I have finished my climate class, though I still have to get the notebook in order and print out more of the slides. The class was basically a series of Powerpoint presentations (then distilled to an mp4 file). There were PDF’s for the transcripts, but no easy way to get the slides one needed. Many slides had complex equations, drawings and graphs, so it’s desirable to have printouts. I finally found a method for pulling the slides and printing them out other than screenshots, which are something of a pain to do.
Having finished the class, I have to say that my opinion of climate science pretty much remains the same, perhaps somewhat diminished. So much of what is studied is not well-understood. I did learn why modelers use “parameterizations” for clouds and other such things—lack of computer power in part. At the resolution needed to model such small (localized) events, it would take months of calculations. However, more interesting was that the professor did say that even if all the input parts are correct, they really do not know if the whole is correct. He likened it to a huge circuit, where you know all the parts work, but the circuit can still fail when put together. This is something that has bothered me all along—all the parts individually work, but there is not a real way to know if the parts work when put together. There may be missing parts, interactions not seen when viewing components separately, etc. The professor also showed a case where two model predicted exactly opposite outcomes.
“Stickman” will have more to add concerning the class later on. He’s in the process of writing up the slides!
On the subject of wildfires, I have an experiment to show why heat is not the main component to wildfires and a hotter world need not have more fires.
Go out to your charcoal barbeque, toss in a match and come back in an hour. Any fire? No? Add charcoal and repeat the process. Maybe fire? Maybe not? Add lighter fluid, toss in match and return in an hour. Fire! (Unless you used an inadequate amount of fluid, of course.) Now, very carefully, point a fan in the direction of the grill. More fire and larger flames? Probably. Try this in the winter and summer to compare the results at various temps.
What have we learned? First, there’s no fire without fuel. Doesn’t matter how hot it is. Second, wind affects the fire size. More wind, more fire. Now, if the world warms, the increase in temperature will not be the deciding factor in wildfires. IF there is increased wind, that will be a problem. However, if you remove the fuel, you greatly reduce the chance of fire. Only by clearing the fuel do we start to decrease the effects of wildfires. Since environmentalists often seem opposed to this, one has to wonder if they are trying desperately and cruelly to increase the number of fires to promote their agenda. We hope not, but the evidence is certainly leaning in that direction.
Also, no amount of “climate change mitigation” will stop or reduce the number of wildfires. Climate does not make fire, except in the case of lightening. Having seen the black circles where lightening struck ground with virtually no fuel, I can attest to the absence of fuel as a very effective means of limiting said fires. Yes, forests will still burn. We call that nature. (Interesting note: Humans cause more fires, but nature burns more acres. Perhaps because we now let fires burn in wilderness areas. I’m not sure.)
On the “how ridiculous can you get and please don’t answer that side”: School lunches are reportedly going to be based on global warming concerns. What does that mean? Who knows? I’m betting that it means a huge amount of wasted food, much like that which occurred after Michelle Obama decided to alter the lunches. How can throwing away more and more food help the planet? Unless…….Let’s not go there. It’s really, really getting out of hand. Soon people will just start laughing when someone mentions global warming, or commit an act of assault out of frustration. Reality just derailed—over the cliff and barreling toward the ground below.
I was reminded again that the debate on climate change is one of emotion and overlooking the flaws in your side’s behaviours. Error’s made by skeptics are often overlooked by skeptics, irregardless of the seriousness of the error, using any excuse available. It’s quite interesting that skeptics have “science” on their side yet fail to use it and overlook the exact same behaviours they criticize in warmists. If it’s not about facts and accuracy, then there’s really no point to the discussion. Let’s just put on joisting suits and settle this once and for all. May the loudest, fastest group win and “the science then be settled”.
It is interesting that skeptics constantly deride Mann and others for their ad hominems, but they themselves see nothing wrong with fabricating a persona for a commenter and addressing the commenter as if the persona were real. Accusations fly and taunting, which if done by a warmest, is evil and bad. There is an incredible amount of hypocrisy in skeptics behaviours. They will defend the ad hominems, fabricated personas, etc by saying “you started it”. Really, who started with Mann? I believe that was skeptics. So it’s okay to make fun of, taunt and vilify the opposition, but it’s wrong if it’s directed at a skeptic? Then it’s a logical fallacy, off topic, etc. Sheer unadultered hypocrisy. This is not about science for all skeptics, obviously.
Lastly, I am wondering when the El Nino that was predicted might show up in Wyoming. Snow is predicted in the western mountains tonight. Wednesday’s high is to be mid-6o’s (F) and there are freeze warnings for the second time on the western half of the state. We do have those phenomenal Wyoming winds. The ones that cycle from 10 mph to 40 mph and back in 10 minutes or less. Must be extremely tough on the power plants trying to keep up with the fluctuations in power courtesy of the 19th century power solutions pushed by greens and rewarded by the government with huge grants and tax breaks. I’m sure the power plant operators have all kinds of things to say about this.
Winds were high enough to blow over the neighbor’s tin shed and there was lightening the other night that was phenomenal! It reminds me of the early 80’s when I first moved to Wyoming. Same weather pattern—wet, cold and windy. I’m hoping this means more snow and colder winters. We will see soon enough. Meantime, my garden really doesn’t need frost for now.
Update: June 17th The Beartooth Highway is closed due to snow and there are freeze warnings over much of the western side of Wyoming.