Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
durbster said:
jet_noise said:
robinessex said:
NOAA, great big might, maybe, possiblely, hence a fairy story. Thought this was the Science forum !!!
You forgot "models" as well.I'm convinced /sarc
Are you convinced by them?
durbster said:
What do you think of the NOAA models that predict the path and strength of Atlantic hurricanes?
Are you convinced by them?
Although this is a straw man I'll bite... (Climate forecasts/predictions/chaos, insert or delete as applicable, being a very different fishy kettle as you well know)Are you convinced by them?
...my terminally curious nature (and putting off washing the car for another 5 minutes) wondered how good such things were:
from other interesting high wind & rain related stuff here
And it appears that although their accuracy has been improving steadily 48hrs still only gets you 100 nautical miles capability, although in the 10 years since the end of that graph things may have improved further,
regards,
Jet
jet_noise said:
durbster said:
What do you think of the NOAA models that predict the path and strength of Atlantic hurricanes?
Are you convinced by them?
Although this is a straw man I'll bite... (Climate forecasts/predictions/chaos, insert or delete as applicable, being a very different fishy kettle as you well know)Are you convinced by them?
...my terminally curious nature (and putting off washing the car for another 5 minutes) wondered how good such things were:
from other interesting high wind & rain related stuff here
And it appears that although their accuracy has been improving steadily 48hrs still only gets you 100 nautical miles capability, although in the 10 years since the end of that graph things may have improved further,
regards,
Jet
It's not a strawman at all. It illustrates how rejecting AGW is based on an ideological stance, not a scientific one. The science done by the NOAA that doesn't challenge that ideology is absolutely fine, yet the science done by the NOAA that does is corrupt / junk / fraudulent / part of a conspiracy / a hoax / propaganda etc.
It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
durbster said:
I think that's a yes.
It's not a strawman at all. It illustrates how rejecting AGW is based on an ideological stance, not a scientific one. The science done by the NOAA that doesn't challenge that ideology is absolutely fine, yet the science done by the NOAA that does is corrupt / junk / fraudulent / part of a conspiracy / a hoax / propaganda etc.
It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
Let's stick to the science rather than be diverted to "they're all against us" conspiracies It's not a strawman at all. It illustrates how rejecting AGW is based on an ideological stance, not a scientific one. The science done by the NOAA that doesn't challenge that ideology is absolutely fine, yet the science done by the NOAA that does is corrupt / junk / fraudulent / part of a conspiracy / a hoax / propaganda etc.
It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
Observations (i.e. science) suggests the ability of a model to predict/project locally 48hrs in advance is entirely possible. As the graph shown above it is a measureable parameter. Indeed has been shown to be improved by, one assumes, redesign/tuning. The different models are also coming together in their accuracy.
The ability of a model (and I have no idea how similar the hurricane tracking one and climate catastrophe ones are) to predict at decadal/generational/centennial timescales is however both unlikely and not possible. There are so many of them, all producing different outputs. None of them can consider all relevant parameters, computer the size of a planet etc. No model has yet been able to get it right for even a decade (temperature plateau anyone?) let alone longer,
regards,
Jet
durbster said:
It illustrates how rejecting AGW is based on an ideological stance, not a scientific one. The science done by the NOAA that doesn't challenge that ideology is absolutely fine, yet the science done by the NOAA that does is corrupt / junk / fraudulent / part of a conspiracy / a hoax / propaganda etc.
It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
Oddly one of the major problems I have with AGW and CC is they appear more akin to an ideology than science, that might be because politically I am centrist and am what most would probably describe as an atheist, does that fir your model?It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
jet_noise said:
durbster said:
I think that's a yes.
It's not a strawman at all. It illustrates how rejecting AGW is based on an ideological stance, not a scientific one. The science done by the NOAA that doesn't challenge that ideology is absolutely fine, yet the science done by the NOAA that does is corrupt / junk / fraudulent / part of a conspiracy / a hoax / propaganda etc.
It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
Let's stick to the science rather than be diverted to "they're all against us" conspiracies It's not a strawman at all. It illustrates how rejecting AGW is based on an ideological stance, not a scientific one. The science done by the NOAA that doesn't challenge that ideology is absolutely fine, yet the science done by the NOAA that does is corrupt / junk / fraudulent / part of a conspiracy / a hoax / propaganda etc.
It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
Observations (i.e. science) suggests the ability of a model to predict/project locally 48hrs in advance is entirely possible. As the graph shown above it is a measureable parameter. Indeed has been shown to be improved by, one assumes, redesign/tuning. The different models are also coming together in their accuracy.
The ability of a model (and I have no idea how similar the hurricane tracking one and climate catastrophe ones are) to predict at decadal/generational/centennial timescales is however both unlikely and not possible. There are so many of them, all producing different outputs. None of them can consider all relevant parameters, computer the size of a planet etc. No model has yet been able to get it right for even a decade (temperature plateau anyone?) let alone longer,
regards,
Jet
durbster said:
It's not a strawman at all. It illustrates how rejecting AGW is based on an ideological stance, not a scientific one. The science done by the NOAA that doesn't challenge that ideology is absolutely fine, yet the science done by the NOAA that does is corrupt / junk / fraudulent / part of a conspiracy / a hoax / propaganda etc.
It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
In my experience, that's tripe. Conversations with people of different political persuasions frequently bring up rejection.It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
Have you researched the gullibility susceptibility of different political "identities"? Might be worth the effort.
Toltec said:
durbster said:
It illustrates how rejecting AGW is based on an ideological stance, not a scientific one. The science done by the NOAA that doesn't challenge that ideology is absolutely fine, yet the science done by the NOAA that does is corrupt / junk / fraudulent / part of a conspiracy / a hoax / propaganda etc.
It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
Oddly one of the major problems I have with AGW and CC is they appear more akin to an ideology than science, that might be because politically I am centrist and am what most would probably describe as an atheist, does that fir your model?It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
durbster said:
What do you think of the NOAA models that predict the path and strength of Atlantic hurricanes?
Are you convinced by them?
If I was paid even 1% of the model budget I'd be able to sit down with a map of the previous tracks, current wind conditions and easily match their models.Are you convinced by them?
https://www.windy.com/?rain,37.788,-49.570,4
As previously mentioned they didn't even get the right coast in Florida.
Extrapolate the error in determining where clouds will be 24 hours later and you can see why earth albedo prediction (and hence warming/cooling prediction) is such a big guess.
To recap:
Failure to predict the movement of a storm system over a single day = no albedo variation predictions = no climate predictions.
Globs said:
durbster said:
What do you think of the NOAA models that predict the path and strength of Atlantic hurricanes?
Are you convinced by them?
If I was paid even 1% of the model budget I'd be able to sit down with a map of the previous tracks, current wind conditions and easily match their models.Are you convinced by them?
https://www.windy.com/?rain,37.788,-49.570,4
Globs said:
As previously mentioned they didn't even get the right coast in Florida.
Extrapolate the error in determining where clouds will be 24 hours later and you can see why earth albedo prediction (and hence warming/cooling prediction) is such a big guess.
To recap:
Failure to predict the movement of a storm system over a single day = no albedo variation predictions = no climate predictions.
Not sure of your point. Nobody has ever said atmospheric models are perfect; they're merely the best tool we have.Extrapolate the error in determining where clouds will be 24 hours later and you can see why earth albedo prediction (and hence warming/cooling prediction) is such a big guess.
To recap:
Failure to predict the movement of a storm system over a single day = no albedo variation predictions = no climate predictions.
DapperDanMan said:
Toltec said:
durbster said:
It illustrates how rejecting AGW is based on an ideological stance, not a scientific one. The science done by the NOAA that doesn't challenge that ideology is absolutely fine, yet the science done by the NOAA that does is corrupt / junk / fraudulent / part of a conspiracy / a hoax / propaganda etc.
It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
Oddly one of the major problems I have with AGW and CC is they appear more akin to an ideology than science, that might be because politically I am centrist and am what most would probably describe as an atheist, does that fir your model?It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
Toltec said:
DapperDanMan said:
Toltec said:
durbster said:
It illustrates how rejecting AGW is based on an ideological stance, not a scientific one. The science done by the NOAA that doesn't challenge that ideology is absolutely fine, yet the science done by the NOAA that does is corrupt / junk / fraudulent / part of a conspiracy / a hoax / propaganda etc.
It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
Oddly one of the major problems I have with AGW and CC is they appear more akin to an ideology than science, that might be because politically I am centrist and am what most would probably describe as an atheist, does that fir your model?It's no coincidence that pretty much every single group or person that rejects AGW just happens to belong to the same political identity.
There is no monomania about CO2. There is loads of work going on to reduce our impact on the planet. Just lately there has been a campaign push about the amount of plastic being dumped in the worlds oceans as just one example. But of course using that word points towards an obsession and obsession is seen as a negative thing.
As I said before science is politically neutral in itself. Stick to the science and don't concern yourself with us and them.
DapperDanMan said:
So thousands of PHD's throughout the world say CO2 is an issue but you know for sure it isn't but there is an issue you just don't know what it is. Would you rather drive across a bridge designed and constructed by experts or one done by a bunch of internet googlers?
There is no monomania about CO2. There is loads of work going on to reduce our impact on the planet. Just lately there has been a campaign push about the amount of plastic being dumped in the worlds oceans as just one example. But of course using that word points towards an obsession and obsession is seen as a negative thing.
As I said before science is politically neutral in itself. Stick to the science and don't concern yourself with us and them.
FFs not the bridge analogy again - would I drive over a bridge that thousands of PhD modelers claim has already fallen down years ago and yet I have crossed it every day for the last 10 years?There is no monomania about CO2. There is loads of work going on to reduce our impact on the planet. Just lately there has been a campaign push about the amount of plastic being dumped in the worlds oceans as just one example. But of course using that word points towards an obsession and obsession is seen as a negative thing.
As I said before science is politically neutral in itself. Stick to the science and don't concern yourself with us and them.
DapperDanMan said:
So thousands of PHD's throughout the world say CO2 is an issue but you know for sure it isn't but there is an issue you just don't know what it is. Would you rather drive across a bridge designed and constructed by experts or one done by a bunch of internet googlers?
There is no monomania about CO2. There is loads of work going on to reduce our impact on the planet. Just lately there has been a campaign push about the amount of plastic being dumped in the worlds oceans as just one example. But of course using that word points towards an obsession and obsession is seen as a negative thing.
As I said before science is politically neutral in itself. Stick to the science and don't concern yourself with us and them.
I didn't say CO2 isn't an issue, it just isn't the only or arguably even the most important environmental one. I'm well aware of the plastic issue, I took a photograph of a beach in Lanzarote with layers of brightly coloured plastic 'sand' around a decade ago and it was well known to be a building issue well before that. I saw recently that they are now finding particles of plastic in sea salt. I'm one of the weirdos that always cuts open all of the loops in a six pack holder before throwing it in the bin and picks up fishing line etc. when walking on the beach. There is no monomania about CO2. There is loads of work going on to reduce our impact on the planet. Just lately there has been a campaign push about the amount of plastic being dumped in the worlds oceans as just one example. But of course using that word points towards an obsession and obsession is seen as a negative thing.
As I said before science is politically neutral in itself. Stick to the science and don't concern yourself with us and them.
Yes, I prefer the science, which is why I ignore most of the woo in the media.
Toltec said:
No, it is because the more active members of the pro AGW/CC movement act as if it is. There is some good underlying science going on and it does look like the climate may be departing from the relatively stable period it has been in for the last 10,000 years or so. I also think it is entirely possible that we have influenced our environment, there is clear evidence for this at all kinds of scales, that we can control climate change to keep things nice and cosy seems very unlikely. That we should be trying to reduce the rubbish we produce and throw into the environment is clear and has been for many decades, how we do that while coping with an increasing population and provide a better standard of life is not clear. I don't have the answer, but I do know a monomania about CO2 is not it.
Yep, well put. I agree with much of that. I think people like Al Gore generally do more harm than good. It's clear that over-dramatising science and yelling the facts at people often just makes them more determined to retreat deeper into their fantasy world. A more sober approach would seem more effective.
durbster said:
Not sure of your point.
Obviously, else I would not have made it.If the models can't track the path of a simple hurricane over a single day then models have zero chance of working on a climate timescale with any accuracy.
To track the climate you need to follow the clouds so you can determine the variation in albedo: the primary force of earth climate.
Because the models cannot do this (as amply demonstrated by the failure noted above) ALL climate models are a fiction.
durbster said:
Nobody has ever said atmospheric models are perfect; they're merely the best tool we have.
There is no spoon.Globs said:
If the models can't track the path of a simple hurricane over a single day then models have zero chance of working on a climate timescale with any accuracy.
wrong, in fact, precisely the opposite. Consider the following scenario:
A compressed air cannon, 100 tennis balls, Lords Cricket ground
I stand outside the grounds, and fire tennis balls into the grounds, up and over the stands.
To make a model that accurately predicts where each ball lands and comes to rest within the ground is extremely tricky, because tiny changes in trajectory and forcing functions (wind, friction, elasticity, bounce height etc etc) accumulate into large positional errors.
But to make a model that only estimates how many balls are in the stadium (100, give or take a few misfires) is much easier.
Climate change, as opposed to weather is predictable because it is the average of all those macro effects.
Globs said:
To track the climate you need to follow the clouds so you can determine the variation in albedo: the primary force of earth climate.
Because the models cannot do this (as amply demonstrated by the failure noted above) ALL climate models are a fiction.
Then how do you explain the fact that the predictions about climate have been largely proven right consistently since the mid 20th century? Do you consider it no more than a massive coincidence, rather than vindication of the science? Because the models cannot do this (as amply demonstrated by the failure noted above) ALL climate models are a fiction.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff