Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
plunker said:
They're not my objections Jinx, and I'm not remotely qualified to make objections. If you want my opinion for what it's worth, I'll take the evil wiki-editors word over David Evans' on how climate models work cos he's done, y'know, climate modelling and I'd expect him to know about 'assumptions' fed into the models versus things that are the emergent results of running them.
Then on this we are at a impasse - as I would not trust the word of a CAGW echo chamber with a seeming touch of Tourette's - WC uncritically ingests what his CAGW feeders serve him and regurgitates the same with some personal insult added for good measure. This was not an ad hominem - this was a straight off the bat insult of which WC is well versed
Anyone who cares about it doesn’t really have to take anyone’s word for it. The model methodologies are published. It’s possible to work out for yourself if Evans criticism is well founded or not by going to the primary source.
To me it reads like he constructs a model based on how he thinks climate modelling works then devotes a lot of time to tearing it to pieces. Partly due to this threads various incarnations I've spent quite a lot of time reading about climate models. His understanding of how they work is not the same as my understanding of how they work.
To me it reads like he constructs a model based on how he thinks climate modelling works then devotes a lot of time to tearing it to pieces. Partly due to this threads various incarnations I've spent quite a lot of time reading about climate models. His understanding of how they work is not the same as my understanding of how they work.
hairykrishna said:
Anyone who cares about it doesn’t really have to take anyone’s word for it. The model methodologies are published. It’s possible to work out for yourself if Evans criticism is well founded or not by going to the primary source.
To me it reads like he constructs a model based on how he thinks climate modelling works then devotes a lot of time to tearing it to pieces. Partly due to this threads various incarnations I've spent quite a lot of time reading about climate models. His understanding of how they work is not the same as my understanding of how they work.
Or don't work.To me it reads like he constructs a model based on how he thinks climate modelling works then devotes a lot of time to tearing it to pieces. Partly due to this threads various incarnations I've spent quite a lot of time reading about climate models. His understanding of how they work is not the same as my understanding of how they work.
QUESTION:
Why would anyone actually be against global warming, if it actually existed and if we could affect it?
Any positives would easily out weigh any negatives.
And on a more rational level, it is fact that ice ages occur and the polar caps move over what would be today heavily populated areas. It is also fact that more than once in Earth's past, the polar caps have met at the equator.
Surely if we had the power to prevent this happening again, then that is a "good" thing.
Why would anyone actually be against global warming, if it actually existed and if we could affect it?
Any positives would easily out weigh any negatives.
And on a more rational level, it is fact that ice ages occur and the polar caps move over what would be today heavily populated areas. It is also fact that more than once in Earth's past, the polar caps have met at the equator.
Surely if we had the power to prevent this happening again, then that is a "good" thing.
300bhp/ton said:
QUESTION:
Why would anyone actually be against global warming, if it actually existed and if we could affect it?
Any positives would easily out weigh any negatives.
And on a more rational level, it is fact that ice ages occur and the polar caps move over what would be today heavily populated areas. It is also fact that more than once in Earth's past, the polar caps have met at the equator.
Surely if we had the power to prevent this happening again, then that is a "good" thing.
Venus is the off-cited example of what could | may happen if global warming continues unabated.Why would anyone actually be against global warming, if it actually existed and if we could affect it?
Any positives would easily out weigh any negatives.
And on a more rational level, it is fact that ice ages occur and the polar caps move over what would be today heavily populated areas. It is also fact that more than once in Earth's past, the polar caps have met at the equator.
Surely if we had the power to prevent this happening again, then that is a "good" thing.
There have been periods of both global cooling and warming the issue this time is the debate about whether we have been a contributory factor and whether the rate of change is atypical.
Well actually that and the other debate about whether it exists at all or is a global conspiracy.
rovermorris999 said:
Venus?!?! Have a look at the make-up of the atmosphere and the pressure and then tell me how that could be cited as a warning of 'what could happen' on Earth?
I didn't attach any value qualification I just stated the obvious that it's been frequently used as an example of a run-away greenhouse affect.Now I wish I'd just left it at my cynical remarks earlier
hairykrishna said:
Anyone who cares about it doesn’t really have to take anyone’s word for it. The model methodologies are published. It’s possible to work out for yourself if Evans criticism is well founded or not by going to the primary source.
To me it reads like he constructs a model based on how he thinks climate modelling works then devotes a lot of time to tearing it to pieces. Partly due to this threads various incarnations I've spent quite a lot of time reading about climate models. His understanding of how they work is not the same as my understanding of how they work.
All good honest stuff, but the models aren't quite living up to their predictions, or am I missing something?To me it reads like he constructs a model based on how he thinks climate modelling works then devotes a lot of time to tearing it to pieces. Partly due to this threads various incarnations I've spent quite a lot of time reading about climate models. His understanding of how they work is not the same as my understanding of how they work.
TheExcession said:
ll good honest stuff, but the models aren't quite living up to their predictions, or am I missing something?
What do you mean? If you're talking about the headline global average temperature prediction then the real world's towards the bottom of the range predicted by the collection of CMIP5 models, but it's still in the range. 
(from http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-... )
Edited by hairykrishna on Thursday 8th October 15:10
hairykrishna said:
TheExcession said:
ll good honest stuff, but the models aren't quite living up to their predictions, or am I missing something?
What do you mean? If you're talking about the headline global average temperature prediction then the real world's towards the bottom of the range predicted by the collection of CMIP5 models, but it's still in the range. (from http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-...
hairykrishna said:
What do you mean? If you're talking about the headline global average temperature prediction then the real world's towards the bottom of the range predicted by the collection of CMIP5 models, but it's still in the range.
(from http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-...
I see your one HK but doesn't seem to match the actuals below?(from http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-...
Jinx said:
I see your one HK but doesn't seem to match the actuals below?
The chart I posted uses the usual 30 year baseline. Your chart most likely uses a short baseline (5 years if it’s the Spencer chart I remember from a while back) where the observational readings were abnormally high and the CMIP5 mean was low. The effect is essentially a shift of the model results by ~0.13 degrees.hairykrishna said:
The chart I posted uses the usual 30 year baseline. Your chart most likely uses a short baseline (5 years if it’s the Spencer chart I remember from a while back) where the observational readings were abnormally high and the CMIP5 mean was low. The effect is essentially a shift of the model results by ~0.13 degrees.
By having a single shade for the total area of the model runs gives the impression that the lower bounds is as well populated as the upper - not what really happened as only a couple of the model runs get close to actual temps. The majority are well above. Your diagram is deliberately misleading. Jinx said:
hairykrishna said:
The chart I posted uses the usual 30 year baseline. Your chart most likely uses a short baseline (5 years if it’s the Spencer chart I remember from a while back) where the observational readings were abnormally high and the CMIP5 mean was low. The effect is essentially a shift of the model results by ~0.13 degrees.
By having a single shade for the total area of the model runs gives the impression that the lower bounds is as well populated as the upper - not what really happened as only a couple of the model runs get close to actual temps. The majority are well above. Your diagram is deliberately misleading. Jinx said:
But the spread is not even or normally distributed - hence the single colour is deliberately misleading.
How can you be certain of the distribution? - Isn't the graph that HK displayed showing the confidence boundaries of far more runs (298) that the one you've used (90)? In fact the earlier data referred to in the paper suggest that using the larger number of simulations in the ensemble gives a distribution that is skewed towards lower increases in temp. Which could suggest that someone is being deliberately misleading in the graph you've shown by taking a sub-set of forecasts that give a skew towards higher increases to maximise the impression that the temp records are outside the simulations.Regardless it doesn't seem that misleading to me - warming measurements are at the lower bounds of the model simulations which is a good thing if the trend continues.
Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 8th October 17:32
Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 8th October 17:33
Lotus 50 said:
How can you be certain of the distribution? - Isn't the graph that HK displayed showing the confidence boundaries of far more runs (298) that the one you've used (90)? In fact the earlier data referred to in the paper suggest that using the larger number of simulations in the ensemble gives a distribution that is skewed towards lower increases in temp. Which could suggest that someone is being deliberately misleading in the graph you've shown by taking a sub-set of forecasts that give a skew towards higher increases to maximise the impression that the temp records are outside the simulations.
Regardless it doesn't seem that misleading to me - warming measurements are at the lower bounds of the model simulations which is a good thing if the trend continues.
Because it is an "updated image" (not a re-run) as the original in AR5 and especially the draft AR5 was substantially different. Regardless it doesn't seem that misleading to me - warming measurements are at the lower bounds of the model simulations which is a good thing if the trend continues.
Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 8th October 17:32
Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 8th October 17:33
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff