In your face evidence of climate change

[ludo]

Guam said:

ludo said:

hairykrishna said:

A computer model is not the same thing as a hypothesis; I don't care who said it. Computer models are built using a number of more basic hypotheses. A computer model that fails to exactly match reality is still useful as it can be used to develop more accurate computer models. CGCM1 to CGCM 2 to CGCM3 for instance.

I don't know enough about the computer models used by the IPCC to sensibly debate their reliability. I thought they were pretty good but I could be wrong.

Edited by hairykrishna on Monday 4th August 13:41

GCMs tell you the (approximate) consequences of a set of assumptions about the underlying physics of the oceans/atmosphere and future forcing scenarios, nothing more. The climatologists know that, the media doesn't. Another point that is often missed is that the GCMs can only predict the forced component of the climate, they are unable (almost by definition) to predict the chaotic weather variation (which includes things like ENSO). Their predictions are generally accurate, within the known uncertainty of the predictions (i.e. the error bars - which are generally pretty broad).

So as I said earlier in the thread basically the GCM's are a set of guesses based on other guesses. Yep they are reliable in the extreme!!


Cheers

[ludo]

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

ludo said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

Agreed the localised chaotic effects due to micro climate impacts will average out across the data. However the fundamental flaws remain in both modelling excercises do they not

So you would agree that predicting the climate should be easier than predicting the weather (as the chaotic element is not relevant)?

The models are approximations, there is a good deal of uncertainty over the details, but I have not read anything in the litterature pointing out fundamental flaws. Perhaps you could give some examples?

Good lord man I have repeatedly you cannot forecast with any degree of certainty (extrapolate if you will) where ALL the variables are not fully understood, nor their impacts fully understood, Solar Variation for example, EVEN if you average out the minor background noise (localised chaotic events) you cannot as yet forecast accurately what toonage of CO2 will result in what degree of warming or its abscense and the converse. Those are just two, when a major event (vulcanism) occurs what degree of theoretical change in the climate occurs and how sustained will it be, and to what degree (up or down) will it mask the trend?

The same inherent rational flaws as in Weather forecasting (just the variables may differ).

Comes back to Spurious correlation in raw statistical analysis, just because you seem to have a relationship at first run through the data doesnt mean there actually IS one!


Cheers

Sorry, that is just repeating your assertion. Can you provide e.g. a journal paper or even a reference to one that identifies a fundamental flaw in GCMs. I know your opinion, because I read it the first time. What I am asking for is some evidence to back up your opinion.

BTW, weather noise is larger in magnitude than climate trends, so "minor background noise (localised chaotic events)" sounds rather incongruous in this discussion. Also there have been studies where the observed effect of Pinatubo was compared with the GCM model prediction, and the results showed the models had useful skill (although of course not perfect).

To the contrary YOU are the one putting the concept (along with others) it is YOUR responsibility to show where the criticisms are baseless,

Sorry that is not how science works. You can't prove anything using observations, only corroborate or disprove (see e.g. work of Popper). However, unless you can provide evidence of a specific fundamental flaw, the criticism is too vague to expect a refutation.

TB Has just done so above, there is no need for two of us to be replicating the same data (boring in the extreme).

And as I have already said, GCMs are known to be unable to accurately reproduce station data and provided an URL for an article on RealClimate that explains why. So all TB provided was a paper that confirms that GCMs are not very good at doing something the modellers say the models cannot be expected to be good at.

And there you have it the Admission the brightest best minds (allegedly) on the planet, really have no clue what is happening and what may or may not happen,

Cheers

It is nothing of the sort. The modellers are quite happy to discuss the things the models can and can't do. Oddly enough the projections are not based on things the modellers think the GCMs can't do.

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

So all TB provided was a paper that confirms that GCMs are not very good at doing something the modellers say the models cannot be expected to be good at.

You asked for a paper and you got one, you don;t like the contents, also plenty more posted after that, tough sh!t ludo you and your True Believer chums are seeing your beloved climate models get a right kicking and your breathless unremitting defence is really cute to see. Awwwwww.

"In Defence of the Indefensible" Part 'n' by ludo of PH

Are you convincing yourself by this stage? Awesome self-delusion, however much True Believer HQ are paying you, in kind probably, it should be more.

[ludo]

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

ludo said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

Agreed the localised chaotic effects due to micro climate impacts will average out across the data. However the fundamental flaws remain in both modelling excercises do they not

So you would agree that predicting the climate should be easier than predicting the weather (as the chaotic element is not relevant)?

The models are approximations, there is a good deal of uncertainty over the details, but I have not read anything in the litterature pointing out fundamental flaws. Perhaps you could give some examples?

Good lord man I have repeatedly you cannot forecast with any degree of certainty (extrapolate if you will) where ALL the variables are not fully understood, nor their impacts fully understood, Solar Variation for example, EVEN if you average out the minor background noise (localised chaotic events) you cannot as yet forecast accurately what toonage of CO2 will result in what degree of warming or its abscense and the converse. Those are just two, when a major event (vulcanism) occurs what degree of theoretical change in the climate occurs and how sustained will it be, and to what degree (up or down) will it mask the trend?

The same inherent rational flaws as in Weather forecasting (just the variables may differ).

Comes back to Spurious correlation in raw statistical analysis, just because you seem to have a relationship at first run through the data doesnt mean there actually IS one!


Cheers

Sorry, that is just repeating your assertion. Can you provide e.g. a journal paper or even a reference to one that identifies a fundamental flaw in GCMs. I know your opinion, because I read it the first time. What I am asking for is some evidence to back up your opinion.

BTW, weather noise is larger in magnitude than climate trends, so "minor background noise (localised chaotic events)" sounds rather incongruous in this discussion. Also there have been studies where the observed effect of Pinatubo was compared with the GCM model prediction, and the results showed the models had useful skill (although of course not perfect).

To the contrary YOU are the one putting the concept (along with others) it is YOUR responsibility to show where the criticisms are baseless,

Sorry that is not how science works. You can't prove anything using observations, only corroborate or disprove (see e.g. work of Popper). However, unless you can provide evidence of a specific fundamental flaw, the criticism is too vague to expect a refutation.

TB Has just done so above, there is no need for two of us to be replicating the same data (boring in the extreme).

And as I have already said, GCMs are known to be unable to accurately reproduce station data and provided an URL for an article on RealClimate that explains why. So all TB provided was a paper that confirms that GCMs are not very good at doing something the modellers say the models cannot be expected to be good at.

And there you have it the Admission the brightest best minds (allegedly) on the planet, really have no clue what is happening and what may or may not happen,

Cheers

It is nothing of the sort. The modellers are quite happy to discuss the things the models can and can't do. Oddly enough the projections are not based on things the modellers think the GCMs can't do.

OK you can see whats fundamentally wrong with this reposte cant you??


I take it logic still applies in Uni these days?


Cheers

The error in logic was yours. GCM projections are made on the synoptic not station scale, so the fact the the GCMs can't resolve station level is irrellevant to the discussion of GLOBAL climate change. So it is a logical error to treat a statement that GCMs can't predict station level data as an admission that the climatologists have no clue what is happening or may happen as it is the synoptic scale that is relevant.

[Apache]

you guys'll break the internet if you don't ease up on the nested quotes......plus I'm going boss eyed

[chris watton]

Guam said:

I am done with this arguement with Ludo as he is determined whatever I or others show to question the logic of his position he is sticking to it regardless

I respect the strength with which he holds his views, however it should be demonstrably obvious to most, how fallacious the presumptions are on his side of the debate

No more nesting on this thread I promise


Cheers



Tom

I suspect it may be a simple case of not wanting to bite the hand that feeds....

[RobPhoboS]

B.J.W said:

It is the very self obsessed ignorance that marks us out as the most parasitic species to have ever lived on this planet. I also think that we have delusions of grandeur in regard to our longetivity on Earth. Things will go on just fine long after we have left the building.

+1

[turbobloke]

Guam said:

ludo . . .whatever I or others show to question the logic of his position he is sticking to it regardless

This demonstrates beyond all doubt that the epithet 'True Believer' is very apt and in no way related to the oft-claimed ad hominem approach favoured by the very same True Believers.

It IS truly held belief - beyond the nature and rational analysis of global climate data which refutes MMGWT.

There's also the stonewall attrition cycle tactic to be amazed at, the staying power of the deluded eh.

[Blib]

ludo said:

The projections of future climate are indeed based on model output, however, there isn't really any other way of making objective forecasts.

Ludo, let us cut to the chase here.

You admit above that the dire projections that dominate the media at the moment are 'based on model output'.

I would suggest that you would agree that we have by no means a complete understanding of the parameters that control our planet's climate. Nor their interactions.

Therefore, the models are generating projections using incomplete data. How can you serious expect laymen such as myself to take these projections seriously?

Shirley, the thing to do is:

Not make any objective forcasts based on incomplete data?

Or at least, make none without a strong caveat attached to each and every one. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen. Instead, we get prominent scientists who announce that 'The debate is over'.

It beggars belief, it really does.

[ludo]

Blib said:

ludo said:

The projections of future climate are indeed based on model output, however, there isn't really any other way of making objective forecasts.

Ludo, let us cut to the chase here.

You admit above that the dire projections that dominate the media at the moment are 'based on model output'.

No, the model projections suggest mild warming, the dire predictions come from events in the tails of the distributions, so they are things that are plausible given the model, but not likely. A distinction normally lost on the media.

Blib said:

I would suggest that you would agree that we have by no means a complete understanding of the parameters that control our planet's climate. Nor their interactions.

Therefore, the models are generating projections using incomplete data. How can you serious expect laymen such as myself to take these projections seriously?

There is a branch of mathematics for making inferences from incomplete/uncertain information. It is called statistics, it has very well understood foundations and had been used successfully in many applications. Why should climatology be any different.

Blib said:

Shirley, the thing to do is:

Not make any objective forcasts based on incomplete data?

If you were to do that, nobody would ever be able to make any predictions regarding the physical world, as knowledge will always be incomplete.

Blib said:

Or at least, make none without a strong caveat attached to each and every one. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen. Instead, we get prominent scientists who announce that 'The debate is over'.

Try looking at the scientific litterature, you will find it replete with caveats (e.g. that GCMs can't give predictions at station level, they also provide error bars showing the uncertainty of the predictions - which are often very broad). The media however ignore these as (a) they make the story more complicated and (b) they make the story less interesting/contraversial.

[nigelfr]

turbobloke said:

ludo said:

I am not telling anyone how to behave, I am discussing the science.

Hardly, that website you linked to a page or so back was loaded with tendentious crap mixed in with the occasional blatant untruth, it hoped the reader would be propagandised already so not spurprising you go there.

hairykrishna said:

There's no point denying it. If you disagree with the all knowing Turbobloke and dare to suggest that you agree with the vast majority of people who actually study the climate full time then you obviously must be some kind of lentil munching hippy.

Vast majority eh, ask nigelfr about the Schulte litsearch he should just about have got on top of that by now.

Excuse me, but if you are consistent, you agreed the research was bungled and now you're claiming it as support!!!????

nigelfr said:

turbobloke said:

nigelfr said:

Hey update. Schulte did get published in the end: you can find his paper here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...

Check out his search method. Coud you do better?

Irrelevant.

His method was prescribed - he followed the methodology of Naomi Oreskes whose bungled litsearch he was updating. Which you knew but forgot to mention, right?

But you really do take the biscuit: if there is scientific concensus on AGW, then according to you that is meaningless, but as soon as some "bungled" research shows there may not be concensus, it is meaningful.

Can you please take a stand and stick with it?

[Jasandjules]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496...-theories.h...

Climate has changed quickly before shock.. Before we had cars....

[nigelfr]

Guam said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

ludo said:

ludo said:

Guam said:

Agreed the localised chaotic effects due to micro climate impacts will average out across the data. However the fundamental flaws remain in both modelling excercises do they not

So you would agree that predicting the climate should be easier than predicting the weather (as the chaotic element is not relevant)?

The models are approximations, there is a good deal of uncertainty over the details, but I have not read anything in the litterature pointing out fundamental flaws. Perhaps you could give some examples?

Good lord man I have repeatedly you cannot forecast with any degree of certainty (extrapolate if you will) where ALL the variables are not fully understood, nor their impacts fully understood, Solar Variation for example, EVEN if you average out the minor background noise (localised chaotic events) you cannot as yet forecast accurately what toonage of CO2 will result in what degree of warming or its abscense and the converse. Those are just two, when a major event (vulcanism) occurs what degree of theoretical change in the climate occurs and how sustained will it be, and to what degree (up or down) will it mask the trend?

The same inherent rational flaws as in Weather forecasting (just the variables may differ).

Comes back to Spurious correlation in raw statistical analysis, just because you seem to have a relationship at first run through the data doesnt mean there actually IS one!


Cheers

Sorry, that is just repeating your assertion. Can you provide e.g. a journal paper or even a reference to one that identifies a fundamental flaw in GCMs. I know your opinion, because I read it the first time. What I am asking for is some evidence to back up your opinion.

BTW, weather noise is larger in magnitude than climate trends, so "minor background noise (localised chaotic events)" sounds rather incongruous in this discussion. Also there have been studies where the observed effect of Pinatubo was compared with the GCM model prediction, and the results showed the models had useful skill (although of course not perfect).

To the contrary YOU are the one putting the concept (along with others) it is YOUR responsibility to show where the criticisms are baseless, the huge bulk of the information out there is stemming from the same sources (as TB has aptly illustrated) to date you have failed to show me where I am wrong, and TB has already posted the technical issues that are flawing the modells.

What another poster mentioned above is a reasonable proposition, except where "home" is a constantly moving caravan, then the drunk could never get there because HOME is an unknown constant. To assume that the models can be predictive you would have to know what true ecological balance is. Is it where we are now, is it the climate condition when the Dinosaurs roamed, or is the climatic Norm for Northern Europe the Little Ice Age?

Where is home?

Add that to the factor that the time it takes the drunk to get to "home" wherever that is, will be dependent on the route chosen and the degree of intoxication. So as we cant know the degree of intoxication as well as where Home is, we cannot forecast with certainty when he will get there or whether he will arrive there at all!!


That in a nutshell is the problem with this arguement.


Cheers


Tom

It's an analogy: the time he gets home is supposed to represent the amount of global warming. And the variables are included in the model as, well, variables,
that means when you know them you put them in the model.
Let's make this really simple: one variable is the time he leaves the pub, suppose he's always home before 11.30 in the past,because he leaves the pub at 11.00. One night he falls asleep in the loo and wakes up at midnight. This is the data that you put in the model as the variable "time he left pub" and you won't be surprised if the ETA is a lot later than 11.30.

Get it now? Got to dash: if you're still confused about models and analogies, I'll be back later.

[mybrainhurts]

ludo said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.

Biased fudge springs to mind here.

I was a young man in the seventies and read the hype with interest.

I remember names being named, but can't remember the names.

If there were no consensus, where were the voices of dissent? I heard none. Why was that? In those days, science was not mired in the present day hysterical suppression of dissent.

Odd, don't you think?

Have you checked their sources, old boy..?

So in the seventies, were you reading the primary scientific litterature or were you reading the reports in the media? It was an invention of the media, the survery of the primary scientific litterature of the time shows it was a misrepresentation of the balance of opinion. If you want to disprove that, feel free to do your own survey of the scientific journals of the seventies and get back to us.

You have it arse about face there, old boy. You're making the claim, you support it, please.

My comment stands. Why was there no voice of criticism from the scientific community when the media "invented" the story?

[ludo]

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.

Biased fudge springs to mind here.

I was a young man in the seventies and read the hype with interest.

I remember names being named, but can't remember the names.

If there were no consensus, where were the voices of dissent? I heard none. Why was that? In those days, science was not mired in the present day hysterical suppression of dissent.

Odd, don't you think?

Have you checked their sources, old boy..?

So in the seventies, were you reading the primary scientific litterature or were you reading the reports in the media? It was an invention of the media, the survery of the primary scientific litterature of the time shows it was a misrepresentation of the balance of opinion. If you want to disprove that, feel free to do your own survey of the scientific journals of the seventies and get back to us.

You have it arse about face there, old boy. You're making the claim, you support it, please.

Have already, with a study in a peer reviewed journal. Given the nature of the paper, peer review would have included verifying the references discussed in the paper. If an unopposed peer reviewed study, that you can't refute, doesn't count as support, it suggests that you don't have an open mind on this one.

mybrainhurts said:

My comment stands. Why was there no voice of criticism from the scientific community when the media "invented" the story?

The media didn't invent the story that an ice age was approaching, just that there was a scientific consensus agreeing with that viewpoint. The scientists of the time probably didn't see the need to make a big fuss becuase (a) it was still considered plausible at the time and (b) they didn't regard it worth getting involved with as the science was discussed in the journals not the media (remember this was the days before the politicisation of the debate).

If a scientist posted a letter to newsweek and they had printed it on their letters page (a) would you have noticed it and (b) would you have remembered it?

[Saskia7]

Climate change has always happened and will always be. The dinosaurs were wiped out by it and man wasn't around then. I hope the guy that decided 'Climate Change' was a good public tax reason got a huge payout...best reason ever for a pay raise in my book. They'll be getting those extra taxes of us for years to come..

[mybrainhurts]

ludo said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.

Biased fudge springs to mind here.

I was a young man in the seventies and read the hype with interest.

I remember names being named, but can't remember the names.

If there were no consensus, where were the voices of dissent? I heard none. Why was that? In those days, science was not mired in the present day hysterical suppression of dissent.

Odd, don't you think?

Have you checked their sources, old boy..?

So in the seventies, were you reading the primary scientific litterature or were you reading the reports in the media? It was an invention of the media, the survery of the primary scientific litterature of the time shows it was a misrepresentation of the balance of opinion. If you want to disprove that, feel free to do your own survey of the scientific journals of the seventies and get back to us.

You have it arse about face there, old boy. You're making the claim, you support it, please.

Have already, with a study in a peer reviewed journal. Given the nature of the paper, peer review would have included verifying the references discussed in the paper. If an unopposed peer reviewed study, that you can't refute, doesn't count as support, it suggests that you don't have an open mind on this one.

This is where you and I have different views. Your absolute faith in peer reviewers is lost on me. I simply do not trust any scientist in the light of the mendacious activities of some. How can I trust their integrity?

ludo said:

mybrainhurts said:

My comment stands. Why was there no voice of criticism from the scientific community when the media "invented" the story?

The media didn't invent the story that an ice age was approaching, just that there was a scientific consensus agreeing with that viewpoint. The scientists of the time probably didn't see the need to make a big fuss becuase (a) it was still considered plausible at the time and (b) they didn't regard it worth getting involved with as the science was discussed in the journals not the media (remember this was the days before the politicisation of the debate).

If a scientist posted a letter to newsweek and they had printed it on their letters page (a) would you have noticed it and (b) would you have remembered it?

Sorry, I guess your statement that "It was an invention of the media" must have confused me.

I don't buy it. If I were a climate scientist and saw the media invent a story about an imaginery consensus, I would scream from the rooftops. I'm sure they would have done, too.

Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 4th August 18:12

[ludo]

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.

Biased fudge springs to mind here.

I was a young man in the seventies and read the hype with interest.

I remember names being named, but can't remember the names.

If there were no consensus, where were the voices of dissent? I heard none. Why was that? In those days, science was not mired in the present day hysterical suppression of dissent.

Odd, don't you think?

Have you checked their sources, old boy..?

So in the seventies, were you reading the primary scientific litterature or were you reading the reports in the media? It was an invention of the media, the survery of the primary scientific litterature of the time shows it was a misrepresentation of the balance of opinion. If you want to disprove that, feel free to do your own survey of the scientific journals of the seventies and get back to us.

You have it arse about face there, old boy. You're making the claim, you support it, please.

Have already, with a study in a peer reviewed journal. Given the nature of the paper, peer review would have included verifying the references discussed in the paper. If an unopposed peer reviewed study, that you can't refute, doesn't count as support, it suggests that you don't have an open mind on this one.

This is where you and I have different views. Your absolute faith in peer reviewers is lost on me. I simply do not trust any scientist in the light of the mendacious activities of some. How can I trust their integrity?

O.K., so you distrust scientists, meaning you can ignore any evidence that you don't like. No point in discussing a scientific topic with you any further then. I am a scientist, and know that scientists are just like everyone else, most are very honest and have a high degree of integrity, some are not. The errors in the science still generally get caught in peer review or in the subsequent litterature whether the mistakes are genuine or not.

BTW, I don't have absolute trust in peer review, mistakes get made, but it is the best system that science has come up with, so it gives more reliable support than anything else available.

mybrainhurts said:

ludo said:

mybrainhurts said:

My comment stands. Why was there no voice of criticism from the scientific community when the media "invented" the story?

The media didn't invent the story that an ice age was approaching, just that there was a scientific consensus agreeing with that viewpoint. The scientists of the time probably didn't see the need to make a big fuss becuase (a) it was still considered plausible at the time and (b) they didn't regard it worth getting involved with as the science was discussed in the journals not the media (remember this was the days before the politicisation of the debate).

If a scientist posted a letter to newsweek and they had printed it on their letters page (a) would you have noticed it and (b) would you have remembered it?

Sorry, I guess your statement that "It was an invention of the media" must have confused me.

I don't buy it. If I were a climate scientist and saw the media invent a story about an imaginery consensus, I would scream from the rooftops. I'm sure they would have done, too.

Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 4th August 18:12

I don't think it was explicitly mentioned that there was a concensus at the time, just that only one side of the debate was getting mentioned in the media (from what I recall), giving the implicit impression that there was some consensus (especially retrospectively).

[turbobloke]

Nested quotes get a short break - having been reminded of this website response from an IPCC Reviewer and Editorial Board Member of Energy & Environment, namely Richard Courtney:

IPCC Reviewer said:

Both Peter Dietze and Onar Am dispute my statement that "man-made global warming is a physical impossibility", but Peter Dietze indicates that he recognises my meaning. I am pleased to clarify the matter. I did mean that man-made global warming would be much smaller than natural fluctuations in global temperature and, therefore, it would be physically impossible to detect the man-made global warming. Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas. Similarly, the global warming from man's emissions of greenhouse gases would be too small to be detected. Indeed, for reasons I have repeatedly reported, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a real existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection). Perhaps I should have been pedantic and said "Real man-made global warming is a physical impossibility".

Note that RC is referring to localised warming when discussing cities (the UHIE) and not global warming i.e. a visible signal in global climate data - which doesn't exist. MMGW only has an abstract existence and is not 'real' - absolutely correct, scientifically correct. It has not been observed, and at this stage will not be, barring an event of the magnitude of a nuclear holocaust. In effect, it does not exist, it cannot be measured and will never be.

[mybrainhurts]

ludo said:

O.K., so you distrust scientists, meaning you can ignore any evidence that you don't like.

Yes, I thought you'd come back with such a comment, but that's not my motive.

It's like politicians...one lies and I don't trust the rest. That's the way it is, they've blown it for me, sorry.