Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[macdoc]

We are discussing this because I mentioned this a s journal that looks at statistical modeling, not physical models so they are out of their sphere of expertise. What value are we expecting the statistical modeling community to bring to the table for a physical model?

I think the potential issue arises around analysis of reconstructed data as opposed to modeling.

 

[lenny]

Curry's main approach is to harp on about uncertainity and how you can't trust other folks figures. Whenever she is challenged though she has been unable to put forwards any studies of her own that actually provides evidence for those claims.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/09/21/attribution-errors/

Thanks for the reply. I have read the first link you provided. It is not an antiscience piece by Curry but a criticism of curry; Which includes:

But the point I actually wanted to make was that exactly what is the point of even trying to do so? is a strange question, easily answered. The point is that while we have a fairly good idea that the temperature will go up, and sea levels will rise, and weather patterns will change, we have much less idea about what the costs of climate change will be. Many people can be heard to assert that climate change will even be positive. So, evidence of costs would be valuable for economic discussions of our possible responses. So, say (hypothetically) knowing that 1 oC temperature rise would make such floods 50% more likely (*not* that 50% of the flood was caused by a 1 oC temperature rise) would be valuable information

A more common attribution story, and i believe some legal systems, aims to attribute a portion of the blame for an individual event. From the snipet by curry quoted at your link, pursuing this seems to be what curry is targeting. It would indeed be of value to say that floods like that one would become 50% more frequent/likely. Today's models are not up to that (neglecting the in principle difficulty of establishing the counter factual baseline). But attributing blame for individual events, if it could be done, would not answer the question of changes in the future frequency of "similar" events (even if you could define the bounds of a relevant collective). No?

Curry explicitly attacks the idea of establishing probabilities for individual events that have already happened. This is not an anti science view, indeed it is arguably mainstream. (happy to discuss).

She argues that pursuing creations that only exist in model-land and do not inform us about the real world is A distraction. This is clearly a reasonable point, even if you disagree with its application in this instance.

And she believes that distracting the meteo and climate communities might prevent them from doing something "helpful". Where is the anti science in that?

 

[lenny]

What value are we expecting the statistical modeling community to bring to the table for a physical model?

To point out when we are overestimating the fidelity of our physcial models.

Like you, I expect physics-based models to blow statistical models out of the water. Statistcal models set a rather low bar any good physical model "should" clear easily. The valuable service they offer us is exposing instances when we fail to do so.

It is sorta hard to go further without knowing which paper we are questioning...

 

[macdoc]

accidental post

 

[lenny]

Apologies, I see now that the paper is

Fildes, R. & Kourentzes, N. Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change. International Journal of Forecasting. Volume 27, Issue 4, October–December 2011, Pages 968–995

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207011000604

I think the potential issue arises around analysis of reconstructed data as opposed to modeling.

That would have been an elegant solution, but from the slides it is clear they are comparing forecast skill...

 

[Westwall]

Right. So you should have no problem citing a few that you find the most convincing for critical evaluation by the forum then, will you? I dont know how long you've been following this thread for but I'm almost certain a anything you can pug up has already been discussed at length in the previous >6000 posts.



A bold assertion to make with no supporting evidence. Can you please outline what drives this 'natural' cycle, after all the climate doesn't change by magic, if there us some mysterious forcing causing a natural 'recovery' from an ice age you should be able to identify what it is. Without an alternative explanatory model you may as well be chasing ether or the god if the gaps.

Then I suggest you read some history books. Even wiki has a little bit on the LIA and its end. Amazingly enough the LIA occured after th MWP (who knew?) and the MWP followed on from the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe (don't get your hopes up, it was a period of intense cold that witnessed the Dark Ages...not a good time for man..in fact all periods of cold have been very bad for mankind in general) which of course followed the RWP. Notice how they run in cycles?

Below are a few links to the various times I mentioned. I have noticed an interesting phenomena, the sources who most vociferously deny the existence and global nature of the MWP and the LIA are the REVISIONIST scientists who like to revise history to suit their needs. It also fits quite nicely with how they are constantly revising their statements as regards the effects of warming and of course the constant revision of the raw data...well that data that they manage to not lose.


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

http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535–536

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/flash/catastrophe1_script.html

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

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659

 

[Westwall]

Knock it off with your "empirical evidence" cliché, for Santa's sake! You have come to think that using that gives you some intellectual preponderance and in fact you don't have the faintest idea of what you are saying. What evidence do you have that there are no immortal humans? 8% of all the humans that have existed ever are still alive today (including Betty White). Isn't this "empirical evidence"?

Your attempted use of supposed empirical evidence included taking two extremely similar planets separated by 50 million years (time or light) and saying that as in one of them the set of species in a certain class is doing OK then the different set of species of the same class in the sister planet will do well if conditions change quickly and the second planet become almost a copy of the first one. That's not empirical evidence but not knowing how to aim the watering can at the daisies, so to speak.

Because empirical data is the only data that truly matters. Below is a list of peer reviewed papers (almost entirely derived via computer models) and they show one of the primary problems with denying the use of empirical data. You can get any result you ultimately wish.

This first set takes both sides of the drought issue in the Amazon basin...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025583.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042154.shtml

This second set takes both sides of the sea level rising, (or is it dropping?) issue affecting the Indian Ocan islands.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818106000877

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818110001013

Or how about this set where the Indian Monsoons will be both wetter or is it drier?

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3820.1

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-2.html

Please note these are ALL peer reviewed papers in well respected (well the IPCC no longer is) Journals. They take BOTH sides of the same issue and arrive at the result they wish.

Now, how exactly, does the SCIENTIFIC METHOD deal with non-testable hypotheses?

Here's a hint, it is a term used frequently by our own dear James Randi, it starts with "pseudo" and ends with "science".

 

[Pixel42]

What exactly is it that references to past naturally caused temperature variations is supposed to be proving? No-one denies that the climate has changed in the past due to natural causes (the Milankovich cycles, variations in solar activity, variations in volcanic activity, plate tectonics etc etc), but that doesn't mean that the current warming must also be due to natural causes. People died of lung cancer before smoking was invented, but that doesn't mean that smoking can't possibly cause lung cancer. Forest fires were being caused by lightning before matches were invented, but if a fire starts in a forest where there hasn't been any lightning for months and where kids were seen fooling around with matches at the very time the fire started then what is the relevance of pointing out that there was a much smaller fire in that same forest two thousand years ago which was caused by lightning?

We know what the natural causes of climate change are. We know roughly how much climate change we expect to be happening now as a result of those natural causes. We know roughly how much additional climate change we should expect to happen as a result of human activities such as burning fossil fuel. We can observe the climate change that's actually taking place and see that it is indeed roughly the net sum of the two, with the latter making a far bigger contribution than the former.

 

[lenny]

People died of lung cancer before smoking was invented, but that doesn't mean that smoking can't possibly cause lung cancer.

that is a very nice sentence.
(which i will happily steal and use elsewhere. thank you, pixel42)

 

[aleCcowaN]

Because empirical data is the only data that truly matters. Below is a list of peer reviewed papers (almost entirely derived via computer models) and they show one of the primary problems with denying the use of empirical data. You can get any result you ultimately wish.

This first set takes both sides of the drought issue in the Amazon basin...


This second set takes both sides of the sea level rising, (or is it dropping?) issue affecting the Indian Ocan islands.


Or how about this set where the Indian Monsoons will be both wetter or is it drier?


Please note these are ALL peer reviewed papers in well respected (well the IPCC no longer is) Journals. They take BOTH sides of the same issue and arrive at the result they wish.

Now, how exactly, does the SCIENTIFIC METHOD deal with non-testable hypotheses?

Here's a hint, it is a term used frequently by our own dear James Randi, it starts with "pseudo" and ends with "science".

Trying to pull an improvised primer on "empirical evidence" doesn't hide your deeply mistaken use of it. Believe me, your manipulation skills are noted -in fact, so far it is all you got- but you followed a path that is very crowded: you are caught saying some bull -your distorted temperatures in apparently happier *cenes- and you reply every message as if the original was speaking of something else -feigning the fool- and try to start some silly debate on propedeutics of the branch of science involved.

About a third of the post in this very long thread involve such crappy ramblings: statistics, uncertainty, modelling and epistemology of sciences are the most recurred.

By the way, you are less unoriginal by making long lists of google fetched links related to the smoke screen of choice, and the different angles are a really nice touch, but it doesn't hide that the only source is Google and the intention is both create an overflow of items to read and provide you with a lot of argumental escape routes -starting again with a new reply just apparently related to the previous message-.

Again, you are using "empirical evidence" because it looks well. It looks well because it is important. Don't get confused: you're not saying important things and your instances of "empirical evidence" are dead wrong. You can stir words as much as you want, but you failed to provide valid arguments. Clearly, no matter how important empirical evidence is, your examples remain dead wrong.

 

[jimbob]

Yes there may be some comparatively basic statistics used at some point in the process but these tools used by nearly everyone. Expecting climate scientists to consult with the statistical community on their Monte Carlo methods is a little out there and really a red herring.

We are discussing this because I mentioned this a s journal that looks at statistical modeling, not physical models so they are out of their sphere of expertise. What value are we expecting the statistical modeling community to bring to the table for a physical model?
Not to mention the fact that statistical models have a well deserved bad reputation. They work until they don't because they don't look at the underlying cause of the phenomenon they are observing.

Quoted because the highlighted part is pretty important.

 

[macdoc]

Damn that has to be the most idiotic denier post I've run across in a while.....congrats WW - don't come across many so nonsensical especially in a science forum.

I see you dodged the statistical face plant and are now dealing as one of the blind men and an elephant.

 

[Westwall]

Trying to pull an improvised primer on "empirical evidence" doesn't hide your deeply mistaken use of it. Believe me, your manipulation skills are noted -in fact, so far it is all you got- but you followed a path that is very crowded: you are caught saying some bull -your distorted temperatures in apparently happier *cenes- and you reply every message as if the original was speaking of something else -feigning the fool- and try to start some silly debate on propedeutics of the branch of science involved.

About a third of the post in this very long thread involve such crappy ramblings: statistics, uncertainty, modelling and epistemology of sciences are the most recurred.

By the way, you are less unoriginal by making long lists of google fetched links related to the smoke screen of choice, and the different angles are a really nice touch, but it doesn't hide that the only source is Google and the intention is both create an overflow of items to read and provide you with a lot of argumental escape routes -starting again with a new reply just apparently related to the previous message-.

Again, you are using "empirical evidence" because it looks well. It looks well because it is important. Don't get confused: you're not saying important things and your instances of "empirical evidence" are dead wrong. You can stir words as much as you want, but you failed to provide valid arguments. Clearly, no matter how important empirical evidence is, your examples remain dead wrong.

I am manipulating nothing my friend. I have presented 6 papers (of hundreds I can post) promulgated by AGW supporters (notice how I refrain from derogatory names for them, you would do well to do likewise) that present both sides of any question. That is not my problem that is yours.

Falsifiability is a fundamental principle of science and AGW supporters violate it at almost every opportunity.

You explain to me how that is justifiable vis a vis the scientific method.






http://explorable.com/falsifiability.html

 

[Westwall]

Damn that has to be the most idiotic denier post I've run across in a while.....congrats WW - don't come across many so nonsensical especially in a science forum.

I see you dodged the statistical face plant and are now dealing as one of the blind men and an elephant.

Address the problems with falsifiability there macdoc. C'mon be a good sport and answer the question. It's not hard. It deals with a fundamental principle of science.

 

[bobwtfomg]

Because empirical data is the only data that truly matters. Below is a list of peer reviewed papers (almost entirely derived via computer models) and they show one of the primary problems with denying the use of empirical data. You can get any result you ultimately wish.

This first set takes both sides of the drought issue in the Amazon basin...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025583.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042154.shtml

This second set takes both sides of the sea level rising, (or is it dropping?) issue affecting the Indian Ocan islands.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818106000877

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818110001013

Or how about this set where the Indian Monsoons will be both wetter or is it drier?

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3820.1

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-2.html

Please note these are ALL peer reviewed papers in well respected (well the IPCC no longer is) Journals. They take BOTH sides of the same issue and arrive at the result they wish.

Now, how exactly, does the SCIENTIFIC METHOD deal with non-testable hypotheses?

Here's a hint, it is a term used frequently by our own dear James Randi, it starts with "pseudo" and ends with "science".

You're wrong I looked at the first 4 of your links and NONE of them is almost entirely derived via computer models

from the first

We analyzed Amazon vegetation phenology at multiple scales with Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite measurements from 2000 to 2005

Local canopy photosynthesis measured from eddy flux towers

the second study is a re-analysis with an improved updated version of the data

from the 3rd

Here, we determine rates of sea-level rise from tide gauges in the region. We also examine sea-level data from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimeter

from the 4th

Using historical aerial photography and satellite images this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 yr period

Oh and btw this study doesn't conclude or even imply that sea levels are dropping

First, islands are geomorphologically persistent features on atoll reef platforms and can increase in island area despite sea-level change. Second, islands are dynamic landforms that undergo a range of physical adjustments in responses to changing boundary conditions, of which sea level is just one factor

 

[lomiller]

I have noticed an interesting phenomena, the sources who most vociferously deny the existence and global nature of the MWP and the LIA a

What sources? You are the only one talking about them not existing. You seem to be confused by the fact temperature changes were not as big as you imagine and were confined to specific regions rather than being global.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I am manipulating nothing my friend. I have presented 6 papers (of hundreds I can post) promulgated by AGW supporters (notice how I refrain from derogatory names for them, you would do well to do likewise) that present both sides of any question. That is not my problem that is yours.

Falsifiability is a fundamental principle of science and AGW supporters violate it at almost every opportunity.

You explain to me how that is justifiable vis a vis the scientific method.

Oh! Another instance of you denying you're doing A and doing nothing but A immediately.

You're doing nothing but manipulate, pal. You're changing the subject again. It sounds compelling that "You explain to me how that is justifiable vis a vis the scientific method." (vis a vis the scientific method ...), but no, it's you who create such elaborate smoke screens, plenty of factual confusions. One needs to have just a one-inch tall forehead to understand why someone says "wine production is an important economic sector that provides an enjoyable quality product" and another one says "wineaholism is an important public health issue" without any contradiction.

So you are jumping from lush past times to the bad use of the term empirical -you simply ignore what that means- and now to falsifiability. It looks like you just came across the terms you like to pontificate about.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You're wrong I looked at the first 4 of your links and NONE of them is almost entirely derived via computer models

from the first




the second study is a re-analysis with an improved updated version of the data

from the 3rd



from the 4th

Oh and btw this study doesn't conclude or even imply that sea levels are dropping

He wasn't addressing the subject of computer models. Remember that a period in the same paragraph is usually a non sequitur in denialist -and other BSers- talk. He started with some different assertions to me and other forum members and as he got stuck he switched to "conceptual clashes", that's why the wrong temperatures in the wrong places became "empirism" to later became "epistemology". Get used to these kind of argumentative zigzags, as they are the only thing these people have.

 

[macdoc]

Address the problems with falsifiability there macdoc. C'mon be a good sport and answer the question. It's not hard. It deals with a fundamental principle of science.

- patronized by a foolish muddler in things he chooses to not understand ......
Is Popperism your find of the week??..

Cut to the chase

Its getting warmer
we're responsible in main due to the emission of GHG.


go ahead - falsify it. After all it's not hard - it deals with fundamental physics known for over a century....perhaps you need a primer to brush up on that
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/path201_07/notes/notes_11_13_07.htm

 

[Westwall]

What sources? You are the only one talking about them not existing. You seem to be confused by the fact temperature changes were not as big as you imagine and were confined to specific regions rather than being global.

There's a certain Hockey Stick I am sure you're familiar with that seems to lack evidence of both the MWP and the LIA. Skeptical Science makes the constant claim that the MWP was localised to northern Europe when over 100 peer reviewed studies show that it was global and warmer.