|
|
Post by steve on Apr 21, 2009 9:02:03 GMT
But all 17 "earths" show a warming trend. Most likely that problem is attributable email. Obviously if you build all 17 models using the same assumptions they will come up with the same results. Don't confuse science with popularity. I can assure you that in the financial sector there were thousands of models all in essential agreement regarding derivatives varying only by a small percentage, but even thousands of model earths won't provide assurance. . . .ask Alan Greenspan about that. I was telling Alan Greenspan that when he cut interest rates after the dot-com bust and saved the stupid speculators necks yet again resulting in them putting not only their own necks, but the necks of the whole world on the block the next time. Obviously, if you build the 16 models with the same physical laws that the earth has, you will have a better chance of getting it right than a model based on the desires, hopes and worries of fickle humans. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 21, 2009 9:16:05 GMT
Steve, I think the problem lies in this: From a scientific point of view, the models show correlation to current (or past) trends. When the models deviate from current observations, it means that there is a physical phenomena that is not being represented adequetely in the model. As we learn the nuances of the physics involved and those that we don't, they should (will) be added to the model to create a better simulation. Models are intended to increase our understanding. --------------------------------------------- What has happened: Is the model has been substituded for the real. It has become its own being, a simulacra of the real. We rely more on the model to tell us what is real, even though the model does not reproduce current phenomena, it kindof sortof matches the trend at times. (Except when it doesn't.) The argument is this: Do the models have a sufficient understand of the underlying physical processes to accurately forecast future weather? Then it is a matter of confidence. I personally do not have the confidence to enact draconian measures, that will coincidentally enrich a number of individuals who manufacture nothing, process nothing, and distribute nothing. The only thing that these individuals are doing is inserting themselves in between the producers and the consumers to take a share of the pie, by force. Your first bit is right. And models do undergo continuous improvement. Also, as I've said, many of the "headline" scenario runs are "cut down" versions of what is scientifically capable, as running the model with full bells and whistles at its highest resolution is just too expensive. More "complete" models are used to help explore the aspects that scientists are less sure about, which can help give an indication of what other processes may be important in the medium to long term. At the moment, none of these other experiments provide much hope of there being a process that will balance the warming induced by CO2. I don't see how measures such as investing in insulating homes, better efficiency standards, investing in renewables and so forth can be characterised in such a fanciful way. Are you equally concerned about the "draconian" measures of drastic interest cuts and quantitive easing that are forcing pensioners that rely on investment income to the breadline, and destroying the value of savings made by the prudent, on the basis of even more unprovable economic models. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 21, 2009 9:37:15 GMT
I don't see how measures such as investing in insulating homes, better efficiency standards, investing in renewables and so forth can be characterised in such a fanciful way. Are you equally concerned about the "draconian" measures of drastic interest cuts and quantitive easing that are forcing pensioners that rely on investment income to the breadline, and destroying the value of savings made by the prudent, on the basis of even more unprovable economic models. Most of us are for insulating home, better efficiency standards and any FEASIBLE types of renewable energy. It's the feasibility issue that's important. I'll be blunt...anyone expecting to save the world by making loads of silicon solar cells at todays prices...is delusional. It takes PHENOMENAL amounts of energy and toxic chemicals to make those. Most of the high tech renewables are actually infeasible. Here's what IS feasible...solar-thermal water heaters, home/business heating systems and even adsorption air conditioners driven by solar-thermal. These things work now and in the case of the water heaters and home heating systems...their costs are low to effectively ZERO. (simple, forced air, solar thermal requires a roof covering that's as cheap and durable as shingles...plus a fan...that's it). It pains me to think that all the homes built since the 70's don't have solar-thermal (assisted) heating for air/water. It's bothered me as the size of cars has increased and fuel economy dropped...a senseless waste of resources. The lack of good fluorescent lighting in homes, the absurd stand-by current requirements of modern appliances, dumping hundreds of gallons per day on lawns...all these are terrible things to me. ...but still, the idea of switching to overpriced, unreliable "alternatives" is just as bad. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 21, 2009 11:36:18 GMT
So what you're saying then is that the models can't replicate the past behavior, can't replicate current behaviour, but because it has the "trend" correct, we should trust that the trend will continue indefinitely. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. You are failing to understand what the models have been asked to do, are capable of doing, or what they are expected to do. None of the models in the ensemble have been started off with conditions that perfectly match the real earth. None of the models perfectly replicate the earth system. Even if you commissioned the Magratheans to build 16 almost identical earths with closely matching initial conditions, their temperatures would vary around their own trends in a similar way, and by definition, 5% of the time their temperatures would be outside the 95% confidence interval for the expected trend. But all 17 "earths" show a warming trend. This is actually a VERY important post. "None of the models in the ensemble have been started off with conditions that perfectly match the real earth. None of the models perfectly replicate the earth system"Your point is quite correct models were started without the correct start conditions - then they iterate building on this inaccuracy using modelers assumptions. Yet the models were used to convince politicians to take action on the basis that they were absolutely correct. Are your caveats on the capability of the models to be found in any of the Dummy's Guide to Climate that are given to the decision makers in governments? Or is it that people concerned about warming want to make their case so much that they 'forget' to include these caveats? |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 21, 2009 12:37:59 GMT
Steve, I think the problem lies in this: From a scientific point of view, the models show correlation to current (or past) trends. When the models deviate from current observations, it means that there is a physical phenomena that is not being represented adequetely in the model. As we learn the nuances of the physics involved and those that we don't, they should (will) be added to the model to create a better simulation. Models are intended to increase our understanding. --------------------------------------------- What has happened: Is the model has been substituded for the real. It has become its own being, a simulacra of the real. We rely more on the model to tell us what is real, even though the model does not reproduce current phenomena, it kindof sortof matches the trend at times. (Except when it doesn't.) The argument is this: Do the models have a sufficient understand of the underlying physical processes to accurately forecast future weather? Then it is a matter of confidence. I personally do not have the confidence to enact draconian measures, that will coincidentally enrich a number of individuals who manufacture nothing, process nothing, and distribute nothing. The only thing that these individuals are doing is inserting themselves in between the producers and the consumers to take a share of the pie, by force. Your first bit is right. And models do undergo continuous improvement. Also, as I've said, many of the "headline" scenario runs are "cut down" versions of what is scientifically capable, as running the model with full bells and whistles at its highest resolution is just too expensive. More "complete" models are used to help explore the aspects that scientists are less sure about, which can help give an indication of what other processes may be important in the medium to long term. At the moment, none of these other experiments provide much hope of there being a process that will balance the warming induced by CO2. I don't see how measures such as investing in insulating homes, better efficiency standards, investing in renewables and so forth can be characterised in such a fanciful way. Are you equally concerned about the "draconian" measures of drastic interest cuts and quantitive easing that are forcing pensioners that rely on investment income to the breadline, and destroying the value of savings made by the prudent, on the basis of even more unprovable economic models. A nice political argument - we are insulating the poor suffering elderly against the cold - (due to global warming). I think JimG was more talking about 'taxing power generating companies into bankruptcy' (Quote Obama); allowing people only so much carbon footprint then they would be banned from flying (David Cameron); iImpounding aircraft from airlines if the airline is thought to be guilty of exceeding its carbon cap (Australian and UK governments). Carbon taxes on power consumption estimated to cost every US consumer >$3K pa etc etc. And there are far worse planned if the German MEP I spoke to were to get his way on limits on carbon cap and trade by industries. Whether you like it or not the models are being used to justify some extremes of taxation and draconian control of private industry. Politicians are going to seize as much power as they can and others like Al Gore are going to make personal fortunes out of the models and are desperate to do so quickly just in case they are shown to be incorrect. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 21, 2009 12:47:11 GMT
I don't see how measures such as investing in insulating homes, better efficiency standards, investing in renewables and so forth can be characterised in such a fanciful way. Are you equally concerned about the "draconian" measures of drastic interest cuts and quantitive easing that are forcing pensioners that rely on investment income to the breadline, and destroying the value of savings made by the prudent, on the basis of even more unprovable economic models. Most of us are for insulating home, better efficiency standards and any FEASIBLE types of renewable energy. It's the feasibility issue that's important. I'll be blunt...anyone expecting to save the world by making loads of silicon solar cells at todays prices...is delusional. It takes PHENOMENAL amounts of energy and toxic chemicals to make those. Most of the high tech renewables are actually infeasible. Here's what IS feasible...solar-thermal water heaters, home/business heating systems and even adsorption air conditioners driven by solar-thermal. These things work now and in the case of the water heaters and home heating systems...their costs are low to effectively ZERO. (simple, forced air, solar thermal requires a roof covering that's as cheap and durable as shingles...plus a fan...that's it). It pains me to think that all the homes built since the 70's don't have solar-thermal (assisted) heating for air/water. It's bothered me as the size of cars has increased and fuel economy dropped...a senseless waste of resources. The lack of good fluorescent lighting in homes, the absurd stand-by current requirements of modern appliances, dumping hundreds of gallons per day on lawns...all these are terrible things to me. ...but still, the idea of switching to overpriced, unreliable "alternatives" is just as bad. Yes simple things like altering all building codes to ensure maximum insulation, using the cooling air conditioner to heat the domestic water with a simple heat exchanger, using solar heating etc etc. But all these MUST pass the test of availability of sufficient resources (such as lithium), the cost of resourcing vs the cost saved, and the engineering practicality of all stages of the production of the 'improvement'. At the moment there are 'solutions' being proposed that cannot be extended to everyone as the global resources such as raw materials, land area or even sufficient sunlight, just do not exist. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 21, 2009 14:07:22 GMT
Most likely that problem is attributable email. Obviously if you build all 17 models using the same assumptions they will come up with the same results. Don't confuse science with popularity. I can assure you that in the financial sector there were thousands of models all in essential agreement regarding derivatives varying only by a small percentage, but even thousands of model earths won't provide assurance. . . .ask Alan Greenspan about that. I was telling Alan Greenspan that when he cut interest rates after the dot-com bust and saved the stupid speculators necks yet again resulting in them putting not only their own necks, but the necks of the whole world on the block the next time. I am going to respectfully disagree here. Keeping interest rates low is what the government should do. I am not going to go into a debate on that since its off topic. All I was trying to point out is modeling has its limitations and a lot of otherwise smart people can easily become seduced by models as they are neat, complicated, sophisticated, and sleek. Obviously, if you build the 16 models with the same physical laws that the earth has, you will have a better chance of getting it right than a model based on the desires, hopes and worries of fickle humans. Sorry but both share the same problems. First, where do you come off suggesting that the earth is a simplistic set of physical laws. Indeed the models are simplistic but the planet is not. Second, once we agree that the planet is a very complex set of physical laws. . . .what basis do you have in suggesting humans are not. Fact is some stuff is quite predictable about humans. Like for instance if you make a $1,000 a month you are not likely going to be able to afford a $1,000 a month mortgage payment. I don't care if you are in medicine, biology, botany, or earth sciences. . . .none of from a wholistic perspective is simple. In the case of the earth one would have to conclude that climate modelers don't even have a clue what normal is. Not only did they manage to model away history to create their hockey stick but then they decided to extend the blade. As I said: Some kind of climate fools. To me the only questions to ask is the same questions we should be asking about the financial crisis. Namely how much was predatory, and how much was due to a lack of regulation, how much was due to a lack of accountability (personal investment to which recourse exists), and how can we prevent such stuff in the future. I take these issues very seriously because out of the answer our freedoms hang in the balance. . . .equally from both threats. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 21, 2009 14:14:07 GMT
You are failing to understand what the models have been asked to do, are capable of doing, or what they are expected to do. None of the models in the ensemble have been started off with conditions that perfectly match the real earth. None of the models perfectly replicate the earth system. Even if you commissioned the Magratheans to build 16 almost identical earths with closely matching initial conditions, their temperatures would vary around their own trends in a similar way, and by definition, 5% of the time their temperatures would be outside the 95% confidence interval for the expected trend. But all 17 "earths" show a warming trend. This is actually a VERY important post. "None of the models in the ensemble have been started off with conditions that perfectly match the real earth. None of the models perfectly replicate the earth system"Your point is quite correct models were started without the correct start conditions - then they iterate building on this inaccuracy using modelers assumptions. Yet the models were used to convince politicians to take action on the basis that they were absolutely correct. The particular experiment is to estimate the impact of increased CO2 on climate. Not to produce a 100 year weather forecast. The fact that the impact on 16 models and 1 earth is to warm them all is a useful result which is independent of the starting conditions and detailed model formulation. All the information is in the IPCC reports. It is not hidden from the politicians, and many governments work very closely with their climate science advisors to ensure the politicians are understanding the science and uncertainties. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 21, 2009 14:28:52 GMT
I was telling Alan Greenspan that when he cut interest rates after the dot-com bust and saved the stupid speculators necks yet again resulting in them putting not only their own necks, but the necks of the whole world on the block the next time. I am going to respectfully disagree here. Keeping interest rates low is what the government should do. I am not going to go into a debate on that since its off topic. All I was trying to point out is modeling has its limitations and a lot of otherwise smart people can easily become seduced by models as they are neat, complicated, sophisticated, and sleek. Obviously, if you build the 16 models with the same physical laws that the earth has, you will have a better chance of getting it right than a model based on the desires, hopes and worries of fickle humans. Sorry but both share the same problems. First, where do you come off suggesting that the earth is a simplistic set of physical laws. Indeed the models are simplistic but the planet is not. "simplistic" is your word, not mine. That's a perfect example! Much of the credit crunch was based on millions of people being sold mortgages where the payments rapidly exceed their incomes! This was a brand new phenomenon that was not included by the economic models, and was allowed to happen due to lax regulation of people who were prepared to lie to their customers. But all the physical laws are available for people to explore and see if there is a way of modelling a phenomenon which will cancel out CO2-induced warming. But it cannot realistically be done. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 21, 2009 14:51:32 GMT
First, where do you come off suggesting that the earth is a simplistic set of physical laws. Indeed the models are simplistic but the planet is not."simplistic" is your word, not mine. I was sort of equating atmospheric science from the AGW perspective sort of akin to the four humours: black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood. Bleed the people some to reduce the amount of black bile they produce. ;D LOL! Indeed there is no safe way to give a deadbeat a loan either. But that won't prevent Congress from trying. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 21, 2009 17:02:09 GMT
This is actually a VERY important post. "None of the models in the ensemble have been started off with conditions that perfectly match the real earth. None of the models perfectly replicate the earth system"Your point is quite correct models were started without the correct start conditions - then they iterate building on this inaccuracy using modelers assumptions. Yet the models were used to convince politicians to take action on the basis that they were absolutely correct. The particular experiment is to estimate the impact of increased CO2 on climate. Not to produce a 100 year weather forecast. The fact that the impact on 16 models and 1 earth is to warm them all is a useful result which is independent of the starting conditions and detailed model formulation. All the information is in the IPCC reports. It is not hidden from the politicians, and many governments work very closely with their climate science advisors to ensure the politicians are understanding the science and uncertainties. Yes we have read the studied and calm tones of the chief adviser to Obama - one Dr Hansen - who wants all bosses of any carbon based power generation or oil company charged with crimes against humanity. Can you point to any quote from Hansen where he has pointed out any uncertainty on AGW? Nor do you see such doubts or uncertainties expressed in the Stern Report and others. In any case politicians rarely read all the documents they listen to 'advisers' like Stern, Hansen and Gore some of whom have most certainly got a 'dog in the hunt'. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 21, 2009 17:16:53 GMT
Nautonnier,
The Stern review is an economic report which takes as its input the climate scenarios it is given.
If Hansen is Obama's Chief advisor, presumably the following is untrue, or are you just resorting to playing the Hansen/Gore card because you're losing the argument? Don't ask me, I'm British:
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 21, 2009 22:58:06 GMT
Steve said:
"Don't ask me, I'm British:"
Ok, that explains perfectly this other quote:
"All the information is in the IPCC reports. It is not hidden from the politicians, and many governments work very closely with their climate science advisors to ensure the politicians are understanding the science and uncertainties. "
I'm not sure that our reps such as Barney Frank (house financial services comittee chair) can read a company's P&L statement let alone a climate report.
|
|
|
|
Post by ron on Apr 22, 2009 4:21:13 GMT
There isn't much about which I agree with Barney Frank, but he's a brilliant debater and a sharp wit.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 22, 2009 6:17:24 GMT
You mean Mr. Fannie Mae?
|
|
