|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 23, 2011 14:25:18 GMT
scpg02 This is a statement borne of a desire to ignore evidence because you don't like it as clearly you are not unaware of all the areas of your comfortable life that are dependent on imperfect modelling (medicines, computers, cars, buildings etc.). Anyway, where did I say "the models come close"? I didn't. It was a rhetorical you but I guess that went over your head. Imperfect models have their roll. Driving climate policy is not and should not be one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 23, 2011 14:36:49 GMT
It was a "rhetorical" I too. But I guess that went over your head.
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 23, 2011 15:51:55 GMT
It was a "rhetorical" I too. But I guess that went over your head. You do know the difference between rhetorical and defensive? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 23, 2011 16:38:28 GMT
You started it! Yes I know that you didn't mean me when you said "you", but equally I don't think you can build an argument on the basis that anyone anywhere has claimed that models are "close enough" to some fabled "right answer". It just seems a bit of a simplistic way of arguing. Climate models contribute in lots of ways to the evidence that is used to advise policy-makers but they aren't everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 23, 2011 16:39:17 GMT
Jim, You are misunderstanding me. As far as I can see, the principle model result that I think has been well demonstrated is that if greenhouse gas and pollution levels rise at current predicted rates then the planet will warm by 2-4.5C. So that is my question and answer dealt with. If you want to ask me about catastrophes, then I'll put the model to one side and look for evidence of what has happened in the past relating to rapid changes in the climate, and point you to the PETM, the rapid sea level rises during the Eemian, the Younger Dryas and so forth. If things that happened then happen now or in the next 100 years, they would be catastrophic. More recently there is evidence of what happens with heat waves (Europe 2003, Russia 2010) which reasonably would be hotter, longer and more frequent. Now obviously people *do* use models to answer more specific questions such as Amazon dryout, changes in precipitation patterns, hurricane intensity and so forth. I would agree with you that the models do not provide good evidence for probabilities of any specific "catastrophic" change, but I don't agree that the lack of certainty is sufficient reason to dismiss the idea of any proposed catastrophe happening because we know from past evidence the climate is fickle and sensitive. If someone gets run over by a bus no amount of modelling will tell you for certain which bones will break. Summary: A weather event is not climate except when it is. As far as I can see, the principle model result that I think has been well demonstrated is that if greenhouse gas and pollution levels rise at current predicted rates then the planet will warm by 2-4.5C. So that is my question and answer dealt with.
Saying "you think" is not what Jim Cripwell asked for. Can you point to a section in IPCC where any of what you said is "dealt with"? Model IV&V has never been dealt with. In fact IPCC even acknowledges it didn't when you read the fine print and not the political operative SPM. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 23, 2011 17:05:03 GMT
Summary
You're completely right steve. So I'll have to make up something to divert people away from your cogent and intelligent laying out of the facts.
I'm explaining why Jim is off track. Some models have been shown to have superb V&V practices. You should follow Steve Easterbrook's work.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 23, 2011 17:20:35 GMT
steve writes "Jim,
You are misunderstanding me.
As far as I can see, the principle model result that I think has been well demonstrated is that if greenhouse gas and pollution levels rise at current predicted rates then the planet will warm by 2-4.5C. So that is my question and answer dealt with."
Why I am misunderstanding you? All I am asking for is the reference to the observational data that proves your claim that "the principle model result that I think has been well demonstrated is that if greenhouse gas and pollution levels rise at current predicted rates then the planet will warm by 2-4.5C." You seem to claim that there is an enormous amount of observed data to support this contention. I cannot find it. And you seem to be incapable of providing any sort of reference that provides this observed data.
Where is the observed data that shows that the planet will warm by "2-4.5 C"?
Let me re-iterate. I cannot find any references, and you cannot provide any references, for observed data that supports the output of any climate model that claims to predict the future. There is no such observed data. It does not exist. It is merely a vague claim by the warmaholics to hide the fact that no such observed data exists, and that their claim that climate models have been validated is a load of garbage.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 23, 2011 17:55:23 GMT
Jim, the planet is warming roughly about as much as it was expected to do according to the model projections. The model projections are not just a lucky guess as they are physically based, and the models represent accurately many features of the climate. The model results are also supported by evidence of past climates and past climate change.
Now when that bus comes screaming down the hill toward you with the driver yelling at you to get out of the way, let me know and I'll see if I can find another Jim Cripwell somewhere else who may have had an encounter with an out of control bus in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 23, 2011 18:44:23 GMT
Jim, the planet is warming roughly about as much as it was expected to do according to the model projections. The model projections are not just a lucky guess as they are physically based, and the models represent accurately many features of the climate. The model results are also supported by evidence of past climates and past climate change. Now when that bus comes screaming down the hill toward you with the driver yelling at you to get out of the way, let me know and I'll see if I can find another Jim Cripwell somewhere else who may have had an encounter with an out of control bus in the past. Steve, these sad words of yours are reflections of sad thoughts. Nothing more, and nothing less. |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 23, 2011 18:51:47 GMT
steve writes "Jim, the planet is warming roughly about as much as it was expected to do according to the model projections. The model projections are not just a lucky guess as they are physically based, and the models represent accurately many features of the climate. The model results are also supported by evidence of past climates and past climate change."
GARBAGE. I keep asking for references to hard observed data to support your contentions. You refuse to provide any references. The fact that on one occasion some prediction vaguely coincides with what was predicted, is no proof whatsoever that the model is correct. For predictions to be proved correct there need to be a sufficient number of correct predictions so that the results could not have occurred by chance at the 5 SD level. Just one little vaguely correct prediction could be mere coincidence.
I just love "the models represent accurately many features of the climate" How wonderfully vague. Which features do the models represent accurately? Where is the observed data that proves that the models represent reality? And are the features which are represented "accurately" the ones that are required to make the alleged prediction? You are just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 23, 2011 19:23:40 GMT
In fact they are not climate models at all they are radiation models. A climate model should at least deal with the variability of a majority of variables that effect climate.
I don't think it is a "silly" question to check if this is what you actually meant. You said the above in response to a discussion about climate models, not a discussion about the simple calculations used to determine the so-called "no-feedback" warming.
Models are a set of calculations a simple "applied" calculation is a simple model.
Have you nothing scientific to contribute here other than splitting semantic hairs?
The discussion started with the statement of James Annan to Steve McIntyre. The Annan 1 degree result is from a "radiative transfer model" with nothing else considered.
Its reasonable to assume in the absence of actually being able to inspect the logic of the various GCMs used by the IPCC they all start with this radiative transfer model, ignore the actual physics of attenuating energy in the atmosphere and proceed to apply the surface heat theoretically believed to arrive at the surface and maybe then generate some convection from conduction and transpiration.
One can only go with the model that calculations have been provided for Steve.
Obviously I cannot dissect models I have never seen the underlying logic of.
Parameters are important but so is model logic. It is more fundamental. When I broke into financial modeling I worked on both parameterization and model logic. These were two very different jobs.
In the case of models they almost certainly are not based on engineering or the engineering schematics and calculations would be provided.
Once engineering schematics are provided there is no longer any need for parameterization except for the assumed perturbation.
What I am asking talking about here is the logic of the program and where parameterization occurs. Does it occur at the moment warming occurs at the surface or does it occur at the moment that energy is absorbed by CO2?
The only model seen claims the radiative transfer is very well understood. And then it is paraded around like its a known process in the atmosphere.
I would dispute that. G&T disputes that. It really isn't even an issue of back radiation or not. Its an issue of companion processes of gas heating, expansion, convection, and radiation occurring simultaneously at the point of absorption.
Where are the engineering schematics for that? What we have been led to believe via arguments against saturation of the CO2 effect at the surface is a mathematical model of compounding warming back to the surface via radiation.
It is in essence saying that CO2 absorbs energy and reradiates it without warming. . . .that absorption isn't absorption at all but a 50% reflection/50% transmission rate instead. Where is the scientific basis of that?
This is supposed to be the "well understood" portion of climate science Steve. So certainly there must be engineering schematics for this portion of the process. . . .right???
Any auditor who gets stonewalled in the manner the climate science community is stonewalling interested scientists has to question the whole shebang!
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 23, 2011 19:58:46 GMT
Jim 5SD. How idiotic. If you had two identical planets you wouldn't get 5SD. Really!! And once again you show the futility of discussing anything with you by completely ignoring what I said which is that IT IS NOT JUST BASED ON MODELS. It's basic physics plus findings about past climate too. You can get a whole list of refs at skepticalscience - just search for climate sensitivity there. They've all been cited numerous times by me and others. Which ones would make you happy?  None. So why would I bother. Perhaps it's true and the climate and weather modellers are scamming the public, governments, armed forces, local councils, large companies and others on some random cloud generating program. woodstove I love it when you get all philosophical on me. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 23, 2011 20:07:20 GMT
Icefisher,
Are the bits in yellow you highlighting your point or some bonkers you've found on the interweb. This:
is nuts! Putting it simply, a cold atmosphere containing CO2 is warmed by radiation from a warmer object because the CO2 absorbs the radiation and the next collision with another cold atom has a good chance of transforming the extra energy in the CO2 molecule into additional kinetic energy of the two colliding molecules.
Why is that the only conclusion?
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 23, 2011 20:27:25 GMT
It is in essence saying that CO2 absorbs energy and reradiates it without warming. . . .that absorption isn't absorption at all but a 50% reflection/50% transmission rate instead. Where is the scientific basis of that?
is nuts! Putting it simply, a cold atmosphere containing CO2 is warmed by radiation from a warmer object because the CO2 absorbs the radiation and the next collision with another cold atom has a good chance of transforming the extra energy in the CO2 molecule into additional kinetic energy of the two colliding molecules.
Where are the engineering schematics for that? What we have been led to believe via arguments against saturation of the CO2 effect at the surface is a mathematical model of compounding warming back to the surface via radiation.
Why is that the only conclusion?
It is the only calculation that has been provided to us despite repeated requests.
I mean this is an end of the world scenario. . . .what excuse could there be? Crass commercialization?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 23, 2011 21:16:10 GMT
Jim 5SD. How idiotic. If you had two identical planets you wouldn't get 5SD. Really!! And once again you show the futility of discussing anything with you by completely ignoring what I said which is that IT IS NOT JUST BASED ON MODELS. It's basic physics plus findings about past climate too. You can get a whole list of refs at skepticalscience - just search for climate sensitivity there. They've all been cited numerous times by me and others. Which ones would make you happy? None. So why would I bother. Perhaps it's true and the climate and weather modellers are scamming the public, governments, armed forces, local councils, large companies and others on some random cloud generating program. woodstove I love it when you get all philosophical on me. Steve: Skeptical Science is a blog with an agenda. When you present a paper that doesn't agree with their thought process is is garbage. Yet, all of the papers that support their thought process are without error. I will use a ref of late. The latest paper on sea level rise from North Carolina. All of a sudden this one point is a proxy for the globe. We both are smart enough to know that one point on the globe does NOT represent the globe. The gyrations on that topic are quit amusing to say the least. I presented a paper that shows sea levels on the east coast of the USA to be in deaceleration mode. That paper is garbage, yet is based on tidal gauges. One of the conclusions was to question why the satillite data was diverging from the observations. In this case, observations trump satillite data. Yet, because the observations are not modeled.......they are worthless. Some items on SKS are worthy of discussion, a lot of them are inuendo to the nth degree. Not based on fact, but fiction of models. |
|
None. So why would I bother. Perhaps it's true and the climate and weather modellers are scamming the public, governments, armed forces, local councils, large companies and others on some random cloud generating program.
