Roger Coppock wrote:
z wrote:
I don't know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!

Your proposition may be good,
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!

I'm opposed to it.
On general principles I'm opposed to it.

That's Groucho Marx, but I can remember the movie.
Duck Soup, maybe?


Professor Wagstaff in 'Horse Feathers'

He's-Op-osed-to-it.

No matter what it is or who commenced it.
I'm against it!

In article , Skeptic writes:
Roger Coppock wrote:

Testing climate models

Model assessment occurs on two distinct levels-the small scale at
which one evaluates the specifics of a parameterization and the large
scale at which predicted emergent features can be tested. The primary
test bed is the climate of the present era, particularly since 1979,
when significant satellite data started to become readily available.

Do you think climate models will ever be able to predict an
event that occurs regularly in the same part of the world
like ENSO?

No, and they are not and probably can not be designed for predicting
weather year ahead.
What you can hope for is that the climate models may tell us whether
the frequency El Nino is going to change. AFAIK the climate models can
not quite capture El Nino yet. They have El Ninos but can not manage to
capture both the strength and return periods at the same time.

It seems they can determine when El Nino arrives by measuring
sea surface temperature, (we have one going on now BTW) but they
can't seem actually predict when it will happen.

If they could do this, I'd have a bit more faith in their ability
to predict droughts in Europe 40 years from now.


They are not predicting a drought in (southern) Europe in 2047.
They are predicting that the chance of drought is larger in 2047 than
today.


Øyvind Seland

wrote:
Bull****.
Bull****.
Bull****. No difference.

A "boundary value problem?" Pure bull****.

sophisticated. More bull****.

Bull****.

Very interesting. Will we be seeing your full rebuttal in "Physics
Today" anytime soon? Post the full reference as soon as it's published,
as I just can't wait to read it!

"Roger Coppock" writes:

wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
Climate modeling is also fundamentally different from weather
forecasting.

Bull****. No difference.

McGInn/Denk is using proof by assertion.


Weather concerns an initial value problem: Given today's
situation, what will tomorrow bring? Weather is chaotic; imperceptible
differences in the initial state of the atmosphere lead to radically
different conditions in a week or so. Climate is instead a boundary
value problem

A "boundary value problem?" Pure bull****.

Standard terminology in solutions to systems described by partial
differential equations.



-a statistical description of the mean state and
variability of a system, not an individual path through phase space.

"Phase space?" The phrase, "phase space," is a meaningless phrase
used by con artists to pretend that they are saying something
sophisticated. More bull****.

Another term that has gone right over McGinn/Denk's head.


Current climate models yield stable and nonchaotic climates

Yield? What does this supposedly mean.

To be as stupid as McGinn/Denk seems to be, you really have to work at
it. Oh, that's right: this _is_ work for McGinn/Denk, isn't it? There is
lots to suggest that we're looking at someone who is paid to disrupt
things here.


OK, let's add differential equations and numerical analysis to
the list of things Mr. Denk/McGinn knows nothing about and
refuses to learn.

I suspect he isn't really that ignorant. All evidence suggests that he
is deliberately obfuscating things.

To fill in people that may have missed it a few months ago, the
reference to "McGinn/Denk" (or vice-versa) is because the individual
posting here as Claudius Denk was posting from the exact same IP address
as an individual posing as "Jim McGinn". THe software he was using is
MSWindows-based, so it's likely to be the same person or two individuals
taking turns on the same machine. The similarity in writing and posting
styles suggests one person, though. He made no attempt to explain why both
personas used the same IP address, but since that time we've seen less of
the McGinn posts, and more of the Denk ones, and the individual behind it
all has been a lot more careful about trying to make sure the two personas
post from different IP address, but nearly all of them still resolve to
something in the *.scrm01.pacbell.net domain. This is clearly someone that
is trying to hide something.

In article .com,
wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:
The physics of climate modeling
by Gavin A. Schmidt, In Physics Today, January 18, 2007

Climate is a large-scale phenomenon that emerges from complicated
interactions among small-scale physical systems. Yet despite the
phenomenon's complexity, climate models have demonstrated some
impressive successes.

Bull****.

New sig?



[ . . . ]

The task climate modelers have set for themselves is to take their
knowledge of the local interactions of air masses, water, energy, and
momentum and from that knowledge explain the climate system's
large-scale features, variability, and response to external pressures,
or "forcings." That is a formidable task, and though far from complete,
the results so far have been surprisingly successful.

Bull****.

Thus,
climatologists have some confidence that theirs isn't a foolhardy
endeavor.

[ . . . ]

Climate modeling is also fundamentally different from weather
forecasting.

Bull****. No difference.

Weather concerns an initial value problem: Given today's
situation, what will tomorrow bring? Weather is chaotic; imperceptible
differences in the initial state of the atmosphere lead to radically
different conditions in a week or so. Climate is instead a boundary
value problem

A "boundary value problem?" Pure bull****.


-a statistical description of the mean state and
variability of a system, not an individual path through phase space.

"Phase space?" The phrase, "phase space," is a meaningless phrase
used by con artists to pretend that they are saying something
sophisticated. More bull****.

If you don't have sufficient education to understand something, don't
criticize it.


Current climate models yield stable and nonchaotic climates

Yield? What does this supposedly mean.


Do you have access to a dictionary?

, which
implies that questions regarding the sensitivity of climate to, say, an
increase in greenhouse gases are well posed and can be justifiably
asked of the models.

Says who?


Conceivably, though, as more
components-complicated biological systems and fully dynamic
ice-sheets, for example-are incorporated, the range of possible
feedbacks will increase, and chaotic climates might ensue.

Bull****.

Philip H. Hart wrote:
wrote:
Bull****.
Bull****.
Bull****. No difference.

A "boundary value problem?" Pure bull****.

sophisticated. More bull****.

Bull****.

Very interesting. Will we be seeing your full rebuttal in "Physics
Today" anytime soon? Post the full reference as soon as it's published,
as I just can't wait to read it!

I'll take that as a NO.

But we knew that already.