Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[technoextreme]

Please state the number of degrees of freedom in these empirical tests.

Then state the number of degrees of freedom in climate models.

Then pick 1 or 2:

1. I erred, car tests are not similar
2. Continue with Alinsky's suggestion to use argument by ridicule

Errrr.... You forgot three. They have the same degrees of freedom. Come on man. I can rattle off a list longer than the ones Poptech whines that the mods censor.

 

[aleCcowaN]

LMAO! It must be nice to just keep adjusting your model as it fails over and over and over and then declare victory after each adjustment! This has to be the biggest scam in the history of science.

You can't answer this to all the careful explanations that Wowbagger addressed to you and say that you act based on good faith. You obviously act with ill faith by using a phrase that looks like just slipped to you by an attorney "just keep adjusting your model as it fails over and over and over and then declare victory" no matter you don't assert who have this done if somebody, just to add "this has to be the biggest scam in history" what refers grammatically to your phrase and not the models. It looks that you are coached by an attorney all the time but you must be a natural in the art of manipulation. You put it as if it were happened. But you carefully avoid asserting that somebody behind a real model purposely took new data, changed the model and predicted past events erasing previous predictions, as you would be in trouble. But your innuendos are just that and you're saying nothing but pose as you were saying something serious about real climate models. Do you think we are so gullible? Really? Don't be succinct, elaborate on that!

I suggest you to correct the wrong implications in the quote above or give names or rewrite it as a personal perception with the identity of the perpetrators. Or you can say "I suspect this..." and we'll answer "stay calm, it's not that way". Also get used to ergo and q.e.d., as LMAO! is not a logical conjunction but a cliché you aim to others to cover up the "induced" in your inferences.

 

[Wowbagger]

All of the computer climate models.

Name one where it is clearly demonstrated that it lacks validation. (and is also being actively used to influence policy.)

No the IPCC is an example. All of their conclusions of AGW require computer climate models.

... and also backed up by empirical studies. Their list publications demonstrate that! As you look through them, you will find a comprehensive mix of computer models and raw empirical data.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm

They are NOT basing their conclusions solely on computer models, they are using models as a tool to help experiment with, tweak, and verify their conclusions.

If you think this is not the case empirically prove AGW without using computer climate models.

I can show you the "hockey-stick" graph, again; or that animation of the Earth turning red based on temperature data (not models), but I know you will dismiss those as out of hand, somehow.

To stay on topic, I will show you some papers the IPCC references, that are not about computer models, to demonstrate AGW:

* A technical paper on Climate Change and Water: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...technical_papers_climate_change_and_water.htm
Note, in particular, chapter 2: "Observed and projected changes in climate as they relate to water"
ETA: Some computer projections are used, here. But, you will notice that they are backed up with actual observations. They are not trusting the models all by themselves.

* Another technical paper on biodiversity and climate change: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-changes-biodiversity-en.pdf
Note, in particular, chapter 3: "Observed Changes in Climate"

* A paper describing a meeting on carbon stocks, and human influence on them: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/ipcc-meeting-2003-07.pdf
You will note that the entire meeting focused on empirical evidence and statistical models of that data. Not computer projections.

* A workshop on changes in extreme weather, that focuses on empirical assessment, not models: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/ipcc-workshop-2002-06.pdf

Those are just a few.

It might not convince you that AGW is real. But, at least it demonstrates that the IPCC is not basing their ideas solely on models.

LMAO! It must be nice to just keep adjusting your model as it fails over and over and over and then declare victory after each adjustment! This has to be the biggest scam in the history of science.

I politely remind you that...

your precious empirical models are also adjusted in the same way!

LMAO! What do you think a good scientist is supposed to do?! Insist that his model is definitive, and that it is the real world that is often wrong?!

 

[Poptech]

But you carefully avoid asserting that somebody behind a real model purposely took new data, changed the model and predicted past events erasing previous predictions, as you would be in trouble. But your innuendos are just that and you're saying nothing but pose as you were saying something serious about real climate models. Do you think we are so gullible? Really? Don't be succinct, elaborate on that!

There is no such thing as predicting past events. Prediction has to do with the future. You don't even understand the definition of common words. Matching past events is nothing more then model tuning. Apparently you are gullible as the models fail to predict the future and are constantly adjusted for these failures. That is the scam, whether it is done consciously or unconsciously is another matter.

 

[Wangler]

Yes. The term "validate" in computer simulation and modeling is the same that that used in general science: Back-checking with the real world data; predicting future trends, (and adjusting as the future deviates from initial predictions); demonstrating consistency with other well-established theories, models, and other lines of investigation; working with well-understood variables and risk assessment; etc.

In addition, there is often multiple platform implementation which helps remove errors caused by differences in CPU mathematics, etc.

Did I miss anything important, that you believe the computer model builders would miss?

One obvious difference between the validation that can be performed on car crash simulations and climate simulations:

With a car crash simulation, we can build code based upon our our theories of elastic and plastic deformation of engineering materials, and our understanding of basic kinematics. We then apply our understanding of how a car is put together to make a simulation of a crash into a wall, for example. We can build test cases that resemble numerous previous actual crash tests, and measure deformations and forces in our model compared to deformations and forces in the actual crash tests. If we are satisfied with our model's performance, we can then begin simulations of changes to auto construction methods or materials, or check different crash scenarios. We now have a very useful tool.

If we are ever in doubt as to our model's performance in any simulation of some new crash scenario, we can always build the physical model and run an actual test, and compare our simulated results to the real test.

For a climate model, we again use our knowledge of physical processes to build the model. However, you don't have the library of results from actual cases to test a model against, only a single one (past climate history, of which there is only one), so you are perhaps limited in the robustness of the validation that could be done in that manner.

Please state the number of degrees of freedom in these empirical tests.

Then state the number of degrees of freedom in climate models.

Degrees of freedom depend upon model construction, of course.

How many "nodes" are used in each model mesh? How many DOF are assigned to each node?

For the car crash, you have displacement and rotations in three axes, possibly other DOF as well.

For the climate model, you have perhaps wind velocity vectors, and other scalars, such as temperature and what not.

I think you could probably build both car and climate models have have hundreds to millions of DOF.

 

[aleCcowaN]

There is no such thing as predicting past events. Prediction has to do with the future. You don't even understand the definition of common words. Matching past events is nothing more then model tuning. Apparently you are gullible as the models fail to predict the future and are constantly adjusted for these failures. That is the scam, whether it is done consciously or unconsciously is another matter.

You may be desperate. Addressing me saying that I don't know something you and me know clearly I know is just a way to irritate and the kind of smoke curtain you like to deviate the attention from your previous mistakes, no matter how many new mistakes you do. Hook not bitten!

You are making a whole story from the way everybody should work. And you are making it on the fly. Why don't you describe exactly how models are done -not the internals, the scope- and how they are corrected and why? If you can discard models you surely should know their fundamentals. Unless you only have a big mouth.

 

[Wowbagger]

For a climate model, we again use our knowledge of physical processes to build the model. However, you don't have the library of results from actual cases to test a model against, only a single one (past climate history, of which there is only one), so you are perhaps limited in the robustness of the validation that could be done in that manner.

I agree the "library of results" is more limited. But, at least it is a library rich with a wide variety of circumstances, in a wide variety of locations, to examine against.

And, at least we have it, and are using it. It would be kinda stupid to ignore, when building a model.

And, I also remind everyone that it is growing, not shrinking. For whatever little that is worth.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The "12 rules for radicals" is a set of tactics to use in place of rational argument with logical premises, assertions and conclusions.

Thanks. I had absolutely no idea about the content of the book until just now when you explained it to me.

It describes well the methods of radical Warmers who Must Save the Planet. I could as well simply note an argument from ridicule was a false argument. But Warmers as evidenced on these forums use a variety of false arguments,all of which are described in the "12 rules".

Your reeking, tatterred shoe fits.

Wear it proudly.

My offer to purchase you a sense of irony still stands whenever you want to take me up on it.

 

[Dancing David]

Um, there is data which suggests that there has been an overall increase in temperatures across the globe, this is independant of the models that try to predict future trends in climate change. So there is data, even used by the dreaded IPCC which is just data, and it is not involved in models of future climate. It seems to indicate that there has been an overall increase in temperatures since the advent of industrial production and economies of scale using fossil feuls.

Deny, dismiss, delay.

Smoking and asbestos do not cause cancer.

 

[Poptech]

Name one where it is clearly demonstrated that it lacks validation. (and is also being actively used to influence policy.)

None of them have been remotely validated! None have been run, the results saved and then compared to future empirical data. Hindcasting is not validation. They are instead updated with the absurd assumption that previous versions were just not "close enough". The simple problem is it is impossible to determine the accuracy of a model at any version.

... and also backed up by empirical studies. Their list publications demonstrate that! As you look through them, you will find a comprehensive mix of computer models and raw empirical data.

None of the empirical data proves AGW, that requires the models. The empirical data suggest evidence of climate change not AGW.

I can show you the "hockey-stick" graph, again; or that animation of the Earth turning red based on temperature data (not models), but I know you will dismiss those as out of hand, somehow.

The Hockey Stick graph is a complete fraud!

"Simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely valid on this particular point." - Hans von Storch, Ph.D. Climate Statistics Specialist

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics, April 4, 2005)

Hockey Stick - What is Normal? (Video) (8min)

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)

"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape"

To stay on topic, I will show you some papers the IPCC references, that are not about computer models, to demonstrate AGW:

Nope none of those support AGW without the computer climate models. Those are just more evidence of climate change.

your precious empirical models are also adjusted in the same way!

LMAO! What do you think a good scientist is supposed to do?! Insist that his model is definitive, and that it is the real world that is often wrong?!

You need to define the word model here as there are many definitions. I am only speaking of computer climate simulations.

 

[Poptech]

You may be desperate. Addressing me saying that I don't know something you and me know clearly I know is just a way to irritate and the kind of smoke curtain you like to deviate the attention from your previous mistakes, no matter how many new mistakes you do. Hook not bitten!

"predicting past climate" doesn't make any sense as the word prediction refers to the future.

You are making a whole story from the way everybody should work. And you are making it on the fly. Why don't you describe exactly how models are done -not the internals, the scope- and how they are corrected and why? If you can discard models you surely should know their fundamentals. Unless you only have a big mouth.

Yes software development needs to follow a baseline SQA procedure and the computer climate models need to be independently audited. The REAL software development word has evolved beyond hack scientists half ass plugging in formulas, compiling and getting crap to run. I am familiar with software development outside and inside government or university supported worlds. Governments and Universities were the absolute worst. But understanding how these models were developed requires being there during the development process (something I was not). I do know from Gavin they are a mess.

"These codes are what they are - the result of 30 years and more effort by dozens of different scientists (note, not professional software engineers), around a dozen different software platforms and a transition from punch-cards of Fortran 66, to fortran 95 on massively parallel systems. [...] No complex code can ever be proven 'true' (let alone demonstrated to be bug free). Thus publications reporting GCM results can only be suggestive." - Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.org

Knowing the limitations of computer systems allows me to discard quantitative computer climate models.

 

[Wowbagger]

You need to define the word model here as there are many definitions. I am only speaking of computer climate simulations.

What I wrote about applies to all types of science models: both computer climate simulations... and conclusions from purely empirical studies.

Specifically, I am referring to this comment of mine:

predicting future trends, (and adjusting as the future deviates from initial predictions);

It is the very nature of the scientific method, that models (both computer and empirical) have to be adjusted as new data comes in.

But, you seem to think empirical studies are special. That only they can achieve some sort of level of accuracy, that they never need to be refined or adjusted, that computers could never imitate. I am afraid reality is quite different.

I know it is a shock and a blow to your sensitivities, but science is never 100% perfect. Not in the lab, not in the field, and not in the computer. But, at least one of those three is cheaper and easier to manipulate, experiment with, and improve upon, over time; so it still makes a valuable tool.

If climatologists did not have computer models, they would have to work out all of their complicated equations by hand, which would be long and laborious, and even more prone to error.

But, your feelings are probably not really about computer models anyway. I suspect you are merely afraid that AGW is some conspiracy to allow a bunch of elitists to take control over people, or something.

If it truly was the models you were afraid of, you would have given me some examples, by now.

 

[aleCcowaN]

"predicting past climate" doesn't make any sense as the word prediction refers to the future.

I'm glad you acknowledged it! I will quote this next time you try to infer otherwise.

[white noise]

Read again my words and answer what I asked. I can imagine your opinion, I don't need you to address all that.

I asked about what they say -the people who elaborate and validate the model-. The scope is declared there, not by you telling what are you willing to believe, or the reasons you believe it.

If you have a hard time understanding it, suppose the models are a camera: I'm asking you what reads in the data sheet of that camera, not why you would never buy it and least of all what your friend Waldo told you about that camera being a crap.

Knowing the limitations of computer systems allows me to discard quantitative computer climate models.

Yet you seem to know any limitation in your own person in order to reason.

You have a not much shared opinion about something. Your opinion is noticed. Why adding your circumstantial reasons? Certainly you may allow yourself many things, but things don't allow you anything that might be an argument in a logical discussion. The patient may have a flu because he has a fever, chills and a runny nose, not because you're an MD and say so.

 

[mhaze]

Errrr.... You forgot three. They have the same degrees of freedom. Come on man. I can rattle off a list longer than the ones Poptech whines that the mods censor.

No.

Asserting that they have the same degrees of freedom is an argument from ignorance. What you can rattle off is irrelevant unless it ties into the discussion.

So you don't understand degrees of freedom, and you don't understand the meaning of validate as it applies to computer models.

Google is your friend.

Um, there is data which suggests that there has been an overall increase in temperatures across the globe, this is independant of the models that try to predict future trends in climate change. ....

Poptech has shown uncertainties in some of the sources of such temperature data, you appear to err in thinking that (even if there was a 100% proven) increase in temperature of 0.6C from 1900 to present, that is proof of man affecting climate.

The argument being made is that the "proof of man affecting climate" is strictly via computer modeling.

A knowledgable Warmer should argue that this is true, and that the models are correct, that it doesn't matter that they are not validated, and ignore contrary evidence of their not predicting the 1990 on flattening/downturning of temperatures.

Thanks. I had absolutely no idea about the content of the book until just now when you explained it to me.....

No problem. It just happens that numerous of the fallacious arguments that Warmers make are in fact in Saul Alinsky's 12 rules for radicals. I'd be happy to use some other reference for illogic if and when appropriate. When the same illogical replies occur over and over, seems like someone should point it out.

 

[Wangler]

So there is data, even used by the dreaded IPCC which is just data, and it is not involved in models of future climate. It seems to indicate that there has been an overall increase in temperatures since the advent of industrial production and economies of scale using fossil feuls.

Don't we also have data showing that there has been an overall increase since the little ice age?

 

[mhaze]

...To stay on topic, I will show you some papers the IPCC references, that are not about computer models, to demonstrate AGW:.....They are not trusting the models all by themselves.

Other sections of the IPCC reports might be called in to support your case, but these do not.

* Another technical paper on biodiversity and climate change: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-changes-biodiversity-en.pdf
Note, in particular, chapter 3: "Observed Changes in Climate"

* A paper describing a meeting on carbon stocks, and human influence on them: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/ipcc-meeting-2003-07.pdf
You will note that the entire meeting focused on empirical evidence and statistical models of that data. Not computer projections.

Somehow a discussion about carbon cycle proves AGW? No, it is an effort to show the extent to which man has contributed to the carbon content of the atmosphere.

From the paper:

Quantification of the direct human effects on past and present disturbance regime changes has not yet been demonstrated at the spatial scales needed for analyses at landscape or country levels. It may not be possible with current techniques to factor out the interaction of changes in disturbance regimes from other effects on carbon fluxes.

* A workshop on changes in extreme weather, that focuses on empirical assessment, not models: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/ipcc-workshop-2002-06.pdf

Those are just a few....it demonstrates that the IPCC is not basing their ideas solely on models....

If you had read this report, you would note that it voices several of the same concerns that Poptech has raised (which you ridiculed, if I recall correctly):

• The current decline in the coverage of in situ networks is of grave concern.
• The importance of activities such as quality control (that does not throw out real extremes), careful homogenization to account for instrument and site changes, and data rescue to digitize records that are still in paper form, cannot be overstated
• Equally crucial is the free and open exchange of data.

Is a workshop which focuses on examining the relationship between changing climate and extreme weather proof of AGW?

No.

 

[Poptech]

What I wrote about applies to all types of science models: both computer climate simulations... and conclusions from purely empirical studies.

That is not what I asked, I asked for the definition of model you used.

But, you seem to think empirical studies are special. That only they can achieve some sort of level of accuracy, that they never need to be refined or adjusted, that computers could never imitate. I am afraid reality is quite different.

They are more accurate because the laboratory is 100% real. Computers cannot accurately immitate reality for future predictions.

I know it is a shock and a blow to your sensitivities, but science is never 100% perfect. Not in the lab, not in the field, and not in the computer. But, at least one of those three is cheaper and easier to manipulate, experiment with, and improve upon, over time; so it still makes a valuable tool.

You constant confusion is not understanding the difference between the laboratory and the experiment.

If climatologists did not have computer models, they would have to work out all of their complicated equations by hand, which would be long and laborious, and even more prone to error.

So? It would be just as much a waste of time.

But, your feelings are probably not really about computer models anyway. I suspect you are merely afraid that AGW is some conspiracy to allow a bunch of elitists to take control over people, or something.

Here we go back the JREF smears. This same tired nonsense is getting REAL old.

If it truly was the models you were afraid of, you would have given me some examples, by now.

I am not afraid of models. Why would I be afraid of something that is a joke? I actually think it is hillarious massive amounts of computer illiterates are suckers. AGW exists due to computer illiteracy.

 

[technoextreme]

No.

Asserting that they have the same degrees of freedom is an argument from ignorance.

And you are invoking the same fallacy.

It describes well the methods of radical Warmers who Must Save the Planet. I could as well simply note an argument from ridicule was a false argument. But Warmers as evidenced on these forums use a variety of false arguments,all of which are described in the "12 rules".

Your reeking, tatterred shoe fits.

Wear it proudly.

As I said before I don't do this because I have some self righteous argument. I just like arguing with the idiots of the world. Its fun.

They are more accurate because the laboratory is 100% real. Computers cannot immitate reality.

As I have said before that is a stupid stupid argument. You would think that large mechanical models that move about wouldn't be a good model for electromagnetic radiation.

I am not afraid of models. Why would I be afraid of something that is a joke? I actually think it is hillarious massive amounts of computer illiterates are suckers. AGW exists due to computer illiteracy.

No. Your just a person who thinks that they know everything about modeling and has ended up contradicting every single application of it. Airplanes, cars, surgical equipment, and a bunch of other things in this whole world utilize computers in a manner that you think is impossible.

 

[Myriad]

Airplanes, cars, surgical equipment, and a bunch of other things in this whole world utilize computers in a manner that you think is impossible.

Not to mention economic models, which Poptech has claimed not to believe in and yet has repeatedly cited in support of his claims about the economic consequences of remediation measures.

In an honestly arrived at and honestly argued position, such contradictions do not arise.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Wowbagger]

Other sections of the IPCC reports might be called in to support your case, but these do not.

I was only trying to demonstrate that the IPCC does not solely rely on computer models.

The papers I linked to are full of empirical assessment.

What they prove or not is another debate.

My point is that the IPCC takes a comprehensive approach, that examines a mix of computer models and other things. That is all.

That is not what I asked, I asked for the definition of model you used.

A physical, mathematical, or logical representation of a system of entities, phenomena, or processes.

They are more accurate because the laboratory is 100% real.

First of all: Laboratory conditions can often differ from natural environments in important, overlooked ways. The history of science is littered with cases where something worked brilliantly in the lab, but failed miserably in the field.

Second of all: The conclusions drawn from lab and field studies are also models. They might not always be computer models. But, they are scientific models, and subject to the same corrections as computerized ones.

What is not clear about this?!

Computers cannot accurately immitate reality for future predictions.

Then you better go warn all the pilots-in-training that their flight simulators are not realistic enough!!

You constant confusion is not understanding the difference between the laboratory and the experiment.

I wonder if you are familiar with the basic gist of the scientific method. You seem to be confused between the discipline of knowledge acquisition and the development of theories. "Perfect" data in one does not necessarily result in "perfect" abstraction of the other.

So? It would be just as much a waste of time.

Then your empirical studies would also be equally wasted time.

Empirical studies, that you propose, are just like computer models, except that the math for the conclusions are not done by a computer.

AGW exists due to computer illiteracy.

By not providing any examples, you are not building a case that this is so.

In fact, it is worse than that: By not providing examples, you are not even demonstrating that you are literate in computer model development, at all.

Surely, an experienced expert such as you can do better than that!