Global warming scam exposed!

[213374U]

OK, so the change in climate caused by man's deforestation for farming is not evidence for a change in climate caused by man, hmm? I don't have a degree in philosophy but I think I can spot a logical fallacy there. And yes, I used 'climate change' not 'global warming'.

That is not climate change at all. It is the action and effect of man destroying a glacier, locally, and by very specific actions. It has nothing to do with manmade carbon emissions causing runaway effects or all that crap. Please.

 

 

Language barrier? Because warming and changes in wind pattern are climate changes in any and all definitions.

No, I think it's a barrier of intellectual dishonesty, rather. Those aren't climate changes but weather changes. Again, to establish that they are abnormal climate variations, we would need extensive data, which for the most part, isn't available.

 

 

 

[...]

 

 

To put it another way, if Antarctica always accumulates ice for the past 40 million years then a 1mm annual accumulation would see the ice cap there being no less than 40 km (!) high.

Hmm. That's interesting... considering that ice streams aren't really that well modelled. You are assuming a constant, linear progression, as with a pile of salt. Seeing how things are now and how they were during the last ice ages, it stands to reason that the process doesn't work quite like that.

 

Antarctica sheds peripheral ice at a rate of a few kilometers... PER YEAR. To put things in perspective, the Antarctic ice sheet is 30 M cubic kilometers.

 

 

 

May as well argue that the earth is flat as argue that CO2 does not cause warming.

That is the point, in fact. Again, the thermodynamics are well understood, but not the factor they play in the (per your words) chaotic system that is climate.

 

 

Frankly there's a lot more I can go into, though I won't as things like sea ice, as I already said, are largely irrelevant (or perhaps considerably less significant than other probable effects like drought) as they won't raise sea levels as the ice is already floating. As numbersman said, the thermal expansion is likely- and hopefully because if we get lots of rise due to ice melt we're in real trouble- more important.

Yes, but even sea level rise is difficult to predict. The ground going up? Oh, ****, more weird **** ****ing up my model!

[Zoraptor]

OK, so the change in climate caused by man's deforestation for farming is not evidence for a change in climate caused by man, hmm? I don't have a degree in philosophy but I think I can spot a logical fallacy there. And yes, I used 'climate change' not 'global warming'.

That is not climate change at all. It is the action and effect of man destroying a glacier, locally, and by very specific actions. It has nothing to do with manmade carbon emissions causing runaway effects or all that crap. Please.

As you well know, climate change isn't just about CO2 much as it isn't just about global warming, carbon emission alone is a pure reductionist argument which simply provides an easy windmill to tip at. You'd have a difficult time coming up with reasons why cutting down all the trees -> historic drought != man made climate change. It ain't global climate change for sure (though the effected area of east Africa is huge), but then I think we've already established that some sort of globally consistent model is not really feasible.

 

Language barrier? Because warming and changes in wind pattern are climate changes in any and all definitions.

No, I think it's a barrier of intellectual dishonesty, rather. Those aren't climate changes but weather changes. Again, to establish that they are abnormal climate variations, we would need extensive data, which for the most part, isn't available.

Long to medium term changes in temperature and wind patterns are, by definition, changes in climate. Short term is weather. The question is at what point you accept that the changes in weather represent a change in climate- generally if it's prolonged enough to have large effects then it is a climate change, but it is fundamentally a process that can only be identified in retrospect. "We don't have enough data"- while a technically fair statement- is specious as the only way to get 'sufficient' data is to (1) build a time machine to get readings from the past or (2) wait a few centuries/ decades to get the data. Neither of which is a sensible solution now. As such, to paraphrase the great philosopher Donald Rumsfeld; you have to make do with the data you have, not the data you'd like to have.

[Walsingham]

Eh, so what's the verdict fellas?

 

1) Not enough data for conclusive evidence?

2) The evidence is there for one thing or the other, but being manipulated by industralists and politicians alike for gains in power and money?

3) We should let the good times roll, the evidences are right in front of us; we have zero impact on the climate change. Spew out more CO2-emissions. Drill, baby, drill!

4) We should change our ways, the evidence is right in front of us; we need to drasticly drop all emissions. Combustion engine-technology needs to replaced by something else. All plastics and other oil-based products need to be replaced by some new technology.

5) The s**t has hit the fan, the only thing that can save us, is to start living like the Ewoks.

 

I like my sci-fi option 6.

 

We won't get everyone to agree to do the necessary cutbacks, so the winner will be the nation which uses the cheapest dirtiest power now, and preps for the worst. Freaking underground cities, steam-powered death robots, ant-controlled CCTV thought monitoring. You name it, baby.

 

Hang on, isn't taht what China is already doing? I read in a book today that 50% of China is more than 200m above sea level.

[213374U]

You'd have a difficult time coming up with reasons why cutting down all the trees -> historic drought != man made climate change. It ain't global climate change for sure (though the effected area of east Africa is huge), but then I think we've already established that some sort of globally consistent model is not really feasible.

You don't seem to be reading. The drought is NOT HISTORIC at all. Only its effects are, because of overpopulation.

 

At any rate, that is not what is understood by climate change. It is not global, it is not systemic, and it is not supposed to be above the capacity of the environment to rectify on its own. If it were that easy, they would simply enact a moratorium on farming around Kilimanjaro - end of climate change! Sorry, but it's obvious you are just squirming after I provided evidence that shows you were plain wrong. I see no point in continuing to spin the argument. Maybe you could use that philosophy degree, after all.

 

 

Neither of which is a sensible solution now.

Wait, a solution to what? This is a perfect example of the loaded language used left and right in this debate. You are taking it as a given that there is a problem, but the burden of proof lies with you to actually substantiate your claims that a problem exists which requires a "solution". You get all riled up when this inability to provide definitive proof is mentioned, but that's how things work, since we no longer accept Revelation as a source of truth. "But there is no time!" just doesn't cut it.

[Zoraptor]

Ho hum.

 

Wait, a solution to what? This is a perfect example of the loaded language used left and right in this debate. You are taking it as a given that there is a problem, but the burden of proof lies with you to actually substantiate your claims that a problem exists which requires a "solution". You get all riled up when this inability to provide definitive proof is mentioned, but that's how things work, since we no longer accept Revelation as a source of truth. "But there is no time!" just doesn't cut it.

Perhaps if you weren't so busy trying to build a narrative (were I a less generous soul I might use the term strawman) to actually read what I wrote and not so eager to start the ad homs you might consider...

 

(1) Your reading comprehension has let you down. I spoke of solutions to getting conclusive data on whether climate change is 'real' and that there is no way to do this except time and hindsight. If the denialists turn out to be right my cryogenically frozen head will be more than happy to admit as such and if the change avowers are right my head will happily acknowledge that too- in the hundred or so years it will take to get actual proof. Until that time we have to extrapolate and model, much as with anything proof only becomes available when it actually happens. (2) There's a clue your reading comprehension was off, you might remember that I've already said, in this very thread, that I don't think there is a solution to climate change and that if climate change is occurring then the poor bastards who are going to be effected are stuffed and nothing anyone can come up with can stop it. (3) If I were the type of zealot who gets riled at such things I would not bring it up, repeatedly, myself.

 

Basically, you've assumed that I've written what you wanted me to have written, not what I actually wrote.

[213374U]

I suppose it's possible that you don't realize the bias in your thinking, which is where this misunderstanding comes from. I'm going to try, one last time. I'm losing interest fast.

 

Again, we have to extrapolate for what purpose? That reasoning is only valid if you have a goal in mind, or if you presuppose a problem that needs to be acted on. If, however, the only objective is understanding climate, there is no need for extrapolation (in the sense of inferring a series of consequences, which amounts to starting the house by the roof) - model building and refinement, data gathering and experimental testing, until a reasonable level of accuracy and reliability in the models is achieved, should be enough. But here, of course, it isn't enough because this isn't just science: it's politics.

 

You keep falling back to the epistemological impossibility of obtaining empirical proof synthetically, but that is an absurd copout, and a semantic entanglement of the word "proof". Science does not work like that, and the model of gravity we have doesn't need to wait until an apple hits my head to predict it will do so. It can reliably predict what will happen in all circumstances, save for a few exotic cases in which everything seems to break down. How many hurricanes, (de)glaciations and droughts can current climate models predict without resorting to "parameters", ad-hoc adjustments and data selection?

 

There are no shortcuts in science. In politics however...

Edited December 10, 2009 by 213374U

[Moose]

i do happen to understand the basics of electromagnetic radiation, and what happens when a molecule absorbs a photon. however, it is much, much deeper than that. for starters, an absorbed photon causes an electron to step up to a higher state, but the electron will step back down abd reradiate another photon almost instantaneously. in order to raise the temperature of a gas, some energy needs to be transferred to kinetic energy, which does not happen in the simple absorption process. something is missing from the description, even in the published literature.

 

Well clearly there's more to that model or you wouldn't get hot lying about in the sun.

[Walsingham]

You keep falling back to the epistemological impossibility of obtaining empirical proof synthetically, but that is an absurd copout, and a semantic entanglement of the word "proof". Science does not work like that, and the model of gravity we have doesn't need to wait until an apple hits my head to predict it will do so. It can reliably predict what will happen in all circumstances, save for a few exotic cases in which everything seems to break down. How many hurricanes, (de)glaciations and droughts can current climate models predict without resorting to "parameters", ad-hoc adjustments and data selection?

 

Numbers makes an important point. ALL models are designed to answer a specific action choice. They have to simplify and make assumptions or they would merely replicate what is actually happening and be impenetrable for the decision maker.

 

On the other hand, given his debating style I should have thought that gravity was not the only possible cause for him being hit in the head with fruit.

[213374U]

IRL I usually lose patience long before I get to the point of going on long, boring rants. It's not exactly fruit that I get coming my way at that point, so I tend to avoid anything that isn't the most trivial of topics.

 

I guess that for me, the stereotype is true.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You're the one making assumptions that any increase in CO2 must cause global warming. I'm saying that must be proven.

OK, physics lesson. CO2 is one carbon atom bonded covalently to two oxygen atoms. One of the basic physical principals is that this type of bond absorbs light in the infrared region of the spectrum ('heat'), the bond vibrates and releases the energy as slightly longer wavelength IR. This is how spectrophotometers and such work in chemical analysis. The emitted IR will, on average, go into space (~<50%) or return to earth (~>50). Without the CO2 (/water /methane /..) 100% goes into space. This is obviously a simplification, but the basic science is, well, basic and irrefutable. May as well argue that the earth is flat as argue that CO2 does not cause warming.

OK, physics lesson, repeating, CO2 is .04% of atmosphere, water vapor is 1%, it's reasonable to assume water vapor swamps out any effect of CO2 until proven otherwise. That's before you start talking about any negative feedback mechanisms of the earth or the oceans absorbing extra heat.

 

Also the new Dutch study I linked shows Kilimanjaro melting is mostly due to natural phenomenon.

[taks]

Well clearly there's more to that model or you wouldn't get hot lying about in the sun.

that's because your body does indeed absorb light which increases the kinetic energy of the molecules and hence, raises your temperature. the issue with CO2 in the atmosphere (as well as the other gases) is a bit more complicated.

 

zoraptor is correct, but even he is missing the point somewhat. first, you can't just simply say "50% is radiated back out to space." while in general that is true, in reality, since there isn't just a single molecule layer of CO2 in the atmosphere, the process of going back to the earth and back out to space is quite a bit more complex. when wavelengths change, various molecules sometimes cannot reabsorb the radiation (CO2 only absorbs in a few limited bands), which adds yet another layer of complexity. the atmosphere does not contain a uniform distribution of CO2, either. it is densest at the surface of the earth, and varies rather wildly across the globe even at the surface (in spite of homogeneity claims). then you start to get into the fact that the atmosphere is very dynamic, best represented by a fluid flow problem. there is also the age old PV = nRT, which somehow everyone forgets. ultimately, the "solution" to what happens will need to be a combination all the simple physics - PV = nRT, absorption, radiation, etc., combined with fluid dynamics, finite element mathematics, and probably a host of other areas that i don't even know myself. models do use basic fluid flow and finite element calculations, but the grids are 100km on a side, which is hardly sufficient for the atmosphere.

 

taks

[Lare Kikkeli]

You're the one making assumptions that any increase in CO2 must cause global warming. I'm saying that must be proven.

OK, physics lesson. CO2 is one carbon atom bonded covalently to two oxygen atoms. One of the basic physical principals is that this type of bond absorbs light in the infrared region of the spectrum ('heat'), the bond vibrates and releases the energy as slightly longer wavelength IR. This is how spectrophotometers and such work in chemical analysis. The emitted IR will, on average, go into space (~<50%) or return to earth (~>50). Without the CO2 (/water /methane /..) 100% goes into space. This is obviously a simplification, but the basic science is, well, basic and irrefutable. May as well argue that the earth is flat as argue that CO2 does not cause warming.

OK, physics lesson, repeating, CO2 is .04% of atmosphere, water vapor is 1%, it's reasonable to assume water vapor swamps out any effect of CO2 until proven otherwise. That's before you start talking about any negative feedback mechanisms of the earth or the oceans absorbing extra heat.

 

Also the new Dutch study I linked shows Kilimanjaro melting is mostly due to natural phenomenon.

 

Ok, reality lesson. Your reason has nothing to do with how stuff works in reality. It's reasonable to assume the earth is flat. It's reasonable to assume the sun is a giant lamp hanging above flat earth. It's reasonable to assume that time is separate from matter. I could go on.

 

Also forget about Kilimanjaro, it's not proof of anything else except that it's a natural phenomenon.

[213374U]

It's reasonable to assume the earth is flat.

It's not just reasonable. It's advisable, as it simplifies calculations a lot. Edited December 10, 2009 by 213374U

[Moose]

CO_2 may only absorb on a few bands, but then natural light is a mix over all frequencies, so surely this is a non issue. A theoritical bubble of CO_2 immersed in a vaccum, exposed to natural light will absorb some of this light and increase in temperature, will it not?

[Wrath of Dagon]

You're the one making assumptions that any increase in CO2 must cause global warming. I'm saying that must be proven.

OK, physics lesson. CO2 is one carbon atom bonded covalently to two oxygen atoms. One of the basic physical principals is that this type of bond absorbs light in the infrared region of the spectrum ('heat'), the bond vibrates and releases the energy as slightly longer wavelength IR. This is how spectrophotometers and such work in chemical analysis. The emitted IR will, on average, go into space (~<50%) or return to earth (~>50). Without the CO2 (/water /methane /..) 100% goes into space. This is obviously a simplification, but the basic science is, well, basic and irrefutable. May as well argue that the earth is flat as argue that CO2 does not cause warming.

OK, physics lesson, repeating, CO2 is .04% of atmosphere, water vapor is 1%, it's reasonable to assume water vapor swamps out any effect of CO2 until proven otherwise. That's before you start talking about any negative feedback mechanisms of the earth or the oceans absorbing extra heat.

 

Also the new Dutch study I linked shows Kilimanjaro melting is mostly due to natural phenomenon.

 

Ok, reality lesson. Your reason has nothing to do with how stuff works in reality. It's reasonable to assume the earth is flat. It's reasonable to assume the sun is a giant lamp hanging above flat earth. It's reasonable to assume that time is separate from matter. I could go on.

 

Also forget about Kilimanjaro, it's not proof of anything else except that it's a natural phenomenon.

I brought up Kilimanjaro because it was being discussed here, and has been used extensively as evidence of global warming, most notably by Al Gore in his famous movie "A Convenient Lie".

 

As far as those other things, yes it was reasonable to assume them, and people believed it for thousands of years, until it was proved false. That is why I said until proven otherwise. I was not making an argument other than that a claim has to be proven, but apparently you fail both in reading comprehension and logical reasoning.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Lare Kikkeli]

No one else brought up Al Gore than you and taks because everyone knows his documentary is full of holes. In fact I don't think anyone has tried to use Kilimanjaro as proof of anything in this thread, except maybe taks that since one glacier is receding for other reasons than climate change all other glaciers must be as well...which is stupid.

 

Your water vapour stuff vs. co2 is completely irrevelant. It's just numbers that out of context don't mean anything. It's just your reasoning, not based on anything concrete, just your "common sense", which makes it about as credible evidence for anything as anything The Flat Earth Society says. Most of physics is against common sense, because the universe doesn't work like us humans believe it does, or should for that matter.

 

I agree that we need more evidence, especially in the light of what the ICCP has been doing but common sense or gut feelings have no place in science, because they have been proven wrong over and over again.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[Moose]

I suppose the thing about water vapour is we're not burning vast amounts of natural hydrogen, thereby adding to the total water vapour present in the atmosphere.

 

Here's a more interesting questions, does the natural warming of the sun, thereby melting ice, causing more water vapour, causing positive feedback (more water vapour -> more greenhouse gas -> higher temperatures -> more ice melts) have more of an impact than gradually rising atmospheric CO_2 levels? Don't bother trying to answer that one, nobody knows. The one thing I'm sure of is it's been getting hotter for the last 25 years, and till we have a 2nd planet I find that unsettling.

[Zoraptor]

Numbers makes an important point. ALL models are designed to answer a specific action choice. They have to simplify and make assumptions or they would merely replicate what is actually happening and be impenetrable for the decision maker.

That's incorrect, though it's only partly germane to the discussion at hand. To take an extreme example, things like models of the universe ('big bang'/ 'big crunch'/ 'big bounce') are designed to replicate what has actually happened as exactly as possible and to predict 'exactly' what will happen in the future, and have no other purpose- obviously in that case the time scale is such that it's only of interest from a "pure" science basis and cannot be used for making any decisions.

 

Again, we have to extrapolate for what purpose? That reasoning is only valid if you have a goal in mind, or if you presuppose a problem that needs to be acted on. If, however, the only objective is understanding climate, there is no need for extrapolation (in the sense of inferring a series of consequences, which amounts to starting the house by the roof) - model building and refinement, data gathering and experimental testing, until a reasonable level of accuracy and reliability in the models is achieved, should be enough. But here, of course, it isn't enough because this isn't just science: it's politics.

I suppose it's possible that you don't realise the bias in your thinking, which is where this misunderstanding comes from. I'm going to try, one last time. I'm losing interest fast.

 

We have to extrapolate for the purposes of preparing for problems- it's the same principle as issuing hurricane warnings even if you're not sure where, or if, the hurricane will actually hit land and at what intensity. If the sea level or temperature is going to rise it is useful to predict in advance so preparations can be made, I think the reasons for this are obvious. The only way to do this is to model it. Models of complex systems are by definition imperfect as they rely on observations about past and present to predict the future and are susceptible to 'butterfly effects' and one off occurrences. This does not mean that you throw the baby out with the bathwater and decide to ignore them. Nor does it imply that you have to have some sort of way to 'fix' things to get an 'ideal' solution for them to be useful. All it implies is that acting on the models you have now to ameliorate predicted problems in the future is sensible and is exactly what gets done for all sorts of imperfect models from predicting bush fire paths and severity to weather prediction to population changes to disease spread to militaries having contingencies in case of the US nuking Russia and vice versa. Risk management essentially. Ultimately the 'proof' for every single complex model can only be found by time and refinement, and even then it will always be a best guess prediction when it comes to specifics.

 

I'm afraid you just don't understand complex systems modeling, which is fair enough as it is, heh, a complex subject.

 

How many hurricanes, (de)glaciations and droughts can current climate models predict without resorting to "parameters", ad-hoc adjustments and data selection?

Le sigh. Macro models of complex systems do not have to predict on the micro level- that is perhaps the single biggest tenet of complex system modeling since chaos theory was formulated.

[213374U]

We have to extrapolate for the purposes of preparing for problems- it's the same principle as issuing hurricane warnings even if you're not sure where, or if, the hurricane will actually hit land and at what intensity. If the sea level or temperature is going to rise it is useful to predict in advance so preparations can be made, I think the reasons for this are obvious.

At this point the extrapolation is bordering on the absurd thanks to the effort being made to have model and data agree with the predictions. Again, read what I posted. I'm not against climate models - I'm simply against climate models that don't work, and those models then being used to push whatever agendas.

 

 

Le sigh. Macro models of complex systems do not have to predict on the micro level- that is perhaps the single biggest tenet of complex system modeling since chaos theory was formulated.

Ah, I see. So glaciations are now "micro" events? Well then, we can conclude that models are useless for the purposes they are being used, as glaciations are in fact on the same scale as the global warming they predict, no?

 

Are you being facetious, or just trying to give the impression that you know more than you actually do?

 

edit: I could point to even more inconsistencies in your discourse by linking that point with the one you made about hurricane warnings (those come from models, too), but it's not really worth it as you keep redefining the terms constantly and then making arbitrary statements about what models can or cannot do, depending on what suits you at a given time... heh.

Edited December 11, 2009 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

Numbers makes an important point. ALL models are designed to answer a specific action choice. They have to simplify and make assumptions or they would merely replicate what is actually happening and be impenetrable for the decision maker.

That's incorrect, though it's only partly germane to the discussion at hand. To take an extreme example, things like models of the universe ('big bang'/ 'big crunch'/ 'big bounce') are designed to replicate what has actually happened as exactly as possible and to predict 'exactly' what will happen in the future, and have no other purpose- obviously in that case the time scale is such that it's only of interest from a "pure" science basis and cannot be used for making any decisions.

 

As Numbers again says, either you are a lot dumber or a lot smarter than you appear. The suggestion that a model replicates is - to my knowledge - both impossible and counter-productive. If a model exactly replicated what happend it would be identical to reality, and no more useful. Even if it could be run faster. How would the user/decision maker know what variables to manipulate in their actions?

 

No, I'm afraid I can't agree.

[Zoraptor]

Hm, perhaps a misunderstanding of 'design'? The design (intention) of a model is to try and take what is known ('the past') to create a model which is both accurate to the past, and predicts accurately into the future. It does not have to have the intended purpose of scenario generation though in most cases that is useful. As a simple example if you model the moon/ earth/ sun system your purpose is pretty much solely to predict exactly what will happen (for fishing charts, tidal prediction, eclipses etc which I think you'd agree are useful) and in the medium term all the "variables" (relative masses, orbital position and velocity) are set and not able to be influenced. Practically speaking the models are always designed (fabricated) imperfectly ("simplified") as you can never take all variables into account, barring pure mathematical models, and are almost always probability and range based ("we predict that at time X the moon/ earth/ sun will be in these relative positions, assuming there are no extraordinary influences and with an expected error of Z, and after date A we cannot accurately predict associated phenomenon B"). That is what I've being saying all along, inaccuracies in modeling are inherent but do not in and of themselves disprove the model.

 

I do know what I am talking about though I am perhaps not expressing it well, I've worked on complex models on and off over the past ten years (I'd stress they are population based, NOT climate or weather).

 

At this point the extrapolation is bordering on the absurd thanks to the effort being made to have model and data agree with the predictions. Again, read what I posted. I'm not against climate models - I'm simply against climate models that don't work, and those models then being used to push whatever agendas.

The general scientific concensus is that the models are imperfect/ need refinement but should be acted on and are not absurd, and that there is a general trend of little g global little w warming is almost uncontested. You are, of course, welcome to ignore said scientific concensus and you may even be found retrospectively correct to do so, but I'm afraid rote restatement doesn't make your opinion fact no matter how strident your belief. And no, I'm not suggesting you're just another case of someone disagreeing with scientists to further an agenda as I find the evidence inconclusive.

 

Ah, I see. So glaciations are now "micro" events? Well then, we can conclude that models are useless for the purposes they are being used, as glaciations are in fact on the same scale as the global warming they predict, no?

No. It's just more evidence that you don't understand models. Whether any given glacier is gaining or losing mass is a micro scale event better predicted accurately at the local level. If you're talking glaciation on the macro scale you are either asking whether glaciers as a collective are losing mass and whether that agrees with the model (yes, and it does), or to predict large glaciation events, which is a separate model. It's obvious you were talking micro due to your other example, hurricanes, so you're just generating non sequitors, or being facetious to give the impression that you know more than you actually do.

[Walsingham]

My last post sounded rather arrogant so I appreciate your responding in an even tone. It seems you have some experience of models, but I would hazard they are scientific rather than operational ones. This, on reflection after reading your response may be significant to the argument in general.

 

You mention the imperative of accuracy, and the 'resistance' (if I can call it that) of some models to exposing variables which can be manipulated. As I say I think this is characteristic of models designed for academic use and accolade. On the other hand decision makers don't actually care - and shouldn't care - why a model works, only that it does. The best example I've ever encountered for this are Lanchester's equations. They persist in 'predicting' quite accurately the outcome of historical military engagements, even though I have yet to be convinced their simplification of combat is why the results are as predicted.

 

The distinction is appropriate because if there is one thing we ought to be able to agree on it is that DECISION is the focus of this debate, NOT science. In essence it does not matter if the models were dreamed up on acid, and the data extracted from a dog being covered in jam and jumping on a calculator keypad. What matters is what we decide to do about it, and whtther it is optimal in relation to our objectives.

 

I could go on, but three paragraphs is most any sane man should expect people to read.

[213374U]

That is what I've being saying all along, inaccuracies in modeling are inherent but do not in and of themselves disprove the model.

"Inaccuracies", eh? So, according to you, the inaccuracies present in a model of the solar system are comparable to the "inaccuracies" present in current climate models. Yeah, that's pretty rich.

 

 

If you're talking glaciation on the macro scale you are either asking whether glaciers as a collective are losing mass and whether that agrees with the model (yes, and it does), or to predict large glaciation events, which is a separate model. It's obvious you were talking micro due to your other example, hurricanes, so you're just generating non sequitors, or being facetious to give the impression that you know more than you actually do.

It's funny that you actually accused me of bad reading comprehension, and then immediately you demonstrate how to fail at understanding simple terms like glaciation. I think you actually built your response based on what you wanted me to have said, instead of what I actually did. Further, you focused on the circumstantial part of the argument (XYZ phenomena) and outright ignored the substance - the constant need for readjustment and placeholders in those models, which evidences what I've been attacking from the beginning: their incompleteness.

 

Anyway, do you have proof that glaciers as a collective are losing mass? And how is a large glaciation event different from a global warming scenario in that it needs a different model? This discussion is getting more and more absurd with each subsequent reply. You keep posting (and subsequently redefining) doctrine, but you have yet to produce anything that actually shows that climate models work as you claim they do. Enough with the voodoo act already.

Edited December 12, 2009 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

Numbers, I think you and I have already been harsh enough. Give the man room to breathe. I'm sure he will oblige with data if you just ask politely.

[taks]

there aren't just "inaccuracies" in climate models. to say or imply that the problems with the GCMs are simply "inaccuracies" is not just disingenuous, it is an outright ignorance of the fact or a plain fabrication. a) scientists do not understand the very fundamental energy budget, i.e., the little nuanced bit of data that is the core of all GCMs, b) scientists do not understand, at all, the mechanism that drives cloud formation, i.e., those pesky fluffy things in the sky that ultimately drive the albedo (which in turn, drives the energy budget), and c) GCMs do not even come close to representing the actual circulation of the atmosphere (the C in GCM means circulation).

 

furthermore, the ultimate test of any model is its predictive ability, and in the case of GCMs, not only do they continually fail to demonstrate what is yet to come, the authors openly admit that the GCMs are not predictive tools. their outputs are dubbed "possible scenarios," nothing more. this little understood fact is really just an admission that GCMs are incomplete to the point they should not be used for anything other than curious laboratory investigations.

 

oh, and in all likelihood, climate is not wholly periodic (other than some rather obvious periodicities), which implies chaos, which really can't be modeled in any realistic way anyway. the GCMs are simply tuned repeatedly to match to past climate (hindcasting), which is an assumption of periodic (or formulaic) behavior, and generally results in the rather well-known problem of overfitting. the error bars for "possible scenarios" are basically floor to ceiling, so just about any result is "consistent with the models." this is why you get outlandish claims like "cooling can result from global warming." yeah, how 'bout that bridge i just inherited in san francisco. anybody want to buy it cheap?

 

i can't believe anyone would actually defend GCMs even deeper than what the authors of the code are willing to do themselves. i mean, they openly admit they are not predictive tools, which implies they are otherwise useless as anything other than analytical curiosities in hopes of improvement for future use, yet people like zoraptor think these things simply suffer from "inaccuracies?" wow. just... wow.

 

taks