Researchers claim satellite data proves global warming caused by humans

Sep 17, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
Time series of simulated monthly mean near-global anomalies in the temperature of the lower stratosphere (TLS), the mid- to upper troposphere (TMT), and the lower troposphere (TLT) (A–C). Model results are from spliced historical/RCP8.5 simulations with combined anthropogenic and natural external forcing (ALL+8.5) and from simulations with natural external forcing only (NAT). The bold lines denote the ALL+8.5 and NAT multimodel averages, calculated with 20 and 16 CMIP-5 models (respectively). Temperatures are averaged over 82.5°N–82.5°S for TLS and TMT, and over 82.5°N–70°S for TLT. Anomalies are defined with respect to climatological monthly means over 1861–1870. The shaded envelopes are the multimodel averages ±2 x s(t), where s(t) is the “between model” SD of the 20 (ALL+8.5) and 16 (NAT) ensemble-mean anomaly time series. To aid visual discrimination of the overlapping ALL+8.5 and NAT envelopes, the boundaries of the ALL+8.5 envelope are indicated by dotted orange lines. Credit: (c) PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1305332110

(Phys.org) —A team of climatologists with members from the U.S., Australia, Canada and Norway is claiming in a paper they've had published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that they have found proof that global warming is being caused by human influences. They are basing their claims on computer simulations they've run and data obtained from three decades' worth of satellite observations.

Most of the world's scientists agree that our planet is experiencing global warming. Most also generally support the theory that the cause of global warming is due to an increase in , primarily carbon dioxide. And while many also support the notion that the increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is likely due to human emissions, few are willing to go on record claiming that global warming is due directly to human activities. The researchers in this new effort are one such group and they claim they have proof.

Satellites, as most everyone knows, have been hovering over or circling our planet for over half a century. Over that time period they have grown progressively more sophisticated, measuring virtually every conceivable aspect of the planet below—from gas levels in the atmosphere to temperature readings on an averaged global scale, to the impact of natural events such as volcanic eruptions. It's this data the researchers used in their attempt to root out the true source of global warming.

The research team conducted a two stage study. The first involved creating computer models that simulated over the past several decades under three different scenarios: a world without human influence, a world with only human influence and a world without human emissions or naturally occurring incidents such as volcanic eruptions. The second stage involved gathering data from satellites and comparing it with what the team had found in creating their simulations. They say patterns emerged that prove that is the cause behind global warming. One example they cite is data that shows that the troposphere (the part of the atmosphere closest to us) has seen a steady rise in temperature over the past several decades, even as the layer just above it, the stratosphere, has cooled slightly.

A graphic representation of the fingerprints, both manmade and natural, on the vertical structure of the atmosphere. Manmade changes such as the increased production of greenhouse gases causes the stratosphere to cool while the mid- to upper troposphere heats up. A new study shows that natural influences alone would not cause these temperature changes.

But what has the team really convinced that humans are the true source behind global warming, is that they were unable to produce the type of warming we've seen with just natural events—it's only when human emissions are added to models that such a trend can be realistically simulated. That, they say, proves that human practices over the past several decades are responsible for global warming.

Explore further: A century of human impact on Arctic climate indicated by new models, historic aerosol data

More information: Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere, PNAS, Published online before print September 16, 2013, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1305332110

Abstract
Since the late 1970s, satellite-based instruments have monitored global changes in atmospheric temperature. These measurements reveal multidecadal tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, punctuated by short-term volcanic signals of reverse sign. Similar long- and short-term temperature signals occur in model simulations driven by human-caused changes in atmospheric composition and natural variations in volcanic aerosols. Most previous comparisons of modeled and observed atmospheric temperature changes have used results from individual models and individual observational records. In contrast, we rely on a large multimodel archive and multiple observational datasets. We show that a human-caused latitude/altitude pattern of atmospheric temperature change can be identified with high statistical confidence in satellite data. Results are robust to current uncertainties in models and observations. Virtually all previous research in this area has attempted to discriminate an anthropogenic signal from internal variability. Here, we present evidence that a human-caused signal can also be identified relative to the larger "total" natural variability arising from sources internal to the climate system, solar irradiance changes, and volcanic forcing. Consistent signal identification occurs because both internal and total natural variability (as simulated by state-of-the-art models) cannot produce sustained global-scale tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. Our results provide clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.

Press release 1
Press release 2

Related Stories

Global warming could change strength of El Nino

Sep 11, 2013

Global warming could impact the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), altering the cycles of El Niño and La Niña events that bring extreme drought and flooding to Australia and many other Pacific-rim countries.

A human-caused climate change signal emerges from the noise

Nov 29, 2012

By comparing simulations from 20 different computer models to satellite observations, Lawrence Livermore climate scientists and colleagues from 16 other organizations have found that tropospheric and stratospheric temperature ...

Recommended for you

Tropical Storm Genevieve forms in Eastern Pacific

16 hours ago

The seventh tropical depression of the Eastern Pacific Ocean formed and quickly ramped up to a tropical storm named "Genevieve." NOAA's GOES-West satellite captured an infrared image of the newborn storm ...

NASA maps Typhoon Matmo's Taiwan deluge

18 hours ago

When Typhoon Matmo crossed over the island nation of Taiwan it left tremendous amounts of rainfall in its wake. NASA used data from the TRMM satellite to calculate just how much rain fell over the nation.

User comments : 307

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

triplehelix
2.5 / 5 (52) Sep 17, 2013
Little lesson in science. When attempting to give a variable a weight in terms of its affect on the dependent variable, you need to construct the experiment with either a linear response to a variable, or a stepped "strength" of the variable (for example, adding 2mg, 5mg, 10mg, and 20mg antibiotic to a petri dish and getting the data of how the changed variable affects the batceria).

I cannot wait to read the paper on how they got 60-100 Earths without humans, and 60-100 Earths with humans and analysed the variance between these, and then repeated the experiment at least 5 times.

Oh right, we have one Earth, and we have no experimental way of removing extraneous variables to truly get the weight of a particular variable. So basically we have 1 messy datapoint riddled with extraneous variables.

Lovely.

Moebius
2.9 / 5 (44) Sep 17, 2013
There is only one question that matters. Do we wait to find out if we are causing it before we do anything about it, even though by then it will probably be too late to do anything?
shavera
3.4 / 5 (35) Sep 17, 2013
triplehelix: hence why we simulate, to the best of our ability, multiple Earths. We know the laws of physics. We know how to calculate them. There's nothing particularly special about Earth that makes it exempt from said laws. So we try our best to calculate the effects of those laws through numerical simulation; lo and behold, science is born.

If you don't think this is a valid way of doing science, I'd also like to direct you to the materials scientists, the physical chemists, particle phenomenologists, astrophysicists, engineers and others who routinely use simulations to come to conclusions. Or is it only when climate simulation tells you something you'd rather not hear that you have a problem with numerical modeling?
triplehelix
2.2 / 5 (53) Sep 17, 2013
Shavera, the climate science community has had more models than I have had hot dinners. Their models are a joke and are based on assumptions that continue to be proven innaccurate.

You absolutely cannot state what variables have what weighting without removing them and testing them independently. You can't.

How about the human body. Would you trust a medication that was only tested on one person? Oh also, they were on 30 others as well. But don't worry, we know a lot about the body, we ran some simulations and digital models of the drug and it should be fine.

Oh wait that did happen (kind of) once with chemical modelling. It was thalidomide, and they skipped the variable testings. Oh, right. Look what happened there.

Moebius - What if we don't wait, and spend trillions and use up resources forcing a false economy, and a false science? Both scenarios lead to major issues. The arctic ice sheet has increased 60% against predictions. If you cannot predict well, it isn't true science.
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (33) Sep 17, 2013
You absolutely cannot state what variables have what weighting without removing them and testing them independently. You can't.

Well if that were the case, we couldn't build anything. Finite element analysis would be useless. But that's why we have physics and chemistry, to tell us what the weightings should be.

The arctic ice sheet has increased 60% against predictions.

Where do you guys get this hogwash from? Arctic ice volume has been decreasing steadily since measurements began in the 1980's.

http://en.wikiped...e_Arctic
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (41) Sep 17, 2013
" they were unable to produce the type of warming we've seen with just natural events"
They forgot to add, "...natural events that are known to us."
djr
3 / 5 (34) Sep 17, 2013
"They forgot to add, "...natural events that are known to us."

Silly scientists - they ignored the natural events that we don't know about. Well how do we know there are natural events that we don't know about? Cuz Donald Rumsfeld told us - you know - there are known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.

So I guess that leaves us a few options right? 1. We could give up and stop studying the climate. 2. We could make up some natural events. 3. We could study the climate to the best of our ability - and as our knowledge becomes more complete - our models get better - and we do this funny little thing called science. Ryggy wants to pick option #1 - cuz if we don't know everything about a subject - we should not even bother trying to understand what we do know.
travisr
3.1 / 5 (29) Sep 17, 2013
@triplehelix

I've seen this argument before, and its ludicrous. What you are is a political extremist who has had their head filled with nonsense, and this was done so that you wouldn't elect any of those dangerous liberals. This happens inversely on the spectrum as well, and I assume your programming has already labeled me a liberal as well. They put in good safe guards... what can I say?

Anyway, yes we can make predictions on how the earth will interact. We have modern inventions that allow us to monitor millions of temperature sensors, atmospheric sensors, amalgamate that data, and try to correlate it. 29000 scientific articles have made a good case for global warming. Only through continuous refinement (many models) will we discover the true answer. Mean while I wake up in Houston and smell oil everyday. I think we should mitigate this, it smells bad. Oh, and and it may hurt the environment.
Sanescience
2.1 / 5 (28) Sep 17, 2013
There is only one question that matters. Do we wait to find out if we are causing it before we do anything about it, even though by then it will probably be too late to do anything?


So, humans are emitting too much CO2. Most of the world who can't see how their going to survive another year couldn't care less. As for a hundred years from now, forget about it. If the world doesn't start solving some population and quality of life issues, this whole AGW issue and what you try to do about it is moot.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (22) Sep 17, 2013
There is only one question that matters. Do we wait to find out if we are causing it before we do anything about it, even though by then it will probably be too late to do anything?


So, humans are emitting too much CO2. Most of the world who can't see how their going to survive another year couldn't care less. As for a hundred years from now, forget about it. If the world doesn't start solving some population and quality of life issues, this whole AGW issue and what you try to do about it is moot.


I agree about there being a population problem - given finite Earth resources and a social model based on consumption to provide jobs. Logic says it will end in tears unless changed.
However given that nothing will be done about that, don't you think the AGW problem is something we can do something about? Take responsibility for it, as those poor people "who couldn't care less" surely didn't cause it.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (23) Sep 17, 2013
" they were unable to produce the type of warming we've seen with just natural events"
They forgot to add, "...natural events that are known to us."


Right then - you got any "natural events" up your sleeve, that may be causing warming?

Other than the Sun, SST/Ocean current changes, Volcanism/aerosols, Clouds/albedo.

Warming that has continued ( even during recent times when ENSO removed ) since the onset of the industrial era. A continuation during various Solar minima, vocanic eruptions, and Ocean cycles. Perhaps it's geothermal. Some sort of massive heat leakage from the Earth that no one's spotted - or perhaps they have, and it's a secret.

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (40) Sep 17, 2013
GIGO!
NikFromNYC
2.5 / 5 (42) Sep 17, 2013
NASA GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt is seen here in a hilarious two minute clip from Fox News, *literally* skirting around real debate as he offers a mere argument from ignorance to support AGW claims while *failing* to mention that the specific real world ocean currents that dominate climate heat dynamics and fluctuations is inherently chaotic and thus by its very nature unpredictable:
http://tinypic.co...&s=5

"The authors declare no conflict of interest."

"I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior." - director Sally Jewell, 2013

Suddenly a mere 30 years of data, half of which shows no warming, is proof that utterly crucial antibiotics research should be starved of funding since the sky is falling.

Comparing apples to oranges, always, defines Climatology, in which satellites are tacked onto overly smoothed ground data and headline news never mentions how their work is then debunked in weeks, often mere days. Spherical cows abound!
AAhhzz
2.9 / 5 (35) Sep 17, 2013
Since none of the models can seem to predict accurately...why is there such an emotional outrage whenever anyone points that out?

If the predictions in another arena of science were as consistantly wrong would they be defended so visciously?

Could it be the trillions of dollars that stand to be made? On both sides?
NikFromNYC
2.3 / 5 (35) Sep 17, 2013
"These results highlight the very unusual nature of observed changes in atmospheric temperature."

The current variation in global average temperature has nearly exact precedence as a single divided plot of the latest official HADCRUT4 data bluntly demonstrates:
http://www.woodfo.../to:1950

Real thermometer records that are a good match for the global average extend this natural warming phase back 350 years!
http://i.minus.com/idAOoE.gif
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (35) Sep 17, 2013
Well how do we know there are natural events that we don't know about?

Because science keeps finding them and if they don't fit the AGW paradigm, they are ignored.
Other than the Sun, SST/Ocean current changes, Volcanism/aerosols, Clouds/albedo.

The radiates more than photons that interact with the atm as do many other high energy particles from all over the galaxy.
"Nobody knows exactly what triggers lightning bolts. Now, two Russian researchers say that these discharges of a billion volts or more could be caused by the interaction of cosmic rays—high-energy particles from outer space—with water droplets in thunderclouds. "
http://news.scien...ightning
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (37) Sep 17, 2013
However given that nothing will be done about that, don't you think the AGW problem is something we can do something about? Take responsibility for it, as those poor people "who couldn't care less" surely didn't cause it.


And the 'something' 'we' can do about makes more people poor, less prosperous and back to burning dung.
Energy is what brought billions of people a standard of living only dreamed about by kings 200 years ago.
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (36) Sep 17, 2013
Computer simulations cannot prove anything except the bias of the simulators.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (20) Sep 17, 2013
The radiates more than photons that interact with the atm as do many other high energy particles from all over the galaxy.
"Nobody knows exactly what triggers lightning bolts. Now, two Russian researchers say that these discharges of a billion volts or more could be caused by the interaction of cosmic rays—high-energy particles from outer space—with water droplets in thunderclouds. "
http://news.scien...ightning


So we've got (possibly) some exotic particle that somehow gets around the Earth's magnetic field and the Solar wind and magically causes the Earth to warm, all since the onset of the industrial era. Whatever triggers lighting it is certainly no different than before AGW. Meanwhile GHG theory gives us both the correlation and the causation physics for AGW. A rational person would prefer to take that as much more reasonable evidence, rather than desperately grasping at such straws as "exotic particles", that Man had somehow not yet discovered.
AAhhzz
2.4 / 5 (32) Sep 17, 2013
http://phys.org/n...50s.html

So atm CO has Dropped a bit since the 1950s...Which model showing AGW accurately reflects this data? All of them? Any of them?....Even One?

If you cant use the model to accurately reflect past conditions without an ever increasing number of adjustments to your variables...Do you really have a model that worth using to predict the future?
AAhhzz
2 / 5 (29) Sep 17, 2013
Nobody knows exactly what triggers lightning bolts. ... by the interaction of cosmic rays—high-energy particles from outer space—with water droplets in thunderclouds. "
http://news.scien...ightning


So we've got (possibly) some exotic ( Not exotic, they are everywhere ) particle that somehow gets around the Earth's magnetic field and the Solar wind and magically causes the Earth to warm, all since the onset of the industrial era. Whatever triggers lighting it is certainly no different than before AGW. Meanwhile GHG theory gives us both the correlation and the causation physics for AGW. A rational person would prefer to take that as much more reasonable evidence, rather than desperately grasping at such straws as "exotic particles", that Man had somehow not yet discovered.


No, pretty sure the point is that not all, or even a majority of the factors involved in climate, are being accounted for by AGW theories.

runrig
3.7 / 5 (19) Sep 17, 2013
No, pretty sure the point is that not all, or even a majority of the factors involved in climate, are being accounted for by AGW theories.


No one said science had accounted for all the factors, or even had all of them factored at the correct ratio .... just that we have the major ones and, you know, science is about making theory ( read model ) and testing against experiment (new data) then refining etc. That's what weather forecasts do. We don't (well a rational person anyway ) discredit a forecast made at T+72 just because when it came to T+24 it had changed. New data has come in. You go with the one you have to hand and continually refine the model.
BTW: CO is not a GHG.
shavera
3.9 / 5 (21) Sep 17, 2013
We know the source of energy that comes into the earth: the sun. That's a known factor, easily modeled. We know, roughly how much light the earth reflects, again, easily modeled to a very high degree. Therefore the difference between reflection and incident light is light absorbed. Light absorbed will become heat. Again, easily and well modeled. Then we model how that heat escapes the planet, which is only a radiative transfer since there's no matter to speak of in space. So we look at what types of radiation escape the earth, and we find that our atmosphere is partially opaque to certain kinds of light, and it just so happens that those are frequencies highly involved in the escape of heat from the earth. Again, easily modeled, basic first principles from physics.

So we have our "first order" phenomena. And running the numbers, we see that CO2 and methane trap heat to a degree that more heat is trapped than escapes. Therefore there must be a heat increase (to first order, continued:
shavera
3.9 / 5 (21) Sep 17, 2013
So since our first order phenomenon is heating, let's add in second order terms. There are aerosols from the ocean and transpiration from plants. There's water cycles and volcanoes and urban heat islands and CO2 from fossil fuels and methane from a variety of sources including agriculture. There's CO2 sequestration in plant matter. There's ocean currents and cycles that change the surface temperature of the water and deep ocean temperatures more or less separately.(heat transfer by convection) Again, all modeled, though not so easily. And the calculations have become better over time, and narrow in on what is more likely to be true.

So please, if you think that modeling is imperfect, that you know of specific terms that are being forgotten, feel free to publish a freakin' paper on it where you do the modeling yourself and show that we're lying. Put up or shut up.
djr
3.1 / 5 (16) Sep 17, 2013
AAhhzz - Have all the factors that affect weather been accounted for? Do the weather models that predict future weather - get it right 100% of the time? Do we then conclude that all meteorologists are in a grand conspiracy to usurp the research funding away from research on antibiotics?

I prefer to understand that this is an emerging science. The past predictions were quite accurate - and as more data accumulates - they will obviously get more accurate (just like the weather). http://iopscience.../article (that link is thanks to runrig).
shavera
4.4 / 5 (20) Sep 17, 2013
Franklins you believe in the stupidest pseudoscientific BS this side of TimeCube Guy. Your "estimation" is worth about jack all. But again, please feel free to publish a paper on it where you do the modeling yourself and show that we're lying. Publishing is this thing where people look over your math and make sure you're not just writing daydreams down in a journal and claiming them as fact.
triplehelix
2.2 / 5 (34) Sep 17, 2013
If you don't think this is a valid way of doing science, I'd also like to direct you to the materials scientists, the physical chemists, particle phenomenologists, astrophysicists, engineers and others who routinely use simulations to come to conclusions. Or is it only when climate simulation tells you something you'd rather not hear that you have a problem with numerical modelling?


Shavera, materials sciences, and astrophysics, as well as the others, base their models upon thousands, if not millions of data points that are independent from bias. They are individual with limited, if non existent extraneous variables.

Climate modelling is basically seeing what Earth does, and extrapolating from that data, the issue is, what variable is doing what? Until you LITERALLY remove those variables, you have a VERY limited proof of what is doing what. 500 bacteria with 500 antibiotics on ONE petri dish and no way to remove them. How do you tell what antibiotic is effective?
triplehelix
2.2 / 5 (35) Sep 17, 2013
However, shavera, I agree with your comment regarding franklin. I am not some pseudoscientific nutjob republican tea party twat. I am a professional scientist, and it is stupid to rely solely on fossil fuels, and renewable energy is definitely something we need to advance in. BUT...a BIG but, you cannot take seriously, these pseudoscientific studies on the environment. They make their models based on data with no way of identifying the weighting of the variables and just say "this variable has this weighting". And this is why the models of today predicted and ice free arctic in 2013, yet OBSERVED data showed 60% INCREASE. If your models continuously fail to accurately predict something, those models are LAUGHABLE.
triplehelix
2.2 / 5 (34) Sep 17, 2013
I can predict gravity. I can predict electricity. I can predict medication.

Climate scientists cannot predict shit. They continuously get things wrong, and when they do have they get out clause of "Well this can happen"

Drought, flooding, snow, rain, dry, hot, cold, etc. Any weather/climate is predicted. You can't just choose every fucking option as a prediction.

Would you be satisfied if your doctor said "this medication will work or it wont"

No fucking shit sherlock!
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (32) Sep 17, 2013
Climate scientists cannot predict shit.


Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that climate is a chaotic system, and trying to model a chaotic system is harder than tying a hair ribbon on a bolt of lightning.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (15) Sep 17, 2013
...yet OBSERVED data showed 60% INCREASE. If your models continuously fail to accurately predict something, those models are LAUGHABLE.

What's laughable is your clutching at straws and denying basic probability.
Last year's Arctic ice minima was an outlier event - so you would expect another the following year? Look up the normal distribution curve if you don't undstand that's very unlikely to occur.
Climate science knows the Arctic has weather even if you don't.
Arctic ice thickness......
http://psc.apl.wa...2sst.png

Where do you think those would have gone given a similar summer to last year? and not a notably cold one.
In short, Arctic ice remains in a perilous state.
runrig
3.1 / 5 (15) Sep 17, 2013
Climate scientists cannot predict shit.


Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that climate is a chaotic system, and trying to model a chaotic system is harder than tying a hair ribbon on a bolt of lightning.


Claudius:
Climate is not a chaotic system. Within limits. Weather can be predicted to very high levels of accuracy, within, certainly T+120. AS well as was possible at T+48 30 years ago.

What is chaotic, yes, are the variables within the climate system, vis ENSO, and to some extent solar. Certainly vulcanism. AND that is why the current hiatus was not predicted (at this time - pauses are expected). BUT they are internal variables overlying the AGW signal, redistributing the heat among the land/sea/air components. It is the net gain and loss of heat from the Sun to Earth and thence to space that is predictable.
triplehelix
2.2 / 5 (30) Sep 17, 2013
Climate scientists cannot predict shit.


Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that climate is a chaotic system, and trying to model a chaotic system is harder than tying a hair ribbon on a bolt of lightning.


Agreed COMPLETELY
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (30) Sep 17, 2013
Climate is not a chaotic system.


This must explain why Edward Lorenz came up with chaos theory to explain problems with climate modelling. Climate is "THE" chaotic system.
Booch
2 / 5 (24) Sep 17, 2013
Does this mean they can finally give me a three day forecast and tell me if its going to rain???

Nope..

Then lets back it up a bit. :-)
triplehelix
2.2 / 5 (30) Sep 17, 2013
...yet OBSERVED data showed 60% INCREASE. If your models continuously fail to accurately predict something, those models are LAUGHABLE.

What's laughable is your clutching at straws and denying basic probability.
Last year's Arctic ice minima was an outlier event - so you would expect another the following year? Look up the normal distribution curve if you don't undstand that's very unlikely to occur.
Climate science knows the Arctic has weather even if you don't.
Arctic ice thickness......
http://psc.apl.wa...2sst.png

Where do you think those would have gone given a similar summer to last year? and not a notably cold one.
In short, Arctic ice remains in a perilous state.


You use a few years out of 4.6 billion as it it is significant. Even if it does change, again i ask, how do you prove it would occurr without humans? Your methods are akin to cold reading.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (17) Sep 17, 2013
Does this mean they can finally give me a three day forecast and tell me if its going to rain???

Nope..

Then lets back it up a bit. :-)


Depends - on the weather pattern and whether you want a point forecast or a region. But these days, yes, quite often you can. This despite chaos being exhibited exponentially at longer time-scales.
I was using the IMPROVEMENT in Wx forecasts as an example of how even chaos can be constrained with further data/modeling NOT saying forecasts are infallible..... neither GCM's, just that there is a signal there that is outside of unpredictable variability.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (15) Sep 17, 2013
Climate is not a chaotic system.


This must explain why Edward Lorenz came up with chaos theory to explain problems with climate modelling. Climate is "THE" chaotic system.


Read my post again please Claudius - it's all there.
Howver .... Weather is THE Chaotic system - Climate is basic input/output. Know the energy input and the constraints on it's receipt by the climate system and the output from that system.
Weather has the unique attribute of having cause/effect in the extreme. Chicken and egg, with some patterns uniquely sensitive to the current state that quickly impacts on it's development. Not so climate - it acts over long time-scales in which weather (chaos) is the noise, that is smoothed out in the long term.
shavera
3.4 / 5 (18) Sep 17, 2013
I take SERIOUS issue with the idea that we can't make climate models because we only have one planet. Why, exactly, is Earth immune to the laws of physics? What makes Earth special that it doesn't reflect or absorb or transmit light the same as any number of thousands or millions of data points we have about reflection, absorption, and transmission of light? What makes Earth special that energy added to our planet won't result in increased heating of that planet? What makes Earth exempt from the idea that warmer temperatures will cause ice to melt? Everything that goes into a climate model is based on universally accepted physical principles. Yet when we combine them into a model, nutters climb out of the woodwork to claim we can't combine physics that way.
runrig
3.3 / 5 (15) Sep 17, 2013
You use a few years out of 4.6 billion as it it is significant. Even if it does change, again i ask, how do you prove it would occurr without humans? Your methods are akin to cold reading.


?
You used an ignorant statement, vis "arctic ice sheet has increased 60% against predictions". to denigrate climate science and I denied it - It's quite simple - you're wrong in your assertions that this years "recovery" is significant. If you can't grasp that we need to look at the trend line (linked to), and that after a outlier year there was an large probability of an increase, then I am at a loss.
shavera
3.2 / 5 (20) Sep 17, 2013
Also, to claim that just because Lorenz couldn't solve the climate model completely neglects the tremendous advances we've made in computational power in the years since. We may not be able to solve climate models, but we can numerically model them with very strong accuracy. As I say elsewhere, if you doubt the model, or if you have a problem with it

WRITE YOUR OWN BLOODY MODEL AND GET IT PUBLISHED.

Then we'll talk.
Budding Geologist
3.6 / 5 (20) Sep 17, 2013
runrig, and shavera... I admire your dedication to attempting to make AGW deniers understand that scientists are usually better informed about their topic than Fox News.... Always depresses me to see how easily manipulated people are by it.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (28) Sep 17, 2013
Not so climate - it acts over long time-scales in which weather (chaos) is the noise, that is smoothed out in the long term.


"Chaos is structured random behavior of a non-linear, complex, dynamical system. The behavior over long-time scales is (1) unpredictable, (2) seemingly random but not arbitrarily so, (3) sensitive to initial conditions, and (4) characterized by a strange attractor that is often a fractal. Chaotic behavior is different from random behavior in that it is not completely random and the strange attractor governs its structure."

Chaotic systems are inherently unpredictable. That is their nature.
Hubris to say otherwise.

eldsverk
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 17, 2013
...yet OBSERVED data showed 60% INCREASE. If your models continuously fail to accurately predict something, those models are LAUGHABLE.

What's laughable is your clutching at straws and denying basic probability.
Last year's Arctic ice minima was an outlier event - so you would expect another the following year? Look up the normal distribution curve if you don't undstand that's very unlikely to occur.


And why would a normal distribution curve be applicable here ? Climatic data tends to be messy with serial correlations within the time series. Using inappropriate distributions for return events is misapplying basic statistics.
DonGateley
2.3 / 5 (14) Sep 17, 2013
To the extent that the models have been linearized they are fundamentally inaccurate. To the extent that they have not been linearized any long term prediction falls deeper and deeper into the churn of mathematical chaos. You know, the butterfly in Tokyo effect. :-)
VENDItardE
1.4 / 5 (27) Sep 17, 2013
Also, to claim that just because Lorenz couldn't solve the climate model completely neglects the tremendous advances we've made in computational power in the years since. We may not be able to solve climate models, but we can numerically model them with very strong accuracy. As I say elsewhere, if you doubt the model, or if you have a problem with it

WRITE YOUR OWN BLOODY MODEL AND GET IT PUBLISHED.

SHOW ME A MODEL THAT WORKS OR SHUT THE FK UP AND GET A REAL JOB.
Then we'll talk.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (27) Sep 17, 2013
"This means that any theory/model, whether it be a nonlinear bottom up view or not, will be limited in its use because of underdetermination, i.e. given any amount of
evidence, there are mutually incompatible models which equally fit with the evidence ("...the evidence cannot by itself determine that some one of the host of competing
theories is the correct one" [12]), and that when a prediction from a model contradicts the observation, there are various mutually incompatible ways for making the model compatible with the evidence (parameter tuning for example). A result of equifinality is that even if our models can be used to develop causal explanations10 (within the confines of the model) we cannot be sure that those explanations bear any relationship to reality whatsoever11."
On the Limits of Bottom-Up Computer Simulation:
Towards a Nonlinear Modeling Culture1
Kurt A Richardson
Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence, Boston, US
triplehelix
1.8 / 5 (26) Sep 18, 2013
Seriously, climate science is cold reading. Just like how a psychic says "I'm getting an old person next to me" in front of an audience. Old people generally die. So they're going to get a few people put there hands up. Climate science simply says "We predict flooding and droughts worldwide". Well yeah, they're your two options. So when a flood happens, it "proves" climate change, and when a drought occurs, it "proves" climate change. They basically cover every single option just like psychic cold readers and they will always get a few successful "predictions". What one must count is the losses. Would you be happy with a computer that worked only a few times out of a hundred like climate science predictions? Science is about understanding something and empiricism. If you understand it, you can predict, with amazing accuracy what should happen. We do this with many sciences. Again. I repeat. Climate science rarely predicts things correctly, hell they rarely predict things vaguely right.
triplehelix
1.6 / 5 (25) Sep 18, 2013
Not just that, but a lot of their predictions are 30 years ahead at best, usually 50-100 years ahead. So by the time you actually get the results, the laws have been passed, the money has been handed out, and the entire industry has had its way.

Apparently we were going to have an ice free summer in the arctic. It grew by 60%. I don't care what the thickness is. The point is, they got it wrong, VERY wrong. In a professional setting a 60% deviation from the true result I would have my manager spitting fury at me wondering how I messed something up by 60%. But hey, I do real science, where we can predict things and have accuracy ranges of 0.05% often, over thousands of experiments, year in year out, for decades now.

If you can't even predict correctly the arctic ice coverage a year from now, I genuinely laugh at the predictions of the arctic in the year 2100 as some papers are doing. Just stop, please. It's embaressing, and people are waking up to this bullshit.
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 18, 2013
Final post for the morning, honest.

The reason models are constantly changing is because they observe and collect data from regions of the planet. This data more often than not, goes against the models predictions. So they tune the model, and change it around a bit. Again, it fails to predict some areas, and succeeds in others. They tune it some more. The problem here is planet Earth has literally tens of thousands of variables all acting at once, at any given moment, when it comes to weather and climate. The variables, as suggested by their name and definition, CHANGE in weighting. It is a chaotic system. You can't take the variables from China and say the same will happen in Brazil. You can't have one model fits all with weather and climate. It is an extremely complex chaotic system with compounding and extraneous variables. To fully understand them all, again, like every other science HAS to do to be taken seriously, you experimentally remove the variables to test their weighting.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2013
Do any of you who are talking about the inability of a model to be useful in a chaotic system understand what an "attractor" is? The reason we make ensemble calculations with variation in boundary conditions is to understand what the attractors might look like and when we might move from one attractor to another. It is not that we can precisely calculate a trajectory (which would be the response of a single run), but rather that we understand what attractors the system approaches in phase space. For instance, if I look at the trajectory of particles in a combustion plume, I don't try to predict where they will really move in a flame. Instead, I look at the ensemble of trajectories to determine if I have instabilities (switching between attractors) or smooth combustion (having stable attractors). In climate models, there are trajectories in multiple dimensional phase space. Please explain why understanding trajectories and attractors is not of value for climate prediction?
ManBearPiggie
2 / 5 (25) Sep 18, 2013
Strange as it may seem, skeptics have said for a long time that the models would fail and they have failed, and failed and failed again. For some reason there are those that deny the models fail.

triplehelix
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 18, 2013
thermodynamics - An eloquently written comment that explains bueatifully HOW a model is made (or parts of it). Unfortunately, throughout the fancy language, and the correct "buzz words" to make it sound all sciencey, you failed to explain why the above terms make for a successful model that can predict with high levels of accuracy and precision throughout many tests. I can very eloquently explain how to use an aquamarine crystal to heighten ones chakra, it however doesn't make it true or useful, or explain why.

I am not asking how to make a model. I am asking why do you constantly have to change your models and they still don't have very good predicting power. I'll tell you why. Because you're measuring many variables at the same time, and are making huge assumptions on what variable has what weighting and are then thinking it is the same throughout the globe, when it isn't. I would love to see the error bars or ranges of certain environmental variables. Oh wait I have, they're huge.
triplehelix
1.6 / 5 (21) Sep 18, 2013
@triplehelix

I've seen this argument before, and its ludicrous. What you are is a political extremist who has had their head filled with nonsense, and this was done so that you wouldn't elect any of those dangerous liberals. This happens inversely on the spectrum as well, and I assume your programming has already labeled me a liberal as well. They put in good safe guards... what can I say?


Travisr, I am not american, so no, I am not some political extremist who doesn't want those pesky liberals to have power. By the way, personal attacks on me like this don't actually prove climate change is human made. Your just blustering ad hominem arguments.

I also find it HILARIOUS how far off you are, considering I am a liberal, and strongly agree with many liberal segments of politics. I am also however, a scientist, with formal qualifications of highest standing my country offers. I am telling you now, that climate science is a joke, and barely a science.
arq
4 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2013
@triplehelix,


How is climate science a joke? Give us hard evidence!
beleg
1.8 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
You can't predict fingerprints. The biometrics are not completely known.
Climates are the fingerprints of the biosphere.
No joke.
triplehelix
1.6 / 5 (21) Sep 18, 2013
arq, that is a loaded question. Give me hard evidence unicorns don't exist. Evidence is difficult to obtain for things that don't exist because evidence is usually some form of empirical measurement. Difficult to measure non existence of something.

What I can, and have done, is lay out a lot of issues with climate science. Sciences main, and biggest attribute, is its predictive power. Science made planes fly, which rarely fail. Science made computers compute, which rarely fail. I can, using scientific methods, predict many things, with astounding accuracy. Climate scientists models still can't do this. They were genuinely stumped this year when the arctic was seen with 60% more ice than last year, when they PREDICTED it would completely dissapear. A good analogy to this would be a doctor saying the new drug will completely cure you (complete ice loss) but 60% of the patients die (60% more ice).

There would be a public uproar. Not with the arctic though, amazing what propaganda does.
beleg
1.8 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2013
You can't predict [the pattern] of fingerprints. (To avoid misunderstanding.)
Still a science if only 'barely'.
djr
4.2 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
Triplehelix "when they PREDICTED it would completely dissapear."

Please show me a recent scientific paper that predicted that Arctic sea ice wold completely disappear by 2013. The models have predicted that the ice would continue to decline. Here is the data to show that this is occurring. http://nsidc.org/...e_index/ Take a look at 1996. Do you see a similarity? The models do not predict data on an annual level - they predict trends. Have you ever watched the predictions regarding the track of a hurricane? They have multiple models - that each predict a slightly different path. The system is so complex that we cannot predict with 100% certainty. That does not mean the models are worthless - it means we have a highly complex system

"amazing what propaganda does." You are arguing from an emotional base. It is not propaganda - it is science - sorry you don't like it.
triplehelix
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 18, 2013
fingerprints are ever changing. Science deals with constants and known variables very easily. Science of aerodynamics can predict what will fly well, and what wont when looking at designs of planes for example.

The issue with fingerprints is their is no set rule, it is, in essence, chaotic, and, in a sense, "random". There are billions of different permutations of how a fingerprint could look, all "randomly" built from the genetic code of the bearer. This is a lot different to other sciences, because the variables in other sciences aren't random. They are indeed based on constants and physical and chemical laws which can be measured and predicted. My issue is all these variables are working at the same time, and have to this day, never been experimentally removed in a real world setting, as such, the signal/noise on most datasets is hilarious to look at. Even more hilarious to watch how the models give some variables more weighting with no real reason why.
triplehelix
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 18, 2013
djr, you surely couldn't have missed the whole ice free 2013 tirade? Literally for months the greenies were screaming about it from January to June. Then when it was measured to be 60% increase from last year they all shut up and dissapeared real quick.

Heres a news article that will link you to the paper and it's authors

http://news.bbc.c...9797.stm

Yes djr, I am well aware the models predict trends. The issue is, how do you know if it is natural or man made? temperature data is stochastic. You can find increases and decreases on a graph. If you base your model on a increase section you get a prediction of ever warming up, which occurred for us. If all the models are doing is simply regurgitating the last few decades data, then how can you state human vs non human when no genuine comparison experimentation has been done?

All these models do is spew out statistically manipulated data from the last 20 years. I was 4'2" in 1995 so I will be 4'2" in 2025. It isn't science.
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (23) Sep 18, 2013
Look, it is perfectly simple.

In all other sciences, if your question is "What variable is at work here, A or B or both" then the simple fact of the matter is if you want to get published you HAVE to experimentally remove the variables from each other, to see A on its own and B on its own, and then put them together. You could then use regression techniques, or better yet, simple ANOVA techniques to see what variable is doing what and to what "strength" it is doing it.

That is how ALL other sciences are done.

How on earth climate scientists can say humans are causing it is beyond me, because at no point have they got data from Earth without humans to compare it to.

All we have is one datapoint with all the variables jumbled into it. How the hell do you get the weighting of the individual variables if you cannot experimentally remove and test them singularly or in a stepped/patterned fashion.

A 30 year upward trend in a 4.6 billion year history isn't science. It isn't.
triplehelix
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 18, 2013
"How on earth climate scientists can say humans are causing it is beyond me, because at no point have they got data from Earth without humans to compare it to.
"

By the way, as I know some smart arse will say this. I do not mean ice-core data from before humans were here. I literally mean a human-less Earth since the burning of fossil fuels, because if it is all natural warming then you need an Earth exactly the same in terms of the year otherwise if you're using 300 mil years ago, it is obviously going to be different. You have to run an simultaneously if one of the variables is time, which it is, CO2 vs temp over time. That is the premise of climate change. The fact the carboniferous period had more CO2 and was colder than today is blatantly ignored by the climate science community. As I said, too many variables, it isn't as simple as CO2.

Also, ice-core data is nowhere near as good as satellite data, and all it tells us is the temperature (roughly) of greenland. woop dee doo.
EnricM
2.4 / 5 (17) Sep 18, 2013
@NikfromNYC : Yes, the climate scientists are so smart that they have taken over the world!!
WE must protect ourselves from the Evil Secret Climate Scientists Governemtne and the IPCC (Illuminati Powah Cuddly Club) !!!
beleg
1.9 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
Fingerprints emerge from constants.
And... simply replace the word "fingerprints" with the word "climate" in your second paragraph in your reply to my comment.
djr
3.6 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
Triplex - I appreciate that you found a science paper that supports your proposition. Might I also point out this quote from the article you referenced - 'My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.' (referring to an ice free summer). So remember the hurricane example. The models do not all put the track the same. That is the nature of a complex system - especially one that we are just beginning to crack open in terms of our understanding.

"A 30 year upward trend in a 4.6 billion year history isn't science. It isn't."

Yes it is - and the fact that you don't like it - does not make it so. We are developing our understanding of the climate.
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (22) Sep 18, 2013
fingerprints emerge from constants yes, but to predict a particular pattern is impossible. It is essentially random.

Laws of physics are not random, they are measureable, and so long as you remove the extraneous variables, can be mapped to predict the outcomes.

I do see what you're trying to say but it is less predicting the exact fingerprint and more psychicly knowing the pattern. All the variables that make up the fingerprint do not give you a definitive pattern, the variables are not qualitative to be able to predict a fingerprints exact striations etc.

Also, how do Climate Scientists run controls? All experiments require controls. I saw one person fail undergrad because he did not use controls. Climate sciences are post doc level and they have no controls. To be fair, that's because there aren't any, we only have one planet. But this is the point I am trying to make. If there is no control (background variable levels) then where do you set your "baseline" as it were?
bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (21) Sep 18, 2013
@triplehelix

Unicorns do exist because they make double rainbows.

Sometimes you can only infer existence by interaction.
Magnetism, Dark matter, AGW ... and Unicorns.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (25) Sep 18, 2013
161 comments and counting...
http://wattsupwit...-humans/

"This is just nuts, sorry, I just don't have any other words for it.

Computer modeling and simulations are not hard data nor empirical proof, especially when trying to hindcast the upper atmosphere temperature back to 1860, well before radiosonde data exists. They can't even calibrate the output against real-world upper air data for the majority of the time series. But, illogically, these authors claim that their method is sound. And, the timing is suspect. Look at the laundry list of names on the publication too. The fingerprint graphic seen on the second graph is downright corny, as if maybe the public just wouldn't "get it" unless they put an actual human fingerprint on their graph. It's like they threw this together as an insurance policy in case the IPCC AR5 report wasn't convincing enough. -Anthony"
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (26) Sep 18, 2013
@NikfromNYC : Yes, the climate scientists are so smart that they have taken over the world!!
WE must protect ourselves from the Evil Secret Climate Scientists Governemtne and the IPCC (Illuminati Powah Cuddly Club) !!!


Agenda laden research money and popular cultural heroism are all it takes to drive good people out and allow fools and charlatans to rush in. It's been going on for hundreds of years on and off as princes pick favorites, and is quite self-organizing, not conspiratorial. Now add Arab oil money support for the green movement and real momentum is achieved. Again, no conspiracy, just half a billion for Gore's media network here, another half a billion from the Hewlett Foundation there, and human nature wags its excited little tail, woof woof, in doggie bisket heaven.

Do you not note that snidely rude snickering marks you as one of those fools, and an ego masturbator too?
runrig
4 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013

Chaotic systems are inherently unpredictable. That is their nature.
Hubris to say otherwise.

I say again, you refer to what applies to weather NOT climate. We are only predicting one variable. Temperature for the whole system. Not pressure, wind, rain, snow at a point.
There is ultimately only one source of energy in climate system that matters - the Sun.
Now ignoring the earth's orbital eccentricities as only relevant over 1000's of years, then as we have the Sun's output pinned down to fine levels (satellite). We only need to know reflectivity/transparancy (again satellite) and the systems overlying cycles (We do largely - see link that removes them showing the IPCC forecasts correct). There are variables that uncertain cycle periods and this must be parametrized. We know the GHE of various gases (yes we really do) - then we model an Earth as best we can.
The chaos lies in the Earths distribution of Solar energy not in the basic receipt/expulsion of that energy.

cont
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (26) Sep 18, 2013
I just wait a day and a hundred of my crowd source debate buddies kick in. From Monckton's WUWT post:

"This is an egregious instance of the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fallacy of argument from ignorance. "We can't think of any other reason why the world is warming, so it must be Man." That is really all this pathetic paper says.

Send all the authors back to elementary school to learn the elements of Classical logic. A Classicist, taking one look at their feeble argument, would know a priori that it was an invalid argument. The conclusion, therefore, may or may not be true, and the paper adds no light to enable us to decide one way or the other. This is intellectual feeble-nindedness of the worst kind."
runrig
5 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
cont
This is an example of chaos exhibited in a NWP model of weather...
http://www.metman...bles.htm

See how the parameters quickly diverge after around 3 to 5 days.
Here are examples of Climate prediction runs in an ensemble suite from GCM's....
Note that the x-axis is in decades and yet the plot is constrained on a slope whilst varying slightly around it - the weather chaos is smoothed out.
Finally - some more in depth info.......
http://www.skepti...iate.htm
and
http://www.newsci...6tJIjyDp
shavera
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
You heard it hear first, people. Because NikFromNYC does not believe we can know anything from numerical simulations all of science needs to grind to a halt. No more cancer research on drugs based on simulations. Can't be done. Don't work. If you can't analytically solve an integral, don't bother at all with it. NikFromNYC, that most esteemed of all scientists has declared numerical simulation to be entirely without merit. We can all go home, people.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
And why would a normal distribution curve be applicable here ? Climatic data tends to be messy with serial correlations within the time series. Using inappropriate distributions for return events is misapplying basic statistics.


I thought it was obvious - you have a random variable (weather - specifically summer Arctic temperature) acting on ice - which last Summer recorded an outlier low number. Throw the dice again this year with random Arctic Summer temps and you would expect an equally extreme outcome.... really?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
Climate science rarely predicts things correctly, hell they rarely predict things vaguely right.

Err no...
http://iopscience.../article
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 18, 2013
What caused all the spikes in ice cores that exactly reflect the current spike, runrig? Chaos in mile deep oceans ignores centuries? Beyond chaos, mere hypersensitivity to perturbations adds a lot more influence than mere random stochastic events given that the sudden silence of a massive underwater volcano or two replaced by an outburst a hundred miles away can perturb currents more than a butterfly.

You are also obviously well aware that sun irradiance doesn't vary much like magnetic activity very much does, but yourself and this paper tomfoolishly dismiss the sun by proud adoption of missing variable bias!
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
The problem here is planet Earth has literally tens of thousands of variables all acting at once, at any given moment, when it comes to weather and climate.


5 out of 10 ie partly right.... the bit about weather.
You cointinue to confuse climate with weather. The variables affecting climate are much more constrained, and it is a myth to say otherwise....

http://www.newsci..._OpIjyDq
Weather is the noise overlying the Climate trend, which if you look at any long-term climate data exhibits a fairly orderly trace, that follows the drivers of input/output into the earth's heat-engine. Chiefly orbital characteristics/NH albedo and GHG's.
The chaos (noisy weather) gets lost on decades-long time-scales - it doesn't skew the climate off in a new direction ( only the Sun, albedo, GHG's will do that ) - and it's those that climate scientists are seeking to narrow down.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
Strange as it may seem, skeptics have said for a long time that the models would fail and they have failed, and failed and failed again. For some reason there are those that deny the models fail.

"For historic perspective, Broecker in 1975 predicted a global warming from 1980–2010 by 0.68 °C, as compared to 0.48 °C according to the linear trend shown in figure 1, an overestimate mostly due to his neglect of ocean thermal inertia (Rahmstorf 2010). A few years later, Hansen et al (1981) analysed and included the effect of ocean thermal inertia, resulting in lower projections ranging between 0.28 and 0.45 °C warming from 1980–2010. Their upper limit thus corresponds to the observed warming trend. They further correctly predicted that the global warming signal would emerge from the noise of natural variability before the end of the 20th century."
From:.
http://iopscience.../article
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (26) Sep 18, 2013
shavera, put down the straw. In other sciences there is a real cycle between computer simulation and empirical testing. Do you really think as a chemist I would scoff at computer models that suggested synthetic targets to test on cancer cells? I don't think you really think that. I do think that you are a troll, either a mere idiot or else a "Climate Communicator" who wants to dumb down serious skeptical attention to yet another brazenly preposterous study that continues to destroy the reputations of leading journals. In cancer research, rogues are spotted and evicted from academia. Not so Climatology, since it's one step *removed* from immediately causing sickness, as it steals billions from medical research based on propagandizing of utter crap. Is it hot out compared to the dust bowl era? Now that carbon markets have all tanked, the ghost of Enron is quite visible to voters and now half of policy makers too with the cold weather rapidly nipping at the cockiness of the other half.
Caseya
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 18, 2013
This cannot be serious. Did April first come around and I missed it?

I mourn the death of true science at the hands of politicians and their well paid minions. Within a couple more years of failed predictions no one will listen to claims that science has the answer to any important question. Generations will pass before science sheds the disdain and distrust of the average person. And for what was this once noble vocation slaughtered?

The notion that a computer coded with junk code and fed junk data will somehow produce accurate results is beyond ridiculous yet so many in the climate "science" community are eager to put forward that notion. What is in it for them? Their malfeasance is noticed by more and more ordinary people with each cry of catastrophic something that fails to occur. No warming, no ice-free arctic, no drowning coastlines. Why do these people continue down this path of destruction?

Farewell, science, we hardly knew you.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (23) Sep 18, 2013
runrig links to junk science PR firm created RealClimate.org member Rahmstorf, who fits lines to loops of spaghetti!:
http://climatesan...-a-line/

Rahmstorf's co-author Grant Foster is the extremely activist skeptic banning blogger Tamino who is a classic statistical wonk liar, as I proved here by feeding test data into his analysis of the world's oldest thermometer record that he turned into a hockey stick:
http://s1.postimg...INAL.gif
shavera
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
It's just so funny how people who know jack all about climate simulations go around spouting nonsense about how their models can't possibly be right. That there's some mystical finger of God we're all forgetting about that would never let our world become more difficult to inhabit. Surely nothing humans do to our planet could ever affect it in any way. CO2 will magically start transmitting IR light because we don't want to stop burning fossil fuels, and give up on cheap energy sources. We should just turn a blind eye to a simulation based on well founded physics just because the answers it returns give us answers we don't like. Surely nature would never be so capricious to allow our world to not be as welcoming as it presently is.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
you failed to explain why the above terms make for a successful model that can predict with high levels of accuracy and precision throughout many tests.....


You don't have to "predict with high levels of accuracy and precision throughout many tests" - because Ensemble forecast techniques smooth error and greatly narrow uncertainties.
It's used widely in both long-range NWP and GCM suites.

This is info on application of ensemble techniques to weather forecasts...
http://research.m...nsemble/
shavera
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013
Also, I'm not a troll. I've just stopped trying to convince fools of their foolishness. If you want to put forward a real argument, it won't be done in the forums on the internet. You would publish a paper in a respectable journal that actually addresses the problems you have with climate models. But since you don't know enough about climate science to actually know the problems with their models you pretend that you're some kind of expert on how their models are broken online. Since you can't seem to either put up or shut up, I will just continue to mock you whenever I get the chance. Your ideas are nothing but unscientific foolishness and you have nothing serious to add to the discussion.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
djr, you surely couldn't have missed the whole ice free 2013 tirade? Literally for months the greenies were screaming about it from January to June. Then when it was measured to be 60% increase from last year they all shut up and dissapeared real quick.


I hadn't heard/known of that ........ just goes to show, there are nutters on this side of the fence as well as yours. The trick, however is to spot that the nutter is, indeed talking bollocks.

Meanwhile ice thickness is the 3rd lowest on record after a spring all-time low
and thickness was at it's 4th lowest this melt season.....
http://psc.apl.wa...anomaly/
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (21) Sep 18, 2013
Do any of you who are talking about the inability of a model to be useful in a chaotic system understand what an "attractor" is?


Of course. But chaotic systems remain "unpredictable." It what makes them different from deterministic systems.

triplehelix
1.7 / 5 (24) Sep 18, 2013
djr, no, 30 years out of 4.6 billion is not science. It has nothing to do with me not liking it. 30 years out of 4.6 billion is such a tiny snapshot, to actually think you are starting to see a trend is laughable.

30 years out of 4.6 billion is 0.00000005% of the timeline of the Earth.

It's like saying you know the personality of someone when they're 0.00000005% old from their eventual lifespan.

Oh I knew we'd get there eventually

"Weather isn't climate"

Yes. Yes it fucking is. Climate is weather in big sizeable chunks. And if it isn't weather, why are proponents of climate change constantly harping on about "severe weather with global warming"

When they can't predict shit they say it isn't weather, then when things go right for them every now and then (COLD READING!) they don't mind they're being hypocrits stating ever so matter of factly how they knew all along the weather would do that.

It has been accepted we are nearing 2 decades of cooling, and they don't know why!
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (27) Sep 18, 2013
shavera has whole fields of straw for creepy shirt stuffing:

"...there's some mystical finger of God we're all forgetting about that would never let our world become more difficult to inhabit."

Nobody said that here or on any skeptical blog I've ever seen. And you *know* this. That you know this and continue to mockingly slander skeptics with false personifications marks you as a propagandist and apologist for genocidal energy policy which has already doubled grain prices. The massive neglect of science of antibiotics now immeduately threatens the aging world with an era of death and economic destruction.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 18, 2013
I say again, you refer to what applies to weather NOT climate.


Climate is weather, averaged over time or a region. Both are chaotic systems, which is to say, unpredictable.
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 18, 2013
The chaos (noisy weather) gets lost


Chaos is not noise. It is structure. Unpredictable structure. It is not lost in averaging.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013
How on earth climate scientists can say humans are causing it is beyond me, because at no point have they got data from Earth without humans to compare it to.


Because we know that CO2 levels are rising and that it is man-made CO2 (isotopic analysis).
GHG theory has been know of and tested/proven ad nauseum for the last ~150 years and GCM's have been run with past data showing how climate reacted with those levels of CO2.
And they do have data - from ice-cores.
djr
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 18, 2013
Triplehelix - you think that scientists have only studied the last 40 years of our climate history. You are stupid - and advertise the fact on a science web site. I would show you links to proxy data studies that go back thousands of years - but it would be wasted on you. But it is science to take the data the we are now collecting - on a much higher resolution than we have been able to do before - due to satellite technology etc. and to study that. YES it is science - it does not become not science because one person doesn't like the data - fool.

"It has been accepted we are nearing 2 decades of cooling, and they don't know why!"

Completely false - why do you embarrass yourself. Here is a good article - I doubt you will read it - already got your mind made up.

http://www.forbes...te-data/

A neat image that is enough in itself to show how wrong you are.

http://blogs-images.f
runrig
4 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013
Also, how do Climate Scientists run controls? All experiments require controls. I saw one person fail undergrad because he did not use controls. Climate sciences are post doc level and they have no controls. To be fair, that's because there aren't any, we only have one planet. But this is the point I am trying to make. If there is no control (background variable levels) then where do you set your "baseline" as it were?


Why don't you dispel your ignorance and read this ....... if you really want to know.

http://www.ipcc.c...ter8.pdf
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (27) Sep 18, 2013
shavera insisted: "If you want to put forward a real argument, it won't be done in the forums on the internet. You would publish a paper in a respectable journal that actually addresses the problems you have with climate models."

It's already published! Pointing to these official peer reviewed data sources which now falsify models is not irresponsible nor amateurish. For instance, the NOAA's own plot of the global average temperature shows that the current warming blamed on CO₂ by models in fact has perfect precedence and represents trend *continuation*, not an alarming trend *change*:

http://s16.postim...mage.jpg

Pointing out that Climatology stands out as utterly unfamiliar to me is indeed relevant in one way alone: it in *no* way resembles the self-disciplined nature of hard science that I learned in real laboratories at the UofMN, Columbia, and Harvard, spanning thirteen years. Blatant fraud is celebrated instead! The reputation of all scientists is at stake here.
Caseya
1.6 / 5 (26) Sep 18, 2013
It's just so funny how people who know jack all about climate simulations go around spouting nonsense about how their models can't possibly be right.


When you tell us that the arctic will be "ice free" in 2013 yet here we are in 2013 and the arctic ocean is NOT ice free, we conclude that your models are baloney. Yachts and other small craft are stuck in Arctic ice while trying to make the "Northwest passage." Some idiots wanted to take the trip on jet skis and had to be rescued by Canadian icebreakers.

Or how about Viner from UAE pronouncing in 2000 that England would never see snow again?

Or the NSF saying in 2009 that Emperor Penguin populations will be decimated due to global warming yet in 2012 we find out there are twice as many as estimated?

How about the sudden move to "climate change" from "global warming" when the actual planet didn't follow your model?

People have long memories. That's why no one believes your models.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013
runrig links to junk science PR firm created RealClimate.org member Rahmstorf, who fits lines to loops of spaghetti!:
http://climatesan...-a-line/


More character assassination eh Nik ... if you say so.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013
Where is it published? Link to an article instead of a picture that honestly I cannot make heads or tails out of what your claim is. Yes, there's a trendline from the 1880s (post industrial revolution) to present. That's what everyone is pretty much saying. Industrialization <- Fossil Fuel burning -> increased warming. CO2 has to come from somewhere, right? And I mean it either goes somewhere (eg, increased ocean acidification) or remains in the atmosphere. And if it remains in the atmosphere it will trap IR wavelengths of light. What about these basic physics principles do you disagree with?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 18, 2013
GHG theory has been know of and tested/proven ad nauseum for the last ~150 years

I still have not found a reference that explains how a miniscule amount of CO2 can 'trap't so much heat in the few IR absorption bands that matter (15um I have been told is the only significant CO2 absorption band.)
What is the first principle theory behind the radiometry of CO2 at typical earth averages? I was referred to data for CO2 at over 400K but how does that apply at 300K?
shavera
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013
Caseya, sure' it's not ice free. But we've had historic lows of ice, and the trend is definitely towards less ice every year. We had more ice this year than last, but last year was an exceptionally ice-free arctic. So because the prediction didn't exactly match reality, and only came pretty close, the model is entirely wrong? Believing that the earth can't change at all no matter what we do to it doesn't seem to be a correct model to me either.
Caseya
1.3 / 5 (24) Sep 18, 2013
I would show you links to proxy data studies that go back thousands of years - but it would be wasted on you.


You use "proxies" that are overrun with assumptions and claim that the proxies are accurate to within a tenth of a degree. That's ridiculous on its face.

Take Mann's tree rings, for example. To tell someone educated in horticulture and botany that the influence of temperature can be teased out from the much greater influences of water, nutrients, length of growing season, insect infestations, and the many other variables that impact each growing season, and teased out to a tenth of a degree in accuracy, is blatantly absurd. No one with any experience in horticulture, botany, or even practical farming would fall for that nonsense. Yet Mann's magic tree thermometers were the basis for climatologists' so-called reconstruction of the past climate.

Sure, bring on the proxies. I can't wait.
shavera
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2013
Here's a pop sci explanation of how CO2 traps heat:
http://www.ucsusa...faq.html and that has links to published papers, that in turn will have citations from other published papers.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (27) Sep 18, 2013
shavera, by now it's obvious that you *know* you are lying about the skeptical argument, not just parroting propaganda from a conspiracy theory book. These posts cost me time and thus work day money, as you last word activists and your skeptic banning mothership blogs are also well aware of.

You and your crowd of online Gorebots ever only rely on straw man arguments, here slandering serious skeptics by implying that in lunatic fashion we are supporting our core argument with maverick denial of basic physics.

There's a busy New York City response to being dishonestly dissed like this, which you have now fully earned.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
Yes. Yes it fucking is. Climate is weather in big sizeable chunks. And if it isn't weather, why are proponents of climate change constantly harping on about "severe weather with global warming"


Keep calm boy/girl.
Climate in GLOBAL terms is on decades long time-scales.
Weather, as a keep saying is just noise in the climate, that can only be described locally.
Climate (in the historical sense) wends its way along slowly but in a definite direction - in response to DRIVERS, not weather variables, they even out in the long run. Heat in vs heat out, that's all in essence.

You seem to think that science just winds out a 15 day deterministic weather forecast for the next 100 odd years and calls it climate, that would indeed be impossible - because of chaos. That is climate IS NOT "weather in big chunks" No. It is modeled very differently.
I have provided many links on this thread, try reading some.
Oh - higher temps have more energy/WV content hence "severe weather" is more likely
shavera
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013
Because the "skeptical" argument is BS. It is no better than creationism. "Oh no, the data give us an answer that disagrees with our preconceived notions of the world. Therefore the data gathering must be wrong."
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (25) Sep 18, 2013
shavera's own link exposes the propaganda scam:
"Water vapor is the most abundant heat-trapping gas, but rarely discussed when considering human-induced climate change. The principal reason is that water vapor has a short cycle in the atmosphere...."

That climate model alarm is *all* based on massive water vapor amplification of the classic greenhouse effect is afforded a smoke screen in his link, is it not?

Do clouds even reflect sunlight away in climate models like any picnic group is well aware that they do in real life? If solar magnetism has much more effect on cloud cover than trivial little variation in sun brightness, why do climate modelers keep throwing the brightness argument around whenever skeptics (and physicists) mention clouds?

These are rhetorical questions by now, as Pinocchio's nose grows and djr links to confessed (and rewarded!) identity thief and document forger Peter Gleick who included his own name as an oppressed scientist in the forgery.
djr
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013
Caseya - "When you tell us that the arctic will be "ice free" in 2013 yet here we are in 2013 and the arctic ocean is NOT ice free, we conclude that your models are baloney."

Read triplehelix bbc news article - here I will link it for you http://news.bbc.c...9797.stm

In that article you will see reference to a simulation that talked about ice free by 2013. You will also see other scientists disputing that prediction - calling it overly aggressive. Also - references to models that show the arctic ice free anywhere between 2030, and 2100. You see the models are not complete yet - we know that. Just as we know that modeling the track of a hurricane is not complete. But we still do it. It does not mean the models should be discarded - you just don't want to understand science. So you pick the outlier of predictions - then you say - that did not happen - so the science is baloney. You are baloney.
runrig
4 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013
djr links to confessed (and rewarded!) identity thief and document forger Peter Gleick who included his own name as an oppressed scientist in the forgery.


Another one Nik!
Well done
Ramping up the character assassination this session.

Oh, I'm just off to the Pub - join you again later for more (inconsequential) fun.
I'll have alcohol in me so it will be harder to be polite.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (28) Sep 18, 2013
shavera, you *know* there is but a sliver of overlap between religiosity and water vapor feedback skepticism (which is what all serious skepticism amounts to, as you also very well already know). That your whole activist team *knows* this means you are posting to deceive! That Gore was a divinity major and that the whole stated motivation of John Cook's SkepticalScience.com blog is an Evangelical desire to promote wealth transfer to poor countries also pegs your effort as a bemusing smoke screen. I can relate to mere conspiracy theory book readers who are worth dissing Bible thumpers in front of, but you are a scoundrel, not a fair player.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (24) Sep 18, 2013
Just as we know that modeling the track of a hurricane is not complete. But we still do it. It does not mean the models should be discarded - you just don't want to understand science.


We never expect the predicted track of a hurricane to be accurate. That we do them does not imply that we can choose where to evacuate, or what the strength of the hurricane will be when it lands. To use such models to construct an evacuation plan far in advance of landfall would be folly, and fortunately they are not used this way. Not so with climate modelling, which are taken to be accurate predictive tools, even after they fail.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (28) Sep 18, 2013
runrig: Pointing out confessed activist cybercrime and conspiracy laden document forgery is not character assassination, and you will be disappointed if you think I'm a masochist who enjoys suffering drunken fools who think corruption of the life saving scientific process is "inconsequential." About two *hundred* of my skeptical colleagues have chimed in at my above link. Head on over there to drunk blog all you want!
djr
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 18, 2013
Claudius - "Not so with climate modelling, which are taken to be accurate predictive tools, even after they fail."

Not so - no one is suggesting that we evacuate New York and relocate people to higher ground. This is a lazy straw man. We are aware of the limitations of the science - you are not. It is surely prudent to talk about reducing green house gas emissions given everything we know to date. It is actually a win win - transitioning to a carbon free energy world has many benefits.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (28) Sep 18, 2013
I only mentioned today's post on the main skeptical clearinghouse blog, leaving out the link:

http://wattsupwit...-humans/

Any Bible thumping in there, shavera, or denial of basic physics? Here's your chance to prove your case!
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (29) Sep 18, 2013
Not so - no one is suggesting that we evacuate New York and relocate people to higher ground. This is a lazy straw man. We are aware of the limitations of the science - you are not. It is surely prudent to talk about reducing green house gas emissions given everything we know to date. It is actually a win win - transitioning to a carbon free energy world has many benefits.


James Hansen's prediction for the mere coming decade: "The West Side Highway will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."

Stealing money from medical research along with artificial energy rationing is "win-win" in Unicorn Land where solar energy really works already, as nuclear supporter Hansen himself *loudly* debunked in exactly such terms.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 18, 2013
shavera, by now it's obvious that you *know* you are lying about the skeptical argument, not just parroting propaganda from a conspiracy theory book. These posts cost me time and thus work day money, as you last word activists and your skeptic banning mothership blogs are also well aware of.

You and your crowd of online Gorebots ever only rely on straw man arguments, here slandering serious skeptics by implying that in lunatic fashion we are supporting our core argument with maverick denial of basic physics.

There's a busy New York City response to being dishonestly dissed like this, which you have now fully earned.


Isn't it interesting to watch a dyed-in-the-wool pretend skeptic who is clearly and absolutely an actual denialist twist the comments of another to try and suit his own particular politically motivated take on the conspiracy he thinks he sees.

You are intellectually dishonest, and I think you also hold yourself out to have credentials that are not real.
shavera
4.1 / 5 (17) Sep 18, 2013
I'm not reading any blog posts, sorry, just don't care that much about this. I'm not a climate scientist. I'm willing to admit ignorance on the topic and defer to the experts, actual climate scientists. And they very nearly universally agree it's happening. Just like I'm not going to take any bs about quark gluon plasma from the plasma universe nutters, I trust the climate scientists to internally police themselves and produce good science. The odds that they're all in on a vast conspiracy to defraud the world to seem far smaller than a few scientists who claim to be "skeptics" who simply don't like their outcomes. Or the science produced by companies who stand to profit from ongoing fossil fuel burning.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (27) Sep 18, 2013
Here's a pop sci explanation of how CO2 traps heat:
http://www.ucsusa...faq.html and that has links to published papers, that in turn will have citations from other published papers.

No first principles mechanisms described or referred to.
Some hand waving that CO2 absorbs IR energy but no more details regarding specific wavelengths, absorbed, heat transferred, etc.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (28) Sep 18, 2013
Lead author Ben Santer in a Climategate e-mail: "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."

The permanent membership PNAS journal is yet another pal review fiasco in which authors nominate their own reviewers, as the congressional Wegman report that confirmed the debunking of Mann's hockey stick denial of the hot past pointed out in a co-publication social network analysis that includes Santer as a main hub in the Hockey Stick Team along with coauthor Wigley, with coauthor Schmidt along for the ride:
http://climateaud...work.gif

To debunk Wegman's debunking, bloggers discovered a copy/pasted paragraph in the intern edited report, and then claimed it was bogus overall. Climate wars, indeed.
shavera
4.1 / 5 (15) Sep 18, 2013
Here's an image regarding various absorption spectra in the atmosphere.

http://clivebest....x300.png

You will literally have to write the program yourself to calculate its effects on the earth, since you don't seem to believe the experts who have already done exactly that. And again. PUBLISH WHATS WRONG OR SHUT UP ABOUT IT
shavera
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013
I swear, AGW deniers are more interested in sitting around online complaining about bad models than they are in writing better models and demonstrating that they are correct. Until you demonstrate that your model is 1) more accurate than current models and 2) disproves AGW, I can't say that any of your jpegs or character attacks are going to sway me from continuing to tell people I know about the dangers AGW causes to humanity.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (29) Sep 18, 2013
For the see-no-evil crowd here I present highlights from WUWT:

(1) Fabi says:
September 18, 2013 at 7:20 am
Your assessment is far too kind, Anthony. This is despicable. Extrapolating a limited data set to those bounds produces nothing but fantasy. Divining the anthropogenic element from within the same data set is absurd. There is no reasonable statistical basis for this methodology.

(2) Reg Nelson says:
September 18, 2013 at 9:02 am
I have proof that aliens built the pyramids in Egypt. In my model, if you take out the aliens you end up with cubes.

QED

(3) David L. says:
September 18, 2013 at 8:21 am
Their model doesn't match observation so therefore it's the fingerprint of man???

The ideal gas law (PV=nRT) is a model. Let's say I want to predict pressure of a system so P=nRT/V. If I plug in n,T, and V and I don't get the correct pressure, am I to conclude it's because of Man? No, it's because the model only works in a narrow range of those parameters and you need a better model to account for "compressibility", interatomic forces, etc. that are neglected in the simpler ideal gas law model.

So reality doesn't match the climate models: All that means is they haven't accounted for everything in their models.
shavera
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 18, 2013
To anti-AGW people, answer me this: What would it take to change your mind? What would have to happen to give up your stance that AGW isn't real? I've listed my criteria above, Make a new model, demonstrate it's better than existing models, and demonstrate it doesn't show AGW. What would you need to see to "believe" in AGW? Do the Ice caps need to melt away entirely? Do we need to burn every last carbon atom into the atmosphere? Do we need to colonize multiple planets and have a control group of planets without fossil fuel burning, and a group with fossil fuel burning? What evidence would you take to change your mind?
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
Not so with climate modelling, which are taken to be accurate predictive tools, even after they fail.


No they weren't - they were taken as the best shot we have in the state of the current science... and they didn't - see below.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
About two *hundred* of my skeptical colleagues have chimed in at my above link. Head on over there to drunk blog all you want!


Bully for you my friend. ... delusion is so fascinating, of grandeur that is.
Not drunk no - but at least you're awake - just a couple of pints of English real ale and a chinese takeway. Driving you see.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
Here's a pop sci explanation of how CO2 traps heat:
http://www.ucsusa...faq.html and that has links to published papers, that in turn will have citations from other published papers.

No first principles mechanisms described or referred to.
Some hand waving that CO2 absorbs IR energy but no more details regarding specific wavelengths, absorbed, heat transferred, etc.


Ryggy...

Pssst ... Didn't you know?

It's all a conspiracy - GHG theory is against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - It cant be true.
Its basic high school science!
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013
For the see-no-evil crowd here I present highlights from WUWT:


Ah Nicky...
From WUWT?

I really never would have believed it!

You do know that NO contradicting voices are allowed a forum there?
Preaching to the converted, so in the world of the Asylum - all is well.

runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
To anti-AGW people, answer me this: What would it take to change your mind? What would have to happen to give up your stance that AGW isn't real?


Shavera:
I admire your fortitude, I really do. But there is nothing to be done.
Treat it as a game of no consequence. I do now.
I just come on here to deny ignorance and selfishness - both of which can be the subject of a Phd on here.
But I have long realised now that the more you know about the subject ( especially professionally) then the more in contempt you are held by the deniers. I think it a symptom of the Internet age. Just Google and you're an instant expert...... And of the US political polemic.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (27) Sep 18, 2013
To anti-AGW people, answer me this: What would it take to change your mind? What would have to happen to give up your stance that AGW isn't real? I've listed my criteria above, Make a new model, demonstrate it's better than existing models, and demonstrate it doesn't show AGW. What would you need to see to "believe" in AGW?


Old tide gauge records that show any recent trend change, period. An animation of the oldest peer reviewed official tide gauge records appeared also on the ClimateSanity.com site:
http://youtu.be/rxHsEM0eSZw

Those unwavering-trend records actually went into a statistical fiasco called a Climatology paper that spit out an upcurving trend.

Find me real thermometer data or tide gauge records that shows a trend change. You can't!

Thermometers confirm this:
http://minus.com/idAOoE.gif
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (27) Sep 18, 2013
Head over to WUWT runrig.

Lots of politics over there, eh? Lots of basic physics "denial," eh? So much Bible thumping! Please quote some of it from today's thread then:
http://wattsupwit...-humans/

I see two mentions of the political climate of almost 200 posts, zero Biblical lamentation, and certainly no basic physics denial since that happens to be a banned topic after an oddly pedantic group of mavericks did exactly what this study does: insisted that theory proved their case since, well, if you create spherical cows, blah blah blah....

What I *do* see on the central skeptical blog is bewilderment that climate model mismatch to real data has been once again used to promote climate alarm.
shavera
5 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2013
Do you mean Tide gauge measurements of Sea level as presented here? That show a definite trend in sea level rise?

http://sealevel.c...ea-level
shavera
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2013
And Wikipedia's overview of the instrumental temperature record is pretty reasonable, though obviously the data is only limited to the 1860s and later or so. Shall we wait another few centuries to ensure the trendline is real?

http://en.wikiped...e_record
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 18, 2013
But I have long realised now that the more you know about the subject ( especially professionally) then the more in contempt you are held by the deniers.

I hold experts like Lindzen and Roy Spencer in high regard.
AGWites do not.
http://www.drroys...ratures/
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
What I *do* see on the central skeptical blog is bewilderment that climate model mismatch to real data has been once again used to promote climate alarm.


Yeah, I know. it's the same mismatch shown here....

http://iopscience.../article
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (27) Sep 18, 2013
"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they're not going to find something if they don't search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, "What else COULD it be?" Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn't have to dig very far."
http://www.drroys...manmade/
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
But I have long realised now that the more you know about the subject ( especially professionally) then the more in contempt you are held by the deniers.

I hold experts like Lindzen and Roy Spencer in high regard.
AGWites do not.
http://www.drroys...ratures/


Correction - except for those that go against the consensus. Because, of course, they must be correct. Stands to reason. The minority are always right. Probability tells us so. Whilst the rest are willing conspirators or just greedy dupes.
Give me strength.
shavera
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
energy comes into the planet from the sun. Energy leaves the planet via radiation. Various things shape how we radiate energy away. The makeup of the atmosphere and its transmissivity and the albedo and reflectivity of the earth are principle among them. Among the atmospheric transmissivity, when we add up all the natural sources, the earth should be losing more energy than we observe it to be losing. When we add in CO2 emissions from human activity we find that the earth should be holding on to the energy we see it hold on to. Now it turns out that this first order effect has rippling repercussions. Feedback happens, where increased heating leads to changes in ice, decreased albedo. It thaws permafrost increasing methane which traps yet more heat. It changes deep and surface ocean temperatures which change circulatory patterns that shift surface temperatures significantly. And you have to be a complete fool to imagine scientists haven't already thought of whatever caveat you have.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.


There are no "natural mechanisms of warming" ... that are persistent over a 30 year or so climate interval, and certainly not during a period like since the onset of industry. Unless you are talking about the Sun, aerosol/albedo, or GHG's.
All other warming is cyclical twixt sea and air. Remixing the balance. Including Mr Spencer's cloud albedo theory. Why is it not obvious that all energy comes from the Sun and any long term trend must be a reflection of it's energy balance in the climate system.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
Lots of politics over there, eh? Lots of basic physics "denial," eh? So much Bible thumping! Please quote some of it from today's thread then:
http://wattsupwit...-humans/


You must have misunderstood.
What I said was.... "You do know that NO contradicting voices are allowed a forum there?"

Mmmmmm can't see any mention of "science denial", "bible punching" etc.

Just that Watts doesn't allow dissenting voices.....
Which is of course why I came in - when you said ..."These posts cost me time and thus work day money, as you last word activists and your skeptic banning mothership blogs are also well aware of."

BTW: Bless.

whole stated motivation of John Cook's SkepticalScience.com blog is an Evangelical desire to promote wealth transfer to poor countries

More revealing truths about motivations indeed in that sentence.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (24) Sep 18, 2013
all energy comes from the Sun

ALL?
How does the sun keep the mantle at ~6000K?
How does the sun drive the earth's magnetic field?

Feedback happens,

How is feedback measured, from first principle physics?
How do GCMs account for the variability of water vapor?
complete fool to imagine scientists haven't already thought of whatever caveat you have.

Real science is not about consensus but about data the supports or contradicts a theory.
When a 'science' organization like APS categorically states AGW is 'incontrovertible' science as been compromised by ideology.
"Prof Giaever, who shared the 1973 Nobel award for physics, told The Sunday Telegraph. "Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science." "
http://www.telegr...est.html
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (25) Sep 18, 2013
"Satellites should provide enough information to support national and international legislation. However, in most cases they are not accurate enough to distinguish between the predictions of different environmental models, and scientists cannot agree on their conclusions."
http://www.npl.co.uk/TRUTHS
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
but yourself and this paper tomfoolishly dismiss the sun by proud adoption of missing variable bias!


The Sun is not dismissed - there's tons of data being gathered from it via satellite...
http://www.solarham.net/

There's no missing variable either - all we need to know is there, bar some tweaking.
Sorry, shout and wail all you like, and guess what? Doesn't make it so.

What caused all the spikes in ice cores that exactly reflect the current spike


Well, you know, the exact correlation with CO2, that both leads and follows temperature. ( but I'll let you spout off about why you think that's wrong and extend the thread even more ).
There is of course no exact correlation since unless we find an out-gassing event then we can't see similar, as Humans are uniquely adding the CO2 themselves. GHG theory comes in then. ( over to you on the "contradicts the 2nd law of Thermodynamics myth ... and extend the thread even more).

cont
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
That climate model alarm is *all* based on massive water vapor amplification of the classic greenhouse effect is afforded a smoke screen in his link, is it not?


No, and I'll keep shooting you down on this. It's quite simple, vis: higher temps > more WV, but at same Rel Hum > same clouds globally averaged (not regional as Spencer has it ) therefore more GHG effect. 2x amplification and 3x due all Anthro emmissions.
am I to conclude it's because of Man? No, it's because the model only works in a narrow range of those parameters and you need a better model to account for "compressibility", interatomic forces, etc. that are neglected in the simpler ideal gas law model.


Of course Nik, whatever you say... you of course know better than atmospheric scientists.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2013
Again, the experts in this field have considered facts like heat from the interior of the earth. And feedback effects are measured by doing the best we can. Of course models aren't perfect. But if you have a better model, show it. Publish it. Give it to us. Do you account for water vapor better than the experts? Can you do better? Because, like you say about incontrovertability, if you can do better than current knowledge, science will change to your understanding. But if you're just sitting and squaking about it without actually offering a change, then you're not contributing.

Furthermore, we have two camps you can easily observe in the comment sections here. Those who say "but scientists never say AGW WILL happen, therefore it must be fake" and those who say "when speaking in public and trying to make the case for AGW, scientists have spoken hyperbollicaly, therefore it must be fake." What are scientists supposed to do? Context matters to a quote.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 18, 2013
ALL?
How does the sun keep the mantle at ~6000K?
How does the sun drive the earth's magnetic field?

Feedback happens,


No, the neuclear heating at the core is effectively isolated form the climate system, it's contribution is negligible compared to the sun vis 0.09W/m^2 vs 341 W/m^2

You won't go there but some might so for thos interested (it's late and I cant be arsed to look up the source )....
http://www.skepti...low.html
The Sun doesn't drive the Mag field, the mollten iron core does.

How is feedback measured, from first principle physics?
How do GCMs account for the variability of water vapor?


Look it up (1st princ. ) after that It's simple physics modeling. Integrate forward through time. Note temp. Sat VP at that temp is known ( @ various pressure levels in Trop ) > add extra WV > integrate further in time >. Note temp. at VP at that temp. More iterations
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
"How does the sun drive the earth's magnetic field?" - RyggTard

Magnetic fields are not energy any more than electric fields are energy, you Moron.

"How is feedback measured, from first principle physics?" - RyggTard

Since you have just fabricated "first principle physics" from thin air to fill the vacuum between your ears, your question can't be answered until you clearly state what it is.

Moron.

"How do GCMs account for the variability of water vapor?" - RyggTard

What variability are you referring to? Moron.

Water vapor changes on all scales, but virtually not at all on the largest scales.

Your question is simply moronic.

VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (12) Sep 18, 2013
"Real science is not about consensus" - RyggTard

Well, at least that is what the Warming Denialists, Industry Propagandists, UFOlogists, and Bigfoot promoters say.

Real Scientists hold a different opinion.

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (10) Sep 18, 2013
"The Sun is not dismissed" - RyggTard

Bigfoot lives claims Bigfoot proponent.

Meanwhile back in the real world, the sun is thoroughly dismissed.

Solar output is down, Earth's temperature remains at record highs.

Morons like RyggTard Insist that a reduction in solar output produces higher temperatures.

I suppose it is like their insistence that more guns produce less homicides, less taxes produce more government revenue, and that killing women and children in wars of aggression makes America a safe nation.

NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (27) Sep 18, 2013
shavera, please confirm or deny that you have personally *looked* at the basic tide gauge records and that you are ignoring my challenge to present even a handful of long running continuous single records which show anything other than alarm *falsifying* lack of actual, on-the-ground positive deviation from the historical trend. Wikipedia is activist paradise, and I've already shown how author Grant Foster uses curve fitting to lie instead of clarify. Now take those AGW proving handful of records and have the names shavera, runrig and djr appear on the main skeptic site in a display of victory, since if you ask I'm sure they'll help you over there where the mostly older crowd are much nicer than us mean city folks. Show them real data that demonstrates that's celebrating sea level claims are anything but statistical lies. Sea level doesn't suffer from a lack of data below the equator like thermometer records do, so you'll really get their attention.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
""Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science." - RyggTard

Very true. Those moon beams that are being broadcast by aliens to control your mind might also be altering the climate.

You should take off your tin foil cap and find out for yourself.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 18, 2013
"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade." - RyggTard

Lying is the Libertarian way of life.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (30) Sep 18, 2013
runrig: "...we have two camps you can easily observe in the comment sections here. Those who say "but scientists never say AGW WILL happen, therefore it must be fake" and those who say "when speaking in public and trying to make the case for AGW, scientists have spoken hyperbollicaly, therefore it must be fake." What are scientists supposed to do?"

In other science fields, fraud is punished instead of celebrated. Here you are celebrating the Hockey Stick Team itself, the authors most intwined with Mike Mann who did a big song and dance to promote data re-dating that created Marcott's 2013 hockey stick blade. As long as *that* Nature journal study remains unretracted, you speak only of rascals who support brazen fraud and are now doubling down on a scam so obvious that the likes of Death Threat Guy is about the only friends you have left. Australia just defunded its Climatology empire, as the UK is now nearing doing too. Save yourself! Renounce fraud now, to temper the backlash.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (25) Sep 18, 2013
iPhone typo: "celebrating sea level" > "accelerating sea level"

Also, shavera became runrig, but no matter, it's all defense of statistics devoid of any raw data reality check, and so much smoke screening that this thread is now dead.

shavera
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2013
So Nik, if you haven't seen the data yourself you don't believe it? If you haven't personally run the experiment and analyzed the data yourself you won't believe it? The tide gauge page I linked to had links to cited articles going over the data. Again, I'm not a climate scientist. But I trust climate scientists to know more about this than you or I do. I'm not so full of myself to think that I know everything that can be known of the world.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (14) Sep 18, 2013
From the article's conclusion
Our results provide clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.


Let's restate that so the @Nik's and others of the denier world can understand the information in the freaking article; "our results PROVIDE CLEAR EVIDENCE for a HUMAN INFLUENCE ON THE ATMOSPHERE". That is the bottom line deniers. Another nail in the coffin of the denier's arguments.

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 19, 2013
No, the neuclear heating at the core is effectively isolated form the climate system, it's contribution is negligible compared to the sun vis 0.09W/m^2 vs 341 W/m^2


So a gas that is ~.05% of the atmosphere will cause runaway global warming, but the heat from the earth's core, at 7000k, contributing 0.087 watt/square meter on average, but concentrated at mid-ocean ridges and mantle plumes has no impact on the earth.

BTW, a huge volcano was discovered under the Pacific and have all the thermal vents been mapped and measured?
Howhot
3.6 / 5 (15) Sep 19, 2013
So a gas that is ~.05% of the atmosphere will cause runaway global warming,

It's 400ppm now. You do the math.

but the heat from the earth's core, at 7000k, contributing 0.087 watt/square meter on average, but concentrated at mid-ocean ridges and mantle plumes has no impact on the earth.
And the mid-ocean ridges and mantle plumes have been there for millions of years, doing the same thing for millions of years.

BTW, a huge volcano was discovered under the Pacific and have all the thermal vents been mapped and measured?


A huge extinct volcano.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2013
So a gas that is ~.05% of the atmosphere will cause runaway global warming, but the heat from the earth's core, at 7000k, contributing 0.087 watt/square meter on average, but concentrated at mid-ocean ridges and mantle plumes has no impact on the earth.


That's correct Ryggy - well done we'll make a scientist of you yet.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2013
"So a gas that is ~.05% of the atmosphere will cause runaway global warming, but the heat from the earth's core, at 7000k, contributing 0.087 watt/square meter on average, but concentrated at mid-ocean ridges and mantle plumes has no impact on the earth." - RyggTard

That is correct, my little Libertarian Moron.

It is a matter of cause and effect. Where there is no change in cause, there is no change in effect.

A corollary to the above logic is that when a change in effect is observed, it is caused by a change in the cause.

There is no change in the heat radiating from the earth.

Now we have all seen Denialist morons like yourself claiming that the world is peppered with hundreds of thousands of invisible volcano's, or that the Earth's crust has magically become a better conductor of heat, or that magic moon beams from the center of the galaxy/ center of the universe/center of the sun/ center of big foot's backside, are causing the surface of the earth to heat, CONT...
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2013
CONT...

while magically avoiding causing any heating of the deep ocean, or the boreholes drilled into the earth's crust, specifically for the purpose of measuring heat flow from the mantle to the earth's surface.

Boreholes. You don't know anything about those do you?

The fact is... You are so butt plug stupid.that you haven't got a clue as to how the natural world works.

To you and your fellow denialist brothers in crime, everything is magical and mysterious, and unexplained because you are all spectacularly ignorant.

Disease caused by tiny dots? Hogwash? Everyone knows that it is magically caused by bad odors.

Don't let those filthy doctors tell you otherwise. They are all part of a vast conspiracy of science to enslave you into a life of scientific medicine, and that is pure Communiz.

Morons.....

VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2013
"BTW, a huge volcano was discovered under the Pacific" - RyggTard

Why isn't the heat from this "huge volcano" appearing at the surface of the ocean as a hot spot?

If it were, it would have been found years ago wouldn't it?

Yup, this "huge" volcano is emitting so much heat that it is invisible. And it is emitting so much energy that it isn't changing the temperature of the deep ocean in any measurable way.

But hay... Tardie Boy, thinks that the volcanic heat magically makes it's way to the surface of the Pacific where it heats the air above.

RyggTard is a MORON.

Sinister1811
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2013
Deniers gonna deny. And that's how it has always been. There's no cure for stupidity.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2013
"Satellites should provide enough information to support national and international legislation. However, in most cases they are not accurate enough..." - RyggTard

The primary problem with satellite data has been the fact that the satellites with the longest track record, are weather satellites, that were not designed to make long term calibrated measurements of the earth's climate.

This is one of the reasons why denialist friend Roy Spencer has been such a spectacular failure. The satellite measurement he relies upon are not suitable for the work he tried to use them for.

Poor RyggTard. He argues against his own sources of information and is so spectacularly stupid that he doesn't even know it.

He is a clueless MORON.
Sinister1811
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 19, 2013
Where I live has had the driest June on record. And the wettest September on record, and these people are saying there's no climate change? Pfft, please.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2013
"But they're not going to find something if they don't search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, "What else COULD it be?" Well, the answer to that takes a little digging…" - Roy Spencer

Spencer has been digging for the last 40 years and hasn't found anything yet.

What is preventing him from making his discovery of what the REAL cause is?

Maybe Spencer would have better luck if he spent some of his time helping O.J. Simpson find the REAL killer of O.J. Simpson's wife.

Has anyone ever considered that it might have been Bigfoot? Where was Bigfoot on the night of that murder? Does anyone know?

RyggTard is a walking poster child for American Inferiority.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2013
"These posts cost me time and thus work day money," - NikkieTard

So you are posting during your work day.

Does your employer know that you are stealing from him?

VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2013
"I hold experts like Lindzen and Roy Spencer in high regard." - RyggTard

Ah. Lindzen who claims that smoking doesn't cause cancer, and Spencer who you just finished pointing out uses satellite data that is not accurate enough to provide any meaningful climate data.

Oh man, you spend way too much time inhaling your own dung, TardieBoy.

VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2013
"A huge extinct volcano." - HowHot

RyggTard does love to leave out those important details now doesn't he?

Lying is the Libertarian way of life.
_ilbud
4 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2013
What is wrong with americans that they will accept any bullshit conspiracy theory and reject all facts. My theory is an overdose of third rate propaganda.
drhoo
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2013
_ilbud

New book out about paranoid Yanks.

""Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America ""

Summary
[These fears, he contends, indicate the continuing appeal of a form of individualism that is no longer wholly accurate or useful, but that still underpins a national fantasy of freedom from social control.]

JPeden
1.6 / 5 (19) Sep 19, 2013
shavera: "hence why we simulate, to the best of our ability, multiple Earths. We know the laws of physics. We know how to calculate them. There's nothing particularly special about Earth that makes it exempt from said laws. So we try our best to calculate the effects of those laws through numerical simulation; lo and behold, science is born."

If you "know the laws of physics", why do you need multiple earths? If you "know the laws of physics", why don't they work on this earth, i.e., they haven't produced even one correct prediction yet. Lo and behold, you have no science.
JPeden
1.8 / 5 (21) Sep 19, 2013
Sinister1811

3 / 5 (2) 5 hours ago

"Deniers gonna deny. And that's how it has always been. There's no cure for stupidity."

What you have proven is that there's no cure for Believers.

axemaster
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2013
If you "know the laws of physics", why do you need multiple earths? If you "know the laws of physics", why don't they work on this earth, i.e., they haven't produced even one correct prediction yet. Lo and behold, you have no science.

Wow man, have you even heard of statistics? Even if you have a perfect understanding of the physics of a process, you can't predict it with absolute certainty. That's because there's a limit to how precisely you can measure the initial conditions, and that limit propagates and generates increasingly larger errors over time.

Even something as simple as measuring the time it takes for a ping pong ball to fall 1 meter through air is fraught with difficulties. Is the air perfectly still? What is the pressure and humidity? Is the ping pong ball perfectly smooth? Is the gravitational acceleration known at your precise location? All of these things will affect how accurately you can predict. And it will be worse at 10 and 100 meters.
shavera
3.9 / 5 (12) Sep 19, 2013
to follow on with axemaster, and to even include some of the other anti-AGW posts above: climate is a chaotic system. Chaotic systems aren't perfectly unpredictable, they're just sensitive to initial conditions. So we run many many many simulations based on physics principles, and we see if they report a general trend. One run may report an increase of x degrees, another may report an increase of y degrees, but they overall report an increase over time +/- some std. variation.

Furthermore, climate scientists often choose, as a means of convenience, what will happen when CO2 levels are doubled. This is just a standard measure, and CO2 could of course rise well beyond a doubling if we do nothing about fossil fuel useage (and other CO2 sources like concrete production)
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2013
If you "know the laws of physics", why do you need multiple earths? If you "know the laws of physics", why don't they work on this earth, i.e., they haven't produced even one correct prediction yet. Lo and behold, you have no science.


Look up chaos and integration in time, also ensemble forecasting .... hence "multiple Earths"

Also IPCC forecasts have indicated pauses in warming of ~15 years ( why would you not expect otherwise, as nothing progresses linearly ). The current cause, chiefly the cool phase of ENSO, could not be forecast because it's cycle cannot yet be predicted, and will not be clockwork anyway. This study shows that taking the ENSO signal away, the IPCC forecasts are doing fine...

http://iopscience.../article
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 19, 2013
Chaotic systems aren't perfectly unpredictable


Rasband (1990, p. 1) says, "The very use of the word 'chaos' implies some observation of a system, perhaps through measurement, and that these observations or measurements vary unpredictably. We often say observations are chaotic when there is no discernible regularity or order."

Unpredictability is a defining characteristic of chaos. Predictable systems are not chaotic.
Sinister1811
2.3 / 5 (13) Sep 19, 2013
So what's your point? Quantum physics simulations are also invalid? A lot of science is experimental. At least there are people out there trying to understand these things. I'm not saying that 100% of it is true, but to assume that its all wrong is stupid.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (22) Sep 19, 2013
So what's your point? Quantum physics simulations are also invalid? A lot of science is experimental. At least there are people out there trying to understand these things. I'm not saying that 100% of it is true, but to assume that its all wrong is stupid.


Quantum phenomena aren't predictable. You can calculate probabilities, but prediction is impossible. There is nothing wrong in trying to understand how things work, but in AGW climate philosophy, the claim is made that reliable, accurate predictions can be made concerning a chaotic system. This just isn't so.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (24) Sep 19, 2013
"The bottom line is that the sun has gone unusually quiet and no one really knows why or how it will last."
"The Maunder Minimum coincided with one of the coldest parts of the Little Ice Age, which spanned roughly the 15th to 19th centuries. Some observers have linked the lack of solar activity to the cooling of the climate, though the explanation remains controversial.

It is this interaction between sunspots, climate and global warming that makes analysis of the solar cycle so controversial. It is hard to write about sunspots without stirring furious reactions, which explains why New Scientist took a strong line on the issue."
"http://timesofind...807.cms"
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 19, 2013
It's 400ppm now. You do the math.

ppm means parts per million. Is this ppm by molecular mass or by number of molecules?
This is .04%, less than ~.05% which is what I wrote.
Do the math.

And the mid-ocean ridges and mantle plumes have been there for millions of years, doing the same thing for millions of years.

And of course there are submarine sensors all over the ocean floor documenting there has been NO change in ocean ridges. But then why are the Americas growing farther away from Europe and Africa if there are no changes?

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (20) Sep 19, 2013
in the age of information, it is fascinating that empirical data does not rule, but rather the information with the highest paid publicist tends to rule.

it seems that the worst data makes better copy and gains more support due to the average stupidity of the watcher, the sheer volume of repetition, and (of course) the power of denial. maybe THAT is why it is so popular? kinda like sticking your head in the sand, huh?

just because you don't believe something, does not mean it isn't really happening.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (12) Sep 19, 2013
"ppm means parts per million. Is this ppm by molecular mass or by number of molecules?" - RyggTard

It is ppmv, Retard.

You are clearly incapable of doing the math, because you are incapable of understanding the problem.

"And of course there are submarine sensors all over the ocean floor documenting there has been NO change in ocean ridges." - RyggTard

No there aren't. You are living in a land of self delusion and self deceit.

There is however, no way for heat originating in the deep ocean from heating the air without heating the ocean water first.

That was your science lesson from yesterday.

You were too stupid to have leaned it.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2013
"But then why are the Americas growing farther away from Europe and Africa if there are no changes?" - RyggTard

Clearly it is because the world is expanding.

http://www.youtub...7qDeI05U

Relative of yours?
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (22) Sep 19, 2013
runrig links to junk science PR firm created RealClimate.org member Rahmstorf, who fits lines to loops of spaghetti!:
http://climatesan...-a-line/

From the guy who refers to WUWT and the fake 'Lord' gadfly Monckton!
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2013
the claim is made that reliable, accurate predictions can be made concerning a chaotic system. This just isn't so.


Elements of climate are chaotic and they cause weather but we are only interested in an average, not a specific. If the system WERE truely chaotic the integration ( of global temp ) would rapidly wander off and each ensemble simulation run would be vastly different from another, sensitive to initial conditions. Like running a NWP (weather) model out to 100 years! Use Google and see climate runs - they follow some sort of curve - then look at the chaos kicking in for weather (below) It shows a specific (temp at 5000ft over Aberdeen).
Look at historic temperature (holocene) - do you see any chaotic behaviour? other than caused by volcanism? which then returns to the trend line. Elements of chaos but stable - because you're averaging out the chaotic elements.

http://www.metman...bles.htm
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (23) Sep 19, 2013
Elements of chaos but stable - because you're averaging out the chaotic elements.



You are making the assumption that chaotic "elements" are noise that can be averaged out. Unfortunately, chaotic elements are not noise, they are the unpredictable structure you are trying to predict. They can't be averaged out. Climate as a system is chaotic, unpredictable. No matter how much data you have, it is by definition unpredictable.
shavera
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2013
Claudius, perhaps a more reasonable answer is that chaotic systems aren't predictable to an arbitrary degree of precision. However, that doesn't mean they aren't predictable in any sense of the word. I know that the weather will never spontaneously begin raining unicorns on us. I know that warm air is going to rise over cold air, generally speaking. Climate models may be chaotic, but their predictions have some amount of warming with some error bars around them as well.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2013
Elements of chaos but stable - because you're averaging out the chaotic elements


You are making the assumption that chaotic "elements" are noise that can be averaged out. Unfortunately, chaotic elements are not noise, they are the unpredictable structure you are trying to predict. They can't be averaged out. Climate as a system is chaotic, unpredictable. No matter how much data you have, it is by definition unpredictable.

You obviously dont understand Claudius - I can do no other than I have - if following through my argument fails to make the penny drop then.....

Just look at the curves.Where is the chaos?

You do know that chaos would send the computed variable into, well, chaos, increasingly into the integration?

It's NOT there, either in the climate simulations or the temperature record.... whilst it IS there in a weather variable.

You confuse weather with climate - which is an average of weather over a LONG period and the short-term variables average out.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2013


You are making the assumption that chaotic "elements" are noise that can be averaged out. Unfortunately, chaotic elements are not noise, they are the unpredictable structure you are trying to predict. They can't be averaged out. Climate as a system is chaotic, unpredictable. No matter how much data you have, it is by definition unpredictable.


The weather elements are noise as they are merely redistributing the climate sytem's heat - it remains in the system - which is what we are interested in.

The real drivers ... Sun, Albedo/Atmospheric transparency, orbitals (very long term) .... AND Anthro. CO2 can be constrained tightly and are not subject to chaotically perturbing the system for several decades.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2013
"You are making the assumption that chaotic "elements" are noise that can be averaged out." - ClaudiusTard

A dripping faucet is a classic example of a chaotic system, caused by the non-linear influence of one drip upon the evolution of the next.

Claudius Tard thinks that there is no average drip period for a faucet because the system is chaotic and chaos can not be averaged - he claims.

Yet a dripping faucet has an average period, and even an average size for the drip that drops, as is self evident.

There are real constraints on the length of time between drips since the rate at which water leaks into the forming drops is constant and forming drops are guaranteed to fall from the spout above a certain size.

Never does one have to wait days for the next drip of a dripping faucet, and never does the next drop fall microseconds after the first.

As usual ClaudiusTard bases his comments on his pure ignorance of the topic at hand, and today his ignorance spans both chaos + climate.
Neinsense99
2.3 / 5 (18) Sep 19, 2013
Claudius, perhaps a more reasonable answer is that chaotic systems aren't predictable to an arbitrary degree of precision. However, that doesn't mean they aren't predictable in any sense of the word. I know that the weather will never spontaneously begin raining unicorns on us...

Oh yeah? I just stepped outside and felt a unicorn hit me. Prove me wrong! ;)
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2013
"Quantum phenomena aren't predictable." - ClaudiusTard

Claudius is always free to offer up tidbits of ignorance like the one above.

Quantum phenomena are perfectly predictable. Give a particle a choice of following two paths, it will predictably always take both paths simultaneously.

You can't get more predictable than that.

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2013
"in AGW climate philosophy, the claim is made that reliable, accurate predictions can be made concerning a chaotic system. This just isn't so." - ClaudiusTard

If so, then it is a very good reason why dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is a very bad idea, since according to ClaudiusTard, the results will be an abrupt change to a dramatically different climate that isn't naturally reachable from the current climate state, and the change will be unpredictable.

Abrupt climate change to a dramatically different state is a mass extinction event.

VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2013
"Unpredictability is a defining characteristic of chaos. Predictable systems are not chaotic." - ClaudiusTard

You are confusing randomness with chaos, TardieBoy.

Chaos is useful precisely because aspects of chaotic systems predictable, specifically their attractor set.

This has been explained to you on multiple occasions, but you are incapable of learning from your past comprehension failures, so you repeat them over and over and over again.

It is why you are correctly labeled a "TARD".
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2013
""hence why we simulate, to the best of our ability, multiple Earths. We know the laws of physics. We know how to calculate them." - JPeden

Because in science we have these things called confidence limits.

You won't learn about them until you graduate from public school and enter high school.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2013
" they haven't produced even one correct prediction yet." - JPeden

Sorry TardieBoy, but climate models don't provide weather forecasts.

http://www.skepti...nced.htm
Caseya
1.3 / 5 (23) Sep 19, 2013
Read triplehelix bbc news article - here I will link it for you http://news.bbc.c...9797.stm


Hmmm, so whom to believe? I particularly like the 2100 estimate--someone figured out that making predictions for short-term events leads to major embarrassment.

You see the models are not complete yet - we know that.


Fantastic, we agree. Therefore, politicians and activists have abused your models when trying to forcibly change each American's life, livelihood and standard of living. Are you protesting the abuse of your work? If so I'd like to join you.

If this were an Einstein/Oppenheimer debate the public would watch but with less intensity, as they weren't trying to dictate our daily lives. That your models and your cohorts are actively trying to force us to live their way using the power of the state against us, well, we get angry about that. Combined with the multitude of failed predictions, we become skeptics--a trait that used to be common among scientists.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2013
"Combined with the multitude of failed predictions, we become skeptics--a trait that used to be common among scientists." - DenialistCaseya

Denialist Caseya is a newly created sock puppet account made by the anti-science operatives here.

Created yesterday.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2013
From the denialist Caseya small writing hands:
That your models and your cohorts are actively trying to force us to live their way using the power of the state against us, well, we get angry about that. Combined with the multitude of failed predictions, we become skeptics

Yeah... we are going to force it.. we are going to force it so hard you will cry uncle. There is nothing failed in our science, but there is a ton of #2 in you brain cavity. Another Ding bat wing nut that votes republican. Geeze.

This is chaos: http://en.wikiped...s_theory Even if not predictable, it does follow a pattern.
Dug
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2013
There is one known solution to anthropogenic climate change - reduce the source. Strange no one wants this solution, yet it is the only viable one. Until we reduce populations, we're wasting out time with half-measure conservation efforts. The planet will soon have four times the number of humans that it had before the industrial revolution and until we drop back to those populations we can argue all we want - the inevitable food production/peak phosphate limitation related population crash and return to the natural phosphors replenishment cycle is inevitable - and then the GHG and AGW problem is solved.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2013
In the latest science news, Denialists suffer another humiliating defeat.

Researchers claim satellite data proves global warming caused by humans

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2013
" they were unable to produce the type of warming we've seen with just natural events"
They forgot to add, "...natural events that are known to us." - RyggTard

Yes, indeed.. They should be including natural events that are unknown.

Moon beams from planet mongo, and the heat being generated by the tens of thousands of invisible volcanoes' that denialists claim pepper the earth's surface.

And lets not forget Bigfoot and heat rays from the space aliens that visit RyggTard's bedroom when he drinks himself to sleep.

The models just can't be considered complete until all of the unknowns are included.

Mooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnn........
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2013
Caseya: "Are you protesting the abuse of your work? If so I'd like to join you."

No I am not. We are making strides in the direction that I think is necessary. The fact that the models are not complete - does not mean we know nothing. From many perspectives it makes sense to move to a carbon free energy world. Do you think that the Chinese should ignore the fact that large numbers of their population will be dying of lung disease - due to smog? Or do you think it is prudent to address the issue? The U.S. has done a great deal in terms of improving the environment. Check out what is happening in the East River of New York. All because of big bad government regulation. Do you oppose these regulations that are cleaning up our water ways?
Caseya
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 20, 2013
No I am not. We are making strides in the direction that I think is necessary.


To sum it up, you admit that your models are not complete (and honestly, who knows what your models are missing) yet the incomplete results of those incomplete models are being used politically to achieve what you want, therefore you're okay with the whole thing. Wow.

From many perspectives it makes sense to move to a carbon free energy world.


From many perspectives it does not make sense. It's a POLITICAL question, not a scientific question. My father would've quit before allowing himself to be used in such a manner--he's said so many times lately.

I was raised in a household full of science and engineering. My dad built Cassini (and Magellan/Stardust/many more.) I was one of the few at my university publicly refuting the scaremongering about Cassini crashing to earth and obliterating all life in nuclear fallout. Remember that absurdity? AGW is the same hysteria on a much larger scale.
Caseya
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2013
(cont.) The language surrounding this issue is telling. Your cohorts use terms like "denier" as a rhetorical devise to shame people into compliance. Claims of "ignorance" and demeaning smears of "creationist" are the modern equivalent of "heretic" and "savage." Those are religious techniques, not a scientific techniques.

In the past 20 years I've watched scientists make public declarations of looming disaster. When the date passes by without said disaster the "scientists" use the same excuses as religious con men: miscalculation, new revelation, claims of supreme authority, etc. If I knew nothing of science, the commonalities between climate change scientists and religious con men would concern me.

Based upon my own knowledge and serious malpractice in the AGW camp (eg missing data) I've concluded that the "science" is a modern Trofim Lysenko case. So just like the Cassini fiasco, I'm a "denier" and willing to say so aloud. Another decade will settle the issue one way or another.
Caseya
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2013
For those unfamiliar with the Cassini brouhaha:

(remove the space between //)

Note the "models" in the link below.

http:/ /articles.orlandosentinel.com/1997-10-12/news/9710130354_1_cassini-real-risk-computer-models

http:/ /www.motherjones.com/politics/1997/09/cassini-controversy

http:/ /users.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/radiation/cassini.html

http:/ /www.nytimes.com/1997/09/08/us/saturn-mission-s-use-of-plutonium-fuel-provokes-warnings-of-danger.html

runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2013
To sum it up, you admit that your models are not complete (and honestly, who knows what your models are missing) yet the incomplete results of those incomplete models are being used politically to achieve what you want, therefore you're okay with the whole thing.


Of course the models are incomplete - always will be in such a massively complex system like the Earth and its heat engine balance with the Sun. Point is they are good enough to give us answers to where things are leading. Ensemble prediction shows there are constraints to the outcome and that is what the +/- is for. I do dispare at "glass half- empty" folk who come out with you're "always wrong" on the basis of their own personal prejudice. Sorry that says more about you than ever it does about the science.
So we should ignore? or as you do, swear black is white to deny there's a problem because it's "your tax Dollars". Ah didums, what a f**g selfish attitude. A global problem requires a global response. So Politics.
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2013
"Another decade will settle the issue one way or another."

That is the bottom line. So why not leave it at that - and see where it goes? I am very comfortable with that proposition. If you are right - this whole massive political conspiracy of scientists will be exposed. If you are wrong - you and your cohorts will go down in history - and we will be well on our way to a better world (we already are). An interesting reality is that you have already lost this argument. We are moving to a no carbon energy world - and the economics are about to make fossil fuels irrelevant. It may take another 100 years - but that is minor in the grand scheme of things.

"the commonalities between climate change scientists and religious con men would concern me."

I see a much greater comparison between deniers and religious con men. Calling you deniers is simply meant to point out the reality. The evidence is overwhelming - you have a religious agenda.
Caseya
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2013
http:/ /hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_CLIMATE_CHANGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-20-03-25-32

The notion that carbon is "pollution" is hysterical. Carbon dioxide is created during cellular respiration in every creature in the kingdom Animalia (that I can think of at the moment. I can't recall any that don't produce carbon dioxide as a cellular respiration byproduct.) Carbon chains form the foundation of every cell in every animal and plant on the planet, not to mention the complex sugars required for life. Carbon is the sixth most abundant element in the universe and the second most abundant in the human body.

Based on the notion that carbon is "pollution" we should rename organic chemistry "pollution chemistry."

It's a rhetorical lie intended to convince the scientifically ignorant that there is a life-threatening problem---carbon "pollution"--that they must solve by submitting to government control of their every action. Pathetic.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 20, 2013
on our way to a better world (we already are)

Define 'better'.
Economies are collapsing and socialist is rising. So that's why you say the world is better.
djr
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013
It's a rhetorical lie intended to convince the scientifically ignorant that there is a life-threatening problem"

Who is 'the scientifically ignorant?' That seems like a very arrogant term to me.

There is a POTENTIALLY life threatening problem. C02 is not a pollutant - it is a greenhouse gas. A warmer world is also POTENTIALLY better. We have to study the issue - and learn. I am happy to let the science take it's course. Just as I am with medical science, and IT, and physics, etc. etc. You are the one with the religious agenda - trying to argue that the facts are not the facts.
djr
4.2 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2013
Define 'better'.

Well - being that you asked.

A better world is one without religion (look at the data for the correlation between higher educational levels, and religious conviction). A world in which everyone has a high quality education, affordable health care, a rich and full life. These things are being brought to us by advances in science and technology.

Also - a better world will be sustainable - meaning affordable - non polluting energy systems - that afford us all a rich and full life. I believe we are on the right trajectory. It is obviously going to take many generations to leave the scourge of religion behind - the older religious cultures such as we see in the middle east are not going to go quietly. You should see my quality of life. I have a great job, nice home, 2 nice cars, 1/2 acre of land to grow fruits and vegetables. We can and will create a world in which everyone has that available to them if they want.

Wonder if that answers Ryggy's question.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2013
"To sum it up, you admit that your models are not complete" - CaseyaTard

All models are incomplete because they don't capture, among other things, your stupidity.

No model of a spring for example contains the probability that you might eat it, or deficiate on it, or stick it up your backside.

No spring model in existence models what happens when it is taken by aliens and replaced with another similar spring, and no spring model includes what happens when BigFoot stretches it past the point of deformation.

No rational person would suggest that because of such omissions, no model that includes springs can be used to formulate policy.

But that is exactly what you are claiming.

And that is why you are a Retard.

runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2013
The notion that carbon is "pollution" is hysterical. Carbon dioxide is created during cellular respiration in every creature in the kingdom Animalia...........


You see, what is hysterical (if it wasn't tragic) is the way your/denialist's minds work. Why in the name of all that's holy, would your logic jump from CO2 as a GHG to it being "poison"?
Is some Blog pushing it at the moment?

Strike a light.

The only people that sort of stupid comment/post will impress is the equally stupid. Unfortunately there are (seemingly) a lot of stupid people out there. So dispiriting.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013
"I was raised in a household full of science and engineering. " - caseya

And you still know about science. You are pathetic.

Tell us how the political decision to send Casini could possibly have been made based in part on incomplete models of how the springs inside the space craft operate?

You are a fraud.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013
"Of course the models are incomplete - always will be in such a massively complex system like the Earth and its heat engine balance with the Sun." - runrig

Correction. All models are incomplete. (PERIOD)

There are always factors that models do not include, including the destruction of the thing being modeled by the modeler.

VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2013
"Claims of "ignorance" and demeaning smears of "creationist" are the modern equivalent of "heretic" and "savage." Those are religious techniques, not a scientific techniques." - CaseyaTard

You are ignorant. Spectacularly so. It is a characteristic you hold, like being fat, or being composed mostly of water.

It not a matter of religion that you are stupid. Neither is it true that the recognition of your ignorance requires religion.

It is a simple fact that you would rather not hear.

You are a moron.
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2013
"Economies are collapsing and socialist is rising. " - RyggTard

Yup. Capitalism is self destructive, and unstable. America provides a wonderful example of Capitalists killing each other over trinkets.

America's is a failed experiment in capitalism.

A worthless nation.
Caseya
1.4 / 5 (18) Sep 20, 2013
"Another decade will settle the issue one way or another."

That is the bottom line. So why not leave it at that - and see where it goes? I am very comfortable with that proposition.


Excellent, we agree. No more taxes and regulations based upon models. Lets give it another decade, use real world data--raw data, not "adjusted" data--and see what happens. I'm good with that. Oh, and lets publish ALL of the data so every interested researcher can attempt to replicate results and calculations. What do you say?

See, a warmist and a denier can agree. Progress.

VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2013
"The notion that carbon is "pollution" is hysterical. Carbon dioxide is created during cellular respiration" - Caseya

Yup. It is a metabolic poison. That is why your body goes to such great lengths to get rid of it.

Why don't you come over to my place and drink some of my piss. It is metabolic waste too, and according to you, it isn't a pollutant for that reason.

And once again you out yourself as a moron.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 20, 2013
...perhaps a more reasonable answer is that chaotic systems aren't predictable to an arbitrary degree of precision. However, that doesn't mean they aren't predictable in any sense of the word.


No, that is exactly what chaotic means.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (23) Sep 20, 2013
"The typical features of chaos include:• Nonlinearity. If it is linear, it cannot be chaotic.• Determinism. It has deterministic (rather than probabilistic) underlying rules every future state of the system must follow.• Sensitivity to initial conditions. Small changes in its initial state can lead to radically different behavior in its final state. Sustained irregularity in the behavior of the system. Hidden order including a large or infinite number of unstable periodic patterns (or motions). This hidden order forms the infrastructure of irregular chaotic systems---order in disorder for short.• Long-term prediction is mostly impossible due to sensitivity to initial conditions, which can be known only to a finite degree of precision."

Chaos Theory: An Introduction, Antha Ceorote

So which part of prediction (computer models) being "mostly impossible" do you not understand?
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (22) Sep 20, 2013
Quantum phenomena are perfectly predictable.


So the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is no longer valid? It is to laugh.

"When one measures the position of the particle, it is impossible to predict with certainty the result." - Wikipedia
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (22) Sep 20, 2013
In addition to chaos, all computer models require values to be discrete.
'Constants' like pi, e, etc. must be approximated.
This adds to the uncertainty and limits for any computer model.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (20) Sep 20, 2013
"The notion that carbon is "pollution" is hysterical. Carbon dioxide is created during cellular respiration" - Caseya

Yup. It is a metabolic poison. That is why your body goes to such great lengths to get rid of it.


Similarly, oxygen is a metabolic poison. That is why the body needs antioxidants to keep healthy. People have died from overdoses of H2O. Almost everything is a metabolic poison. In the absence of CO2, there would be no life on the planet. So what is your point?
shavera
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013
Claudius, I've taken a class in chaos mathematics, I'm aware of what the definition is. What your problem is is that you assume arbitrary precision is necessary. Similarly with Quantum phenomena. I may not be able to say where a photon will land on a screen *exactly* after passing through a slit, but I can tell you where it's 95% likely to appear. or 99% likely to appear. I can give you a range of answers that are likely to happen.

Similarly with Chaotic systems, sometimes, the answers will diverge wildly. Often times the answers are pretty similar. Look at computer models of hurricane paths, for instance. The paths are each different, but overall they tend to trend in a certain way. We can define some region on the planet where a hurricane is 95% likely to travel. It's not going to suddenly appear in the pacific, right?
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (19) Sep 20, 2013
What your problem is is that you assume arbitrary precision is necessary. Similarly with Quantum phenomena. I may not be able to say where a photon will land on a screen *exactly* after passing through a slit, but I can tell you where it's 95% likely to appear. or 99% likely to appear. I can give you a range of answers that are likely to happen.

Similarly with Chaotic systems, sometimes, the answers will diverge wildly. Often times the answers are pretty similar. Look at computer models of hurricane paths, for instance. The paths are each different, but overall they tend to trend in a certain way. We can define some region on the planet where a hurricane is 95% likely to travel.


No doubt you can predict probabilities, with varying degrees of precision. The idea that you can predict accurately over a long period of time is incorrect. This has been demonstrated with the need to retroactively "tweak" climate predictions to make them fit observations.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2013
Climate models are similar. One simulation you get an increase of x degrees, another y, and after n runs you see some distribution of degrees that were found. Let's pretend for a moment, for simplicity, that you have a gaussian distribution. The gaussian might be centered at some increase in temperature, with some standard deviation. We could even say something like, if CO2 levels double, the temperature is 95% likely to increase by 2 to 3 degrees C (numbers entirely made up by me at the moment), 99% likely to increase by 1 to 4 degrees. In any event, it's likely that it will increase.

Your concern is that we can't say "Doubling CO2 will increase the global average temperature by 2.2045792734520034500... degrees C" You're correct. We can't do that in a chaotic system. But you can get SOME useful information out of it.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2013
We can and will create a world in which everyone has that available to them if they want.

How?
USSR had millions of educated people as does China. Education does not cure totalitarian statism.
Is it just a coincidence that the emergence of Christianity and the current state of liberty happened simultaneously?
The Greeks and Romans were educated yet they made little technological progress. China too had many great ideas but were squashed by their emperors.
The fundamental flaw in dj's Utopia is the hubris men can be perfected. The eugenicists tried that 100 years ago.
Christianity and other religions acknowledge men are imperfect, but if they show humility, acknowledge their flaws they can keep striving for dj's goal of perfectibility. (So why does he want to reject a philosophy that can support his Utopian fantasy?)
shavera
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2013
No doubt you can predict probabilities, with varying degrees of precision. The idea that you can predict accurately over a long period of time is incorrect. This has been demonstrated with the need to retroactively "tweak" climate predictions to make them fit observations.


Welcome to the freakin' scientific method. It's not like they teach in high school. You create a theory, see if it fits existing data, tweak the theory if it doesnt, keep iterating until your theory/model well describes existing data. Then use your theory/model to predict future experimental outcomes. Note here, that by "tweak" I mean modify the model in a way that is physically allowable within margin of errors of various measurements. Maybe CO2 production per year is x +/-y tons. You start your model at x. That didn't work, so you tweak it to x+.1*y, that doesn't work, but it's closer, x+.2*y and so on, until you have a good working model.
Caseya
1.5 / 5 (23) Sep 20, 2013
It's most informative to see AGW proponents openly state that AGW is a political stance predicated upon anti-Americanism. What an enlightening comment thread. Bookmarked for later use.

Oh, and those folks writing like ill-mannered teenaged boys ("drink my piss," really?) are quite the laugh. Honestly, I'd have thought this website wouldn't allow itself to be littered with such nonsense.

runrig: "Is some Blog pushing it at the moment?

There's this thing called a LINK at the top of that post. At that link you'll find that the President of the US and his EPA are using the excuse of carbon "pollution" to promulgate regulations that increase the cost of electricity exponentially. Additionally, the whole impetus behind "carbon free energy" is that carbon is somehow a pollutant.

It's a good thing that some AGWers are able to converse with a modicum of rationality and basic courtesy. Otherwise one would have to conclude that the political movement is founded on teenagers.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2013
Your concern is that we can't say "Doubling CO2 will increase the global average temperature by 2.2045792734520034500... degrees C"


Nonsense. My concern is that long term predictions such as the following are completely unreliable:

"Average global temperatures are expected to increase by 2°F to 11.5°F by 2100."

"By 2100, global average temperature is expected to warm at least twice as much as it has during the last 100 years."

Earlier predictions about today's climate have been widely off the mark, and those were relatively short-term predictions compared with the above. Obviously the level of chaotic behavior in the climate has been underestimated by a large amount.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2013
...perhaps a more reasonable answer is that chaotic systems aren't predictable to an arbitrary degree of precision. However, that doesn't mean they aren't predictable in any sense of the word.

No, that is exactly what chaotic means.


If that was true Claudius then no NWP model would yield a deterministic result over a useful time period. They do. Meaning can be gained from a chaotic system and where longer time frames are required the ensemble technique gives a range of sensitivity to initial conditions - hence you have you error bars or probability of success.

"Long-term prediction is mostly impossible due to sensitivity to initial conditions, which can be known only to a finite degree of precision."

Correct, though it depends what is meant by "long-term". 100 years seems about right for climate. The "degree of precision" is what is discovered by the ensemble technique. Please do look it up.
Chaos in climate is largely cyclic churning of heat NOT in/out heat.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2013
Is it just a coincidence that the emergence of Christianity and the current state of liberty happened simultaneously?
The Greeks and Romans were educated yet they made little technological progress.


Religion really should not be made a part of this discussion, it is a distraction. Especially the Greeks made huge technological progress, witness the work of Archimedes. The problem was disseminating the information, which had to wait for the invention of the printing press, not Christianity. Christianity has suppressed science in the past as well, witness Galileo.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013
How?

I don't have the full answer to that question. Check back with me in a billion years - and perhaps we will know. I do think we are on the right trajectory. I hope the answer will be in continuing to improve literacy levels, and general education levels around the world. continuing with our advancement of science and technology. Continuing with our moving away from religion and superstition.

Ryggy claims that the Romans did not make much technological progress. Ryggy knows nothing about history. The Romans moved technology forward in many areas. Their knowledge of metallurgy was very advanced. They developed central heating. There are roads in Europe today that run straight as an arrow - across many hundreds of miles - with a foundation put down by the Romans.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2013
Religion really should not be made a part of this discussion,

I agree - with regard to the climate change debate. I raise religion as a valid subject in the bigger picture - of looking at how religion has - and continues to hold our species in a hideous level of ignorance (look at sectarian violence in many countries around the world). We will advance exponentially from a science/technology perspective as we move forward - and ridding ourselves of religion will be a major part of that.
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 20, 2013
Correct, though it depends what is meant by "long-term". 100 years seems about right for climate.


I think you are being overly optimistic.

"As proposed by Edward Lorenz in 1963, long range weather forecasts, those made at a range of two weeks or more, are impossible to definitively predict the state of the atmosphere, owing to the chaotic nature of the fluid dynamics equations involved. Extremely small errors in the initial input, such as temperatures and winds, within numerical models double every five days." - Wikipedia
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2013
Religion really should not be made a part of this discussion,

I agree - with regard to the climate change debate. I raise religion as a valid subject in the bigger picture - of looking at how religion has - and continues to hold our species in a hideous level of ignorance (look at sectarian violence in many countries around the world). We will advance exponentially from a science/technology perspective as we move forward - and ridding ourselves of religion will be a major part of that.


We are totally agreed on this.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2013
Nonsense. My concern is that long term predictions such as the following are completely unreliable:

"Average global temperatures are expected to increase by 2°F to 11.5°F by 2100."

"By 2100, global average temperature is expected to warm at least twice as much as it has during the last 100 years."

Earlier predictions about today's climate have been widely off the mark, and those were relatively short-term predictions compared with the above. Obviously the level of chaotic behavior in the climate has been underestimated by a large amount.


But they DON'T say that they say "2 to 4C, best estimate 3C" (for x2 CO2 ).

See - error bars.

Why is it not possible for you to conceive of a mixing of heat into and out of oceans. You know the fluid that covers ~70% of Earth's surface and that has a heat capacity 4x that of air?

The cool Pacific cycle is storing the heat - you know - put a frozen pizza in the oven and you need longer to cook it than a room temperature one.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013
Correct, though it depends what is meant by "long-term". 100 years seems about right for climate.


I think you are being overly optimistic.

"As proposed by Edward Lorenz in 1963, long range weather forecasts, those made at a range of two weeks or more, are impossible to definitively predict the state of the atmosphere, owing to the chaotic nature of the fluid dynamics equations involved. Extremely small errors in the initial input, such as temperatures and winds, within numerical models double every five days." - Wikipedia


Again, correct Claudius - however that is for weather forecasts. NOT climate. I keep telling you that climate is more deterministic because you want just one variable (temp) averaged over the WHOLE globe. NOT a specific of temp/sun/wind/pressure etc that is needed to define weather at a particular place.

Also Lorentz there was talking there in 1963 - computer science has come on tad since then.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2013
But they DON'T say that they say "2 to 4C, best estimate 3C" (for x2 CO2 ).

See - error bars.


So the 1990 IPCC prediction had error bars, as well. And in 2011, the observed temperatures fell outside the error bars. That was only a 21 year period. Imagine how it would look in 100 years.

http://clivebest....omp1.png
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 20, 2013

Also Lorentz there was talking there in 1963 - computer science has come on tad since then.


The quote was from the Wikpedia article on Forecasting. Under the section:

"Limitations | Limitations pose barriers beyond which forecasting methods cannot reliably predict. | Performance limits of fluid dynamics equations:"

Strange, the current article did not add that advances in computers had invalidated Lorentz. The problem of chaos, it seems, is not addressed by faster computers. Or have you solved the problem of turbulence?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013
Ryggy claims that the Romans did not make much technological progress.


LOL Reminds me of the scene from the "Life of Brian" ............

http://www.youtub...fh6sGyso
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 20, 2013
that is for weather forecasts. NOT climate. I keep telling you that climate is more deterministic because you want just one variable (temp) averaged over the WHOLE globe.


First, climate is just another way of looking at weather. They are not separate independent entities. Second, the more complex the model, the more sources of error, the more chaos creeps in.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013

Also Lorentz there was talking there in 1963 - computer science has come on tad since then.


The quote was from the Wikpedia article on Forecasting. Under the section:

"Limitations | Limitations pose barriers beyond which forecasting methods cannot reliably predict. | Performance limits of fluid dynamics equations:"

Strange, the current article did not add that advances in computers had invalidated Lorentz. The problem of chaos, it seems, is not addressed by faster computers. Or have you solved the problem of turbulence?


Please Claudius don't go into a "Uba" on me.
You know full well, that I know full well the NWP has limits but those limits are going down with greater computing power and better data (satellite) being fed in and crucially for a longer term forecast above 5 days - though they are used from 2 to 5 days as well. A 5 day forecast is now as accurate as a 2 day one was when I joined the UKMO. That's gaining determinism from a chaotic system.
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 20, 2013


Please Claudius don't go into a "Uba" on me.
You know full well, that I know full well the NWP has limits but those limits are going down with greater computing power and better data (satellite) being fed in and crucially for a longer term forecast above 5 days - though they are used from 2 to 5 days as well. A 5 day forecast is now as accurate as a 2 day one was when I joined the UKMO. That's gaining determinism from a chaotic system.


Right, but we're not going to agree about forecasts 100 years or 50 years or 10 years or even 1 year from now. I look at 14 day forecasts, but not with any expectation of reliability. Right now, I tend to give some credence to forecasts a few days out, but with the weather in northern Minnesota, even that is questionable.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2013
"And in 2011, the observed temperatures fell outside the error bars."

And so they were wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. The weather forecast is often wrong. Meteorology learns as we move forward - so they are a lot more accurate today than they were 50 years ago. In general - the climate predictions have a good track record. Here read this link - thanks to runrig. http://iopscience.../article

But let's take an example. The climate models say that sea levels will continue to rise - due to melting of the ice sheets. The data supports the predictions. Do you think that we should be paying attention to this issue - and at least thinking about the possibility that there will be consequences - especially in low lying countries such as Bangladesh? Here is a quick article I googled. Do you think we should ignore this issue?

http://www.irinne...iculture
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013
First, climate is just another way of looking at weather. They are not separate independent entities. Second, the more complex the model, the more sources of error, the more chaos creeps in.


They ARE separate - when you JUST look for a GLOBAL temperature in 30 years time (say). The system is the Climate (energy in energy out. Sun to earth to Space). Weather is what the Earth does with that heat. And the system includes ( In fact it greatly predominates ) the Oceans. You cannot just look at air temp and say - oh dear it's not risen for 15 years or whatever and conclude that the system is NOT warming. Hence the need to take out the ENSO cycle to see where the climate (temp) trend line is going. That's the bit that the climate ensemble forecasts can get determinism from.

Climate in public perception terms is how each season is re temp/sun/wind/rain etc - in the computation of long term global temp they can be lumped together and they average as the noise in the system.
cont
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013
Cont.

Claudius - look at it this way...

Climate in GW computational terms is the system at work on the whole Earth.

imagine it's a car engine. Fuel/air in > work done + exhaust + heat out.

The combustion process is complex/chaotic but the work done by the engine can be accurately determined and a temperature defined for a range of operating conditions.
Chaos is constrained/averaged out.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2013
They ARE separate - when you JUST look for a GLOBAL temperature in 30 years time (say). The system is the Climate (energy in energy out. Sun to earth to Space). Weather is what the Earth does with that heat.


"Climate is the pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these variables over shorter periods." - Wikipedia

So climate is weather over a long period of time, or over a region (global). To say they are independent is like saying your finger is independent of your body. I'm surprised I have to point this out.
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2013
Chaos is constrained/averaged out.


Your point seems to be that over time, chaos averages out. But that is exactly what Lorenz invalidated. In fact, chaos increases in models over time, which is why short-term forecasts are more accurate.
shavera
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2013
well to follow on your analogy Claudius, Imagine trying to predict the outlines of someone's fingerprint, or their overall body shape. The fine details are often far more complex and computationally hard to access. Broad patterns of systems (overall trends in temperatures) are less computationally hard to access (though they still are difficult). This is also where I disagree with your logic of "well their models weren't perfectly correct for a decade of temperatures, so how could they be right for a century." Again, maybe this decade is part of an anomalously low phase in a century long trend (note ENSO cycles in the ocean, etc.). That doesn't discount the longer broader trend, even if there is some noise on short time scales
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013
Right, but we're not going to agree about forecasts 100 years or 50 years or 10 years or even 1 year from now. I look at 14 day forecasts, but not with any expectation of reliability. Right now, I tend to give some credence to forecasts a few days out, but with the weather in northern Minnesota, even that is questionable.


Are you being deliberately obtuse - I'm sorry but it's basic modern day weather forecasting an integration is done forward in time using starting condition data (always bound to be incomplete and possibly with errors). The NWP physics is run forward step by step, each time any error multiplying (chaos). As is said below it is greater computing power and better data assimilation that is enabling a better forecast to be achieved.

I DIDN'T SAY IT IS ALWAYS RIGHT - that's where the confidence level comes in.
Ensemble forecasting allows us to quantify that confidence level by noting the systems sensitivity to starting conditions.

*NB* I TALK OF WEATHER ABOVE
shavera
4.2 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2013
Your point seems to be that over time, chaos averages out. But that is exactly what Lorenz invalidated. In fact, chaos increases in models over time, which is why short-term forecasts are more accurate.


Only if you're demanding the same precision from the long term model as you are from the short term model. If you're more flexible with your long term model (say global temperature averaged over a year, measured with some error bar) than short term model (chance of precipitation tomorrow, will I need an umbrella), then you can't make blanket statements like that at all.
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 20, 2013
Are you being deliberately obtuse - I'm sorry but it's basic modern day weather forecasting an integration is done forward in time using starting condition data (always bound to be incomplete and possibly with errors). The NWP physics is run forward step by step, each time any error multiplying (chaos). As is said below it is greater computing power and better data assimilation that is enabling a better forecast to be achieved.


No, but I think we are having a problem with things like terminology and some concepts. We might sort it out over an ale, or two, although the local version is Irish, so you might object.

Like I said, I have no problem with weather forecasting over a period of say 1 week, although beyond a few days I have my doubts. I have a problem with those who claim to forecast the climate 10, 50 or 100 years from now.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (19) Sep 20, 2013
Imagine trying to predict the outlines of someone's fingerprint, or their overall body shape. The fine details are often far more complex and computationally hard to access.


Perhaps you have chosen the wrong analogy for this, as you seem to describe problems with observation. But we are talking about computer modelling, based on inherently flawed initial data and its resulting chaos.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 20, 2013
"And in 2011, the observed temperatures fell outside the error bars."

And so they were wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong.


Here's why there's something wrong with these large errors:

"Climate projections like those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001, 2007) are increasingly used in decision-making."

Taken from your own reference. The problem with these "wrong" predictions is that they are being used to create governmental policy that affects us all.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013
Chaos is constrained/averaged out.


Your point seems to be that over time, chaos averages out. But that is exactly what Lorenz invalidated. In fact, chaos increases in models over time, which is why short-term forecasts are more accurate.


Of course Lorentz is right ........ for a truely chaotic system. Climate is NOT. There are large bits of it that are known well.
Vis Sun's output.
Earth's ave albedo
And crucially for GW - the GHE of the atmosphere and it's constituent gases.

Earlier I asked you to Google simulation runs for global climate ( temp ).
Did they show significant chaos over the time period used. You can see the chaos building latterly as the error range increases. The useful predictability is there at those ranges. In weather it is not.
Also look at a graph of historic global temp since say the MWP. Any chaotic diversion from a trend ? without returning to near it. If a climate model puts in anthro CO2 at the point we did then it models the rise
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (19) Sep 20, 2013
Of course Lorentz is right ........ for a truely chaotic system. Climate is NOT. There are large bits of it that are known well.
Vis Sun's output.
Earth's ave albedo
And crucially for GW - the GHE of the atmosphere and it's constituent gases.


There's no doubt we have large amounts of data on many variables. But even small errors will create increasing amounts of chaotic error with increasing number of variables over increasing amounts of time.

Also look at a graph of historic global temp since say the MWP. Any chaotic diversion from a trend ? without returning to near it. If a climate model puts in anthro CO2 at the point we did then it models the rise


In fact, when looking at historical data, there is no chaos at all. That is because chaos is an artifact of computer modelling of the future. Historical data is not output from a computer model, is it?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2013
No, but I think we are having a problem with things like terminology and some concepts. We might sort it out over an ale, or two, although the local version is Irish, so you might object.


I'm actually off to the Pub now - English real ale is preferred but I enjoy the occasional Guiness.

Climate simulations show there is determinism there by doing hind-casts with various data changes. Scientists know the chaos can be seen through over the time scales they say.

You look at the current warming pause and assume that the error will magnify - as it would with a chaotic variable. But it is a cyclic variable (ENSO chiefly) that is at work and the heat is still being stored in the Ocean - it's just cooler and the overall effect on the atmosphere is to cool it. the difference between a Nino and a Nina is ~0.2C.

The cycle WILL reverse and the Pacific will warm the atmosphere again. Meanwhile the Sun's energy this last 15 years that CO2 held back will see the trend line resumed.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 20, 2013
Climate simulations show there is determinism


"Deterministic chaos may sound like an oxymoron, but this is due to mistaking the popular and mathematical notions of "chaos." According to the descendants of Mr. Webster, chaos derives from the Greek word for abyss and means, "(a) a state of things in which chance is supreme; esp: the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms (b) a state of utter confusion." That is, as a popular concept chaos is equivalent to randomness. This is absolutely not the case for the mathematical notion of chaos. To emphasize the difference, we sometimes refer to this mathematical sense of chaos as deterministic chaos."

"Loss of predictability is the bad news of chaos"

http://classes.ya...ome.html

I think you are confusing chaos with randomness. Perhaps you need to read more about chaos theory.
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2013
"is that they are being used to create governmental policy that affects us all"

Government policy always affects us all. Here in the U.S. we have a political system that is bought by big money interests. Where is your outrage in that government policy is being set by the highest bidder? The science is also being considered - which I am pleased about. World governments have poured billions into fossil fuel industries. It makes total sense now to return the favor to renewables - that are the future of our world. Are you aware of how much the environmental regs have cleaned up our world? Are you opposed to living in a safer, more healthy world? Or are you willing to go live in Beijing? Promoting renewables is a win win situation. I understand that much government policy is set for the wrong reasons. I am in support of incentives for renewables - it is their turn. While the details may be wrong Claudius, the trend is undeniable - our globe is warming.
PeterParker
3.3 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2013
"Excellent, we agree. No more taxes and regulations based upon models." - CaseyaTard AKA ParkerTard

What? You won't let us set road taxes based on models of road use?

You won't let us set your garbage taxes based upon models of waste disposal?

You won't let us plan for sewage costs based upon models of public waste disposal?

You won't let us set driving regulations on models of intersection use?

You won't let us set education standards based on models of childhood learning?

Yup. You are a moron. That is certain.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2013
"is that they are being used to create governmental policy that affects us all"

Government policy always affects us all. .


I think we previously debated the costs this would have on people trying to pay energy bills, the increased mortality in being unable to adequately heat homes in winter, land use issues related to farming for biofuels, etc. We didn't see eye to eye then. Probably not now, either.

Australians recently "threw the bastards out" in a recent election on this very issue. A hopeful sign.
PeterParker
3.1 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2013
"No, that is exactly what chaotic means." - Claudius Tard

As has been explained to you numerous times, El-ReTardo, Chaos distinguishes itself from simple randomness by nature of it's predictability.

Predictability is the way in which Chaos distinguishes itself from randomness.

This is easy to comprehend in the example I provided of a dripping faucet.

But you are just too stupid to learn.
PeterParker
3.3 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2013
"Oh, and those folks writing like ill-mannered teenaged boys ("drink my piss," really?) are quite the laugh. " - Caseya

Nothing is more laughable than your claim that CO2 isn't a pollutant because it is a metabolic byproduct.

I now offer you a full meal deal Caseya. You can not only come and drink the non-pollutant that is the metabolic waste product that is my urine, but can chow down on the solid content of my toilet bowl as well.

What's keeping you?

runrig
4.9 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2013
I think you are confusing chaos with randomness. Perhaps you need to read more about chaos theory.

No the clue is in the sensitivity to initial conditions ........ which is what ensemble forecasting discovers.
djr
4.2 / 5 (11) Sep 20, 2013
I think we previously debated the costs this would have on people trying to pay energy bills, the increased mortality in being unable to adequately heat homes in winter,

Right - and you will still not understand that renewables are fast becoming the cheapest power source on the block. Electricity prices have done nothing but go up over the past decades. Renewables have the added benefit of offering us falling electricity prices. Why is it OK for you to make projections about the future - but you deny others the option? Look at a graph on the falling prices of wind and solar. Follow the curve down. This is one of the most exciting moments in history to be alive. You are too wrapped up in your ideology - to see what is happening in the world before you. Why is it OK for the govt. to support the fossil fuel industry - but you have a cow when they support a different one? I would love you to answer that question.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (23) Sep 21, 2013
Ever notice the micro vortex generators on an airplane wing? I saw something similar on mounted on the engine.
They were tested in a wind tunnel, not with computer models.
The US Navy has a long water tank to test ship hull designs.
CFD may provide the 80-90% solution, but there are limits to computer models that demand testing in the real world.
Why should anyone have faith in GCM unless what is really desired is what AGWites demand, more state control over the world economy.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2013
The Romans moved technology forward in many areas.

Why didn't Rome develop modern science?
Why didn't Rome end slavery?
Pick any 500 year period in history and compare with 1500-2000. Why didn't the progress made from 1500-2000 occur 3000 years ago? The natural resources were the same.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2013
I don't have the full answer to that question.

Why don't you apply science?
dj's solution is based upon his biased POV.
The past 2000 years have much evidence to provide the 'how', but your bias against religions distorts your version of science.
For dj's perfect world, men must become angels. Why not take Pascal's wager and dj may get to join the angels when he dies

Claudius
1.3 / 5 (23) Sep 21, 2013
As has been explained to you numerous times, El-ReTardo, Chaos distinguishes itself from simple randomness by nature of it's predictability.


"Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos."
- Wikipedia article on "Chaos theory"

So which part of "long-term prediction impossible" do you not understand? How can you get chaos's "nature" to be "predictability"?

There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (23) Sep 21, 2013
For dj's perfect world, men must become angels. Why not take Pascal's wager and dj may get to join the angels when he dies


Why don't you apply Pascal's wager and accept AGW? The same principle applies.

Why didn't the progress made from 1500-2000 occur 3000 years ago? The natural resources were the same.


As I pointed out earlier, the reason was the lack of the printing press. Christianity has a long history of suppressing science, which was mainly defeated due to the presence of the printing press, which made distribution of scientific information unstoppable.
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 21, 2013
I would love you to answer that question.


I have no problem with renewables. I am in favor of them. I am not in favor of carbon taxes based on flawed science, which hurt the poor who are not able to afford them, or in the promotion of farming sources for biofuel at the expense of food production, which raises the price of food, and again hurt the poor. All based on flawed science.

I am also simply not in favor of flawed science on general principles. The only ideology I am wrapped up in is the quest for truth, which I hate to see bent out of shape.
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2013
Why didn't Rome end slavery?


Why did Christianity not end slavery? Slavery ended only when the economics made it cheaper to begin what is called "wage slavery." It was expensive to keep slaves. You had to feed them, house and clothe them, take care of them when sick, take care of the elderly, etc. It made better economic sense to "free" them, and employ them with low wages, leaving them to fend for themselves with regard to housing, food, medical expenses, etc. Christianity was used to justify slavery right up until the economics changed.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2013
Why don't you apply Pascal's wager and accept AGW? The same principle applies.


Yes, AGW is a faith based religion.
Christianity has a long history of suppressing science,

Not really.
"What he and later modern historians of early science found is that the Enlightenment myths of the Middle Ages as a scientific dark age suppressed by the dead hand of an oppressive Church were nonsense."
http://www.quora....dle-Ages
lack of the printing press.

"Over 350 years before Gutenberg was even born, the Chinese were experimenting with the technology that the German would later turn into a publishing empire."
Why didn't the Egyptians, Sumerians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, ....invent the printing press?
Why was Gutenberg successful and why was one of the most popular books printed a Bible?
Why did Christianity not end slavery?

They did in 1809. http://www.christ...hristian
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 21, 2013
"the Medieval Church considered the cosmos to the the rational product of the rational mind of God and that humans were given reason partly so they could apprehend and investigate the universe rationally.

This is why Thomas Aquinas spent years and many millions of words painstakingly applying the rational principles of ancient Greek dialectic to Christian theology in an attempt at showing that all the key ideas of Christian belief could be arrived at by pure reason."
"The fact is that the idea of the Church suppressing science and rational analysis of the physical world is a myth. Not one Medieval scholar was ever burned, imprisoned or oppressed by the Medieval Church for making a claim about the physical world. This why the modern proponents of the myth always have to fall back on an exceptional and post-Medieval example to prop up this idea: the Galileo case.
"
http://www.quora....dle-Ages
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2013
Christianity has a long history of suppressing science,

Not really.


It was during the Dark Age that monks deliberately destroyed texts containing scientific information. Many such texts survived only because the Muslims kept them in their libraries. Even so, much knowledge of the ancient world was destroyed. The church kept a strangle-hold on science, and it was not until the printing press that it lost control.

Why did Christianity not end slavery?

They did in 1809. http://www.christ...hristian


The link you gave is dead. However, slavery ended in the United States when the northern industrialists wanted to reduce the price of cotton and other goods produced by the southern slavery system. The slavery system had high overhead as previously mentioned. The campaign to end slavery was entirely economics based, but did not shrink from using Christianity to justify it. At the same time, southern slave owners used Christianity to justify slavery.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 21, 2013
Why don't you apply Pascal's wager and accept AGW? The same principle applies.

Yes, AGW is a faith based religion.


I have said so myself in the past.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2013
Still Claudius?
GCM's iterate an algorithm forward in time from a set of initial conditions (best data available to describe the climate system > Sea + air + solar + albedo + outgoing IR).
They don't model weather systems (somehow in super high speed) they do a simplified ocean circulation. They know solar irradiation and albedo. GHG effects are known and CO2, at least, increased in step with human production.

Various iterations get done with the initial conditions perturbed ( to quantify chaos ). An ensemble mean then averages the chaos. Also the various model versions from all centres add another ensembling process.
Chaos in this version of "climate" is of a lower order than you imagine, and certainly much lower than "weather" giving meaningful data on decadal times scales

There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.

Precisely.

It might be helpful if you read this...
http://en.wikiped...te_model

Claudius
1.5 / 5 (23) Sep 21, 2013
@runrig

You have recently made comments ranging from climate and weather being independent of one another, to being able to remove chaos with "smoothing" to climate not being a chaotic system. All of which are incorrect. I have responded with quotes from authoritative sources to counter these statements. To no effect. I even had to respond to someone who maintained that the defining nature of chaos is that it it "predictable."

The level of ignorance or miseducation is so vast that I don't see how I can ever bridge the gap. I am normally an optimist, but I must admit it would be an act of purest optimism to try to continue.

I'm afraid this is the reason why AGW adherents continue to support it even after it's models have consistently failed to predict climate over even relatively short time periods. This is discussed in the "Talk" section of the link you sent to me, which I will enclose in the comment below:
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 21, 2013
"He considered 3 scenarios and only Scenario 3 - a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000 (which didn't happen) - comes close to the actual temperatures recorded. Since this decline in gasses did not happen, this scenario prediction is also a failure in the same direction as the others (overestimating warming).

It would be reasonable and balanced to mention the failure of past climate models when considering the predictive value of current ones."

http://en.wikiped...te_model
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2013
Why don't you apply Pascal's wager and accept AGW? The same principle applies.

Yes, AGW is a faith based religion.


I have said so myself in the past.


Applying Pascal's wager to AGW would apply if the US First amendment of religious freedom was eliminated. AGWites demand state coercion to impose their faith.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2013
The campaign to end slavery was entirely economics based

Not by Christians in the UK, the super power of the day that banned slavery in its colonies and its worldwide trade.

Christians in the US North helped slaves escape to Canada.

If you know how to Google, look up William Wilberforce, and research the author if the hymn Amazing Grace.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2013
You have recently made comments ranging from climate and weather being independent of one another, to being able to remove chaos with "smoothing" to climate not being a chaotic system. All of which are incorrect. I have responded with quotes from authoritative sources to counter these statements. To no effect. I even had to respond to someone who maintained that the defining nature of chaos is that it it "predictable."


Claudius you are entitled to say that when I talk of weather/climate it is "all incorrect" when you have spent 32 years working for the UKMO, or any other Weather organisation professionally - you certainly aren't now. Just because as a layman who Google's the subject you've become an instant expert.
"Climate" as modeled in GCM's has limited chaos and predictability is possible to reasonable levels on decadal time-scales.
I don't disagree with your quotes re "chaos" - just your rigid interpretation and how it applies to Climate.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2013
Not by Christians in the UK, the super power of the day that banned slavery in its colonies and its worldwide trade.


While there were opponents to slavery on moral grounds dating back to the late 18th century, the movement did not gain traction until economic factors came into play. In Britain's case, the rise of factories, an economic decline in the Caribbean with a view that the colony could sustain itself, and the "free labor" movement finally gained traction.

At the same time, the Bible was used to support slavery.

"They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5)

"tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9).

Claudius
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 21, 2013
There does seem to be a need by AGW adherents to either maintain climate is not chaotic or to avoid the question entirely.

Climate is weather over a long period of time. Weather is known to be chaotic and I just don't buy the argument that climate which is based on weather is not chaotic. Also, there are inputs to climate, volcanoes, solar cycles, etc. that are known to be chaotic.

As to working in the UKMO, there seems to have been quite a bit of discussion about the quality of its seasonal forecasts as being "wonky." If the forecasts are that bad, that is the best evidence so far that the models are not reliable predictors, and hence trying to predict a chaotic system.

Models should not be used for prediction, but rather to understand the behavior of a system. Unfortunately, they are being used as prediction tools. Something they can't do, apparently, based on past failures.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2013
As to working in the UKMO, there seems to have been quite a bit of discussion about the quality of its seasonal forecasts as being "wonky." If the forecasts are that bad, that is the best evidence so far that the models are not reliable predictors, and hence trying to predict a chaotic system.


Since when has seasonal forecasts had anything to do with climate forecasts - other than to use them to damn them by association with "wonky" forecasts. Chaos is rampant in seasonal forecasts because of the variables needed.

Seasonal forecasts are what you like to think decades of climate is ... that is long term weather. There is rather more than an average temp to get right. For UK - pressure (wind direction) - leading to air mass characteristics vis E'ly > cold winter/warm summer. SW-W'ly > moist/often cloudy rain/showers. Stagnant HP > cold/foggy/frosty winter, dry sunny/cloudy summer. Etc with a myriad of variables between. GCM's need only to get a range of global temperatures.
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2013
Claudius - I do not understand the issue of chaos - vs highly complex. However - I think I can understand enough about the issue of climate and weather - to feel that you are becoming to hung up on a technical debate about these terms.

Here is an example. If I put a pot of water on a stove - do I have a chaotic system in terms of the fluid dynamics within the water as it is heated? (I think the answer is yes - and this represents weather).

Can I predict that the temperature of the water will increase over time - despite my inability to predict with accuracy the movement of specific areas of liquid within the system. (I think this represents climate).

Of course our climate is much more complex than this example - as climate involves atmosphere, oceans, land masses, volcanoes, clouds, etc. and the interactions of all of those sub systems. But is the main point not valid? - that even though sub systems are chaotic in nature, the main system can still have some level of prediction?
richard_dress
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 21, 2013
They never show us the sensitivity analysis do they?
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2013
"They never show us the sensitivity analysis do they?" - MeatHead

They don't deliver it to your door and force you to read it, but it is all available in the scientific journals.

Are you too lazy to visit your local technical reference library? Or are you just too stupid to know that such facilities are available to you?

VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (13) Sep 21, 2013
"Can I predict that the temperature of the water will increase over time - despite my inability to predict with accuracy the movement of specific areas of liquid within the system. (I think this r
represents climate)." - dir

Absolutely correct.

ClaudiusTard thinks that since the system is chaotic if you heat it, it might freeze since he claims you can't know anything about the system.

He is an idiot.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (23) Sep 21, 2013
At the same time, the Bible was used to support slavery.

And to oppose slavery as Wilberforce and others did.
"As early as the seventh century, Saint Bathilde (wife of King Clovis II) became famous for her campaign to stop slave-trading and free all slaves; in 851 Saint Anskar began his efforts to halt the Viking slave trade. That the Church willingly baptized slaves was claimed as proof that they had souls, and soon both kings and bishops—including William the Conqueror (1027-1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009-1095) and Anselm (1033-1109)—forbade the enslavement of Christians."
" in the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and a series of popes upheld his position, beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537."
www.christianityt...3.0.html
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (23) Sep 21, 2013
"What is clear is that the common assertion that the Catholic Church generally favored slavery is not true. Indeed, as will be seen, when American Quakers initiated the abolition movement, they found kindred souls not only among other Protestants but among Roman Catholics too."
"If monotheism has the potential to give rise to antislavery doctrines, why did Islam not turn against slavery too? "
christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html?start=7
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2013
What traitors like RyggTard have done to America...

HAYWARD, Calif. (AP) – Police say a Northern California family didn't call 911 for more than five hours after a 10-year-old girl was shot because they thought she had started menstruating.

The girl was sleeping in her Hayward home early Thursday when a stray bullet from a nearby shooting wounded her in the buttocks.

Sgt. Mark Ormsby says when the girl woke up in pain, she thought she had started her period. Her parents found no indication she had been shot when they took her to the bathroom.
Protoplasmix
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 22, 2013
Right then - you got any "natural events" up your sleeve, that may be causing warming?

Other than the Sun, SST/Ocean current changes, Volcanism/aerosols, Clouds/albedo

I can think of a few sources of heat that you didn't mention. Not that they're causing warming, but are they contributing to it, and are they accounted for in any of the models?
> Commercial/residential HVAC units (in heating mode a straightforward calculation, in cooling mode just the heat generated from doing the work) worldwide.
> Commercial/residential cooking appliances (ovens, grills, ranges, broilers, slow-cookers, etc.) worldwide.
> Waste heat generated from all industrial/commercial operations worldwide.
> Heat generated from all internal combustion engines worldwide.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2013
Can I predict that the temperature of the water will increase over time - despite my inability to predict with accuracy the movement of specific areas of liquid within the system. (I think this represents climate).


An excellent analogy djr, similar to my combustion engine one. If you like the chaos is a "hidden variable" within the more predictable system direction.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (24) Sep 22, 2013
@triplehelix,
How is climate science a joke? Give us hard evidence!

Did these human actions they blame for global warming, end from 2000, when the warming stopped.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2013
Did these human actions they blame for global warming, end from 2000, when the warming stopped.

The warming did not stop in 2,000. I suspect you know that fact - but just in case - I will give you the data to contemplate - http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

You could also look up ice sheet data, glacier data, ocean level data etc. I have pointed out so many times that the system is a complex one - and picking one component - is showing your bias. Surface temps were basically flat from 1940 to 1980 - but you knew that right?
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 22, 2013
Did these human actions they blame for global warming, end from 2000, when the warming stopped.

The warming did not stop in 2,000. I suspect you know that fact - but just in case - I will give you the data to contemplate - http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

You could also look up ice sheet data, glacier data, ocean level data etc. I have pointed out so many times that the system is a complex one - and picking one component - is showing your bias. Surface temps were basically flat from 1940 to 1980 - but you knew that right?

http://canadianaw...warming/
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
Of course you choose to ignore the truth.
Solon
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 22, 2013
If CO2 is the problem, then we need to reduce it, and the only way to do that in a resaonable amount of time would be to embrace nuclear power. The extraction and burning of carbon based fuels is scaring the land, polluting the air and water, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people die each year from direct and indirect causes due to carbon extraction. France produces 80 % of its electricity from nuclear power, with no major issues since the 60's, so why can't the rest of the world?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2013
Did these human actions they blame for global warming, end from 2000, when the warming stopped.


The warming did not stop in 2,000. I suspect you know that fact - but just in case - I will give you the data to contemplate - http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

It quite simple - the above shows that going from the blue to red gives ~0.2C rise.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2013
I'll try again.... is it me or are others having problems with the edit on this site?

djr's point Anti is that Climate comprises a heat storage/distribution system - THE biggest part of which is the Oceans. Vis Top 3m contains as much heat as the whole of the atmosphere. Does that not make you think?

We know there has been a pause in warming but the following graph shows the extent to which the warm/cool phases of the Pacific ENSO cycle has in heat transfer to air. There is a 0.2C difference between the two. We have been loosing that 0.2C (taken away from GW) since the last big Nino in '98. Also notice how all varieties have an upward slope indicating that the last warm cycle was not responsible for the warming prior to '98 as previous Nino's gave lower global temps. The Oceans are the World's central heating system and if you turn down the stat ( ENSO) then the atmosphere must respond.

http://blog.chron...ines.pdf
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2013
"Of course you choose to ignore the truth."

Let me post a quote from the link that you yourself provided.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is expected to assert that global warming is continuing. It is also expected to affirm with greater certainty than ever before the link between global warming and human activity."

No - I did not choose to ignore the truth - you just chose to cherry pick your data - and I was able to provide very solid data to show what a cherry picker you are.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2013
@Anti say;
Did these human actions they blame for global warming, end from 2000, when the warming stopped.

This is a myth. There was an unusually hot 1999. If you measure from there, temps look flat. However, if 1999 is removed or averaged out (1999 treated as the out-lire it is), then all of the sudden your cherry picked data and linear regression technique doesn't look so flat. It seems to be increasing and inline with what every other theoretical model and and measured data set shows; Temps are increasing at an accelerating pace.

arq
4.2 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2013
@antigoracle,

Ther are quite a few links on physorg that have people saying warming hasnt stopped. As with regards to the other link....is it reliable?
arq
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2013
@triplehelix,

because you think they cannot predict accurately, that doesnt mean humans dont have a hand in climate change. Human beings couldnt predict many laws of physics before the 18th century, does it mean all those laws of physics were wrong then?
Neinsense99
2.2 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2013
@triplehelix,

because you think they cannot predict accurately, that doesnt mean humans dont have a hand in climate change. Human beings couldnt predict many laws of physics before the 18th century, does it mean all those laws of physics were wrong then?

Apparently it does if you are a state mental gymnastics champion.