Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Wowbagger]

You can't

Then why have we already learned so much about climate, while using them? (Even if they are not perfect.)

And how is one supposed to heal cancer, if needed? Is that a smart question at all?

We can model cancer. And, we can test some hypothetical strategies for healing the disease, using those models. Which, I might add, is something virtually all cancer research centers are doing. Success is slow, but far from non-existant.

 

[shadron]

Perusing the Pilkeys' article that PopTech displayed above, it is evident that they agree with PopTech. They specifically eschew any use of mathematical modeling, particularly when it impinges on public administration. It would seem to me that this almost borders on the philosophy of the IDers, as they want, like ID, to remove science as an important facet in western culture, and go back to religion (or in this case, wishful thinking, which is the same thing). The Pelkeys use two examples in their paper, Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility and beach erosion. They recommend that, rather than use mathematical modeling to ameliorate these problems, to instead apply adaptive management, which means to react to problems as they occur. For instance, if your beach erodes, "...one could estimate how long an artificial beach will last based on how long nearby artificial beaches have lasted. Or the beach could just be replenished without arguments!". For the Yucca Mountain example, "Using adaptive management, for example, waste could be stored at Yucca Mountain with the understanding that it will be monitored, and the storage facilities might be modifi ed years and even centuries down the road if needed. Or the waste could be reused in power plants." Actually, that sounds reasonable to me - do you suppose the people of Nevada will sign on?

Interesting. How would that apply to global warming? I suppose "wait and see" about fills the bill, perhaps build a zoo for the polr bears, and build dikes as required. Oh, yes, learn how to live on less food.

 

[Poptech]

It would seem to me that this almost borders on the philosophy of the IDers, as they want, like ID, to remove science as an important facet in western culture, and go back to religion (or in this case, wishful thinking, which is the same thing)

This is so pathetic, I have yet to bring up ID (I fully support evolution theory), Pielke doesn't bring up ID, yet because we do not accept quantitative computer modeling as useful we of course want to reject all of science! So sad. Any logical person can see the tactics certain members here use when confronted with conflicting evidence for things they want to "believe in". I would call that religious.

The smear tactics are getting old.

 

[Herzblut]

We can model cancer. And, we can test some hypothetical strategies for healing the disease, using those models. Which, I might add, is something virtually all cancer research centers are doing. Success is slow, but far from non-existant.

I have no reason to doubt that. My point is that you should not base your decisions on unachievable data. It is a matter of fact that multi-decadal climate prediction is impossible (even short-term predictions are). Decisions should accept that uncertainty as a given reality.

 

[Wowbagger]

Let me put this another way:

Asking climatologists to ditch their computer models is a lot like asking airplane pilots to ditch their flight simulation machines, in favor of training in cardboard boxes.

And, climate-model deniers are a lot like two-year-olds in cardboard boxes yelling "Look at me! I'm an airplane pilot!"

 

[Wowbagger]

Decisions should accept that uncertainty as a given reality.

I agree. You'd be a pretty stupid decision maker not to.

 

[Myriad]

This is so pathetic, I have yet to bring up ID (I fully support evolution theory), Pielke doesn't bring up ID, yet because we do not accept quantitative computer modeling as useful we of course want to reject all of science!

On the contrary. I would have little difficulty believing that you would not actually refuse a cancer treatment that was based on computer modeling of your individual biochemistry, nor give up the computer models your financial advisers use to predict economic trends to guide your investments, nor the computer models of road conditions that your car dynamically creates and applies to improve its performance and safety. It's only when applying the results of a computer model would cost you money without benefiting you personally that you are infected with sudden ideological clarity about how meaningless they are. Is that a more accurate assessment of your position?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability (International Journal of Climatology)

This study was debunked by publication, which has been mentioned in several previous climate change threads and which I'm too lazy to look for, so I'll just post the media blurb:

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-10-05.html

ETA: The article mentions (HORROR!!!) errors and biases in measurement systems.

 

[Poptech]

Let me put this another way:

Asking climatologists to ditch their computer models is a lot like asking airplane pilots to ditch their flight simulation machines, in favor of training in cardboard boxes.

No flight simulators have no relation to computer climate models nor the results being achieved by using them. The cardboard box analogy is just idiotic. Try real world flight training vs simulation. Flight simulators can be real world tested to see if they match the flight dynamics of real aircraft. You cannot build a planet to test your climate model.

 

[Herzblut]

I agree. You'd be a pretty stupid decision maker not to.

Right. My hypothesis now is that the current decision making process does not apply the required amount of cautiousness in terms of estimated predictive capability.

 

[DogB]

According to GISS, June 2009 was 0.29 degC warmer than June 1999.

RSS and UAT would disagree.

 

[Poptech]

...so I'll just post the media blurb:

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-10-05.html

Yet when someone trys to reproduce these results we get the typical refusal to release their data:

Santer Refuses Data Request (Climate Audit)

Of which we have a long history with regarding climate alarm-ism.

"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" - Phil Jones, developer of the UN's IPCC temperature history, 2005

 

[Perpetual Student]

Poptech:

So, for the sake of argument let's concede that the models are flawed. What would you have us do? Ignore GW? Keep modeling until the models are better (to your satisfaction)? Is there no concern if we wait for better models, we may miss opportunities to act? Is there no concern that the earth may reach a disastrous threshold of CO₂, from which there is no return? What are your recommendations regarding AGW?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

RSS and UAT would disagree.

RSS showed a 0.181 degC increase in the lower troposphere and a 0.019 degC increase in the middle troposphere, if I correctly interpreted their tables.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Isn't this your 100th thread on this exact topic, Poptech?

Yes. When PT gets nailed in one thread, he/she simply runs off and starts a completely new thread on exactly the same topic.

I wish the Mods wouldn't let PT get away with this childish spamming of the Forum.

ETA: That said, this post sums up my criticism of PT's lame argument... we'll see if he/she ever actually bothers to address my question rather than moving the goalposts.

Originally Posted by Poptech
My argument was never about our understanding of the environment but whether the REAL world is 100% REAL or not, it is - virtual reality is not.

Actually, your original argument was about accuracy, and you claimed that computer climate models couldn't be trusted because they aren't 100% accurate in their predictive capabilities.

In fact, here are your statements to that effect...

Linky #1

Originally Posted by Poptech
My dismissal of the use of computer climate models for scientific conclusions, predictions and policy is based solely on computer science. The models are not a 100% perfect reproduction of the earth and all it contains in real time, therefore they cannot predict anything. I am just amazed at the lack of understanding people have with computer systems.

Linky #2

Originally Posted by Poptech
100% accuracy is required for relevant results. But weather models are tracking real time data and essentially just extrapolating basic weather movement, cloud cover, rain ect... Long term weather modeling is where it becomes laughable. Climate models are attempting to simulate the climate and give temperature projections 100 years from now. Total nonsense.

And I pinned you down on these arguments, because you kept going on about how we must rely only upon empirical experimentation and it was pointed out to you that not even empirical experimentation would ever be 100% accurate either. So if that's true, then why do you cast stones at a less than 100% computer modeling method but not at less than 100% accurate empirical experiments? You must address this logical inconsistency within your arguments, but to this point you refuse to do so.

Instead, now you are claiming that you never were discussing this, and you keep blathering on and on about the "100% REAL world" and similar nonsense.

Keep on running away, Poptech. You are destroying your credibility by acting in this manner. And because we can track the discussion, everyone here can see it. I'll make certain they do.

 

[macdoc]

A "network analyst" for a company does not = "computer scientist" working in research

Let alone any knowledge of earth sciences.....

The lack of understanding of even the basics is glaring.....
all that is evident is a Koolaid overdose gleaned from denier sites and right wing libby mindset....

No science there....only tiresome noise...

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Yet when someone trys to reproduce these results we get the typical refusal to release their data:

Santer Refuses Data Request (Climate Audit)

Once again, evidence that Poptech doesn't read the articles that he posts links to. The article clearly stated that all the data are available. For Santer (or any other researcher) to collect the data for ClimateAudit, he would have to either do it on his own time for free or charge the time that he spent to one of his grants (which would be a contract violation). I personally find Santer's reply amusing. He obviously knows that McIntyre wouldn't have a clue how to do the sort of analysis that was done in the paper.

 

[Wowbagger]

Flight simulators can be real world tested to see if they match the flight dynamics of real aircraft.

And, yet, they never are 100% accurate. Flight dynamics precision improves, over time. Sometimes genuine bugs are found in the code: both fundamental flaws and graphics glitches. Sometimes control layouts will be subtly different enough that the trainer's own muscle memory causes them to be used erroneously.

Should we dismiss flight simulation technology as useless, simply because it is never 100% accurate?

If we assume (for argument's sake) that all the flaws in the papers you linked to, were indeed genuine flaws in the models we are using: Guess what? We can change the models to correct for them! And, thus, the models would be even more accurate.

Even if they never reach 100% accuracy, they are still useful.

You cannot build a planet to test your climate model.

But, we can test their predictions on the planet we are living in, now:

* We can see if the model accurately extrapolates data from the more-recent-past using only data from the distant past.

* We can see how accurately the model makes predictions at several points in the future. If there is an increasing error rate, over time, we can investigate what is causing that. And, by doing so, we make new discoveries about things that affect the climate.

The models are all based on well-understood principals in climate dynamics, and the laws of physics. Accuracy ranges, in each of the principals used, are generally well understood by the scientists that use them.

Climate models are not magical "black boxes" that make simple assumptions. They are basically computer models of climatology concepts.

No flight simulators have no relation to computer climate models nor the results being achieved by using them.

So, in principal, this is wrong. The opposite is true, from the perspective of computer science: Climate models are models of the climate, just like flight sims. are models of flying.

And, I remind you that it is those computer scientists are continuing to make progress in problem solving. You know what does not make progress in problem solving? Something that is not a model.

Besides, if we did ditch the climate models, what would you replace them with?! What alternative tools are climatologists supposed to use to conduct their studies effectively and efficiently?!

You wouldn't ask pilots to train in cardboard boxes, would you?!

 

[CapelDodger]

Right. My hypothesis now is that the current decision making process does not apply the required amount of cautiousness in terms of estimated predictive capability.

What experiment do you propose to test that hypothesis?

 

[Poptech]

A "network analyst" for a company does not = "computer scientist" working in research

I did not say network analyst but computer analyst. I have fixed computer system related problems (software and hardware) for government organizations like the FAA in relation to their free flight program. I fixed computer system related issues (software and hardware) for universities in relation to various research programs such as long term storage of radioactive waste using ceramic containers ect... I've worked directly with research scientists, I know how they treat computer systems and the results they obtain from using them.