|
Post by ron on Apr 14, 2009 13:41:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rustyphillips on Apr 14, 2009 13:59:14 GMT
thanks
from the article
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 14, 2009 15:21:08 GMT
I doubt it. Either Sheehan is clueless or he hopes his readership is.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 14, 2009 17:56:58 GMT
I doubt it. Either Sheehan is clueless or he hopes his readership is. Because computer models are never wrong, and if they are, no one should admit to it.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 15, 2009 9:42:57 GMT
And the bigger the supercomputer, and the more you spend on it, the less likely it is that it will be wrong. We all know that! ;D resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/comment/0,1000002985,39629474,00.htm "Supercomputers might be better at providing the right answers — or they could just be providing the wrong answers in far greater detail, says Andrew Jones." The IPCC supercomputer can perform an infinite loop in just 12 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 15, 2009 11:16:07 GMT
I doubt it. Either Sheehan is clueless or he hopes his readership is. Because computer models are never wrong, and if they are, no one should admit to it. And you are perfect and all knowing
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 15, 2009 15:23:05 GMT
Because computer models are never wrong, and if they are, no one should admit to it. And you are perfect and all knowing Ultimately the IPCC is political always was. Soon they will be deriding a new bunch of nuts. Are you one?
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 15, 2009 21:46:44 GMT
Because computer models are never wrong, and if they are, no one should admit to it. And you are perfect and all knowing Of course. But let's not pretend computer models or science are. That's the point that so many seem to miss.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Apr 16, 2009 22:12:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 16, 2009 22:33:30 GMT
In the modeling world:
If at first you don't succeed....
Fix the data!
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Apr 17, 2009 0:17:44 GMT
or else revise the facts
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Apr 17, 2009 3:57:18 GMT
Unless times have changed (yeah, they have) then I think there is a big disconnect between what modelers are interested in versus the people who look at their results. Back in the 1950s planetary modelers (theoretical scientists) 'proved' that because of Mercury's closeness to the sun, its rotation was locked with only one side ever facing the sun (like our moon with earth). In the mid 1960s, experimental scientists succeeded in bouncing radar off of Mercury's surface, and by the Doppler shift of the return signal proved that it did indeed rotate slowly, with all of Mercury facing the sun at some point during the rotation. The theoretical scientists were ecstatic. They found that by tweaking their values for solar tidal forces, their models 'proved' that Mercury HAD to rotate, and by exactly the amount determined by the radar. They weren't interested in being able to predict something. They were interested in whether they had correctly determined all of the variables that needed to be considered in their model. Weighting the variables properly was secondary, even though it completely changed the results.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 17, 2009 6:18:13 GMT
And therin lies the difference between true science and dogma.
But dogma will bring in more money.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 17, 2009 9:23:16 GMT
And therin lies the difference between true science and dogma. But dogma will bring in more money. I suspect dogma leads people to pick the graph they want to make their point. The Pplot above is ludicrous as it picks a single point, 2002, as an end point. Well yesterday was warmer than today, so I expect we will be hitting absolute zero in Devon by September! Here's another plot from rankexploits which is a bit fairer. But I should add that the average of a multimodel ensemble will hide the variability in the climate. I'll just put the link as the image is huge: rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/20yeartrends.jpgAt face value, then, the models are trending 0.005-0.01C above the observations for the past few years, and have diverged a bit in the past 4 years. This person has attempted to put error bars on it which shows that the models and observations are not out of line till about 2006.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 17, 2009 14:31:54 GMT
But the model ensemble continues to show an acceleration in the rate of warming.
ie the temp change per year is increasing.
There is something there that the models are not accounting for.
|
|