e.g., The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival). Selective evidence to support
each of these contending views could be found in the scientific literature
(e.g., it was
'time' for a new ice age, or thermal pollution or increased C02 loading of the atmosphere
would ultimately lead to a global warming).

So, the only remark they make about the scientific literature of the time, is that one could find support for either a warming climate or a cooling climate, if one was selective. Do you know what selective means? It's what you're doing.

Yes indeed selective evidence could be found for warming and cooling - just as it can today.  Unlike today though you probably wouldn't be sacked, vilified, slandered, have all manner of hysterical ad homs screamed at you, have your personal life attacked and threatened with court action for not going with the officially sanctioned selective evidence.  However the prevailing view of climate scientists at that time was cooling which - again - is why Stewart and Glantz conclude

One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age.

And why the Subcommittee On The Environment And The Atmosphere Of The Committee On Science And Technology state several times that the prevailing view was cooling.  And that is supported by the overwhelming press reports of the day relating to the 'New Ice Age'.

So no, I'm not being 'selective'.  I'm referencing what was reported in what I consider to be reputable sources of the time.  You on the other hand are simply inventing your own unevidenced narrative that there was an equal division of scientific opinion between cooling and warming scenarios.

We have effectively the same conditions as prevailed in 1963 which triggered the great 'New Ice Age' scare of the seventies.

Yep. We still have the Yellow Press. There were a handful of researchers who made headlines with claims like these, but it did not hold up to scrutiny. The press forgot to report that the Ice Age scare turned out to be not real.

Lol your historical revisionist desperation is palpable.  So then if what you say is true and this paper from Stewart and Glantz along with its references may be construed as equally warming/cooling, why then were there countless press articles about cooling only?  Doesn't that strike you as at all strange?  Virtually none of them were talking about warming as far as I can find.  Here's a small sample from the English speaking press around the globe.,%201970&author=Washington%20Post%20Staff%20WriterBy%20David%20R.%20Boldt&pub=The%20Washington%20Post&edition=&startpage=&desc=Colder%20Winters%20Held%20Dawn%20of%20New%20Ice%20Age,8047767,%201971&author=By%20Victor%20CohnWashington%20Post%20Staff%20Writer&pub=&edition=&startpage=&desc=U.S.%20Scientist%20Sees%20New%20Ice%20Age%20Coming,1022557,74977,4124296

I feel reasonably confident the Spanish, French and German press were saying much the same.

The press don't simply make it up.  They take their lead from the prevalent opinions of the scientists of the day.  They of course ham it up but they don't simply pull it out of thin air.  Today virtually all of the press reports are about catastrophic warming because that is what the climate science community is feeding them.  There are plenty of scientists writing papers which do not support the catastrophic warming conclusion but the prevailing view of this time is for anthropogenic warming so that is what the press report.  The press of 1970's did exactly the same.  There wasn't an even balance of warming and cooling articles.  It was virtually all cooling and that is because that is what the climate science community were feeding them.  And that is why the major survey works of the day, commissioned to facilitate effective policy making, also concluded that cooling was the prevalent scientific opinion and also why Stewart and Glantz made the same conclusion from the perspective of the early 1980's.

The behaviour you exhibit here is primarily why I come to these threads.  The irrefutable evidence is all there in black and white and yet cultists will go to quite extraordinary lengths to deny it.  It shouldn't really be all that much of a big deal.  There was a period of cooling and people reported on it so what is all the fuss about?  The fuss is about the fact that this small and seemingly innocuous piece of information slightly undermines the quasi-religious never-to-be-questioned conviction of today's anthropogenic warming consensus and what is the cause of observed warming.  You haven't the smallest interest in what happened back in the seventies.  Your sole aim is to desperately defend your religion at all costs - and that interests me.
Science / Re: NH winter cooling

The statement "One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age" is not referring to scientists, or climate scientists. It refers to policymakers and planners in government and the agriculture industry, the intelligence community and the general public. It most definitely does not refer to the prevailing scientific view.

This is a high level document and is indeed concerned with policy making.  Now where do you think "policymakers and planners in government and the agriculture industry, the intelligence community and the general public" get their information on the climate from?  Have a little think about that.  Do you suppose they all pull it out of their collective colon?  Or do you suppose it comes from the climate science community?

Read the selected reference list.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Bear in mind that this is a selected bibliography to give an overall impression of what kind of sources the authors drew from.  They looked at pretty much everything.  The climate literature,  relevant books, reports and publications.  People who compile these kind of surveys tend to be quite thorough.
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Continuation owing to exceeded word limit.

There's no reference to any research into global cooling or ice ages, and no reference to any research about warming, either.  But that's ok, because this paper is not a review of scientific literature of that time.

The strange thing is that you appear to believe that this work  by Stewart and Glantz - on the subject of forecasting climate as it relates to policy making - was commissioned in a vacuum of reference to the actual climate of the day.  What would make you think that Stewart and Glantz felt enabled to make comments like

The conclusions of the NDU study might have been predicted from a knowledge of the prevailing 'spirit of the times' (i.e., the prevailing mood in the science community) when the first part was conducted. This was an interesting time in recent history of climate studies. One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling. By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth's atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere.  ... The causes of global climate change remain in dispute.  Existing theories of climate, atmospheric models, and actuarial experience are inadequate to meet the needs of policymakers for information about future climate.

without reviewing the literature of the day?  That would be just nuts wouldn't it.

Look at the table of contents of the document being referenced by Stewart and Glantz.  The online digitized version can be sketchy to read in some browsers so I'll roughly reproduce it here.

CONTENTS Page Letter of transmittal iii Letter of submittal v Contents vii Perspective 2 1. Impact and effects of climatic variation on agriculture 8 Alternative climatic scenarios 10 Location of agricultural production 11 Impact of climatic change 13 Impacts on agricultural trade 14 Measures to alleviate climate-induced food shortages 15 Impact on national and international food policies 17 Information needs 19 II. Climatic variation and energy consumption 20 III. Impact of climatic variaition on man 26 Introduction 27 Past effects of climatic change on man 30 Recent climate changes and man 31 Effects of man on ecology and climate 34 Climate and food 38 Prognosis and possible solutions 40 Summary 43 IV. Climatic change and water availability 44 The winds of the Earth 45 The winds as water bearers 48 Ice cap melt and expansion 53 Summary 55 V. The use of simulation models to explore climate and its variability. _ 57 Introduction 58 Nature of a model 60 Types of models 61 Simulation models 64 Role of computers in simulation modeling 67 Some benefits of using simulation models to study climate 69 Some sources of error in simulation modeling 72 A brief conclusion 75 VI. Mechanisms and factors governing climatic variation and change.- 77 The climatic system 78 Short-*term variations 80 Day-to-day variability 80 Variations over 10- to 80-day periods 80 Monthly and seasonal variability 80 Annual and decadal variation 80 Changes over centuries and millennia 81 Frequency and patterns of past variations 81 Variations in this century 83 Temperature 83 Atmospheric pressure and circulation patterns 84 Variations from 1000 to 1900 A.D 86 Ocean current fluctuation 87 I^nderstanding climatic variation 88 Inferences about future climate : Climate system theories 91 Considerati(ms of central tendency 91 Inferences based on random tran>;ition theory 91 Inferences based on quasi-periodic recurrences 93 (VII) VIII VI. Mechanisms and factors governing climatic variation and change -- Continued Page Causes of climatic change 95 Climatic change due to external mechanisms 95 Solar effects 95 Lunar and solar tidal effects 98 Airborne particulate matter and atmospheric turbidity- 98 Carbon dioxide and water vapor 106 Ozone depletion 111 Waste heat 115 Migration of land masses 118 Other possible causes 118 Climatic change due to internal mechanisms 118 Water vapor-greenhouse feedback 119 Albedo 120 Quasi-periodic or anomalous ocean surface temperature patterns 123 Ocean salinity variations 124 VII. Current research pertaining to climatic variation and change 128 Numerical models 130 Statistical and empirical approaches 133 VIII. Federal programs 138 IX. Mobilizing for a national climatic research program : Needs and deficiencies 1-48 A U.S. climate program 159 Federal institutions 161 Non-Federal institutions 162 Funding recommendations 163 APPENDIXES Page A. Selection of current readings 167 B. Selected bibliography 389 C. List of selected acronyms 399 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Location of agricultural productivity 12 2. Schematic illustration of the components of the coupled atmosphereocean-ice-land surface-biota climatic system 90 3. Characteristic climate events and processes in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere and possible causative factors of global climatic change 96 4. The mean annual radiation and heat balance of the atmosphere, rela- tive to 100 units of incoming solar radiation, based on satellite meas- urements and conventional observations 99 5. Trends of global mean temperature, 1860-2000 A.D 110 LIST OF TABLES 1. Possible causal factors in future climatic change to the year 2000 A.D__ 125 2. Chronic low-level pollutants 126 3. Survey by function of ongoing and proposed Federal programs 140 4. Summary of climatic index monitoring program 152 5. U.S. climate program funding 164 6. A summary of agency funding 165

What do you think is being referenced?  It's a paper about flower pressing?