What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Hey Punchinello B,

The graph I posted above is the graphical version of the data you posted in raw form. Yes both are from NOAA.

This is a classic tactic; You publish ACCURATE data (as NOAA did) but you don't graph it. Then you send a 'spokesperson' out to press conferences to declare that the data shows this or that terribly perilous thing, in this case that "so not only is co2 increasing but its increasing faster and faster all the time the snow ball is rolling and going faster all the time" spoken in a shrill voice with much hand waving.

Meanwhile, when you actually LOOK at the data, it shows something else

It's too bad you sniffed so much glue in your youth that you couldn't smell a rat if it was taking a dump on your upper lip

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Meanwhile, we have this:




Now everyone in the warmer camp admits that the stratosphere is indeed cooling, but it's being spun by the warmers as the ghost of the 'fingerprint' which they predicted would be there, namely warming in the tropical troposphere.

But what about the MMVS explanation that Punchinello B keeps marching out every time I try to ask him about CO2 being at spectral saturation? If we can all agree there's cooling in the stratosphere, then the MMVS blog page must be false; the mechanism does not operate. If it's false, then we truly are at practical saturation and additional CO2 won't matter.

Now what if there really had been warming in the stratosphere as the MMVS predicted? You know the warmers like Punchinello B would be all over that news saying "See, I told you so!! This proves it!!"

But now instead, we have cooling in the stratosphere, NOT warming, but somehow, that still proves that there's anthropogenic warming!!

Tell me please, Punchinello B, what the stratosphere would have to do to show that there's NO anthropogenic warming.

Icebergs falling from the sky, maybe?!



If you can't think of a scenario that would falsify your precious theory, then your belief in same is NOT based on its scientific merit but rather on faith; your belief in the theory has become your RELIGION.

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Jim:
Here is what NOAA's Climate Program Office says about CO2:

"Current models used to project future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations assume that the carbon cycle will continue to operate in the same way it has operated in the recent past. These models do not take into account the limitations of the carbon sink on land, or how biological, chemical and physical processes in the ocean and land might change either due to natural variability or external forcing. For example, it has been suggested that long-term uptake and storage of carbon by the ocean may be reduced by climate change, resulting in an increased proportion of carbon dioxide remaining the atmosphere. By examining the carbon cycle as an integrated system, identifying how it interacts with climate and other influences such as land use patterns, and incorporating the carbon cycle into dynamic earth system models, more realistic predictions of future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and potential abrupt changes in growth rate can be made."

http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.js...p&pa=gcc&sub=1


They simply still don't know how carbon cycle works.

Cheers.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Hey Punchinello B,

The graph I posted above is the graphical version of the data you posted in raw form. Yes both are from NOAA.

This is a classic tactic; You publish ACCURATE data (as NOAA did) but you don't graph it. Then you send a 'spokesperson' out to press conferences to declare that the data shows this or that terribly perilous thing, in this case that "so not only is co2 increasing but its increasing faster and faster all the time the snow ball is rolling and going faster all the time" spoken in a shrill voice with much hand waving.

Meanwhile, when you actually LOOK at the data, it shows something else

It's too bad you sniffed so much glue in your youth that you couldn't smell a rat if it was taking a dump on your upper lip

Jimbo

and this is the graph jim posted in #3016



oh I smell a rat alright
you buddy boy
now that is free and clear for all to see
Jim
you have been caught red handed
you are lying
in what can only be described as an attempt to deceive the unwary public

that graph is clearly not from NOAA

that graph that you claim is from NOAA is not from NOAA
nor does it represent the data collected by NOAA

that graph is not a representation of the data I presented

look at were the 380 ppm data crosses the time data
'it the second quarter of 2005 on the NOAA graph

now look at were the 380 ppl data crosses the time data on the phony chart that Jim presented
its in the third quarter of 2006

busted lying on the forum

it clearly has www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org printed on the top of it
it clearly has a negative statement directed at the IPCC something that NOAA would not be caught dead writing on a graph of impartial scientific data
this graph is not from the NOAA as you claim it is
nor does it represent data from the NOAA

this is what an official NOAA chart looks like



notice the groovy little seal Jimy boy
and the lack of disparaging remarks

exactly what the deniers are all about
presenting phony data and making wild claims about it

[Capn Mud]

I have done my best to get through the myriad of posts to this point.....

Can someone attempt to clarify for me how good (or bad) the IPCC models are in predicting potential climate change. We can (and it seems have been) arguing back and forth about what they are based on and that is important in the construction of such models. But frankly I struggle to understand the discussions and tell whether concerns raised represent major issues or minor ones.

To quote some old addages:
"The proof of the pudding is in then eating" - but we cant just wait around to see how well the models perform or what is the point of having the models.

"All models are wrong, but some models are useful". Claiming that a model is wrong will always be generally a correct statement because the very nature of modelling is to make simplifications to a complex system in order to try and replicate as closely as possible (as closely as is needed to make the model useful). The models will in this case I think not be expected to predict every short term rise and fall in global temperatures but to establish long term trends that if the models are "useful" can be used as predictive tools and aid decision making today.

What I have not been able to understand is how the models have been validated to assess their "usefulness".

In my career as an engineer I have done alot of much simpler numerical modelling and am very familiar with the "crap in - crap out" phenomenon of unuseful models.

The way we always validated our models was to calibrate them to historical data sets until they could match multiple historical data sets or events as closely as possible within reasonable ranges of adjustment of the various variable parameters in the models which are meant to emulate natural system behaviour. Once we had calibrated to several events or data sets, adjusting parameters to get the best balance, we then validated against some other data sets or events without adjusting parameters to check how the model performed.

Only when we were satisfied with this would we proceed to make predictions and model changes to the system (more correctly the representation of the system within the model), recognising all the while that when we did make changes to the system we could have disturbed the balance we had acheived in calibration but also mindful that there was no way to test that except "wait and see".

So with all that preamble what I have not been able to understand through all the debate and information is how were the climate models used by the IPCC calibrated and validated to historical data and how did they perform? Were the models run over historical time periods of well known CO2, temperature etc data?
How well do they emulate the historical record?
What does this tell us about the reliability of their future projections?

I am sure you guys are going to give me diverging views so I am hoping for references I can look up and sources that are not "industry stooges" or "Greenpeace activists".

Cheers,
Andrew

[Boston]

fare enough andrew

and I apreciate the open minded aproach

for my part I will try to be as honest as posible

climate research involves a complex set of variables that deserve a good hard look from anyone actually interested in deciding for themselves

the easy way for me to answer your question is to direct you here so you can read for yourself what climate scientist say about climate science models

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ng/in#more-527

so let me get a drink and Ill try to develop a synopsis of the issues

ok
one of the first things to try and understand is the history of the science behind rapid global climate change
this video is kinda long but it explains a lot of stuff and it should be considered a prerequisite to any conversation concerning this issue



the flicker attempts to describe what you are generally going to be reading on this thread

and I urge you to look up the term agnotology and decide for yourself what you are reading

it sounds like you are ready to be impartial and not take anyones word for anything ( check out how thoroughly Jim was found out in just that last post of mine )

and by all means dont take my word for it either
check out everything I post as well so you are acting in an impartial way with an even hand

dig hard into the sources you are given or you will find yourself bombarded with bs

I strongly urge you to not get into a technical discussion over flawed research

not sure what you know about the scientific process but it does not include biased research or discredited sources nor does it readily consider industry to be a viable source of research either

you might have noticed Im about the only one throwing in with the 97% of climate (put that in just for you Eddy) scientists who believe that humans are responsible for the climate change
and the rest of these guys are pretty much layman buying into the industry line

so be careful
personally I find em entertaining
but this is no place to find impartiality if your just getting into this


frankly if your after a unsullied opinion
this is not the place to find it
Im only here to stir up the nest and then stand back and watch the buz

[Zed]

Originally Posted by Capn Mud

The way we always validated our models was to calibrate them to historical data sets until they could match multiple historical data sets or events as closely as possible within reasonable ranges of adjustment of the various variable parameters in the models which are meant to emulate natural system behaviour.

In the investment game that is called "curve fitting" and it normally results in a model that is prone to major failure at some point. Absent a good understanding of the fundamentals it becomes dangerous. I don't know how relevant that is here but it seems to me that the models used swing from catastrophe to A OK on a small change in inputs. Soooo...?

[Capn Mud]

Hmmmm - not quite the same thing in the case I was talking about in my preamble Zed.

We had a quite good understanding of the fundamental principles at play and models developed that generally were well proven to provide good response to ranges of different, relatively simple test situations, where the expected response could be developed from first principles or by observation.

It was the particular application of these models to specific natural locations where the calibration and validation process became necessary because some parameters in the model had ranges of possible values depending on the nature of the natural system.

Mostly I am referring to hydrological and hydraulic modelling of catchments and rivers behaviour in response to historical or predicted model rainstorm, or time series rainfall events.

[Boston]

in my previous I posted a link
Ill post it again so its easy for all to find it
its a in depth answer to your question by climate scientists

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ng/in#more-527

[Boston]

and if you have time check out the history of climate science which Naomi Oreskies presents in her vid the amarican denial of global climate change

best
B

Zed
Ill give you curve fitting is an all round bad way to make more than one or two short term trades but Im not sure it would have much merit in climate modeling once a deviation from the norm is realized
and it has
cause there wouldn't be much to compare
so Im not sure it could be applied

from personal experience
if a graph falls within trend then a further analysis of cyclical variability ( curve fitting ) can be applied to try and predict variations within trends or Fibonacci fan ( which I seldom use )
although I do look at the oscillation in the moving average which is a form of cyclical variability that does work well for me

myself I avoid curve fitting in my trading as it seems to just up and bite you in the ass every other trade
not much profit in that

as for it applying to climate models
Ive never built a climate model so I have no clue
Ild urge everyone to check the link I provided cause its the guys who do build em talking about how they do it and how accurate it ends up being
basicaly first hand stuff and bound to be the best most accurate answer to Mr Muds original question

Jim
I almost feel bad for busting you so hard on that last post of yours but hey
just playin with the pudding
and you did blatantly lie about that graph
anytime you want to have an "honest" discussion Im all for it
just leave the blatant falsehoods out of it and be willing to go over the basics
whats so wrong with that idea eh

Im starting to think you throw bones my way just to see if Ill catch you in your bs
that certainly could have been deliberate it was so bad
anyone knows that the NOAA charts all come with there logo on em
and there was no way I was going to miss that
or that the data was not even from NOAA
as you claimed it to be

[Zed]

Originally Posted by Capn Mud

We had a quite good understanding of the fundamental principles at play and models developed that generally were well proven to provide good response to ranges of different, relatively simple test situations, where the expected response could be developed from first principles or by observation.

You might well be quite right there, however it seems to me that we are working with some incomplete and cobbled together data sets then trying to call a knife edge result!

Thing is if the models are that good why the observed variations and the controversy surrounding them. Personally I don't think we are as good we think we are! I was watching Catalyst the other night and they where talking about climate phenomena that all but dictates a large part of our drought cycle... it appears that the "discovery" of this phenomena has been in the last five years! I was amazed that it all seemed so recent!... Anyway, I tend to think that we often over-rate our abilities like the LTCM guys ! LOL.

[Capn Mud]

Zed,

My point in trying to understand a bit more about the Climate Change models exactly. Climate is alot more complex than the hydrology and hydraulics I was dealing with and we had all sorts of trouble to get good calibrations and validations to observed data.

How much more difficult therefore must it be for the climate models....

And what does that tell us about their predictions?

Cheers,
Andrew

[Zed]

Yes...! OK, I'm with you... we just seem to be surrounded by people who are all so certain about this stuff, that alone worries me! I know we can't model economic factors correctly, plenty think they can but "flawed" is the best description of most models! I'm assuming climate is indeed more complex than economics...!

[Boston]

not sure this hole thing will come up but Ill see if it will



nope will have to paste it

This figure from the FAQ document illustrates the response to question #15 in this list. The black line shows actual average global temperatures; the blue shaded region shows predictions from models that only take natural events into consideration; and the pink shading shows predictions from models that include natural and human-caused "forcings".

Credit: Image courtesy of the IPCC (AR4 WG1 Summary for Policymakers Figure SPM.4).

prediction looks pretty darn good to me
now thats not to say other predictions are as good as this one
but still
that says a lot for the value of there predictions

oh and Zed
its pretty widely accepted that the market is fear and gread driven
two huge and unpredictable variables

look at just the last few days
GM files for bankruptcy and the market soars

seems to be as someone who is intimately involved in both that the market should be
and does seem to be
far harder to predict

[Capn Mud]

Zed,

This from a response to a question in the link from Boston in post 3026 mentions this very issue.

"We can’t do a very good job at estimating the future trajectory of technology for instance, or economic development, and so regardless of how well we understand climate, our ability to predict exactly what will happen is limited. Secondly, we don’t have full information about the current conditions, and so, like for weather forecasts, if there are aspects of climate change that are chaotic, we can’t predict those over the long term. However, it is worth pointing out that the statement does not imply that we can’t know anything about the climate system in the future. We know that if there is a big volcano, the climate will cool - and many aspects of the resulting changes will have been predictable. The same is true for increasing GHGs - the climate will warm. Models can’t tell you exactly what will happen where, but there is a lot they can say."

My concern here is this stuff doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in the models output.

What I would love to see is some graph plots of these model performances over historical records as in

"Then there are the tests of climate changes themselves: how does a model respond to the addition of aerosols in the stratosphere such as was seen in the Mt Pinatubo 'natural experiment'? How does it respond over the whole of the 20th Century, or at the Maunder Minimum, or the mid-Holocene or the Last Glacial Maximum? In each case, there is usually sufficient data available to evaluate how well the model is doing." also from Boston's link