Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
durbster said:
A single computer system that can simluate the future atmosphere with precision? I seriously doubt that'll happen in my lifetime.
Won't happen at all - due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and chaos theory.durbster said:
Instead we have a bunch of different models projecting the outcomes of different scenarios, all with varying levels of confidence and increasingly large error bars over time. They're not perfect (and nobody claims they are), but the observed data validates them pretty well so far.
Does it? The pattern is all wrong and the "actuals" drop out of the 95 percentile range even after adjustment. durbster said:
Look at it this way: if the observed data wasn't matching the model projections, the conspiracy theorists wouldn't have had any need to invent their data corruption and fraud stories would they? 
The adjustments are a matter of record. The splicing of data at different resolutions is a matter of record. Who has invented what again?durbster said:
Yes, because I went and read all of what he actually said.
Seems pretty well reporteddurbster said:
Yes, because I went and read all of what he actually said.
Have a look at this,https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-...
Data and information manipulation appears standard fair to keep the faith.
durbster said:
Yes, because I went and read all of what he actually said.
Did he or did he not say, and I quote from the article in the Independent newspaper, 15th September 2014 to which others have linked: "winter snowfall will become a rare and exciting event" and "children just aren't going to know what snow is"?jet_noise said:
durbster said:
Yes, because I went and read all of what he actually said.
Did he or did he not say, and I quote from the article in the Independent newspaper, 15th September 2014 to which others have linked: "winter snowfall will become a rare and exciting event" and "children just aren't going to know what snow is"?Dr Viner said:
Heavy snow will return occasionally
So he never said it won't snow again, he just said it will become more rare. And if you look at the snowfall record since that article, we have had less snowfall.I mean, this is just feeble. When one of the strongest arguments you can offer is by trying to spin a single sentence from a throwaway tabloid article written 17 years ago, a statement which was probably thought up on the spot with encouragement from a journalist to make it sound exciting, perhaps it's time to admit it's a dud.
durbster said:
jet_noise said:
durbster said:
Yes, because I went and read all of what he actually said.
Did he or did he not say, and I quote from the article in the Independent newspaper, 15th September 2014 to which others have linked: "winter snowfall will become a rare and exciting event" and "children just aren't going to know what snow is"?Dr Viner said:
Heavy snow will return occasionally
So he never said it won't snow again, he just said it will become more rare. And if you look at the snowfall record since that article, we have had less snowfall.I mean, this is just feeble. When one of the strongest arguments you can offer is by trying to spin a single sentence from a throwaway tabloid article written 17 years ago, a statement which was probably thought up on the spot with encouragement from a journalist to make it sound exciting, perhaps it's time to admit it's a dud.
Kawasicki said:
Dr. Viner is a visionary. Snow will be rare, or sometimes heavy. That is some scientific nous, right there.
we don't pay these people enough money, along with global warming increases rainfall as well as brings us more droughts.It's strange I remember the interview on the BBC with Dr Viners and I don't remember him talking about snow being sometimes heavy perhaps they missed that bit out.
durbster said:
Instead we have a bunch of different models projecting the outcomes of different scenarios, all with varying levels of confidence and increasingly large error bars over time. They're not perfect (and nobody claims they are), but the observed data validates them pretty well so far.
Look, I like Durbs, he's obviously intelligent and his willingness to fight his corner here is admirable but the disagreement all boils down to the statement above which is after all the famed scientific method (hypothesis, prediction, observation). IMHO that is Durbs blind spot and until he comes to terms with it there will be no reconciliation in views.In no way does "observed data validate them pretty well so far", far from it. There is no way Myles "10 degrees" Allen, Ben "15 years pause" Santer, Richard "6 degrees" Betts (all mainstream CLiSis) thought this outcome was remotely possible. Not to mention Al Gore on his stepladder. Their predictions have missed by a mile and no attempts at statistical tomfoolery will convince otherwise. And even if they did match it still wouldn't "prove" causation...but they don't.
The IPCC itself chose the totally inappropriate and meaningless metric Global Temperature as its go to measurement so must be judged on its forecast performance in relation to that not other hindsight stuff (polar bears, ice etc).
Clutching at minuscule temperature "records" from Heathrow and temporary El Nino spikes only highlights their desperation.
If anyone had not heard of this debate before and looked afresh now at the predictions from 1995 there is only one conclusion...it's a crock.
durbster said:
So he never said it won't snow again, he just said it will become more rare. And if you look at the snowfall record since that article, we have had less snowfall.
I mean, this is just feeble. When one of the strongest arguments you can offer is by trying to spin a single sentence from a throwaway tabloid article written 17 years ago, a statement which was probably thought up on the spot with encouragement from a journalist to make it sound exciting, perhaps it's time to admit it's a dud.
"Children won't know what snow is" was clearly not a scientific opinion I agree.I mean, this is just feeble. When one of the strongest arguments you can offer is by trying to spin a single sentence from a throwaway tabloid article written 17 years ago, a statement which was probably thought up on the spot with encouragement from a journalist to make it sound exciting, perhaps it's time to admit it's a dud.
Heavy on social politics though.
Likewise the "throwaway" comments quite widely repeated at the time and not unmentioned since.
Not science at all, but no doubt considered to be the result of science by those receiving the message as passed to them.
And they would ave considered it to be a "forecast" - a prediction for what may happen in the future.
As I recall the point of discussion that brought htis up was related to "forecasts" and their efficacy.
This forecast failed.
The forecasts from the models fail, as expected.
But create enough models (whatever they are) and treat them as en "ensemble" with quite wide predictions or as subset ensembles grouped by similar results and you might well be able to create a case, no matter how dubious, that a select of "not correct" models can be persuaded to offer up results that match earlier predictions and seem to be mutually supporting in terms of their "skill".
You might be able to point to the five or six models that all started out development 20 years ago and claim that therefore they show 20 years of skill and come closer to actual "measurements" than the many others that started out around the same time and, currently, do not show much skill. Conveniently one can ignore those individually and point the the skillful ensemble to claim a victory for science when nothing like that has yet occurred.
Even the outcome of all this political activity, though presented to the masses as a "solution that can be achieved" is no more than a badly presented hope with an outcome set so far in the future that, frankly, the whole process is irrelevant. People can say anything and they know they will never be held to account.
After all there is no mechanism now for being held to account for policy decisions so it is unlikely that there will be anything in the future that could have any effect on things being said and promised today.
And even if there were, history would be re-written to protect the reputation of the guilty.
LongQ said:
You might be able to point to the five or six models that all started out development 20 years ago and claim that therefore they show 20 years of skill and come closer to actual "measurements" than the many others that started out around the same time and, currently, do not show much skill. Conveniently one can ignore those individually and point the the skillful ensemble to claim a victory for science when nothing like that has yet occurred.
This is the "Texas Sharphooter".http://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html
It is also worth remembering, when we see graphs of actual temperatures and model temperatures that typically show a good match and then the model temperatures diverging ever upwards, as above, that even the apparent "good match" during the initial stages is not demonstrating accurate prediction - it is the result of a period of "tuning" of the models to existing temperature data.
durbster said:
So he never said it won't snow again, he just said it will become more rare. And if you look at the snowfall record since that article, we have had less snowfall.
I mean, this is just feeble. When one of the strongest arguments you can offer is by trying to spin a single sentence from a throwaway tabloid article written 17 years ago, a statement which was probably thought up on the spot with encouragement from a journalist to make it sound exciting, perhaps it's time to admit it's a dud.
Touched a nerve there? I mean, this is just feeble. When one of the strongest arguments you can offer is by trying to spin a single sentence from a throwaway tabloid article written 17 years ago, a statement which was probably thought up on the spot with encouragement from a journalist to make it sound exciting, perhaps it's time to admit it's a dud.
Live by the soundbite, die by the soundbite.
Atomic12C said:
Just adding a point about the scientific method in use with climatology, as I see it.....
The IPCC statement from a few posts earlier is basically pointing towards a method whereby evidence is gathered, evidence is then thrown in to a model and then predictions are made. Its then a case of waiting for decades to see if that prediction was accurate.
The main problem being is that, if the models do not contain all causal data with known periodic cycle influence data (along with how historical changes feedback and influence the rate of change and for future causal factors), then the models are always going to have an error, basically its impossible for the models to predict based upon the data fed in to them (leaving only chance for them to be anywhere near close).
I'd hazard a guess that not only has computing power not been big enough to date, but also its not going to be enough for the next decade or so, as the amount of calculations and complexity required, not only in having an effecting program code that can interpret and model all the interactions, but also the sheer processing power of a network of computers is still a way off. Meaning that the IPCC will continue to NOT be able to predict the future climate and leaving the door open for wild predictions that scare politicians and the public.
As with many complex areas of study, its a hard process to prove any mis-predictions with a correct alternative - as both are futile if you don't have the ability to provide convincing evidence.
Good post but surprised that you say in one sentenceThe IPCC statement from a few posts earlier is basically pointing towards a method whereby evidence is gathered, evidence is then thrown in to a model and then predictions are made. Its then a case of waiting for decades to see if that prediction was accurate.
The main problem being is that, if the models do not contain all causal data with known periodic cycle influence data (along with how historical changes feedback and influence the rate of change and for future causal factors), then the models are always going to have an error, basically its impossible for the models to predict based upon the data fed in to them (leaving only chance for them to be anywhere near close).
I'd hazard a guess that not only has computing power not been big enough to date, but also its not going to be enough for the next decade or so, as the amount of calculations and complexity required, not only in having an effecting program code that can interpret and model all the interactions, but also the sheer processing power of a network of computers is still a way off. Meaning that the IPCC will continue to NOT be able to predict the future climate and leaving the door open for wild predictions that scare politicians and the public.
As with many complex areas of study, its a hard process to prove any mis-predictions with a correct alternative - as both are futile if you don't have the ability to provide convincing evidence.
"The main problem being is that, if the models do not contain all causal data with known periodic cycle influence data (along with how historical changes feedback and influence the rate of change and for future causal factors), then the models are always going to have an error, "
Then immediately say
"basically its impossible for the models to predict based upon the data fed in to them"
So should they give up or fine tune still?
Thoughts?
jet_noise said:
durbster said:
<snip>
the above points, if I may...Globs said:
Without a single accurate computer model of the climate.
And? Nobody has ever claimed we would have that.Globs said:
Why do we still see snow, something we were assured was a thing of the past?
Another myth.Do I interpret the first response correctly to mean that both Globs and your good self agree we don't have any accurate computer model of the climate?
Surely we must have this before we spend gazillions?
The US spends gazillions on useless s
t..... had done, still is doing,If you live in the UK I am sure brexit will cost you far more than this.
Bogus argument.
Climate skeptic fail
https://imgur.com/a/enNme
Adds an anomaly graph onto the end of an actual extent graph, but from two different periods
https://imgur.com/a/enNme
Adds an anomaly graph onto the end of an actual extent graph, but from two different periods
jet_noise said:
durbster said:
Yes, because I went and read all of what he actually said.
Did he or did he not say, and I quote from the article in the Independent newspaper, 15th September 2014 to which others have linked: "winter snowfall will become a rare and exciting event" and "children just aren't going to know what snow is"?
Can we get back to the science now?
Gandahar said:
Can we get back to the science now?
The purple line is the 2010s average.2 individual points from this range are about the average.
2 individual points from this range are below the average.
What does that tell you about the remaining data points that made the purple line?
No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model
Because no model predicts the clouds positions and densities to anywhere like the accuracy required your models diverge hopelessly and end up like any other broken simulation: without a clue.
The failure to predict the track of a simple hurricane storm system over 24 hours highlights the gross deficiencies in the models that causes the epic failures that we have seen. Climate models are not just like throwing darts at the board: they are worse than chance, it's as if the dartboard is locked in a draw because they have failed to realise they needed one.
Have you got it yet?
No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model
durbster said:
Various stuff carefully avoiding the key flaw in the usage of the equilibrium equations AGW is based upon
The reason your climate models don't work is that they fail to take account of the primary driver of climate: the amount of energy reaching the ground from the sun. Read IPCC AR4 and AR5 - they are full of the re-radiation side of the equation, but fail to get within even 10% of the current earth albedo, let alone tiny albedo changes of 1-2% that wipe out all of their emissive crap.Because no model predicts the clouds positions and densities to anywhere like the accuracy required your models diverge hopelessly and end up like any other broken simulation: without a clue.
The failure to predict the track of a simple hurricane storm system over 24 hours highlights the gross deficiencies in the models that causes the epic failures that we have seen. Climate models are not just like throwing darts at the board: they are worse than chance, it's as if the dartboard is locked in a draw because they have failed to realise they needed one.
Have you got it yet?
No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model
Globs said:
The reason your climate models don't work is that they fail to take account of the primary driver of climate: the amount of energy reaching the ground from the sun. Read IPCC AR4 and AR5 - they are full of the re-radiation side of the equation, but fail to get within even 10% of the current earth albedo, let alone tiny albedo changes of 1-2% that wipe out all of their emissive crap.
Because no model predicts the clouds positions and densities to anywhere like the accuracy required your models diverge hopelessly and end up like any other broken simulation: without a clue.
The failure to predict the track of a simple hurricane storm system over 24 hours highlights the gross deficiencies in the models that causes the epic failures that we have seen. Climate models are not just like throwing darts at the board: they are worse than chance, it's as if the dartboard is locked in a draw because they have failed to realise they needed one.
Have you got it yet?
No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model
No idea why you are referring to them as my climate models, or why you keep labouring the same point. Nobody's going to be able to write software that can model cloud formations across the world over decades.Because no model predicts the clouds positions and densities to anywhere like the accuracy required your models diverge hopelessly and end up like any other broken simulation: without a clue.
The failure to predict the track of a simple hurricane storm system over 24 hours highlights the gross deficiencies in the models that causes the epic failures that we have seen. Climate models are not just like throwing darts at the board: they are worse than chance, it's as if the dartboard is locked in a draw because they have failed to realise they needed one.
Have you got it yet?
No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model
What I'm disputing is your fundamental assertion that observations have not come anywhere near close to matching projections. What projections and observed data are you referring to that you are labelling an "epic fail"?
durbster said:
No idea why you are referring to them as my climate models, or why you keep labouring the same point. Nobody's going to be able to write software that can model cloud formations across the world over decades.
What I'm disputing is your fundamental assertion that observations have not come anywhere near close to matching projections. What projections and observed data are you referring to that you are labelling an "epic fail"?
previously you mentioned sea level rise. the prediction/projection was an increase in the rate of rise, not just a rise, as a rise in sea levels is what happens in interglacial periods . there has been no discernible change in the rate of rise as far as i can tell.What I'm disputing is your fundamental assertion that observations have not come anywhere near close to matching projections. What projections and observed data are you referring to that you are labelling an "epic fail"?
wc98 said:
durbster said:
No idea why you are referring to them as my climate models, or why you keep labouring the same point. Nobody's going to be able to write software that can model cloud formations across the world over decades.
What I'm disputing is your fundamental assertion that observations have not come anywhere near close to matching projections. What projections and observed data are you referring to that you are labelling an "epic fail"?
previously you mentioned sea level rise. the prediction/projection was an increase in the rate of rise, not just a rise, as a rise in sea levels is what happens in interglacial periods . there has been no discernible change in the rate of rise as far as i can tell.What I'm disputing is your fundamental assertion that observations have not come anywhere near close to matching projections. What projections and observed data are you referring to that you are labelling an "epic fail"?
Better still, can you point to the paper you're referring to please?
Edited by durbster on Monday 25th September 07:47
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff