|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 16, 2011 23:51:20 GMT
glc you frequently argue as though you expect the climate system to behave in a linear fashion.It might have been more appropriate to have given this response to Magellan's comment. I don' t expect the climate to behave in a linear fashion. However we've been told that there is a clear and obvious relationship between solar activity and climate - until that relationship breaks down. It's then that the 5, 10, 20, 30.... year lags and the non-linearity issues are invoked. The reportedly cold Dalton minimum period is supposed to be linked to the weak Dalton cycles which followed a period of high solar activity., i.e. NO lag. Make your mind up! we've been told that there is a clear and obvious relationship between solar activity and climate - until that relationship breaks down. That's YOUR model. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 18, 2011 1:08:27 GMT
woodstove, Of course I understand that. That is not the point today. It is only recently that human activities have reached a point where they now drive. Saying it doesn't make it so. Woodstove, Scientific investigation is what 'makes it so'. See, for example, this recent summary by the Royal Society: "Climate change: a summary of the science" royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/ |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 18, 2011 1:18:21 GMT
icefisher, I take it you are a denialist. I doubt you care much to understand the relevant science. Fair enough, whatever. Gee I guess I was thinking you might come back with a rebuttal showing why it should not be warming. Instead your only reply is an . . . .uh. . . .ad hominem. Is that all you got Bro? This is a debate? Who woulda thought? icefisher, My apologies; my bad. I get beat up on this forum on a regular basis, so I've become a bit too callous. I appreciate that you have consistently been a reasonable voice, so I apologize, icefisher. Let's let the debate continue then and get on with it. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 18, 2011 1:23:52 GMT
One could also ask for example why did it take until 1975 for warming to restart if the solar cycle hit its alltime record max in 1957. One could ask that but a more relevant question might be why did it start cooling in the 1940s when solar activity continued to rise right up to the 1960s. Ocean oscillation perhaps acting alone due to solar grand max being underway? Or why did it take until 1880 for cooling to proceed the last time when the solar cycle started declining in 1850?Because solar activity doesn't have much to do with global temperature, perhaps.
Interesting idea, though. It means that maunder minimum cooling should have continued until ~1740 and Dalton cooling should have started in ~1830. Oh I think you probably used to be pretty close to the right idea. Short term temperature fluctuations prior to Hadcrut starting in 1850 were influenced by unique regional timings. Seems there is enough agreement on that so that nobody has gone beyond the evidence that it was colder and tried to document just how much it was colder. The warming in the first part of the 20th century is presently seen as due to a combination of solar and human impacts. The cooling in mid century is seen as substantially influenced by sulfate aerosols from human activity. The clear signature of human impact on warming has only become apparent in the past 40 years. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 18, 2011 1:36:12 GMT
glc you frequently argue as though you expect the climate system to behave in a linear fashion.It might have been more appropriate to have given this response to Magellan's comment. I don' t expect the climate to behave in a linear fashion. However we've been told that there is a clear and obvious relationship between solar activity and climate - until that relationship breaks down. It's then that the 5, 10, 20, 30.... year lags and the non-linearity issues are invoked. The reportedly cold Dalton minimum period is supposed to be linked to the weak Dalton cycles which followed a period of high solar activity., i.e. NO lag. Make your mind up! we've been told that there is a clear and obvious relationship between solar activity and climate - until that relationship breaks down. That's YOUR model. Magellan, You are always asking over and over for support. You, Magellan, of the "Fish Productivity' paper! Let's get back to the Royal Society. Climate change: A Summary of the Science. royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/What, again, is your response to the Royal Society? as a next step. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 18, 2011 4:30:52 GMT
Thanks for the link thermostat. I will read it and comment on it in the near future. Coming from the Royal Society tho.....I am inclined to read it with a skeptical mindset.
Science, as it applies to climate, has become extremely shoddy in the past 10 years. It is now so bad that, I, as a former believer in AGW, has come to the conclusion that most of it is hot air. I read paper after paper built upon previous papers that had huge errors in them. It is a travesty........pure and simple.
I started reading Skepctical Science lately, and most of my posts never see the light of day. Kinda like RC, when you actually want to discuss the science.......unless it is tilted to the hosts belief, they do not want to acknowledge anything that shows they are wrong. Yes, that applies to both AGW believers and AGW skeptics, but most skeptic sites I have seen at least allow a good discussion.
Oh well.......some folks have their head stuck to high where the sun doesn't shine. I feel really sorry for Australia if they pass their carbon thing. They are going down the tubes, just as Britian is, and Spain has.
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 18, 2011 4:58:11 GMT
Thanks for the link thermostat. I will read it and comment on it in the near future. Coming from the Royal Society tho.....I am inclined to read it with a skeptical mindset. Science, as it applies to climate, has become extremely shoddy in the past 10 years. It is now so bad that, I, as a former believer in AGW, has come to the conclusion that most of it is hot air. I read paper after paper built upon previous papers that had huge errors in them. It is a travesty........pure and simple. I started reading Skepctical Science lately, and most of my posts never see the light of day. Kinda like RC, when you actually want to discuss the science.......unless it is tilted to the hosts belief, they do not want to acknowledge anything that shows they are wrong. Yes, that applies to both AGW believers and AGW skeptics, but most skeptic sites I have seen at least allow a good discussion. Oh well.......some folks have their head stuck to high where the sun doesn't shine. I feel really sorry for Australia if they pass their carbon thing. They are going down the tubes, just as Britian is, and Spain has. Sigiurdur, I have to fundamentally disagree with you about science. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jun 18, 2011 6:33:00 GMT
glc you frequently argue as though you expect the climate system to behave in a linear fashion. Do you know how long it takes for the ocean to overturn? Do you know the precise effect on atmospheric temperature of each overturning? Do you know the precise effect of vulcanism during the last, say, three millennia? Do you know the precise effect of cosmic ray flux over this same period of time? And if you did know all of these things down to a fine decimal point would it allow you to predict a repetition of any circumstances in our own time? TRANSLATION: Because we don't have perfect records of everything essentially forever, our predictive power is zero, and we might as well go back to throwing dice. |
|
|
|
Post by codetalker on Jun 18, 2011 14:36:01 GMT
Just read a few lines of the "Royal Society ." I didn't try to read it as a scientist, which I am not, so I read it as a juror which I will actually be this week. "If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit."
The paper was filled with a lot of thought. "Are thought" and so on. I was intrigued with the sentence " Climate models vary considerably in complexity." Am I to assume some are simple like a child's drawing and others complex like a Van Gogh?
Complex they may be, they are static and provide only a bastard image of reality. Facebook maybe the social media darling site of the moment but it pales compared to real face time. So to complex climate forecasts are digital facades of reality. Just as digital bytes on Facebook are not real people so to digital climate models are not "real" they exist only in the virtual reality of their own design. Not the real world. I believe readers of the this report need to be clear what the difference between the two are.
As the paper said "It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future." and "There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding."
It is well established humans can influence the environment it is less so established the climate. It's easy to observe Facebook as a digital model, the one we see when we login, yet in reality we can't see "Facebook" as it is simply to large and complex. We can observe our own input but not all users input, there are too many users. So I question the findings of climate scientist as perhaps not "real" but only "subjective" to our own input (carbon) to the climate.
|
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jun 18, 2011 21:41:07 GMT
Codetalker, you are essentially correct. The two that my granddaughter and I have dissected have been a pastiche of code that reminds me a great deal of the examples in an early version of C for absolute novices, combined with somewhat more complex code that usually forks, with one fork leading to an endless loop. Sometimes both forks lead to endless loops. The only thing of any interest has been the programmers annotations, which taken with the rank amateur level of most of the code is hilarious.
Stranger
|
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jun 18, 2011 21:46:20 GMT
Thermostat, an increasing number of reputable scientists have come to their senses and agree with Sigurdur. Often loudly and at great length. blog.american.com/2011/03/climategate-youre-not-allowed-to-do-this-in-science/No, you are not allowed to furnish a conclusion before you collect data. No, you are not allowed to select data to fit your preconceptions. No, you are not allowed to keep your data, or your sources secret. And there are in addition a sufficient number of nos to fill one volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Stranger |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 20, 2011 5:06:55 GMT
Thermostat, an increasing number of reputable scientists have come to their senses and agree with Sigurdur. Often loudly and at great length. blog.american.com/2011/03/climategate-youre-not-allowed-to-do-this-in-science/No, you are not allowed to furnish a conclusion before you collect data. No, you are not allowed to select data to fit your preconceptions. No, you are not allowed to keep your data, or your sources secret. And there are in addition a sufficient number of nos to fill one volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Stranger Stranger, Contrary to what you may have heard, Science is not driven by any political ideology, although I appreciate that this is a contemporary perception. Scientists have their points, just like everyone else. But you'ld be suprised what those points are. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 20, 2011 5:38:17 GMT
Stranger, Contrary to what you may have heard, Science is not driven by any political ideology, although I appreciate that this is a contemporary perception. Scientists have their points, just like everyone else. But you'ld be suprised what those points are.   |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 20, 2011 10:34:01 GMT
I suppose the simplist is the single-layer atmosphere model that illustrates the workings of basic climate forcing and feedbacks, and their impact on surface temperature.
The current "bread and butter" climate model though includes representations of atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface processes (soil moisture, DMS emissions, boundary layer etc.), plus some aerosols, dust and greenhouse gases.
The most complex include more categories of aerosols and greenhouse gases, more complex land surface processes (interactive vegetation) and (very very computationally expensive) atmospheric chemistry.
None of them have yet found a realistic counter to CO2 forcing. That's one key point.
stranger,
which models did you look at. I did look at model-e that made me cringe. There are better ones, but they are written by scientists. That said, they undergo a lot more testing than most software which roots out a lot of bugs. If you really found an endless loop condition then it would have been discovered when the model ran out of CPU time rather than shutting down gracefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 20, 2011 12:24:54 GMT
glc you frequently argue as though you expect the climate system to behave in a linear fashion. Do you know how long it takes for the ocean to overturn? Do you know the precise effect on atmospheric temperature of each overturning? Do you know the precise effect of vulcanism during the last, say, three millennia? Do you know the precise effect of cosmic ray flux over this same period of time? And if you did know all of these things down to a fine decimal point would it allow you to predict a repetition of any circumstances in our own time? TRANSLATION: Because we don't have perfect records of everything essentially forever, our predictive power is zero, and we might as well go back to throwing dice. Sorry, no. No translation needed. If you really think you need one, go to the author: You don't know what you think you know. Climate science is in its infancy. Deal with it. |
|
