Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Poptech]

Well no. Its not a zero sum game because its not like those emissions aren't harmful for other reasons.

So when I exhale CO2 what am I harming? Should we all stop breathing?

Yeah but what happens when the REAL world contradicts the model. And yes I actually am setting you up to throw out an entire field of science. Guess which one.

The REAL world is obviously wrong!

and he STILL won't believe the critters.....

And the "critters" prove man-made CO2 is the cause? How?

Mac you still will not answer my question.. tick.. tock.. tick.. tock..

 

[Wangler]

and he STILL won't believe the critters.....

or answer a simple question about C02 forcing from a paper he supplied.......

need to rename this PopTart Comedy Central ....

Well, he did answer your question a few posts ago.

But he don't answer mine.

 

[Poptech]

But I find it hard to find the "climate models are 100% wrong" slant defensible.

I am interested in your opinion of my perception.

It is not hard once you stop relying on subjectivity.

The irony here is that those who claim to be devout "skeptics" are the most subjective people I have ever met.

 

[DogB]

Well no. Its not a zero sum game because its not like those emissions aren't harmful for other reasons.

True. Also a transition to a renewable energy economy is inevitable. You could make the case that it's better to do it now while we have options than later when we don't.

 

[Wowbagger]

The irony here is that those who claim to be devout "skeptics" are the most subjective people I have ever met.

Most people who take the time to understand how the models were developed, what data goes into them, and how the data that come out is used, wouldn't be labeling them as "subjective".

You know, people like us "skeptics".

 

[BenBurch]

True. Also a transition to a renewable energy economy is inevitable. You could make the case that it's better to do it now while we have options than later when we don't.

Fossil fuel is limited EVEN if AGW were not a concern. The easily recoverable fuel has been recovered and burnt. The only place on the planet not exploited is Antarctica.

 

[DogB]

The only place on the planet not exploited is Antarctica.

And I doubt we're getting that out. Imagine driving a supertanker into McMurdo sound. Eeek!

 

[Poptech]

True. Also a transition to a renewable energy economy is inevitable. You could make the case that it's better to do it now while we have options than later when we don't.

That is not an argument but a misconception. Technically all sources of energy are finite and not renewable, it is just a matter of scale. Markets and the price mechanism are the only things that can determine future energy sources.

Remember the Synthetic Fuels Corporation? (The Heritage Foundation)

Most people who take the time to understand how the models were developed, what data goes into them, and how the data that come out is used, wouldn't be labeling them as "subjective".

Again if the models are not subjective then why are they all not identical?

Fossil fuel is limited EVEN if AGW were not a concern. The easily recoverable fuel has been recovered and burnt. The only place on the planet not exploited is Antarctica.

The limit is not known however and the current known amounts will last for well over 100 years.

Oil, Oil Everywhere... (The Wall Street Journal)
The World Has Plenty of Oil (The Wall Street Journal)

 

[Wangler]

The only place on the planet not exploited is Antarctica.

Whaddare we waitin' for?

With all the species of the world migrating north, we'll have Antartica all to ourselfs!

 

[Wangler]

It is not hard once you stop relying on subjectivity.

Thanks for the answer, PT.

 

[Wowbagger]

Again if the models are not subjective then why are they all not identical?

Different implementations, focusing on different things. But, all sciences suffer things like that.

My father is a traffic engineering consultant. Sometimes he will use different software than his colleagues, for modeling intersection traffic, and they get different results. But, none of them were subjective. They each used different variations of formulas that focused on different things.

Although, the general recommendations gleamed from any of those various traffic models tends to be the same, in the end.

The same is true for spaceship launching models. We've had a very many successful spaceship launchings, despite differences in models used.

Non-identical results does not imply subjectivity.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Empirical observations are observations of the 100% correct REAL world. Empirical experiments are done in the 100% correct REAL world. Thus they have REAL validity. Yet empirical "models" as you define them can be experimentally reproduced. The rest is based on faith and I am not religious.

It's amusing to read Poptech's claims in this thread about the infallibility of observed data while in the other thread Poptech is complaining about inaccuracies and biases in an observation network

 

[Poptech]

Different implementations, focusing on different things. But, all sciences suffer things like that.

Focusing on different things is subjective.

Non-identical results does not imply subjectivity.

It does with computer models.

It's amusing to read Poptech's claims in this thread about the infallibility of observed data while in the other thread Poptech is complaining about inaccuracies and biases in an observation network

Strawman number... (I lost count), I made no claim of observations being infallible, only the REAL world environment where the observations are made. This really cannot be such a complicated concept for the alleged "GREAT MINDS" here to comprehend?

 

[Wowbagger]

Focusing on different things is subjective.

I'd like to see you develop something that can focus on all things, then.

(And, don't say "empirical study". You know perfectly well such studies can yield non-identical sets of data, and non-identical ideas for conclusions. Etc.)

It does with computer models.

Just as much as it does conclusions drawn purely from empirical study.

That is what you don't seem to grasp. Without computer models, those empirical studies would still need to work out the math, and draw conclusions. The difference is that the computer models can do it faster, cheaper, and with more flexability.

You have yet to show me anything better.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Strawman number... (I lost count), I made no claim of observations being infallible, only the REAL world environment where the observations are made. This really cannot be such a complicated concept for the alleged "GREAT MINDS" here to comprehend?

Since observations are inaccurate, they are also useless. Therefore, we know nothing because all we have is our flawed, and therefore useless, data.

Poptech, you never did answer my question about how builders knew how much steel and concrete to use before they had computers.

 

[DogB]

That is not an argument but a misconception. Technically all sources of energy are finite and not renewable, it is just a matter of scale.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse, solar, wind and even nuclear are basically inexhaustible on any scale that matters.

Markets and the price mechanism are the only things that can determine future energy sources.

Markets can be manipulated

 

[macdoc]

About those computer models....how science actually works instead of Poptechs lunatic concept

Materials scientist Gerbrand Ceder, also of MIT, shares Sadoway's enthusiasm for this approach. "You tell me the elements involved, and I can solve the Schrödinger equation for those materials," he says. "We can calculate almost anything you can imagine. It doesn't mean you can always make that battery, but it narrows the problem down quite a bit."

The idea is already paying dividends. In March, Ceder stunned the world by showing how a subtle twist in design, prompted by computer models, speeded up 100-fold the charging rate for Li-ion batteries in which the cathode is made of lithium iron phosphate - a type sometimes used in batteries for power tools, for example.

Though the energy density of these lithium iron phosphate batteries is still too low for transport applications, Ceder's achievement shows what the computational approach can be capable of. And while in this case the leap was spectacular - in one aspect of performance at least - much more modest improvements will get us to the point where batteries are good enough energy stores to trump alternative power sources.

Wasn't that model useful...

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ic-cars-juiced-up-and-ready-to-go.html?page=2


and this one as well

Extending The Shelf Life Of Antibody Drugs

ScienceDaily (June 30, 2009) — A new computer model developed at MIT can help solve a problem that has plagued drug companies trying to develop promising new treatments made of antibodies: Such drugs have a relatively short shelf life because they tend to clump together, rendering them ineffective.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090629200806.htm

and this one

Discovery of Anti-Hiv Drugs Using Computer Aided Drug Designing Tools
Jing-Fang Wang; Lin-Li; Dong-Qing Wei
Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering, 2007. ICBBE 2007. The 1st International Conference on
Volume , Issue , 6-8 July 2007 Page(s):326 - 329
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ICBBE.2007.87

Summary:As the information era dawns, computer aided drug design has become an indispensable component in current drug industries. Many good works have done using computer aided drug design tools. As more and more efforts have been put into the discovery of anti-HIV drugs, our investigation interesting has been focused on the anti-HIV drug design. In our study of anti-HIV inhibitor design, we have obtained a number of significant achievements by incorporating miscellaneous modules of different drug design software's with HIV protease (HIV Pr) as the main target. Furthermore, we also applied computer aided drug design tools to other anti-virus investigations, such as SARS and H5N1 influenza virus. Some significant results have been gained, which are useful for the anti-virus inhibitor design in future.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/l...272571.pdf?arnumber=4272571&authDecision=-203

This list is endless of the useful interaction between models and observation......gee that's how science works after all.......

Observe, model, test the model, observe model against external tracking, refine model, repeat........

Current conclusion re Climate of just such an effort....

It's changing in significant ways and we're responsible, primarily due to emission of fossil GHG.

That's the climate science mainstream view.........you wish to over turn it.......see Myriad's note...

If anyone wants to convince me that AGW is not a real concern warranting measures to reduce it, they must show compelling evidence of one or more of the following hypotheses:

1. That greenhouse gases are not accumulating in the atmosphere due to manmade causes.

2. That greenhouse gases do not decrease the thermal radiation efflux from the gray box.

3. That something will cause (or is causing) a decrease in heat influx (either solar radiation or heat from the earth's interior) to the gray box that balances the expected decrease in heat efflux.

4. That despite an accumulation of heat energy inside the gray box, its temperature will not rise.

5. That an increase in the temperature in the gray box is not a concern.

key word......compelling....

YOU didn't answer the question Poptech..... Is CO2 a forcing.....
•••

BTW
The economics forum is over yonder....even The Economist notes it's not a science, and has failed spectacularly.....humans will decide on what approach they take..just as I do in my own sustainable, approaching zero carbon, no growth required business that has been around for a 1/4 of a century... I decide...not some invisible hand
......not that Adam Smith was correct anyways ( or did you miss that bit )

Libby doom....

What went wrong with economics
Jul 16th 2009
From The Economist print edition

And how the discipline should change to avoid the mistakes of the past

Illustration by Jon Berkerly

OF ALL the economic bubbles that have been pricked, few have burst more spectacularly than the reputation of economics itself.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14031376&source=most_commented

I gratefully note the use of the word discipline rather than science.....

You are as misguided and poorly informed about how people make decisions in the economic sphere as you are about the earth sciences.....laughing stock comes to mind.....never more evident than from your posts....

This IS a science forum.....

 

[Tapio]

Strawman number... (I lost count), I made no claim of observations being infallible, only the REAL world environment where the observations are made. This really cannot be such a complicated concept for the alleged "GREAT MINDS" here to comprehend?

Now, I'm definitely not calling myself a "great mind", far from it. Which is why I must confess my confusion regarding the highlited part.

I really, really want to understand you.

So could you (or anyone else) please tell me what you mean. I mean, aren't observations themselves an integral part of the REAL world environment in which the obseravations are made? So how can the real world be infallible, but the observations made in that world not ? Have I somehow, somewhere missed your definition of "real world" and "observation"? Wouldn't be a wonder with all the twists and turns in this thread...

Maybe it's a language hick-up on my part. When you talk of "observation", do you mean an observation someone has made of something? Or do you mean an observation someone has made of the observation made by something of something? In this case (as in many others) I don't understand the role of computers and humans in your explanations.

I still can't escape the feeling of much of the hassle going on here being simply due to different interpretations of the words used...but as I said before, it might just be me. In any case, IMO interesting stuff and very educational nuggets in the middle of all the dirt thrown from both "sides"!

ETA: Maybe I'm just messing up everything here...but in any case, this is the kind of use of words which makes a lot of the GW-talk seem cryptic to a layman like myself (so maybe should just butt out and stop even trying to understand...). However, I doubt that is the intention, at least not of the ones supporting the idea...

 

[aleCcowaN]

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

That is what I wondered first time I read the 'discussion'.

I solve periodically 2D beam structures -not sure about the name in English- and I'm always aware of the difference in structure's DOGs -3- software's DOGs -as for data, about 40- and 'system's' DOGs -varies, typically 50 or 100-. I selected that software for the second 40, and I indirectly generate the third bunch letting the software to take care of them, but my business is being plenty conscious of the first 3 and how many restrictions I set -3 to many-, otherwise people might get killed. I don't deal with dynamic loads that set far more complexity to the matter.

That's why I criticize the manipulation of the DOG concept by Google-is-your-friend-mHaze, who seems to have a Dirac delta shaped knowledge, tripping then in every Heaviside step he comes across, and behaving sometimes as he may fail Turing test. And the whole DOG crap in this discussion ending like some fellow claiming than brain and pancreas cells have the same DNA then both produce insulin, and other retorting that they behave distinctly then they don't share the same DNA -and adding some obsessive insistences seasoned by insults or ironies to make their points more interesting-.

I got up to date in the same sin

 

[BenBurch]

I claim the million dollar prize.

I knew in aadvance that ppooptech would haul out a claim of nearly unlimited fosssil fuel.