Global Warming Science Denial & Scepticism

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Global Warming Science Denial & Scepticism

#1  Postby Luis Dias » Apr 27, 2010 5:10 pm


!
MODNOTE
Split from earth-sciences/global-warming-science-discussion-t5951.html . - Mazille


FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
The science is telling us, with 95% probability, that earth's mean annual temeperture will be standing at somewhere between 2 and 7 or 8C above where it stood in the preindustrial era come the year 2100, which is indeed 90 years from today.


One should ponder a moment about the 95% statement. What does it really mean? Does it mean that there is a 95% chance that such phenomenon will in fact occur within 2100? No, it does not mean that. It means that if you take for granted all the axioms and assumptions from where such numbers were produced (if they were), and by "granted" I mean take them as "absolute truths", 100% true representations of the world, then there's 95% chance of this occurring.

But there's a problem here. These assumptions are called "models". So for one to utter these statements one must profess a 100% trust unto climate models, which is obviously silly. These models, in turn, have hundreds of smaller assumptions, some very easy and definite, some very hard to pin down, some even, are just values to keep the models "sane", that is, visually appealing, retrofitting nicely with the past and so on, with very little physics knowledge involved.

So how much of trust should one impinge to these models? And is this trust even possible to define numerically? I don't think so.

Finally there's the issue of averaging multi-model runs, as if they were "all equally good", after dismissing others because they gave too much warming or too little!

After all of this, to still utter the silly proclamation of "95%" chance of this going to happen like X and Y without the multi-tonne weight of caveats annexed to it is disingenuous and misleading. Fortunately, science is catching up to this common sense basic notion. The next IPCC report will address this issue better than the one we have now, although I still think it won't address it fully honestly. If it did, we would be brought back to the early 90s conclusion, and that would be politically catastrophic, if we want to have any nation doing something "about it".
User avatar
Luis Dias
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1536
Age: 32
Male

Portugal (pt)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#2  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Apr 27, 2010 8:27 pm

Luis Dias wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
The science is telling us, with 95% probability, that earth's mean annual temeperture will be standing at somewhere between 2 and 7 or 8C above where it stood in the preindustrial era come the year 2100, which is indeed 90 years from today.


One should ponder a moment about the 95% statement. What does it really mean? Does it mean that there is a 95% chance that such phenomenon will in fact occur within 2100? No, it does not mean that. It means that if you take for granted all the axioms and assumptions from where such numbers were produced (if they were), and by "granted" I mean take them as "absolute truths", 100% true representations of the world, then there's 95% chance of this occurring.

So the scientists who stated the 95% confidence are dumber than you are, is that it? I rather think that's an unlikely situation. They've been at this for 20 years, how long have you been at it? They know exactly what the characteristics and attributes are of their analytical basis and they understand their veracity.

They openly state the fact that their predictions are based on estimates of emissions that will occur between now and 2100, and it is obvious that if those estimates prove to be wrong by what emissions actually do in reality between now and then, their predictions will not be achieved and something else will happen instead. In other words, if actual emissions exceed their estimates for them, mean annual temp in 2100 will be higher than what they've predicted; if they are lower, then the mean annual temp in 2100 will be lower.

There is simply no other way to handle this aspect of making a prediction. We dont know exactly what trajectory emissions will follow or exhibit, hence we have to estimate what we think they will follow, and that's done using historical emissions data, consensus economic forecasts, and other criteria that bear on what we might expect in terms of emissions. This then is then expressly stated as an assumption.

If you know of a better way to do this, I'm all ears.

As for any "axioms" that may be in play, I think either 1) there aren't any or 2) if there are they too are treated with copious amounts of good judgement or analyses that determine their force of relevance and meaning in the equation. Do you actually think these fellows are going to publish a report that makes a predition that can easily be shot down because any or all or some of its underlying "axioms" are less than credible? WTF kind of scientist would do that? None that I know of.

You make these assertions because you know we can't get into all those details here and so that makes them easy targets for claiming we have to take them (or the scientists are taking them) as "absolute truths" or "100% true representations of the world."

But the proof is in the pudding, a 787 airliner flies and flies well and predictably, which proves that any and all "axioms" and assumptions that underpin the science and engineering by which a 787 is built are indeed true representations of the world. In climate science, the modelers have managed to make very good predictions to date, which proves the validity of whatever "axioms" that may underly their science.


Luis Dias wrote:
But there's a problem here. These assumptions are called "models".

False. Models are mathematical representations of real phenomena. When run backward and the output they produce matches actual data, we can have a high degree of confidence that the output they produce when run forward does indeed represent what's going to happen.

You need to take modeling 101.

Luis Dias wrote:
So for one to utter these statements one must profess a 100% trust unto climate models, which is obviously silly. These models, in turn, have hundreds of smaller assumptions, some very easy and definite, some very hard to pin down, some even, are just values to keep the models "sane", that is, visually appealing, retrofitting nicely with the past and so on, with very little physics knowledge involved.

I repeat, you need to take modeling 101.

The models have been under development for 25 years or more. You talk like they were invented yesterday.

Luis Dias wrote:
So how much of trust should one impinge to these models? And is this trust even possible to define numerically? I don't think so.

It's pretty easy for an armchair commentator to make such pronouncements. The problem is they run counter to the conclusions reached by some 20,000 professional climate researchers and scientists and just about every climatologist on the planet. I trust you do know this.

To hear you tell it, we should just give up the whole endeavor and let it go at that and to hell with trying to learn what the future might have in store for us. Fortunately, others don't share this idea, they keep trying, they keep working.

Luis Dias wrote:
Finally there's the issue of averaging multi-model runs, as if they were "all equally good", after dismissing others because they gave too much warming or too little!

It isn't done this way and you should know better than to claim it is.

Luis Dias wrote:
After all of this, to still utter the silly proclamation of "95%" chance of this going to happen like X and Y without the multi-tonne weight of caveats annexed to it is disingenuous and misleading. Fortunately, science is catching up to this common sense basic notion. The next IPCC report will address this issue better than the one we have now, although I still think it won't address it fully honestly. If it did, we would be brought back to the early 90s conclusion, and that would be politically catastrophic, if we want to have any nation doing something "about it".

You're stating the obvious, which is, climate science gets better as time passes and more work is done. This can be expresed as gaining better resolution as time passes.

The idea is we work with what we have. It is true for example that if we had a temperature gauge located on every 2,500 square meters of the planet, including on the oceans and in polar regions, and these gauges were all identical and set up identically, we'd have little trouble meauring the temperature of the planet as a mean average, no problem at all. But we don't enjoy that kind of instrumentation, we only have partial coverage of the planet and are therefore required to develop and establish some very sophisticated ways of using the instrumentation we do have to obtain reasobaly accurate determination of the earth's mean annual temperture, aided now days by satellite measuring.

Exhaustive efforts have been made to determine a good paleo record of earth's temperature so that we have a reasonably accurate history from which to extrapolate the future. Is it perfect to the nth degree? No, of course it isn't. But it is good enough for what we're trying to achieve and it gets better with each passing year.

But here's the thing, we know from how much C02 is in the atmosphere right now that earth's mean annual temperature is going to rise over time, we know this as well a we know the sun's gonna come up in the morning. So the question becomes, how much is it going to rise? We can infer that from how much C02 is in the atmosphere too and the rate at which it is accumulating there. That's chemistry and physics and the known behavior of GHGs. These kinds of studies and analyses also point to a rise in earth's mean annual temperature in the same range the model predicts, somewhere between 2 and 7C degrees in the year 2100. Wow, whatta ya know, two completely different approaches yield essentialy the same results.

You appear to think you know better how all this should be done than the professionals who are actually doing the work. In that light, what would you propose as a better means of projecting future trends or events or expressing them or describing them? Or are you of the mind that we ought to just give it all up and stop trying?

I'm all ears.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 82
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#3  Postby Leonidas » Apr 27, 2010 8:36 pm

bit_pattern wrote
So, when you look out your window and see the horizon, do you conclude the Earth is flat?

If you lived where I live you'd know the world wasn't flat. If you're not going uphill you're going downhill. But I am puzzled, what has the horizon got to do with the nonsense of a flat Earth? The horizon is produced by the curvature of the Earth.

Sterling logic there, old chap. Who the hell needs data from buoys, satellites or tide-gauge measurements when you can just pop down to the beach and see for yourself!

Exactly! But don't worry, if the sea starts rising I'll raise the alarm long before you can correlate data from satellites etc.

It's always illuminating to see just what sorts of cognitive gymnastics people have to put themselves through to deny reality.

I know. Some people even think that sea-level is rising when any body can look at the sea and see it has not.

I just wonder how people like you end up on a forum like this. Is it some form of intellectual masochism that drives you?

Wait a minute, I am on the rational SKEPTICISM forum aren't I? Belief is not enough. If it looks like bread and wine and tastes like bread and wine then it's bread and wine. The consensus followed by experts for 2,000 years makes no sense to me.
Leonidas
 
Posts: 231

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#4  Postby Leonidas » Apr 27, 2010 9:08 pm

bit_pattern wrote
Yeah, well, I hate to break it to you, Einstein, but sea level is an average, it can vary wildly from ocean to ocean, up to fifteen feet iirc, so just because the pin prick of coast that you happen to have observed has nominally not changed is entirely meaningless. The bigest driver of sea level rise is thermal expansion and, surprise surprise, the greatest sea level rises have been recorded in equatorial regions.

You know I hadn't even considered that. I just sort of assumed that the sea along the coast by my town was at, you know, sea-level. I hadn't even considered the possibility that sea-level had risen in the rest of the world but stayed the same next to my town. It's an amazing world isn't it?

But a question for you. If the sea-level is higher in the rest of the world why doesn't it flow downhill towards me?

And that is only recent up until 2004, as I've already shown, the Greenland ice melt has nearly doubled in that time.

I wonder where all that water is going? It isn't raising sea-level. Perhaps the Chinese are gathering it all behind those dams they are building.

To do what exactly, grandpa? It might be OK for you, but I intend to live well into the last half of this century and I'd like to have kids one day, and I'd like my future kids, and my already existing nieces, to inherit a world that is as habitable as the one I eventually leave.

I wish you every success and happiness in that. When you are a grandpa take a trip to the seaside and consider if things have changed very much in the previous half century. They might have done but time will tell.

Yes, the world has warmed and cooled before, no doubt, but SOMETHING has to trigger those changes.

Any ideas what?

And the glaring fact of the matter is that there is no alternative explanation as to why the world suddenly warmed over the last 35 years EXCEPT the sudden and dramatic, and historically unprecedented, 40% rise in CO2 concentrations.

1. To say that and be believed you need to quote the causes of all the previous warming episodes and explain why they don't apply this single time when they account for all of the previous warming events.

2. Climate now is very similar to the way it has been for a long time. If this 'sudden and dramatic..." has had so little effect then more of the same doesn't cause me any concern.

3. Since the CO2 concentrations are historically unprecedented then I presume that previous warmings had nothing to do with CO2.

Which, funnily enough, fits perfectly with the century old physical model that predicts a sudden rise in CO2 should cause exactly the sort of warming that we are currently observing. The observations fit the pre-existing model, ergo, the model is sound.

That would include Phil Jones's decade of no statistically significant warming I suppose. I suppose it also explains the recent bad winters and cool summers and the recent increase in north polar ice. I don't think that any of that was predicted by the warming models. On the contrary predictions included less snow in winter, continuing polar ice melt and lots of hot summers and awful hurricanes. I don't believe recent climate fits warming predictions.

I think of warming gloom and doom predictions in the same way I think of Nostradamus. At frequent intervals a new version comes out to explain that Nostradamus accurately predicted all sorts of things that have now happened but for the future we are all doomed because the real meaning of what he said is...
Leonidas
 
Posts: 231

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#5  Postby Leonidas » Apr 27, 2010 9:13 pm

bit_pattern wrote
So you just ignore all the evidence presented to you, do you? Is that how you maintain your close-minded denial?

Allow to give you a visual depiction, since you problem seems to be that you don't "see" the evidence (or should I perhaps do it in braille?)

Thanks for all the pretty graphs. Isn't it amazing what you can show with graphs? Do you have a graph to let me know if the sun arose yesterday. I think it did because it was a sunny day but I need scientific corroboration. If it really didn't arise then I'll have to panic because the consequences would be catastrophic!

But, of course, you haven't noticed it on the beach you happen to walk on, therefore, it simply doesn't exist. Right?

Exactly! You've got it.
Leonidas
 
Posts: 231

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Global Warming Science Denial & Scepticism

#6  Postby Leonidas » Apr 27, 2010 10:14 pm

Fact-Man-2 wrote
Your opening sentence here reveals the extent to which you've failed to apprehend the science, which figures because you haven't read the science.

The science is telling us, with 95% probability, that earth's mean annual temperature will be standing at somewhere between 2 and 7 or 8C above where it stood in the preindustrial era come the year 2100, which is indeed 90 years from today.

If all predictions and assumptions in that model are correct and nothing else, for example one of those natural cooling events which froze Europe during the Little Ice Age, intervenes. So it definitely might happen, or it might not. A definite maybe in fact. If it does happen we'll deal with it.

To grasp the real meaning of this you have to know something about the way the prediction is developed, and given your comments about advertising men and politicians you clearly have no idea about this. As far as you're concerned, climate science is utterly incapable of predicting earth's MAT 90 years in the future because "It has warmed many times before and cooled many times before" and "trends slow, reverse or go flat" and "recent years show that runaway warming is not credible."

That about sums it up. I realise that weather and climate forecasts are always 100% accurate and that it is perverse of me to think that forecasting 90 years into the future might be a little doubtful but that's just me. Everything I have read tells me these people can't even agree on what the weather was yesterday, let alone what the climate will be like in 90 years time.

These comments are among the biggest load of bollocks ever posted on a forum, among the most uninformed views ever expressed on a forum, anywhere, and certainly among the most unscientific comments one could possibly imagine.

Amazing, and you should know. You've read a lot of stuff from climate scientists so you must know BS when you see it. But there is an explanation you know. The sea-level really has risen and I drowned without noticing it. That would excuse a little scepticism don't you think?

This is what we get when people who have no clue about the science and no understanding of its methods or practices or techniques think somehow they know it all and decide they can speak for the work of 2,500 climate scientists...

Lord Kelvin was a brilliant scientist, as far as I know completely honest and certainly very intelligent. But he got the age of the Earth very wrong because there were unknowns (mainly radioactivity) that he didn't know about. Other scientists were sceptical of his results. They didn't call him names but they thought they had for example geological reasons to reject his conclusions. Today not all climate scientists have the same opinions. Some of them must be wrong. They might all be wrong to a greater or lesser extent. Let's not panic. Let's continue to study and not assume that we know all the answers.

This is a cause for concern as it suggests that some amplifying feedbacks and processes, such as land-ice melt, are occurring faster than first predicted.

What, you mean these thousands of expert Climate Scientists got their predictions... wrong? Goodness, we shall have to believe all their new predictions then. They must be right.

The latest estimates of global mean air temperature projected out to 2100 are shown in Figure 21. The wide range in the projection envelope is primarily due to uncertainty in future emissions. At the high end of emissions, with business as usual for several decades to come, global mean warming is estimated to reach 4-7°C by 2100, locking in climate change at a scale that would profoundly and adversely affect all of human civilization and all of the world’s major ecosystems.


Why wait for 2100? Why don't we adversely affect all of human civilisation now? Oh sorry, I forgot, that's exactly what is proposed. We can't ignore all those latest predictions which must be right this time. Isn't this like a doctor recommending immediate suicide because the patient might die in a few years?

At the lower end of emissions, something that would require urgent, deep and long-lasting cuts in fossil fuel use, and active preservation of the world’s forests, global mean warming is projected to reach 2-3°C by century’s end. While clearly a better outcome than the high emissions route, global mean warming of even just 1.5-2.0°C still carries a significant risk of adverse impacts on ecosystems and human society. For example, 2°C global temperature rise could lead to sufficient warming over Greenland to eventually melt much of its ice sheet (Oppenheimer and Alley 2005), raising sea level by over six meters and displacing hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

Six metres? SIX METRES? What happened to one metre by 2100? At least one of these predictions must be crap. Are both of these expert predictors in the 2,500 club? Are they guessing or is this a competition to raise the greatest alarm?

Despite the certainty of a long-term warming trend in response to rising greenhouse gases, there is no expectation that the warming will be monotonic and follow the emissions pathway on a year-to-year basis. This is because natural variability and the 11-year solar cycle, as well as sporadic volcanic eruptions, generate short-term variations superimposed on the long term trend (Lean and Rind 2009).

Not to mention the occasional Little Ice Age or BIG ICE AGE. But hey, let's cool things down anyway. I know we can grow crops when it gets warmer and we can't grow crops when it gets colder but let's cool things down anyway, what's mass starvation between friends, the polar bears will like it.

Even under a robust century long warming trend of around 4°C, we still expect to see the temperature record punctuated by isolated but regular ten-year periods of no trend, or even modest cooling (Easterling and Wehner 2009).

2°C, 4°C, 6°C, 7°C what the heck? Is this a game? I'm getting the message that there are a lot of different predictions out there and a lot of guesswork too. Go on, admit it, there's a lot of 'don't know' in all these forecasts. It's rather like weather forecasting. Oh wait a minute...

Such decades therefore do not spell the end of global warming...

Of course they don't. Nothing can stop global warming, heh, heh!

...emissions must peak and decline well before that is to occur. In fact, the peak in global temperature might not be reached until several centuries after emissions peak (e.g., Allen et al. 2009). Even after emissions stop completely, atmospheric temperatures are not expected to decline much for many centuries to millennia (Matthews and Caldeira 2008; Solomon et al. 2009; Eby et al. 2009) because of the long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So they know all about when to expect natural cooling events, variations of sun activity and all that then? I don't think so. As for declining temperatures, well around my way, plus most of the northern hemisphere, they have declined a lot recently.

Furthermore, dry season rainfall reductions in several regions are expected to become irreversible (Solomon et al. 2009).

As I understand it Global Warming causes less rainfall (which is bad) and more rainfall (which is bad). Roll on the next Ice Age then because presumably then the less rainfall and the more rainfall will both be good for us.

Do we see the word "panic" here? No, we see the word "concern," we see the phrase "profoundly and adversely affect all of human civilization and all of the world’s major ecosystems."

You are right. I was using panic to describe the earlier piece that you posted which included "The president clearly understands the urgency to act on global warming." and "Delay is no longer an option."

Delay is in my opinion the most sensible option. Delay until when? Until we see some adverse affects from the alleged runaway warming.

It is obvious to any thinking person that we cannot simply "wait to see what happens" nor think we have 90 years or to argue that "even alarmist predictions show that we have many years before any crisis" and "let's wait and see what if anything happens next" and/or "It is ridiculous to panic before anything has happened," all of which shows an exceedingly and preposterously profound lack of understanding of the way GHGs work in the atmosphere and the time scales at which what they act upon the climate system, a ridiculously profound lack of understanding.

I disagree.

It is this kind of head-in-the-sand mind boggling ignorance that's delaying the actions we need to take if we hope to depress the temp trajectory over the coming several decades and hope to hold it at 2C and prevent it from rising more than that by the year 2100.

It's not what we don't know that causes the most problems. It's what we think we know but really don't.

That makes you the problem, along with all the dark denizens with whom you share the denialosphere. I've said it before and I'll said it again, learn the science before you try to speak for it, otherwise, you're just making a fool of yourself.

You mean learn and accept the science that you agree with. That's like a priest telling me to read the Bible and all sorts of expert commentaries before deciding I am an atheist. I am an atheist because I don't have any belief in that stuff. I have read a lot about global warming but I'm not an expert, nor a scientist. It doesn't persuade me. Like religion, a big problem is not lack of knowledge of expert opinion, it is the conflict between that 'consensus' view of the world and my own first hand experience of it.
Leonidas
 
Posts: 231

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#7  Postby Macdoc » Apr 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Sea level varies with density and can be substantially higher in one part of the globe than another...

It's of minor consequence in the short term, very serious consequence in the longer term.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... sea-level/

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091216/ ... .1146.html

•••

Moving on to reality of
it's getting warmer
we're primarily responsible

and what to do about it


Building a Green Economy


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magaz ... gewanted=1

very long and informative read

••

and about your getting cooler claim...it's about as substantive as your climate science understanding ..dead wrong in fact...

Global Temperatures Push March 2010 to Hottest March on Record
ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2010) — The world's combined global land and ocean surface temperature made last month the warmest March on record, according to NOAA. Taken separately, average ocean temperatures were the warmest for any March and the global land surface was the fourth warmest for any March on record. Additionally, the planet has seen the fourth warmest January -- March period on record.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 225712.htm

Bye-bye, global cooling myth: Hottest March and hottest Jan-Feb-March on record
April 12, 2010


Image

Image
Figure: “Total Earth Heat Content [anomaly] from 1950 (Murphy et al. 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.”


http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/12/g ... lite-data/
We are “natural-born cyborgs, brain plasticity allows us to attach ourselves to machines such as computers The brain is a more open system than we ever imagined.
Nature has given us a brain that survives in a changing world by changing itself. N.Doige
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 5188

Country: Canada/Australia
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#8  Postby bit_pattern » Apr 28, 2010 2:55 am

Leonidas wrote:
bit_pattern wrote
Yeah, well, I hate to break it to you, Einstein, but sea level is an average, it can vary wildly from ocean to ocean, up to fifteen feet iirc, so just because the pin prick of coast that you happen to have observed has nominally not changed is entirely meaningless. The bigest driver of sea level rise is thermal expansion and, surprise surprise, the greatest sea level rises have been recorded in equatorial regions.

You know I hadn't even considered that. I just sort of assumed that the sea along the coast by my town was at, you know, sea-level. I hadn't even considered the possibility that sea-level had risen in the rest of the world but stayed the same next to my town. It's an amazing world isn't it?


But a question for you. If the sea-level is higher in the rest of the world why doesn't it flow downhill towards me?


It's called physics. Sea level is a mean, and localised sea level can be influenced by the gravitational pull from the Earth's orbit, differences in temperature (war water expands), tides, atmospheric pressures etc. etc. etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level


And that is only recent up until 2004, as I've already shown, the Greenland ice melt has nearly doubled in that time.

I wonder where all that water is going? It isn't raising sea-level. Perhaps the Chinese are gathering it all behind those dams they are building.


It is raising sea level, you just refuse to accept the evidence. That's why I'm surprised people like you exist on a forum like this, because that isn't scepticism, its denial.


1. To say that and be believed you need to quote the causes of all the previous warming episodes and explain why they don't apply this single time when they account for all of the previous warming events.

2. Climate now is very similar to the way it has been for a long time. If this 'sudden and dramatic..." has had so little effect then more of the same doesn't cause me any concern.

3. Since the CO2 concentrations are historically unprecedented then I presume that previous warmings had nothing to do with CO2.


Well, it's not that hard, the are four major forcings in the Earth's climate:

-- Insolation, the energy input from the sun which can be affected by changes in the Earth's orbit or differences in solar activity. The glacial periods are caused by the orbital shift of the Earth, we can expect another glacial in about 15,000 years, but obviously there hasn't been some yet undiscovered shift in the Earth's orbit, physicists would have noticed. As for solar output, it has been on the decline since the mid-70's when temps diverged from solar activity. If you take the sudden increase in CO2 out and of the data set and model what would have happened over the last thirty years then the planet should be considerably cooler.

-- Albedo, this is energy reflected back into space, either by large areas of light surface (ie. ice caps), or from particulates and aerosols injected into the atmosphere either by large volcano's or pollution. This is a net energy loss.

-- Greenhouse gasses, CO2, NO2, CH4. This is the greenhouse effect, it has been well understood for over 100 years, the physical models have been confirmed by numerous direct experimental evidence, we know the precise rate at which these gasses absorb and emit longwave radiation, we can measure the incoming and outgoing radiation from space and develop global accounting models. This is what keeps the planet from being a very cold ball of ice. Funnily enough, human activity has caused one particular GHG, CO2, to rise by nearly 40%. Everything we know about this molecule says that such an increase should lead to exactly the shift in temperature we have witnessed over the last 30 odd years, and currently the observations fit the basic physical model, ergo, the model is sound.

Finally;

-- Feedbacks, this is where things get slightly murkier. We know that by itself, a doubling of CO2 would lead to a 1 degree rise in temperature, when you take into account the feedback effect from water vapor in the atmosphere we know that should lead to a 2 degree rise in temperature, we know this (although a small minority dispute the sensitivity of CO2 and think there is a much lower range, but they are a minority). Then, when you take into account various other feedbacks, ie. large, reflective areas of ice melting and leaving large areas of dark, absorbent oceans, then scientists estimate another degree or so of warming (although that could be blown right out of the water if the Arctic oceans warm enough to start releasing the vast stores of frozen CH4 on the seabed, and there is good evidence this is already starting to happen, in which case all bets are off).

So there is no known forcing that could possibly explain the lat-20th century warming other than the near 40% rise in CO2, which should cause exactly the sort of event we are witnessing.

That would include Phil Jones's decade of no statistically significant warming I suppose. I suppose it also explains the recent bad winters and cool summers and the recent increase in north polar ice. I don't think that any of that was predicted by the warming models. On the contrary predictions included less snow in winter, continuing polar ice melt and lots of hot summers and awful hurricanes. I don't believe recent climate fits warming predictions.


Phil Jones merely said that a decade wasn't enough time to see a statistically significant trend. Weren't you rabitting on about short term trends earlier? Well, that's exactly what he was getting at before the Daily Mail got hold of it and selevctively quoted him.

And, no, if you actually look at climate model projections, there is a great deal of natural variability (what us common folk call "weather"), there are plenty of runs that show multi-decades of variability, where temps can go up and down even while the planet continues to accumulate heat.

And, it's interesting that you have to use words like "believe", belief needn't come into it, I don't "believe" in global warming, I look at the evidence and make a judgment based on the evidence. Whereas you seem tnot to have looked at the evidence at all.

I think of warming gloom and doom predictions in the same way I think of Nostradamus. At frequent intervals a new version comes out to explain that Nostradamus accurately predicted all sorts of things that have now happened but for the future we are all doomed because the real meaning of what he said is...


Yeah, well, since Nostradamus died we developed a little thing called the scientific method, it's done wonders for the world, in case you hadn't noticed.
User avatar
bit_pattern
 
Name: Bit Pattern
Posts: 90

Country: Australia
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#9  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Apr 28, 2010 4:49 am

Leonidas wrote:
You mean learn and accept the science that you agree with. That's like a priest telling me to read the Bible and all sorts of expert commentaries before deciding I am an atheist. I am an atheist because I don't have any belief in that stuff. I have read a lot about global warming but I'm not an expert, nor a scientist. It doesn't persuade me. Like religion, a big problem is not lack of knowledge of expert opinion, it is the conflict between that 'consensus' view of the world and my own first hand experience of it.

Earlier commentary in this post by Leonidas, prior to this paragraph, has been snipped. I don't respond to unscientific, illogical and stupid blathering, and that's mainly because it has no end, it can go on forever and I don't have forever,

Here let me say that science isn't something one agrees with or doesn't agree with. It is rather something one either apprehends and understands or doesn't and it is plain to me that you've not apprehended climate science and hence exhibit a very poor understanding of it. I have said on a number of occasions that you should study the science and apprehend its fundamentals and come to understand it for your own self, and to reach your own conclusions about it.

I am most assuredly not asking you to accept the science just because I happen to understand it and therefore accept it; I am rather stating that you need to do this on your own and for yourself, independent of what any others may think, including me.

This is something that is incumbent upon us all, each and every one of us. It is the only way that a meaningful dialogue about the science can ensue, there simply is no other way. Now, I have spent the better part of fifteen years doing exactly this while you've spent zero time and made zero effort. Is it any wonder we can't have a meaningful conversation?
I'm not asking you to simply believe me, I'm asking you to study the science, to apprehend it and come to undertand it so that you can reach your own conclusions about what it is telling us. I'm asking you to figure it out for yourself.

What you have done is reach a bunch of erroneous and badly misguided conclusions from media supplied information and a poorly developed idea of how science works and the ways and means it employs to do what it does. It is embarrassing to be so uninformed and to speak with such assurance, or even assumed authority.

Henceforth I'll not respond to anything you have to say here, enough is enough, you've blathered your way into an epic FAIL and I want no part of it, thank you very much.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 82
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#10  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Apr 28, 2010 5:30 am

bit_pattern wrote:
Leonidas wrote:
bit_pattern wrote
Yeah, well, I hate to break it to you, Einstein, but sea level is an average, it can vary wildly from ocean to ocean, up to fifteen feet iirc, so just because the pin prick of coast that you happen to have observed has nominally not changed is entirely meaningless. The bigest driver of sea level rise is thermal expansion and, surprise surprise, the greatest sea level rises have been recorded in equatorial regions.

You know I hadn't even considered that. I just sort of assumed that the sea along the coast by my town was at, you know, sea-level. I hadn't even considered the possibility that sea-level had risen in the rest of the world but stayed the same next to my town. It's an amazing world isn't it?


But a question for you. If the sea-level is higher in the rest of the world why doesn't it flow downhill towards me?


It's called physics. Sea level is a mean, and localised sea level can be influenced by the gravitational pull from the Earth's orbit, differences in temperature (war water expands), tides, atmospheric pressures etc. etc. etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level


And that is only recent up until 2004, as I've already shown, the Greenland ice melt has nearly doubled in that time.

I wonder where all that water is going? It isn't raising sea-level. Perhaps the Chinese are gathering it all behind those dams they are building.


It is raising sea level, you just refuse to accept the evidence. That's why I'm surprised people like you exist on a forum like this, because that isn't scepticism, its denial.


1. To say that and be believed you need to quote the causes of all the previous warming episodes and explain why they don't apply this single time when they account for all of the previous warming events.

2. Climate now is very similar to the way it has been for a long time. If this 'sudden and dramatic..." has had so little effect then more of the same doesn't cause me any concern.

3. Since the CO2 concentrations are historically unprecedented then I presume that previous warmings had nothing to do with CO2.


Well, it's not that hard, the are four major forcings in the Earth's climate:

-- Insolation, the energy input from the sun which can be affected by changes in the Earth's orbit or differences in solar activity. The glacial periods are caused by the orbital shift of the Earth, we can expect another glacial in about 15,000 years, but obviously there hasn't been some yet undiscovered shift in the Earth's orbit, physicists would have noticed. As for solar output, it has been on the decline since the mid-70's when temps diverged from solar activity. If you take the sudden increase in CO2 out and of the data set and model what would have happened over the last thirty years then the planet should be considerably cooler.

-- Albedo, this is energy reflected back into space, either by large areas of light surface (ie. ice caps), or from particulates and aerosols injected into the atmosphere either by large volcano's or pollution. This is a net energy loss.

-- Greenhouse gasses, CO2, NO2, CH4. This is the greenhouse effect, it has been well understood for over 100 years, the physical models have been confirmed by numerous direct experimental evidence, we know the precise rate at which these gasses absorb and emit longwave radiation, we can measure the incoming and outgoing radiation from space and develop global accounting models. This is what keeps the planet from being a very cold ball of ice. Funnily enough, human activity has caused one particular GHG, CO2, to rise by nearly 40%. Everything we know about this molecule says that such an increase should lead to exactly the shift in temperature we have witnessed over the last 30 odd years, and currently the observations fit the basic physical model, ergo, the model is sound.

Finally;

-- Feedbacks, this is where things get slightly murkier. We know that by itself, a doubling of CO2 would lead to a 1 degree rise in temperature, when you take into account the feedback effect from water vapor in the atmosphere we know that should lead to a 2 degree rise in temperature, we know this (although a small minority dispute the sensitivity of CO2 and think there is a much lower range, but they are a minority). Then, when you take into account various other feedbacks, ie. large, reflective areas of ice melting and leaving large areas of dark, absorbent oceans, then scientists estimate another degree or so of warming (although that could be blown right out of the water if the Arctic oceans warm enough to start releasing the vast stores of frozen CH4 on the seabed, and there is good evidence this is already starting to happen, in which case all bets are off).

So there is no known forcing that could possibly explain the lat-20th century warming other than the near 40% rise in CO2, which should cause exactly the sort of event we are witnessing.

That would include Phil Jones's decade of no statistically significant warming I suppose. I suppose it also explains the recent bad winters and cool summers and the recent increase in north polar ice. I don't think that any of that was predicted by the warming models. On the contrary predictions included less snow in winter, continuing polar ice melt and lots of hot summers and awful hurricanes. I don't believe recent climate fits warming predictions.


Phil Jones merely said that a decade wasn't enough time to see a statistically significant trend. Weren't you rabitting on about short term trends earlier? Well, that's exactly what he was getting at before the Daily Mail got hold of it and selevctively quoted him.

And, no, if you actually look at climate model projections, there is a great deal of natural variability (what us common folk call "weather"), there are plenty of runs that show multi-decades of variability, where temps can go up and down even while the planet continues to accumulate heat.

And, it's interesting that you have to use words like "believe", belief needn't come into it, I don't "believe" in global warming, I look at the evidence and make a judgment based on the evidence. Whereas you seem tnot to have looked at the evidence at all.

I think of warming gloom and doom predictions in the same way I think of Nostradamus. At frequent intervals a new version comes out to explain that Nostradamus accurately predicted all sorts of things that have now happened but for the future we are all doomed because the real meaning of what he said is...


Yeah, well, since Nostradamus died we developed a little thing called the scientific method, it's done wonders for the world, in case you hadn't noticed.

I have to say, bit_pattern, your explanations are beautifully written and spot on the money, cool, calm, and collected, intelligent and very well informed, which makes them cogent.

I also have to say, though, that, despite your valiant efforts, you're probably wasting your time ... because Leonidas has shown us time and again that he hasn't got the scientific chops to get it nor the desire or interest to develop any scientific chops so that he might come to get it. His misundertanding of what Phil Jones said is proof enough. His inability to grasp the nature of sea level corroborates the thesis that he has no clue. His insistence that personal observations from a single point in a given moment of time have weight in reaching conclusions does the same thing. The man simply has no idea what he's talking about.

Leonidas's mind is made up, he doesn't want to be confused by facts and evidence or by reason and logic. He doesn't want to learn anything, even though you and others have afforded him a golden opportunity to do so. It's a tragic thing to be sure, but I'm afraid that's the way it is with him, no interest, no curiosity, no inquisitiveness, no desire, no impetus, no gumption, no maracas, just so many bricks in yet another brick wall of ignorance. I'm passing. I think you might consider doing the same. There's too much trollishness going on in what he says. I do now think he is a troll and methinks trolls aren't worth our time.

But I do thank you for your rather stellar efforts. :cheers:
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 82
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#11  Postby bit_pattern » Apr 28, 2010 6:15 am

Yeah, I figured I was wasting time not long into the first paragraph or so, but decided to endeavour if for nothing else but to hone the argument, practice makes perfect. But, thx, I'm glad somebody appreciates it :)
User avatar
bit_pattern
 
Name: Bit Pattern
Posts: 90

Country: Australia
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#12  Postby Leonidas » Apr 28, 2010 9:02 am

Macdoc wrote
It's of minor consequence in the short term, very serious consequence in the longer term.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... sea-level/


Very interesting thank you. This is an area where the land is sinking according to the report that you have referenced. When that happens along a coast the sea encroaches. Coastal erosion affects some parts of England as well, especially along the east coast.

But that eroded land goes somewhere. In Sussex the cliffs are eroding but the coastal Roman and Medieval fortresses of Pevensey and Camber for example are now quite a distance from the coast because of deposition of silt.

I am not convinced that sea-level is rising in some parts of the world and not others. I don't doubt that there are some technical reasons for local differences but that has always been the case. Parts of northern Europe are currently rising because of isostatic adjustment after the last ice-age and this is evidenced locally by long term retreat of the sea. It has nothing to do with world sea-level.


Also interesting thank you.

It says:
"The implications are disconcerting, says Clark. If the world warms up to levels comparable to those 125,000 years ago..."


So the world was quite naturally a lot warmer then that it is now. I wonder how that happened without human release of CO2?

Also:
"Some scientists think that we may already be committed to a future with higher seas than had been expected. "There could be a global warming tipping point beyond which many metres of sea level rise is inevitable unless global greenhouse-gas emissions are cut dramatically, and soon," warns Overpeck."


So for this climate scientist it's not 1 metre by 2100, it's not even 6 metres by 2100 it's 'many metres' although no time scale is quoted. How can all this be called a consensus? It's amazing how alarmist you can be provided you start the sentence with "There could be..."
Leonidas
 
Posts: 231

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#13  Postby Leonidas » Apr 28, 2010 9:14 am

Macdoc quoted
Global Temperatures Push March 2010 to Hottest March on Record
ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2010) — The world's combined global land and ocean surface temperature made last month the warmest March on record, according to NOAA. Taken separately, average ocean temperatures were the warmest for any March and the global land surface was the fourth warmest for any March on record. Additionally, the planet has seen the fourth warmest January -- March period on record.


The warmest on record since records began! And records began when?

I have no doubt at all that the records show this amazing warmth. I have equally no doubt at all that most of the northern hemiphshere had a cold or very cold winter at this exact time with record amounts of snow in many places.

Whatever these records are measuring it has nothing to do with the real climate. To be blunt I don't believe it. If half the world is shivering with cold and buried in snow (yes, a vast exaggeration I know) 'records' showing we are hotter than ever only prove their own uselessness.

If Climate Scientists have been using records like this for years it is no wonder that they are living in a fantasy or runaway warming while the real world goes on the same asw ever.
Leonidas
 
Posts: 231

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#14  Postby bit_pattern » Apr 28, 2010 9:38 am

Leonidas wrote:


I am not convinced that sea-level is rising in some parts of the world and not others. I don't doubt that there are some technical reasons for local differences but that has always been the case. Parts of northern Europe are currently rising because of isostatic adjustment after the last ice-age and this is evidenced locally by long term retreat of the sea. It has nothing to do with world sea-level.


So the data is just all lies, huh?




So the world was quite naturally a lot warmer then that it is now. I wonder how that happened without human release of CO2?


How hard is it to understand, really? Just because the world has warmed for reasons other than GHG's doesn't mean GHG's can't cause a warming.

Care to answer a question yourself for once? Two actually:

1. Do you accept that the greenhouse effect regulates temperature on the planet?

2. Can you not accept that a 40% change in GHG concentrations could alter the climate?

So for this climate scientist it's not 1 metre by 2100, it's not even 6 metres by 2100 it's 'many metres' although no time scale is quoted. How can all this be called a consensus? It's amazing how alarmist you can be provided you start the sentence with "There could be..."


Who the hell has ever predicted 6 metre by 2100? There is uncertainty in every field of science. There is considerably more uncertainty when it comes to evolution. Are you also an evolutionary sceptic?
User avatar
bit_pattern
 
Name: Bit Pattern
Posts: 90

Country: Australia
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#15  Postby Leonidas » Apr 28, 2010 10:02 am

bit_pattern wrote
It's called physics. Sea level is a mean, and localised sea level can be influenced by the gravitational pull from the Earth's orbit, differences in temperature (war water expands), tides, atmospheric pressures etc. etc. etc.

Indeed. But sea-level is at sea-level. If sea-level rises there will be no part of the sea immune to the rise. Local variations, land sinking, land rising, storm surges, tides etc. But if the world sea-level rises it will rise in the English Channel as well. It hasn't.

And that is only recent up until 2004, as I've already shown, the Greenland ice melt has nearly doubled in that time.

And it may well have done but twice a trivial amount is still trivial. I don't know if it is trivial or not, but I should be amazed if Greenland ice melt did not vary a lot year by year and decade by decade. Measurements over a decade tell us practically nothing about long term climate trends and nothing at all about what happens next.

It is raising sea level, you just refuse to accept the evidence. That's why I'm surprised people like you exist on a forum like this, because that isn't scepticism, its denial.

Perhaps if I stayed away from the sea I'd find it easier to believe that sea-level is rising.

Well, it's not that hard, the are four major forcings in the Earth's climate:

-- Insolation...

-- Albedo...

-- Greenhouse gasses...

-- Feedbacks...

Thank you for that.

So there is no known forcing that could possibly explain the lat-20th century warming other than the near 40% rise in CO2, which should cause exactly the sort of event we are witnessing.

No known forcing eh? So a lot of unknowns still. That probably explains why there is still no rise in sea-level and why there has still been no exceptionally bad weather beyond perfectly normal variation.

Phil Jones merely said that a decade wasn't enough time to see a statistically significant trend. Weren't you rabitting on about short term trends earlier? Well, that's exactly what he was getting at before the Daily Mail got hold of it and selectively quoted him.

Ah, the Daily Mail. I share your contempt.

And, no, if you actually look at climate model projections, there is a great deal of natural variability (what us common folk call "weather"), there are plenty of runs that show multi-decades of variability, where temps can go up and down even while the planet continues to accumulate heat.

It seems to me there are several threads to this:

1. The historical record of what has happened in the past.
2. What happened recently, i.e. the late 20th century warming.
3. The cause of that warming.
4. The consequences of that warming.
5. What happens next.
6. What if anything to do about it.

Reference 1: It has been a lot warmer than this before and we are still here.

Reference 2: A short term trend reaching a peak in 1998 but not much happening thereafter.

Reference 3: I am not persuaded that it is due to the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Looks to be a non-exceptional warming trend much the same as many natural events in the past.

Reference 4: Potential sea-level rise is the big one but nothing to see yet. Efforts to link just about every single bad weather event in the world to global warming has done a lot to discredit the whole idea. There will always be droughts, floods, hurricanes etc. There is no evidence that any bad weather is because of the late 20th century warming.

Reference 5: Nobody can be sure of that. There are widely divergent predictions out there but nobody knows. Climate models have a very poor record of prediction. Let us wait and see. No need to panic.

Reference 6: In my view nothing. There is no crisis. If things change they will change slowly. It is better to tackle things that actually happen rather than things that might never happen.

And, it's interesting that you have to use words like "believe", belief needn't come into it, I don't "believe" in global warming, I look at the evidence and make a judgment based on the evidence. Whereas you seem not to have looked at the evidence at all.

The evidence that I have seen and my own memory and observations have not persuaded me that there is any crisis at all.

Yeah, well, since Nostradamus died we developed a little thing called the scientific method, it's done wonders for the world, in case you hadn't noticed.

You are quite right. But not all science stands the test of time. Please see my reference to Lord Kelvin. We continue to question and we don't take things on trust.
Leonidas
 
Posts: 231

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#16  Postby Luis Dias » Apr 28, 2010 10:07 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

So the scientists who stated the 95% confidence are dumber than you are, is that it? I rather think that's an unlikely situation.


Me too. Much more probably, they never stated the way you did, they just let you state it the way you are because it's "simpler" to the masses, and convincing.

They've been at this for 20 years, how long have you been at it? They know exactly what the characteristics and attributes are of their analytical basis and they understand their veracity.


Argument from authority? Already? Man that was easy.

They openly state the fact that their predictions are based on estimates of emissions that will occur between now and 2100, and it is obvious that if those estimates prove to be wrong by what emissions actually do in reality between now and then, their predictions will not be achieved and something else will happen instead. In other words, if actual emissions exceed their estimates for them, mean annual temp in 2100 will be higher than what they've predicted; if they are lower, then the mean annual temp in 2100 will be lower.


You make it sound as if the only assumption at play are the emissions. Ridiculous. There are hundreds of assumptions in the models, specifically of how sub-systems work, which are "sub"-models themselves, and there are hundreds of these, and how they interact with each other. These models must assume a lot (100% confidence implied mathematically), and then they output a wide array of results, which are then statistically analyzed and a narrow window of sigma 1 or 2 margin of error is created. This window is required, because all models would otherwise have no lower or upper limits of warming. This is the kind of 95% confidence these people are talking about.

There is simply no other way to handle this aspect of making a prediction. We dont know exactly what trajectory emissions will follow or exhibit, hence we have to estimate what we think they will follow, and that's done using historical emissions data, consensus economic forecasts, and other criteria that bear on what we might expect in terms of emissions. This then is then expressly stated as an assumption.

If you know of a better way to do this, I'm all ears.


It's not a question of "better". It's a question of outselling your goods. This is akin to say that you have a "95%" confidence that a never before tried treatment (and hinged on assumption upon assumption) will just cure cancer. If I utter a distrust upon this number and call it "ridiculous", to ask if I have a better answer to cure cancer is no comeback at all, just a failure at understanding the issue at play.

As for any "axioms" that may be in play, I think either 1) there aren't any


Oh fuck. :lol:

...or 2) if there are they too are treated with copious amounts of good judgement or analyses that determine their force of relevance and meaning in the equation. Do you actually think these fellows are going to publish a report that makes a predition that can easily be shot down because any or all or some of its underlying "axioms" are less than credible? WTF kind of scientist would do that? None that I know of.


What do you mean "less than credible"? Do you understand the concept of graceful degradation? Do you understand what happens when you start multiplying several high degrees of confidence (not 100%) on sub-systems to get a "meta" confidence?

Let's spend some time here. Imagine a case scenario, much much simpler than GCMs. Imagine a Model (M) that integrates 10 sub-models. These sub-models are the result of "seriouusss" physics work. They are not derivative from thermodynamics directly, but observed and treated statistically with robust results. Every single one of these sub-models have a high degree of confidence, say 95%. Question, what is the degree of confidence we should put into the bigger M if we assume that the interaction between these sub-models is perfect, flawless? 95%? Not even close. The "real" result will depend upon the interactions involved, but if the 10 sub-models are equally important, then it's a simple matter of probabilities.

You just have to multiply 95% ten times, which will give you a result of 59%. And this is considering that the bigger M only consists of a "perfect" alignment of sub-models. No. The bigger M is itself a Model of interactions between sub-models. The resulting confidence is even lower.

This is why "multi-models" are used. They don't trust any single model. But is this enough? Is creating a lot of low-confidence models "equal" to create a high-confidence model? Of course not. But yes, it's "the best we got". We agree on that.


Just don't oversell it.

You make these assertions because you know we can't get into all those details here and so that makes them easy targets for claiming we have to take them (or the scientists are taking them) as "absolute truths" or "100% true representations of the world."


It's a basic observation, FM. The fact that you are unnerved by it is of no consequence to me at all.

But the proof is in the pudding, a 787 airliner flies and flies well and predictably, which proves that any and all "axioms" and assumptions that underpin the science and engineering by which a 787 is built are indeed true representations of the world.


Geee. You don't know much about engineering or science philosophy now do you? What is a "true representation of the world"? Something that works. Airplanes have been around for 100 years, and for those whole years they have been tested and tested and worked upon. Yes, we know fairly well how the wind works in the fuselage and the wings. To compare this with the complexity of GCMs is silly.

In climate science, the modelers have managed to make very good predictions to date, which proves the validity of whatever "axioms" that may underly their science.


Double wrong. First, they did not make "very good predictions". They got some right, they got some wrong. That does not count as "very good" to me. In airplanes, if you make "some wrong" prediction, the plane crashes. Fail. Then, the right results do not "prove the validity" of the axioms. Utter intellectual rubbish. If it were true that the models performed "admirably" (which they didn't btw), then it would only show that they hadn't been disproved, falsified.

Luis Dias wrote:
But there's a problem here. These assumptions are called "models".

False. Models are mathematical representations of real phenomena. When run backward and the output they produce matches actual data, we can have a high degree of confidence that the output they produce when run forward does indeed represent what's going to happen.


"Real phenomena". There's an oxymoron for you... Either things are "real" or they are "phenomena". Take your pick. Oh, but perhaps I'm being too technical here... nevermind. Your "false" sentence is awkwardly placed, since you only confirm what I say. The assumptions are models, even if we have a "high degree of confidence", which is a placement for "cross your fingers". Correlation is not causation, and to create a model that superimposes itself neatly on past data is not impressive, at all. All modelers know this.

You need to take modeling 101.


No I don't. You otoh...

I repeat, you need to take modeling 101.


Yes, you repeat a lot of shit.

The models have been under development for 25 years or more. You talk like they were invented yesterday.


25 years is not even a period that is definable in the IPCC as "climate". This means that any models invented through this period could have never been really tested with really unknown and unpredictable data, such as the future data. Worse, when we can finally make this assessment (in 5 years time), we can only do with the first models, which are already off by some degrees of magnitude. Such assessment will be ignored, rightly, since modelling was "perfected" ever since. But that means that verification and falsification will still not occur for at least 15 years.

Someone here needs to read Popper. Pronto.

It's pretty easy for an armchair commentator to make such pronouncements.


And you are what here, precisely?

The problem is they run counter to the conclusions reached by some 20,000 professional climate researchers and scientists and just about every climatologist on the planet. I trust you do know this.


No, I do not know this. Nor do you, or you would make a good case for it. Mind you, I'm being very specific. Ask the climatologists who are not directly connected with the modelling staff, what degree of confidence do they place unto models. You'll find a fascinating answer. This does not mean they do not think GW is not a problem.

To hear you tell it, we should just give up the whole endeavor and let it go at that and to hell with trying to learn what the future might have in store for us. Fortunately, others don't share this idea, they keep trying, they keep working.


What do you know about their ideas? You talk as if you know their minds. But you do not. You only know what some climate blogs feed you. And they work? Wow. That is impressive. OMG.

Luis Dias wrote:
Finally there's the issue of averaging multi-model runs, as if they were "all equally good", after dismissing others because they gave too much warming or too little!

It isn't done this way and you should know better than to claim it is.


Yes, yes it was. It was done so in the AR4.

Luis Dias wrote:
After all of this, to still utter the silly proclamation of "95%" chance of this going to happen like X and Y without the multi-tonne weight of caveats annexed to it is disingenuous and misleading. Fortunately, science is catching up to this common sense basic notion. The next IPCC report will address this issue better than the one we have now, although I still think it won't address it fully honestly. If it did, we would be brought back to the early 90s conclusion, and that would be politically catastrophic, if we want to have any nation doing something "about it".

You're stating the obvious, which is, climate science gets better as time passes and more work is done. This can be expresed as gaining better resolution as time passes.


Thing is, as climate science is getting better, the uncertainty will increase. That's kind of unexpected, innit? Unless one has oversold the product in the first place. Just ask Trenberth. He has some good articles on this and what is to be expected in the next assessment.

The idea is we work with what we have.


Just. Don't. Oversell. It.

You're giving out straws, FM. I never said otherwise.

But we have some problems here. When you oversell a product, we have problems. Care to think about what they are?

It is true for example that if we had a temperature gauge located on every 2,500 square meters of the planet, including on the oceans and in polar regions, and these gauges were all identical and set up identically, we'd have little trouble meauring the temperature of the planet as a mean average, no problem at all. But we don't enjoy that kind of instrumentation, we only have partial coverage of the planet and are therefore required to develop and establish some very sophisticated ways of using the instrumentation we do have to obtain reasobaly accurate determination of the earth's mean annual temperture, aided now days by satellite measuring.

Exhaustive efforts have been made to determine a good paleo record of earth's temperature so that we have a reasonably accurate history from which to extrapolate the future. Is it perfect to the nth degree? No, of course it isn't. But it is good enough for what we're trying to achieve and it gets better with each passing year


What are you "trying to achieve" exactly?

But here's the thing, we know from how much C02 is in the atmosphere right now that earth's mean annual temperature is going to rise over time, we know this as well a we know the sun's gonna come up in the morning. So the question becomes, how much is it going to rise? We can infer that from how much C02 is in the atmosphere too and the rate at which it is accumulating there. That's chemistry and physics and the known behavior of GHGs. These kinds of studies and analyses also point to a rise in earth's mean annual temperature in the same range the model predicts, somewhere between 2 and 7C degrees in the year 2100. Wow, whatta ya know, two completely different approaches yield essentialy the same results.


You talk as if they were independent of each other... I mean wow. The models assume those physical behaviors, d'oh!

You appear to think you know better how all this should be done than the professionals who are actually doing the work. In that light, what would you propose as a better means of projecting future trends or events or expressing them or describing them? Or are you of the mind that we ought to just give it all up and stop trying?


Stop overselling them, is what I propose. What they are "doing" should be checked in a better way. Right now as it is, it's basically an unfalsifiable thematic, where 30 years haven't even passed since the creation of the first simplistic and probably very false models. To test the models to the data to which they could have been fudged in the first place is a practice known to have its troubles, let's hear the 2008 financial crisis and the econ models, let's have enron, let's have the 2001 bubble all over again.

It's scientifically fragile, and what these people are asking us is to "trust" them, that they aren't "bad" guys, they are good guys, therefore they won't "fudge" the models to create the impression they are very good at "predicting" what they already know about the past. Of course, one can decide to "trust" them, to trust their deontology and stuff, their "disinterest", etc. But then we are saying that the models are right because the people that made them are saints. This is not science. Good science never depends upon "trust", but rather upon criticism. But as I said, you cannot "criticize" the models, for enough time has not passed to give them a proper falsification test.

I'm all ears.


That would be anatomically comical.
User avatar
Luis Dias
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1536
Age: 32
Male

Portugal (pt)
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#17  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Apr 28, 2010 1:26 pm

Luis Dias wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

So the scientists who stated the 95% confidence are dumber than you are, is that it? I rather think that's an unlikely situation.

Me too. Much more probably, they never stated the way you did, they just let you state it the way you are because it's "simpler" to the masses, and convincing.

Nobody's "letting me" state anything. My statement is my interpretation of what's set forth in Chapter 10 of AR4. If you wish to study that chapter and if you come to a different interpretation, please do so.

Luis Dias wrote:
They've been at this for 20 years, how long have you been at it? They know exactly what the characteristics and attributes are of their analytical basis and they understand their veracity.

Argument from authority? Already? Man that was easy.

It's this kind of condescending retort that turns me off of anything you have to say. You need an attitude adjustment.

My comment is a simple statement of fact based on my study of AR4 and especially chapter 10. Go read it yourself, don't whine to me about so-called "arguments from authority," which only sidesteps and avoids the facts of the question, something you are far too adept at doing, not to mention your obfuscating commentaries.

I commented earlier and will repeat it here that you appear to think you know better how all this should be done than the professionals who are actually doing the work. In that light, what would you propose as a better means of projecting future trends or events or expressing them or describing them? Or are you of the mind that we ought to just give it all up and stop trying?

That's a pretty straightforward question that you should be able to answer. Typically, you avoided it last time round, so how about stepping up this time and telling us what you think.

As for the rest of it, I'm passing on your commentary because I don't think you have an appropriate attitude to be in this discussion. In a word, you're too smart for your own or anyopne's good and too snarky and condescending to be worthy of reply or rebuttal. To be blunt, I don't like you, your commentaries have never been attractive or convincing or compelling nor have they gone much beyond arrogant expressions of one upsmanship and snide cheap shots ... and that's not anything I'm interested in. No offense mind you, just the plain truth, which you have earned over a very long period of time.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 82
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#18  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Apr 28, 2010 1:40 pm

Leonidas wrote:
Luis Dias wrote
Oh come on Leonidas, you should just repent your sins and pray for forgiveness. Gaia is watchin, you know, and when she comes back to byte you, it won't be pretty.

I've tried and I've tried but I simply cannot find that belief within me. You'll just have to call me an athiest.

Maybe when you learn to spell it, we will. :roll:
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 82
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#19  Postby Luis Dias » Apr 28, 2010 1:41 pm

Sure, it's your prerogative to insult me while pretending that you're merely "observing" the "truth", and also to ignore my points. It's somewhat dishonest from your part to pretend that I didn't answer your question, which is an obvious strawman that I've explained in depths already. My attitude has nothing to do with your dismissals, I venture, for you are too quick on the authority argument for my taste.

Attitudes come both ways, FM, and while we should bear in mind the informal nature of this forum, if one is here exchanging ideas, arguments and sources, to answer a concern with the lazy "they are smart, intelligent and competent, they surely worked that out" may be technically "correct", but sure as hell uninteresting and uninformative. The concern does not go away, it still rests upon the trust concern I was referring to.

As to "HOW" to solve the GCM problem, why are you even asking me? You do know I am humble enough to know that I am not able to come up with the technical method to achieve it, although I think I am able to recognize good methods when I see them. There is a clear contradiction between current methods and scientific concepts like falsification, verification, data feedback, independent checking, etc. This is not General Relativity, where if one observation falsifies it, it spells doom for the theory. No, this is the land of uncertainty and "holistic" statistical probabilities, where it is all too easy for us to fool ourselves with too much certainty.

To make huge efforts to know something (laudable in itself) is still not equal to actually know it. I just hoped someone here could see that difference.
User avatar
Luis Dias
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1536
Age: 32
Male

Portugal (pt)
Print view this post

Re: Global Warming Science Discussion

#20  Postby Leonidas » Apr 28, 2010 2:00 pm

FACT-MAN-2 wrote
What you have done is reach a bunch of erroneous and badly misguided conclusions from media supplied information and a poorly developed idea of how science works and the ways and means it employs to do what it does. It is embarrassing to be so uninformed and to speak with such assurance, or even assumed authority.

So you belong to the vinegar school rather than to the honey school then.

Henceforth I'll not respond to anything you have to say here, enough is enough, you've blathered your way into an epic FAIL and I want no part of it, thank you very much.

If you're not enjoying it then stop. It's a pretty good policy.

I also have to say, though, that, despite your valiant efforts, you're probably wasting your time ... because Leonidas has shown us time and again that he hasn't got the scientific chops to get it nor the desire or interest to develop any scientific chops so that he might come to get it. His misundertanding of what Phil Jones said is proof enough. His inability to grasp the nature of sea level corroborates the thesis that he has no clue. His insistence that personal observations from a single point in a given moment of time have weight in reaching conclusions does the same thing. The man simply has no idea what he's talking about.

Single moment in time? I'll have you know that I have over 50 years of unscientific, casual and non-peer-reviewed observations of the weather and the sea from the times when I have visited the sea front. I appreciate that I have no qualifications in looking at the sea and no scientific training in sea looking but I get along pretty well without all that. Sea-level has not risen and all the scientific theories, models and text books cannot change that. Do you never visit the seaside? I recommend it, it can be bracing, clears the mind of a lot of unnecessary clutter.

Another nice day today. Another day and the world hasn't ended. Stop all the worry, it isn't going to happen.
Leonidas
 
Posts: 231

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest