Smokers are smarter, I say.

In article
Sprang wrote:

On Sun, 7 May 2017 12:38:12 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this:
On 2017-05-06 12:26, Snit wrote:
[...]Keep in mind that, as far as you have shown,
NONE of the scientific disciplines that show evidence of man-made global
climate change have ignored the fact that the climate has changed in the
past, nor have any of the major models left that out.

Our school received Science, the AAAS journal, because the science dept
head was a member. Around 1975 +/-, Science published a special issue on
weather and climate modelling. One group reported that on some runs
their model showed a major climate change within a couple of centuries
instead of 5,000 years and up, as had been deduced from the climate
record in ice cores, tree rings, lake bottom sediments, etc. the usual
rate of change was around 50,000 to 100,000 years. The authors figured
there was something wrong with their model, but couldn't figure out
what. But they did say that if the model was substantially correct, then
ideas about how fast the climate could change would have to be revised.
And that changes in average temperatures etc that were showing up in the
long-term weather records might be early warning signs of climate change.

Kindly note how cautious they were. They did not want to believe that
their model was correct, because the results conflicted with everything
they believed they knew about the climate.

Since then, weather and climate models have become much more powerful.
E.g., we expect 3-day weather forecasts to be accurate. When I was
growing up, we expected a the morning's 1-day forecast to change by
evening. The climate models have incorporated more historical data, and
more feedback loops. The chaotic nature of the whole system has become
more apparent: Major changes in a variable have little effect until a
tipping point is reached, and then even a small change in that variable
tips the whole system into a different state.

The climate can indeed change within a couple 100 years. I think it's
happening.

FYI, here's the latest news on a slow-motion disaster:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39779761

When the Larsen ice-shelf breaks up, there will be more open sea. Ice
reflects heat from the sun, open sea absorbs heat. The Antarctic seas
will warm up. That will speed up disintegration of the ice-shelves,
which will create even more open water, and even warmer seas around
Antarctica. That will result in warmer weather over the continent, which
will speed up melting of the Antarctic ice pack. Just how fast the whole
process will take is, as they say, "not well understood." But it's a
feedback loop. The ice pack will melt ever more quickly, raising
sea-levels by several meters.

I suspect even JWS and Sprang know how a feedback loop behaves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/01/antarctic-ice-has-set-an-unexpected-record-and-scientists-are-struggling-to-figure-out-why/

From the article:

"Indeed, the overall Antarctic sea ice trend, bucking climate change
expectations, has been a slight increase over time, rather than a shrinkage."

I suspect an over reaction to every data set that points towards what
one seeks to find.


Have a good day.


It's a nice day too.
Kinda cool for May

--
SpringSprangSprung