beecee

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-nasa-large-amount-exoplanet-atmosphere.html NASA finds a large amount of water in an exoplanet's atmosphere March 1, 2018, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Using Hubble and Spitzer, astronomers analyzed the atmosphere of the "hot Saturn" exoplanet WASP-39b, and they captured the most complete spectrum of an exoplanet's atmosphere possible with present-day technology. By dissecting starlight filtering through the planet's atmosphere into its component colors, the team found clear evidence for water vapor. Although the researchers predicted they would see water, they were surprised by how much water they found - three times as much water as Saturn has. This suggests that the planet formed farther out from the star, where it was bombarded by icy material. Credit: NASA, ESA, G. Bacon and A. Feild (STScI), and H. Wakeford (STScI/Univ. of Exeter) Much like detectives study fingerprints to identify the culprit, scientists used NASA's Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes to find the "fingerprints" of water in the atmosphere of a hot, bloated, Saturn-mass exoplanet some 700 light-years away. And, they found a lot of water. In fact, the planet, known as WASP-39b, has three times as much water as Saturn does. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-nasa-large-amount-exoplanet-atmosphere.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This then seems to suggest a hypothetical that I have heard a few times, particularly with the number of "hot Jupiter"planets found, and comparing with our own Jupiter...Planetary migration. A nice WIKI article on this suggestion and the possible types at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_migration

Totally agree! People though can and will attempt to justify just about anything you can think of, no matter how extreme.

I don't believe anyone is even contemplating that. While most accept the fact that we would most probably not be the only life in the Universe, the facts of the matter is that sadly, as yet we have no evidence for any life off this Earth. In saying that, if by the remotest of chances, we were the only life in the universe, it would raise far many more questions then the alternative I believe. The god botherers would have a field day!! Swansont has raised some excellent points that needs to be accepted. Also the Kardeshev scale of civilisation that you have mentioned is no more then a man made hypothetical application of possibilities. But don't despair. As I said in another thread, most reasonable people would agree we are probably not alone, with probable civilisations existing in this big wide wonderful universe, that maybe in advance of us, and plenty more probable examples of life at its most basic form. The universe is made for that I believe. Plus also SETI and some scientists including Seth Shostak are pretty confident that we will have the extraordinary evidence for basic life off this Earth within a decade, and that most likely will be in our own solar system...worlds such as Europa and Enceledus for example. For more complicated life forms including advanced intelligent life forms, then they may be further afield....Time and distance though are the two great barriers to inter-planetary contact between intelligent life forms, assuming we can be classed as intelligent.

I believe that's hit the nail on the proverbial head! Well said!

Here's that Greek Angel again singing country.......

Hiya Norton! I see you are from Wollongong. That's only 85 kms South of Sydney, where I reside. I often take the Mrs down there for a drive and relate what history I know of the Wollongong/Illawarra and of course Port Kembla region, only a couple of clicks further South. Great coal mining region and Steel production region of course. Just saying. http://www.nswmining.com.au/industry/nsw-mining-history

UFO sightings! There have been literally thousands of them!! While around 95% have been explained by weird weather phenomena, military aircraft of sorts, refraction/reflection of light, cloud formations, sprites, vivid imaginations, hallucinations, illusions, skullduggery and trickery etc, there is that lingering 5% that remained unexplained. Have we been visited by Aliens? The best we can say is that at this time, we have no convincing evidence to show earth has been visited or that any life actually exists off this earth at all. In saying that, let me state that I firmly accept that life off this Earth, must exist at some time and/or in some other place. The extent of the universe...the content, the billions of billions of stars, and even more planets...the stuff of life being everywhere we have looked. One of mankind's greatest unanswered question is "are we alone": Most scientists I'm pretty sure would answer that with no, with the proviso that at this point in time, we still do not have any evidence for any existence of extra terrestrial life from of this Earth. But to say that Aliens have visited Earth, to claim that a UFO is of Alien origins, to accept that Earth people have been kidnapped and anally probed by these Alien beings, is by any standards an Amazing, extraordinary claim. And as such requires amazing, extraordinary evidence. eg: Parts of a space ship or Saucer, a tool that is alien to us, excreta or other body parts/waste. The so called crop circles, the lights in the sky, etc, no matter how bizzare is just not good enough to accept as evidence of Aliens. Perhaps Aliens have visited Earth. but we can never really be certain. But I ask myself, if that was true, and Aliens had visited Earth at some time, obviously they would be far in advance of us. So they would have no reason to be afraid of us. They would not really want of anything, as everything found on Earth is found elsewhere, particularly that very common stuff we call water. Why are they coming, just flittering in and then flittering out again? Why don't they land on the forecourts of the Sydney Opera House, or the lawns of Westminster castle, or on the White House lawns in the US? I certainly do not agree with one top notch scientist I admire tremendously Professor Stephen Hawking with regards to aggression. I like to believe that the more advanced we are, and the knowledge gained, the less chance of any aggressive "Klingon" like nature. Have I ever seen a UFO? Yep, about 25 years ago when I was driving along the shores of Botany Bay in Sydney. I saw a slow moving blue disk, about the apparent size of the Sun, low on the distant horizon. It lasted for around 5 seconds before dipping below the horizon. I went home, went to bed thinking about it and wondering what do do. I arose next morning, put on the news and brought the paper....no headlines, no mention of Earth being invaded, nothing, zilch, nada. I thought about it a bit more and simply put it down to one of those unexplained things. I did not jump to any conclusions re Aliens, even though one of my greatest wishes before I kick the bucket, would be for the verification and validation of ETL off this Earth. It is encouraging though that SETI and many other scientists are now confident that the required extraordinary evidence may be found within the next decade. Europa and Enceladus stand out as possible habitats for possible basic life forms right in our own system. So ending on that score, I implore any Aliens out there who may have access to our Internet, and possibly this forum, please! make yourself know to us! Stop hiding and playing games! I know you're there,

No problems, although you still appear rather emotional about some non existing case. I hope I have helped in some small way.

Not really....More to the point is the observation that sometimes people/trolls/religious fanatics/those with delusions of grandeur etc, purposely come to a science forum [note science forum] with only one intention...to generally disrupt, or put some extreme political point and/or agenda, he or she happens to be into. At times, yes, I have noticed that, and generally from the crowd that come here for a distinct purpose other then mainstream science. Hmmm, you seem somewhat dissatisfied. Why is that? I am actually a relative newbie, although I have been a member since 2013, I have only been active for less then a year. I find the questions, answers and scientific articles as quite refreshing, with of course the obligatory moderators. A necessary evil if you will. If your emotions are due to some of your ideas and claims being rubbished, you must remember, that any scientific theory, including the overwhelmingly accepted ones like BB, GR. SR, and the theory of evolution, have all had to "run the gauntlet" so to speak. Ideas and hypotheticals are just that, and they must by necessity stand up to scrutiny, on forums such as this, and also by professional standards with publishing of papers and being professionally peer reviewed. If you chose to reject that, or make up your own rules, definitions etc, and insist everyone else accepts your say so, then you are up shit creek...or pissing into the wind.

Let's be clear about this......The sheer content and extent of the universe/space/time we are in, coupled with the stuff of life being everywhere we look, means in my opinion that if we were the only lifeform on planet Earth, it would raise far many more questions, then the far more logical belief in that ETL and ETI most likely exists somewhere, sometime. Most scientists worth their salt are of that opinion I believe. In saying all of that, the crux of the matter at this era of time, is that we have absolutely no evidence of any ETL or ETI. But of course the two great barriers preventing knowledge of other species and eventual contact, is time and distance. Unexplained UFO's are simply that.....Unidentified.

Agreed...thanks.

Bingo! Myself and my Mrs sponsor a child through world vision....a little 5 year old boy. $30/month is well worth trying to help people who through no fault of there own, are forced to live in squalor and hunger. Yes, it gives me some consolation and satisfaction that I am at least attempting in a small way to help those through no fault of there own, live in squalor and hunger. That, the last time I heard was a Christian attitude, so perhaps the Pope may have not excommunicated me as I once thought. There will always be people in this world that maintain the old "f$%# you Jack, I'm alright" attitude, and stoop to find and manufacture any and all excuses why they/we the world should turn a blind eye to such horror. Thank f%^$#@% Christ though, that they are in a minority. Many such situations are brought about by environmental conditions, and although science is helping in this regard [with better weather forecasting, agricultural improvements via satellites etc] governments, big business, and individuals can make some improvment in their living conditions. There but for the grace of my magical Spaghetti monster go I..

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-simulations-weather-patterns-india-due.html Simulations suggest changes in weather patterns coming to India due to global warming February 27, 2018 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org A team of researchers with the Center for Prototype Climate Modeling, New York University Abu Dhabi, and the University of California has created a computer simulation to predict changes in weather for India in the coming years as the planet warms due to global warming. In their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the group describes the data and factors they applied to their models and outlines what the simulations revealed.As the planet continues to warm, and the likelihood of humans finding a way to discontinue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere remains remote, scientists around the world study its implications from multiple perspectives. In this new effort, the researchers focused on India, a country with a huge population dependent on food produced during its monsoon season.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-simulations-weather-patterns-india-due.html#jCp<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/16/1709031115 Decline and poleward shift in Indian summer monsoon synoptic activity in a warming climate: Significance Propagating atmospheric vortices contribute more than half of the total rainfall received by the fertile and highly populated Gangetic plains of India. How the activity of these storms will change in a warming climate is not yet understood, due to both the inadequate representation of these disturbances in global climate models and a lack of theory for their fundamental dynamics. Here we show that both a high-resolution atmospheric model and a statistical model predict that the activity of these storms weakens and shifts poleward from ocean to land in a warmer environment. The associated changes in seasonal mean rainfall and precipitation extremes are expected to have serious implications for the hydrological cycle of South Asia. Abstract Cyclonic atmospheric vortices of varying intensity, collectively known as low-pressure systems (LPS), travel northwest across central India and produce more than half of the precipitation received by that fertile region and its ∼600 million inhabitants. Yet, future changes in LPS activity are poorly understood, due in part to inadequate representation of these storms in current climate models. Using a high-resolution atmospheric general circulation model that realistically simulates the genesis distribution of LPS, here we show that Indian monsoon LPS activity declines about 45% by the late 21st century in simulations of a business-as-usual emission scenario. The distribution of LPS genesis shifts poleward as it weakens, with oceanic genesis decreasing by ∼60% and continental genesis increasing by ∼10%; over land the increase in storm counts is accompanied by a shift toward lower storm wind speeds. The weakening and poleward shift of the genesis distribution in a warmer climate are confirmed and attributed, via a statistical model, to the reduction and poleward shift of low-level absolute vorticity over the monsoon region, which in turn are robust features of most coupled model projections. The poleward shift in LPS activity results in an increased frequency of extreme precipitation events over northern India.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-black-hole-blasts-mini-neptunes-rocky.html Black hole blasts may transform 'mini-Neptunes' into rocky worlds: A team of astrophysicists and planetary scientists has predicted that Neptune-like planets located near the center of the Milky Way were transformed into rocky planets by outbursts generated by the nearby supermassive black hole. These findings combine computer simulations with data from recent exoplanet findings, as well as X-ray and ultraviolet observations of stars and black holes. "It's pretty wild to think of black holes shaping the evolutionary destiny of a planet, but that very well may be the case in the center of our galaxy," said Howard Chen of Northwestern University in Illinois, who led the study. Chen and collaborators from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) examined the environment around the closest supermassive black hole to Earth: the 4 million solar mass black hole known as Sagittarius A*. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-black-hole-blasts-mini-neptunes-rocky.html#jCp :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaab46/meta Habitable Evaporated Cores and the Occurrence of Panspermia Near the Galactic Center: Abstract Black holes growing via the accretion of gas emit radiation that can photoevaporate the atmospheres of nearby planets. Here, we couple planetary structural evolution models of sub-Neptune-mass planets to the growth of the Milky Way's central supermassive black hole, Sgr A*, and investigate how planetary evolution is influenced by quasar activity. We find that, out to ~20 pc from Sgr A*, the XUV flux emitted during its quasar phase can remove several percent of a planet's H/He envelope by mass; in many cases, this removal results in bare rocky cores, many of which are situated in the habitable zones of G-type stars. Near the Galactic Center, the erosion of sub-Neptune-sized planets may be one of the most prevalent channels by which terrestrial super-Earths are created. As such, the planet population demographics may be quite different close to Sgr A* than in the galactic outskirts. The high stellar densities in this region (about seven orders of magnitude greater than the solar neighborhood) imply that the distance between neighboring rocky worlds is short (500–5000 au). The proximity between potentially habitable terrestrial planets may enable the onset of widespread interstellar panspermia near the nuclei of our galaxy. More generally, we predict these phenomena to be ubiquitous for planets in nuclear star clusters and ultra-compact dwarfs. Globular clusters, on the other hand, are less affected by the central black holes. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, another interesting article and hypothesis re planetary systems. Which prompts me to ask the question re our own system in 5 billion years time, when the Sun swells to a red giant. Could stellar winds and other probable violent activity in that period of our system, have a similar effect on Jupiter and Saturn? How about on Neptune and Uranus further out? Temperatures from the red giant would certainly be cooler, but violent stellar winds etc, could possibly have the same effects, on our gassy and icy giants, exposing their rocky cores. Nice to see one of my own pet hypotheticals getting a mention also...Panspermia. Continuing in the same vane, when our red giant Sun blows off the outer layer in a planetary nebula, leaving a White Dwarf, how many of the rocky cores that have been exposed could support any life if Panspermia was also an effect. White Dwarfs are incredibly hot when first formed and can maintain their heat for an incredible period before becoming a Black cinder.

Great article Strange! Cosmology continues to reveal awe inspiring knowledge on when the universe first lit up with the first stars. also here...... https://phys.org/news/2018-02-secrets-universe.html "Then for the next 50-100 million years, gravity slowly pulled the densest regions of gas together until ultimately the gas collapsed in some places to form the first stars. What were those first stars like and when did they form? How did they affect the rest of the universe? These are questions astronomers and astrophysicists have long pondered. Now, after 12 years of experimental effort, a team of scientists, led by ASU School of Earth and Space Exploration astronomer Judd Bowman, has detected the fingerprints of the earliest stars in the universe. Using radio signals, the detection provides the first evidence for the oldest ancestors in our cosmic family tree, born by a mere 180 million years after the universe began." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-secrets-universe.html#jCp

Here is an associated article...... https://phys.org/news/2017-12-fracking-earthquakesweighing-dangers-south-africa.html Fracking and earthquakes—weighing up the dangers in South Africa December 20, 2017 by Andrzej Kijko And Surina Esterhuyse, The Conversation, The Conversation The South African government is looking into fracking to reduce the country's huge reliance on coal for energy. Fracking involves pumping high pressured fluids into rock formations to release reserves of oil and gas. Estimates for gas deposits in the main Karoo region of South Africa range widely. A few studies have been done for government on the potential for shale gas in the country. These include a report on the technical readiness for a shale gas industry, a strategic environmental assessment on shale gas and a multi-authored academic book on hydraulic fracturing in the Karoo. Government must now integrate this information into policy and develop regulations for the fracking industry. Environmental groups and landowners are concerned about the negative environmental and the social impact of fracking. They say that it could have an impact on water quality and quantity, and could also cause habitat fragmentation and loss. They are also worried about possible increased seismicity associated with deep well waste water injection and fracking operations. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-fracking-earthquakesweighing-dangers-south-africa.html#jCp :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: In my country while fracking is being undertaken, it has also been banned in certain ecological areas..... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-27/fracking-ban-in-nt-should-stay-say-leading-climate-scientists/9486380 Fracking ban in the Northern Territory should stay, group of leading climate scientists says Thirty-one of Australia's leading climate scientists and doctors have written an open letter to the Northern Territory Government calling on it to not permit the opening up of new gas fields through hydraulic fracturing. more at link....

Science, particularly cosmology, is a discipline in continued progress. The BB remains the most popular supported theory of the evolution of the universe/space/time from t+10-43 seconds, and is overwhelmingly supported by the main pillars of evidence. As detailed in the following, while the obvious imbalance between matter and anti matter is still unsolved, there is investigations in progress...... https://home.cern/topics/antimatter/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem extract from above link.... "In the past few decades, particle-physics experiments have shown that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. Physicists are keen to discover the reasons why. Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay. Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-man-made-earthquake-fracking-895m-faults.html Man-made earthquake risk reduced if fracking is 895m from faults February 27, 2018, Durham University The risk of man-made earthquakes due to fracking is greatly reduced if high-pressure fluid injection used to crack underground rocks is 895m away from faults in the Earth's crust, according to new research.The recommendation, from the ReFINE (Researching Fracking) consortium, is based on published microseismic data from 109 fracking operations carried out predominantly in the USA.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-man-made-earthquake-fracking-895m-faults.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: THE PAPER: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40948-018-0081-y Abstract: Induced earthquakes and shallow groundwater contamination are two environmental concerns associated with the interaction between hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations and geological faults. To reduce the risks of fault reactivation and faults acting as fluid conduits to groundwater resources, fluid injection needs to be carried out at sufficient distances away from faults. Westwood et al. (Geomechanics and geophysics for geo-energy and geo-resources, pp 1–13, 2017) suggest a maximum horizontal respect distance of 433 m to faults using numerical modelling, but its usefulness is limited by the model parameters. An alternative approach is to use microseismic data to infer the extent of fracture propagation and stress changes. Using published microseismic data from 109 fracking operations and analysis of variance, we find that the empirical risk of detecting microseismicity in shale beyond a horizontal distance of 433 m is 32% and beyond 895 m is 1%. The extent of fracture propagation and stress changes is likely a result of operational parameters, borehole orientation, local geological factors, and the regional stress state. We suggest a horizontal respect distance of 895 m between horizontal boreholes orientated perpendicular to the maximum horizontal stress direction and faults optimally orientated for failure under the regional stress state.

Confusion and deft side stepping seems to actually be your modus operandi As I showed yesterday you certainly have at worst, at best maybe just ignorant of the process. The evidence, and denial of evidence actually points to your own obtuseness and childish refusal to admit you are wrong. Your position and religious like fervour in continuing to deny reality, can be summed up as follows....a blanket denial of any authority and existing climate change models that does not align with your preconceived position, and the usual "conspiracy" type accusation that the science community, and this forum is out to get you. That has been evident from day one, when you strangely accused others of insulting you just by showing you are wrong. One must wonder with your obvious agenda, that when you finally accept the futility and errors in your mission here, when you will direct your zealous agenda to other areas of science, like the BB for instance, or the theory of evolution, or Abiogenesis.

Er yes: Argument from authority, as long as that authority is credentialed in the relevant discipline is not only welcome and desirable, but also as I keep telling you, an everyday occurrence, both within the science field and outside it. But naturally to accept that fact, immediately sinks your argument, claim, crusade and denial. The modelers [nice to see you recognise that fact finally] have done their job based on years and years of observation, new data and successful predictions. It is you claiming they havn't any model, then ironically claiming that what models they do have, do not stand up to "your scrutiny" Yes, the onus is on you as per the scientific methodology. This is getting rather boring and as it is prolonged, supports more and more, the premise of you being burdened with an agenda. Again, personally, as an amateur, I certainly to an extent, take on trust, the models of reputable, credentialled and professional opinions within mainstream, the same as we all, including you do also. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming Global warming predictions prove accurate Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists' modelling of climate change shows. The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change. The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree. more at link :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#702880446614 The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly Modeling the Earth's climate is one of the most daunting, complicated tasks out there. If only we were more like the Moon, things would be easy. The Moon has no atmosphere, no oceans, no icecaps, no seasons, and no complicated flora and fauna to get in the way of simple radiative physics. No wonder it's so challenging to model! In fact, if you google "climate models wrong", eight of the first ten results showcasefailure. But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right. more at link..... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0241%3ATEOTAW>2.0.CO%3B2 Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity Abstract Radiative convective equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity is computed as the asymptotic state of an initial value problem. The results show that it takes almost twice as long to reach the state of radiative convective equilibrium for the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity than for the atmosphere with a given distribution of absolute humidity. Also, the surface equilibrium temperature of the former is almost twice as sensitive to change of various factors such as solar constant, CO2 content, O3 content, and cloudiness, than that of the latter, due to the adjustment of water vapor content to the temperature variation of the atmosphere. According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C. Our model does not have the extreme sensitivity of atmospheric temperature to changes of CO2 content which was adduced by Möller.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051019001040.htm Climate Model Predicts Dramatic Changes Over Next 100 Years Date: October 19, 2005 Source: Purdue University Summary: The most comprehensive climate model to date of the continental United States predicts more extreme temperatures throughout the country and more extreme precipitation along the Gulf Coast, in the Pacific Northwest and east of the Mississippi. The climate model takes into account a large number of factors that have been incompletely incorporated in past studies. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02695.pdf The physics of climate change: simple models in climate science Nadir Jeevanjee∗†‡ February 23, 2018 Abstract There is a perception that climate science can only be approached with complex computer simulations. But working climate scientists often use simple models to understand their simulations and make order-of-magnitude estimates. This article presents some of these simple models with the goal of making climate science more accessible and comprehensible. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.05870.pdf Physics-guided probabilistic modeling of extreme precipitation under climate change ABSTRACT Earth System Models (ESMs) are the state of the art for projecting the effects of climate change. However, longstanding uncertainties in their ability to simulate regional and local precipitation extremes and related processes inhibit decision making. Stakeholders would be best supported by probabilistic projections of changes in extreme precipitation at relevant space-time scales. Here we propose an empirical Bayesian model that extends an existing skill and consensus based weighting framework and test the hypothesis that nontrivial, physics-guided measures of ESM skill can help produce reliable probabilistic characterization of climate extremes. Specifically, the model leverages knowledge of physical relationships between temperature, atmospheric moisture capacity, and extreme precipitation intensity to iteratively weight and combine ESMs and estimate probability distributions of return levels. Out-of-sample validation shows evidence that the Bayesian model is a sound method for deriving reliable probabilistic projections. Beyond precipitation extremes, the framework may be a basis for a generic, physics-guided approach to modeling probability distributions of climate variables in general, extremes or otherwise. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Plenty more to come my friend, but at this time I'm rather tired and hungry and debating/arguing with you is too much like arguing with religious fanatics...You know you will never get anywhere! Bingo!!! And therein lies your ignorance and obvious crusade. You are arguing as an amateur, on a open public forum open to any one that feels like it.

I don't need to, thank you very much. I have a very good inside into and making judgements on where a person is coming from. Now that may not really be scientific, but it is certainly on the mark! You can wear that oft repeated claim as your badge of honour, but just as obviously we all argue from authority at times, and that authority is certainly head and shoulders above claims by those on evangelistic missions to attempt to press home their agenda/s What you have written is all unsupported and rhetoric. Many, and I really havn't the time, nor am I that interested in answering your continued unsupported claims, as against professional credentialled authority You will investigate?? Impressive, but on what authority? Another poor unrelated analogy.

What I actually mean, is that religion and any form of intelligent design claim, is supernatural and/or paranormal in content and as such are simply unscientific reasonings or claims: eg: while we all agree the theory of evolution is fact according to the overwhelming indisputable evidence available, the theory of how life started universally, can only really be answered by one means....Abiogenesis, even though as yet no evidence is forthcoming.It is factually the only answer...Life from non life: We are all star stuff to quote the great Carl Sagan. Any supernatural answer is unscientific

Same old, same old! The forum has every idea what you are inferring. In ignoring the same old repeat with this post, let me sum up your standings so far... [1] You come here asking for advice re climate models, with the hint of your agenda. [2] You argue and make excuses re the replies you received about others being snarky and not aligning with the scientific method and a myriad of other unsupported excuses. [3] You claim to specifically want to stick and argue as per the scientific method, yet have made two so far incredible basic errors. [4] You reject all valid replies given to you so far. [5] You reject any and all links to authority that show your premise to be totally wrong. [6] You hide behind whatever your agenda is, and that is driving you so fanatically on this crusade. [I've often seen this reaction with many God Botherers] [7] In rejecting any and all authority, you want people to accept the unsupported rhetoric you are engaging in, and the many unsupported claims. [8] You claim no one has submitted any climate change model, yet say......... At best this is just an example of extreme contradiction at worst, and/or simply splitting hairs at best. [9] And finally, you as an amateur have absolutely no credibility in trying to deny the effects of human induced climate change, no matter how many attempts you make to try confuse the issue and muddy the waters. hmmm, at this moment I'm afraid I can't think of a 10th reason, but I'm sure in time it will be revealed.

Your rather incorrect inference has already been answered. Just because Einsteins equations of GR have not been changed, does not mean that they never will be changed. Although of course the longer a theory such as GR stands up to observations and keeps making successful predictions, the more certain it does become. Yes the models we have now are correct, but if shown by further observations to be lacking, or require modification, then it will be added to and/or modified. I thought you claim to know the scientific method? You need to be more careful in what you claim other people are saying. I did not say that was part of the scientific method you appear ignorant of....I listed, [1] you claiming/asking for proof, and [2] your rather weird interpretation of why a scientific theory is just that and can be updated. Only when that Authority is not credentialled in the relevant discipline. We all, you and I included, use authority when needed. Reject all you like. Just as most on this forum are rejecting your own non authoritive, uncredentialled views on climate change. Again, your reading and/or interpretation seems questionable. We have climate models that differentiate Summer and Winter, or where one is positioned, and of course the two links I have given and the "Chasing Ice" video you seem to ignore. I'm not a scientist, neither are you...I do not have any preconceived hidden agenda...you appear to have. And of course your raising of the EMS has nothing at all to do with climate change models, and appears to be another ploy. I have given you three links...read and learn. I cannot return your honest compliment I'm afraid. More to the point, I actually reject your apparent agenda laden crusade against climate change which is scientifically validated. Placing yourself on a pedestal and claiming people are insulted by your unsupported nonsense on a public forum, is really funny. What do you believe you are changing? Why not do as I suggested if you feel the scientific world is wrong and submit a paper? Or will you now claim potential bias? or incalcitrance by those that will probably judge that paper as it should be. You have rejected all reasonable answers to your questions, ignored at least three links, and then claim all on this forum are insulting you. That's a mighty tall pedestal you are on! The science is there and obvious to any reasonable person. Climate change, human induced exists...climate models exist and both have been shown to you, while you sit back and blithely reject any and all answers and links, under that false "authority" nonsense. Let me get to the point...what is your agenda? Oh that's right...its not up for discussion is it. You would rather sit there and make unsupported, uncredentially, unauthoritive claims, and then claim authoritive claims are a fallacy and invalid. You really expect people to not to see through your facade and agenda?