• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

Herzblut said:
Check out the very balanced and reasonable PDF article.
Click to expand...

Eh? You linked to a group that lobbies for specific political goals. You may as well link the Greenpeace we page and call it fair and balanced.
 
lomiller said:
Eh? You linked to a group that lobbies for specific political goals. You may as well link the Greenpeace we page and call it fair and balanced.
Click to expand...
I made a comment on the article, which I find excellent, not on the referring website.

More on the same article and related talks can, of course, be found on Climate Science:

http://climatesci.org/2009/07/15/tr...fluence-on-climate-at-the-marshall-institute/

I avoided to point to this scientific site because it was asked for a source "for someone who hasn't really been engaged in AGW debates up to now". And Pielke's own Climate Science website is actually pretty sophisticated - but worthwhile!

http://climatesci.org/
 
lomiller said:
With a climate model on the other hand, you simulate the underlying physics. This constraint reduces the degrees of freedom and makes the model a lot more reliable.
Click to expand...

Is everyone on the same page here, in regards to degrees of freedom (DOF)?

If each node of a global climate model is tracking temperature only, and you have one million nodes, you have one million degrees of freedom in the model.

If you track precipitation, cloud cover, aerosols or other data at each node, the model DOF will go up accordingly.
 
Another snip from macdoc's link:

"Q: How do I write a paper that proves that models are wrong?

Much more simply than you might think since, of course, all models are indeed wrong......"

What is going on? Arrgghhh!!!

:boggled:
 
Not sure who wrote it but it is correct....

All models are wrong, some models are useful

That's what is going on....

There is a dynamic tension in science between thesis and observation and the peer review of antithesis.

The model sits in the midst of this offering test bed between thesis and observation and indeed can "test" antithesis when the nature of the subject allows.

••

Don't compare economics ( essentially linguistically dressed up horsepucky - humans are not gas molecules) with models founded in physics.
Chaotic does not mean random.
There are regimes of stability in chaotic system when a new regime is reached.
The interaction of the various oceanic and atmospheric cycles with each other

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

This is the classic image of oscillating but organized in a chaotic system

180px-Lorenz_attractor_yb.svg.png


When new energy is inserted ( such as AGW ) the interacting systems have some resistance but will shift out of the stable mode at some point....this is the risk we face.....we don't know the resistance level and what any new stability regime will look like - the oscillations ( excursions ) could be much great ( ie a propensity for more or more powerful hurricanes - or it could be a mode in which hurricanes are lower probability due say to wind shear changes.)

Observation tends to discount the latter at this point in time, tends to point away from more hurricanes as well but point to more of the powerful storms resulting from the human induced input of energy into the global geo-systems.
 
Last edited:
aleCcowaN said:
How do you know you will shred them? You will shred them no matter how, you will shred them no matter what cat fighting technique you have to resort to, that's what you meant, did you?
Click to expand...
Focus. I know it is hard.

The subject is whether the IPCC relies only on inferences from computer modeling to "prove AGW" .

Google is your friend.
Wangler said:
Is everyone on the same page here, in regards to degrees of freedom (DOF)?

If each node of a global climate model is tracking temperature only, and you have one million nodes, you have one million degrees of freedom in the model.

If you track precipitation, cloud cover, aerosols or other data at each node, the model DOF will go up accordingly.
Click to expand...
I was wondering the same thing. It is an important point. There are subtlties but we are on the real simple side of it.

Alec, Wow, Mac , Capel - You guys understand this or should we dig into it a bit?
 
Last edited:
Wangler said:
Sorry, can't back you up, you are mistaken.

From macdoc's linky:

" As with weather forecasting models, the weather in a climate model is chaotic."
Click to expand...
You do realize that climate is not the same thing as the weather. It just means a variable is chaotic but the model can still be nonchaotic in that the climate won't change radically with those changes.
Wangler said:
Is everyone on the same page here, in regards to degrees of freedom (DOF)?

If each node of a global climate model is tracking temperature only, and you have one million nodes, you have one million degrees of freedom in the model.

If you track precipitation, cloud cover, aerosols or other data at each node, the model DOF will go up accordingly.
Click to expand...
Try explaining that to Mhaze. He somehow has no idea that car crashes and the climate model have the same number of DOF.
 
Last edited:
Wangler said:
Is everyone on the same page here, in regards to degrees of freedom (DOF)?

If each node of a global climate model is tracking temperature only, and you have one million nodes, you have one million degrees of freedom in the model.
Click to expand...
That's only the case if the temperature in a given node evolves independently from all the other nodes.
 
Wangler said:
Smart move. I don't think that there are too many people who would argue that global warming doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


I am annoying, I believe that it exists but I am not positive that it does. The data certainly seems to converge on a pattern of overall warming. But it will not be clinched into place until I am a very old man.

So I would say that i am about 70% leaning towards AGW caused by humans. It could still be influenced by not human factots but I am starting to doubt that.

Many papers like this truly have changed me from neutral to more convinced.
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/9
 
Last edited:
Listen to the critters....they know....;)

Biological systems just ignore human squabbles and get on coping with the change we inflict.
They are the best indicators of what we are seeing in climate change.

Analogue - birds, animals, fish, insects...

Insects
http://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2009/climate-global-impact/

animals
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-10-26/47436.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090512193300.htm

birds
http://www.terradaily.com/2006/061020031918.5tvasjk8.html
http://www.twilightearth.com/2009/02/20-species-that-are-moving-north-due-to-climate-change/

fish
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4541429.stm
http://aprn.org/2008/09/03/beaufort-sea-survey-finding-fish-moving-north-to-arctic-waters/

and of course this synthesis
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/
 
Dancing David said:
I am annoying, I believe that it exists but I am not positive that it does. The data certainly seems to converge on a pattern of overall warming. But it will not be clinched into place until I am a very old man.

So I would say that i am about 70% leaning towards AGW caused by humans. It could still be influenced by not human factots but I am starting to doubt that.

Many papers like this truly have changed me from neutral to more convinced.
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/9
Click to expand...

DD, I think that there is an overall trend in which we see global warming.

The part that I don't subscribe to is the anthropogenic part.

I have yet to be convinced that human action is "tipping the scales".

I think that human activity has some impact, and I do think that it would be worthwhile for humans to limit their impact whenever possible. Just because it's the right thing to do.
 
macdoc,

those are the same links you've posted more than once.

macdoc,

those are the same links you've posted more than once.

macdoc,

those are the same links you've posted more than once.

:s2:
 
Funny there are limited number of words reused in a conversation and when the same question arises the same answer applies.....shall I change the order for your convenience or will you henceforth stay out of an aspect conversation not directed for your benefit.

Something about peanut gallery comes to mind.....:garfield:
 
Last edited:
Wangler
DD, I think that there is an overall trend in which we see global warming.

The part that I don't subscribe to is the anthropogenic part.

I have yet to be convinced that human action is "tipping the scales".
Click to expand...

and your erudite alternative explanation for the warming consists of???
Shall we remind you of Myriad's elegant post ......or has your eidetic memory engraved it in your mind...........:popcorn1
 
Wangler said:
DD, I think that there is an overall trend in which we see global warming.

The part that I don't subscribe to is the anthropogenic part.

I have yet to be convinced that human action is "tipping the scales".

I think that human activity has some impact, and I do think that it would be worthwhile for humans to limit their impact whenever possible. Just because it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
Wangler, I can follow most of what you say. But although your last point describes a popular notion, I do not get it. For me, what we have to do is to feed the hungry, give relief to the suffering, enrich the poor etc. I cannot match this at all with something like "limiting our impact". It simply doesn't make sense for me. Would you explain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom