How good were climate models 30 years ago?

So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. AGW = world
socialist control, not control of C02.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:20:26 -0500, Rich wrote:

So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. AGW = world
socialist control, not control of C02.

Revisionist mythology. The climate models 30 years ago did not predict
an ice age. No climate model has predicted an upcoming ice age.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:20:26 -0500, Rich wrote:

So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. AGW = world
socialist control, not control of C02.

Revisionist mythology. The climate models 30 years ago did not predict
an ice age. No climate model has predicted an upcoming ice age.

================================================== =====
I can't decide whether your head is above cloud 9 or buried in the sand,
Peterson, but ice ages are cyclic and we are due for another as the
ice core data shows.
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...core-petit.png
Don't worry, the Sahara won't bloom again in your lifetime, nor
can you control Earth's precession. GW yes, AGW bull****.

On Jul 19, 1:11*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:20:26 -0500, Rich wrote:
So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. *AGW = world
socialist control, not control of C02.

Revisionist mythology. The climate models 30 years ago did not predict
an ice age. No climate model has predicted an upcoming ice age.

Because the climate models are not designed to do so.

On Jul 19, 12:20*am, Rich wrote:
*So good they were predicting the next ice age was coming. *AGW = world
socialist control, not control of C02.

Need to predict a warming climate? There's an app for that.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:40:07 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

I can't decide whether your head is above cloud 9 or buried in the sand,
Peterson, but ice ages are cyclic and we are due for another as the
ice core data shows.
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...core-petit.png
Don't worry, the Sahara won't bloom again in your lifetime, nor
can you control Earth's precession. GW yes, AGW bull****.

He was talking about the myth promulgated by science deniers that
climate scientists believed we were on the verge of a new ice age,
which would take hold over a short time period. That was never an
accepted idea.

Of course, glacial periods are semiperiodic on geological time scales.
That's not what was being discussed, and indeed, climate on long time
scales is analyzed very differently than on scales of a few centuries.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:39:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Revisionist mythology. The climate models 30 years ago did not predict
an ice age. No climate model has predicted an upcoming ice age.

Because the climate models are not designed to do so.

We understand the mechanism behind glacial and interglacial periods
precisely because climate models DO treat them effectively.

As is typical for those uneducated in the rudiments of climate
science, you confuse models intended to study long term climate on the
Earth (periods of a few thousand years or longer) with models intended
to study the climate of the last few hundred years. Short period
models accurately predict temperatures that make it clear no extended
period of cooling will occur during the model range of the next few
centuries. The models are perfectly capable of showing cooling.

On Jul 19, 2:53*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:39:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Revisionist mythology. The climate models 30 years ago did not predict
an ice age. No climate model has predicted an upcoming ice age.

Because the climate models are not designed to do so.

We understand the mechanism behind glacial and interglacial periods
precisely because climate models DO treat them effectively.

As is typical for those uneducated in the rudiments of climate
science, you confuse models intended to study long term climate on the
Earth (periods of a few thousand years or longer) with models intended
to study the climate of the last few hundred years. Short period
models accurately predict temperatures that make it clear no extended
period of cooling will occur during the model range of the next few
centuries. The models are perfectly capable of showing cooling.

I find it amazing,the old ideology is still retained that if the Earth
has a 0 degree inclination it would have no seasons whereas in the
21st century this is no longer viable as an assertion as 0 degree
inclination represents an equatorial climate where temperature swings
are minimal as opposed to a 90 degree inclination where latitudinal
temperature fluctuations over the course of an orbit would be
extremely large.Hypothetically imposing the inclination of Uranus on
the Earth's and its daily/orbital features would result in large areas
of the Earth experiencing a polar climate as opposed to its present
status as largely equatorial with gentler swings over large areas as
the Earth moves along its orbital circumference.

The rudiments of climate science indeed !, no society ever to set
foot on the planet bar this one ever imagined it could control the
planet's temperature by doing or undoing something -
pollution,yes,that is a different matter but this idea of temperature
control is beyond embarrassment into a type of disorder.

What will save climate studies and indeed the connection between
astronomy and terrestrial sciences is the reworking of the old 'no
tilt/no seasons' ideology into the new perspective of planet's having
varying degrees of an equatorial or polar climate.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:40:07 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

I can't decide whether your head is above cloud 9 or buried in the sand,
Peterson, but ice ages are cyclic and we are due for another as the
ice core data shows.
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...core-petit.png
Don't worry, the Sahara won't bloom again in your lifetime, nor
can you control Earth's precession. GW yes, AGW bull****.

He was talking about the myth promulgated by science deniers that
climate scientists believed we were on the verge of a new ice age,
which would take hold over a short time period. That was never an
accepted idea.

Of course, glacial periods are semiperiodic on geological time scales.
That's not what was being discussed, and indeed, climate on long time
scales is analyzed very differently than on scales of a few centuries.

================================================== ======
My apologies for misunderstanding your words.
I will point out, though, that the legend of a world wide flood is founded
in fact, sea levels rose by 100 metres when the mile high northern ice
sheet melted, and did so in a short time period. Artefacts and mammoth
ivory are regularly dredged up from the North Sea by trawlers, indicating
that land animals and man lived there as recently as 10,000 years ago.
The reason the flood was rapid is attributed to the reflectivity of ice.
It reflects solar energy back into space, whilst water loaded with blue-
green algae absorbs it. The result is once the melt begins it goes
rapidly, more water and less ice means more energy is absorbed,
which is positive feedback. You can see it happening when the streets
turn to slush and the remains of the snowman is sitting in the middle
of a green lawn. The opposite happens when the scales tip the other
way, more ice means more reflectivity and less solar energy is absorbed.
With clouds, however, we get negative feedback. Solar energy
evaporates the oceans, the water vapour condenses into clouds,
the clouds form a reflective blanket over the ocean and block the
sun from the sea, reducing the evaporation. More cloud means
less cloud, but more surface ice means more surface ice.
It is Earth's great white spot, Antarctica, and precession, that drives
the cycle. Currently Antarctica is tilted toward the sun at perihelion
where it is reflecting solar energy but melting. At aphelion the
North Pole is tilted toward the sun and absorbs more solar energy,
but less than Antarctica due to the inverse square law. The result
is the planet warms. When Antarctica is facing the sun at aphelion
the reverse effect happens and we are in a cold period with positive
feedback. But make no mistake, when the ice melts it will go fast
and when it comes back that will be fast too. And because warm
air rises and cool air sinks the wind patterns will change and the
deserts will have water again. This whole CO2 AGW nonsense is
is just political baloney and alarmism, man has no effect on the
Earth's orbit. That isn't science denying, that is looking at the bigger
picture. AGW is algae global warming, not anthropological global
warming, and it is the algae that decompose CO2 and H2O to
form the oil in the first place, whilst the trees and peat becomes
coal.

On Jul 19, 4:03*pm, "Androcles" wrote:

Currently Antarctica is tilted toward the sun at perihelion
where it is reflecting solar energy but melting. At aphelion the
North Pole is tilted toward the sun and absorbs more solar energy,
but less than Antarctica due to the inverse square law.


Just another empiricist child with no feeling for orbital dynamics.

One of the oldest human clocks is 5200 years old or 20 % through a
precession of roughly 25920 years - the Solstice marker using a
roofbox still registers the orbital point of the Earth in December
just as it has been doing for the last 5000 years .This fact would
normally send people adjusting their views to look on orbital
precession as a separate issue to the quasi-rotation of the polar
coordinates to the Sun each orbital circuit.

Use a broom handle to fix your axial inclination in constant alignment
throughout an orbital circuit as you walk/orbit a central object and
watch in amazement as precession to the central Sun emerges as an
orbital trait with only a slight adjustment to consider the ecliptic
precession which most people mistake for axial precession.

All in a day's work for an astronomer in a world full of
mathematicians who don't have a feel for terrestrial effects arising
from planetary dynamics.