The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation
Unum
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
"Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after a doubling
of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the translation of
atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various observations favour a climate
sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C.
However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to
fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values."
And so we see that the lower bounds of the effects of anthropogenic warming
are fairly well constrained, and the numbers are large. But the upper limit
isn't as well understood. Some estimates are as much as 7 °C as shown in
figure 3.
Figure 5 shows the likely effects of the various temperature increases. We
are already experiencing the impacts of the initial warming range such as
coral bleaching, water availability, and increased extinction risk for
many species. Likely warming for a CO2 concentration of 450PPM is as
much as 3 °C. The way things are going we won't stop there, but even if
we do there are some serious consequences. Ocean circulation changes,
extensive flooding of the coastlines, enlarged range of tropical diseases.
Also I notice on the chart a tipping point that seems very ominous. "The
biosphere itself may turn into a carbon source". We are already measuring
this. Methane and N2O are being emitted from previously frozen terrains.
Bill Ward
It's too bad it depends so heavily on models. Real measured data trumps
models, and shows there's no significant positive feedback from WV.
Climate models are basically electronic Ouija boards - you get out what
you want to see.
Tom P
aerospace corporations who all use computer models to develop their
products long before any hardware is cut.
Tom P
If you follow Professor Knutti's webpage at
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir you can find a reading list for
his lecture course on Climate Systems:
Dennis Hartmann, Global Physical Climatology, Academic Press
Murry Salby, Atmospheric Physics, Academic Press
Peixoto and Oort, Physics of Climate, American Institute of Physics
Ahrens, Meteorology Today
Fred Taylor, Elementary Climate Physics, Oxford University Press
Horst Malberg, Meteorologie und Klimatologie: Eine Einfuehrung, Springer
He also has some PDFs online for the course material:
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/The-Climate-System.pdf
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/Solar-Radiation-Radiative-Transfer.pdf
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/Surface-Energy-Balance.pdf
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/Aerosols.pdf
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/Ozone.pdf
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/Global-Balances.pdf
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/Terrestrial-Biomes.pdf
The first PDF on pg 12 contains data that show how the WV content is
increasing.
Enjoy.
T.
Bill Ward
Which ones use climate models?
Bill Ward
That seems to be inferred from brightness measurements.
The link I posted used radiosondes for a direct humidity reading.
IIRC, that's what they use to calibrate satellites.
Have you read Miscolczi yet?
Jean Ludovicy
news:82arft...@mid.individual.net...
Do you compare the complexity of a planet's open athmosphere
to the designe of a car or a microchip?
No wonder that climat activists get it all wrong.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
These kind of meta-studies show the ovewhelming view of scientists
that we are a period of warming which is extremely likely to continue.
The only defence that Bill comes up with is to criticise models, or to
say that people are bowing to authority.
Bill why is it that so many people simply dismiss what you say? Show
me a meta-study that in any way supports your view. Such a study shows
the tiny minority view that you inhabit. If we do (note the word "if"
as always) see GW at a level heading towards the upper estimates that
this study suggests could be possible, would you have changed your
view?
Why is it that in these 101 studies, there are none that show the
possibility of CO2 levels causing the warming that you suggest?
Filtering? Conspiracy? Lack of good science? Misunderstanding of the
temperature data by all these scientists.
The study makes the denialist point of view even more unlikely. In the
face of all this and global temperatures being so high in spite of a
negative PDO and an extended solar minimum, how can you denialists
still keep simply saying...."it's not CO2"? That's what I can't
understand. If you allowed leeway, I could understand a sceptical
position, but Temperature and CO2 denialists don't. I'm a dyed in the
wool sceptic, but as regards climate science, an outright denialist
position is, well........... *>))
Tom P
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:56:31 +0200, Tom P wrote:
>
>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:05:06 -0500, Unum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Excellent paper here collecting the results of about 100 studies;
>>>> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>>>>
>>>> "Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after a
>>>> doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the
>>>> translation of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various observations
>>>> of about 2�4.5 �C. However, the physics of the response and
>>>> uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling
>>>> out higher values."
>>>>
>>>> And so we see that the lower bounds of the effects of anthropogenic
>>>> warming are fairly well constrained, and the numbers are large. But
>>>> the upper limit isn't as well understood. Some estimates are as much
>>>>
>>>> Figure 5 shows the likely effects of the various temperature
>>>> increases. We are already experiencing the impacts of the initial
>>>> warming range such as coral bleaching, water availability, and
>>>> increased extinction risk for many species. Likely warming for a CO2
Of course I have read Miskolczi. The question is, have you ever read
anything else other than Miskolczi?
That ETHZ lecture series is an absolute goldmine - try it.
T.
Unum
Actually it doesn't. It is a survey of about 100 papers that draw
conclusions based on a large variety of factors and instrumented data
is included.
> Climate models are basically electronic Ouija boards - you get out what
> you want to see.
Bill Ward isn't able to understand the paper. Entirely predictable.
Bill Ward
Not until it's been explained to my satisfaction how CO2 is causing it.
I'm not a member of your, or any, herd.
> Why is it that in these 101 studies, there are none that show the
> possibility of CO2 levels causing the warming that you suggest?
> Filtering? Conspiracy? Lack of good science? Misunderstanding of the
> temperature data by all these scientists.
Some of all of the above. Pick whichever you like. I doubt you've read
any of them. All you need is one to convince me, if it can be shown to
be valid.
> The study makes the denialist point of view even more unlikely. In the
> face of all this and global temperatures being so high in spite of a
> negative PDO and an extended solar minimum, how can you denialists still
> keep simply saying...."it's not CO2"? That's what I can't understand. If
> you allowed leeway, I could understand a sceptical position, but
> Temperature and CO2 denialists don't. I'm a dyed in the wool sceptic,
> but as regards climate science, an outright denialist position is,
> well........... *>))
Completely reasonable, compared to argument from authority from people
who believe things they can't understand.
Green Turtle
news:82arft...@mid.individual.net...
>
> You'd better tell that to the car designers, microchip manufacturers and
> aerospace corporations who all use computer models to develop their
> products long before any hardware is cut.
>
Ah, but they're not speculative incomplete models models that leaves so many
details out as to be useless.
And in the case of computer chips, there really using modeling tools not
theoretical models. On the other hand I'm not surprised you can understand
the difference. But you do brown nose and hail to the great Al Gore.
NOT ONE of the models predicted that we would not see any warming for about
eight years now. And many the earlier predictions are either white washed,
or simply revised to reflect what has later occurred.
In fact most of the models also projected increase in storms and hurricanes,
and that hasn't happened either.
In fact none of their predictions have been correct, and the old saying
about garbage in equals garbage out rings very true here. The models have
predicted nothing of real use, and have not reflected what is occurring in
the real world.
In the mediaeval warming period we saw temperatures as high as today, and
yet less CO2, and in the past we seen higher levels of CO2 and lower
temperatures. How come none of the models can explain the the mediaeval
warming period? How come none of the models explain that we had higher
levels of CO2 and yet the earth was colder?
Most of these models simply underestimate the increases in outgoing
radiation into outer space that will occur if you increase surface
temperatures. This concept is explained in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Q8wPkoFAU
Super Turtle
Bill Ward
> Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:56:31 +0200, Tom P wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:05:06 -0500, Unum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Excellent paper here collecting the results of about 100 studies;
>>>>> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> "Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after a
>>>>> doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the
>>>>> translation of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various
>>>>> observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with
>>>>> a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C. However, the physics of the
>>>>> response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental
>>>>> difficulties in ruling out higher values."
>>>>>
>>>>> And so we see that the lower bounds of the effects of anthropogenic
>>>>> warming are fairly well constrained, and the numbers are large. But
>>>>> the upper limit isn't as well understood. Some estimates are as much
>>>>> as 7 °C as shown in figure 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Figure 5 shows the likely effects of the various temperature
>>>>> increases. We are already experiencing the impacts of the initial
>>>>> warming range such as coral bleaching, water availability, and
>>>>> increased extinction risk for many species. Likely warming for a CO2
>>>>> concentration of 450PPM is as much as 3 °C. The way things are going
Then why do you continue with explanations using the semi-infinite
atmosphere rather than the semi-transparent approach used by M? How can
you accept the Eddington et al equations, when he has pretty convincingly
shown that they're not valid? Just the surface discontinuity should be
enough to raise flags. See page 13.
Do you have any specific substantive disagreement with M's approach?
> The question is, have you ever read anything else other than Miskolczi?
Of course, but M seems much more plausible than anything else I've read.
>
> That ETHZ lecture series is an absolute goldmine - try it.
I've downloaded it, but it seems to be mainly ppt files. I like to
understand not just what people think, but why they think it's true.
That usually requires a regular paper with its specific procedures and
descriptions. Powerpoint is like reading a book written in crayon.
I'll look through it and see if I find anything new.
Bill Ward
Looking at 100 papers is just as nonsensical as averaging the outputs of
100 climate models. All it takes is one that's right. The others just
confuse the issue.
Stuart
What is required to get *your satisfaction* ?
Demonstrate you are an honest skeptic.
Stuart
Stuart
There is no *one right model*. Each emphasizes different aspects of
the physics and
use different formulations for the computational methodology. In
aggregate they examine
a wide assortment of scenarios and conditions, and provide a firm
baseline for discussion.
Its long been my experience, that people who ignore numerical modeling
do so because:
1. They don't know how they work.
2. To lazy to do any modeling on their own.
Stuart
Bill Ward
Argument based on verifiable, measured data, that doesn't break any laws
of physics.
> Demonstrate you are an honest skeptic.
No problem. Explain your hypothesis, and I'll critique it for you.
Bill Ward
Then which one do you use for predicting the future?
> Its long been my experience, that people who ignore numerical modeling
> do so because:
>
> 1. They don't know how they work.
>
> 2. To lazy to do any modeling on their own.
Funny. It's been my experience that people who put too much trust in
climate models do so for exactly the same reasons.
Stuart
They don't have to be trusted.
Just understood.
Thats where you fall down.
Stuart
Stuart
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:50:10 -0700, Stuart wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 8:37 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:54:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
> >> > On Apr 10, 7:52 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:05:06 -0500, Unum wrote:
> >> >> > Excellent paper here collecting the results of about 100 studies;
> >> >> >http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>
> >> >> > "Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after
> >> >> > a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the
> >> >> > translation of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various
> >> >> > with a likely range of about 2�4.5 �C. However, the physics of the
> >> >> > response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental
> >> >> > difficulties in ruling out higher values."
>
> >> >> > And so we see that the lower bounds of the effects of
> >> >> > anthropogenic warming are fairly well constrained, and the numbers
> >> >> > are large. But the upper limit isn't as well understood. Some
>
> >> >> > Figure 5 shows the likely effects of the various temperature
> >> >> > increases. We are already experiencing the impacts of the initial
> >> >> > warming range such as coral bleaching, water availability, and
> >> >> > increased extinction risk for many species. Likely warming for a
What type of verifiable, measured data would you be interested in?
Stuart
odin
Human engineering does use computer models very effectively. But it
only works well in certain limited areas of application. Computer
models
are most effective in cases where the governing differential
equations
are linear, or can be approximated closely using linear models. Humans
design and model mostly in areas that can be represented as modular
decoupled systems, with simple linear equations, with macro behavior
governed by aggregate properties, with non-fractal geometries, etc.
Computer models often do not work in situations involving certain
nonlinear systems, such as chaotic systems (i.e. turbulent fluid flow
or cardiac arrhythmia). It does not work in systems where the model
itself is dynamically modified by the state of the system as it
evolves
(i.e. the stock market or embryonic development). It does not work
in situations that have macro behavior governed by amplified
quantum effects (i.e. Schrödinger’s Cat or CMOS latch-up
metastability). It does not work if the system state is too complex
or
too large (i.e. swarm dynamics or cloud formation). It does not work
when the state that is being modeled is too hard or too expensive to
physically measure in sufficient detail, and is thus too sparse
(i.e. long term weather prediction).
Engineers do great things with numerical models. I have done a
lot of that myself in the area of finite element analysis, and I
am always thrilled with how well it sometimes works. It’s a rush.
But I can tell you from experience that it often does not work
well. And in engineering, you often need to rely on verifying your
model against very many repeatable, complete, and accurate
empirical data set measurements (something that climate data
is very deficient in).
I think that computer models are very cool and fun. But we
must not get fooled by our success in some areas that we
can deal with well. There are many areas that will probably
always be out of reach from numerical methods and modeling.
Some things are probably inherently impossible to simulate,
predict or understand. That includes the stock market, fashion
trends, mental disease, earth quakes, volcanism, the
Sturm–Liouville equation (generalized fluid mechanics),
economics, influenza genetics and epidemiology, the
generalized three body problem, avalanche prediction,
atomic decay, etc.
And guess what.... Climate prediction has just about
everything mentioned above working against it.
You say that because computer models are effective
in one problem category, it should therefore be
effective in all problem categories. Do you see your
logical fallacy? For every success that you can point
to in computational modeling I can point to a hundred
cases where it fails.
Please understand this… microchip manufacturers use
computational models that work surprisingly well at
understanding semiconductor behavior as well as for
designing semiconductor fabrication processes, etc.
But I can tell you that that comes nowhere near the
problems encountered in numerically modeling
systems such as global climate.
-Lord Fnord
Bruce Richmond
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is only one earth so there can only be one correct answer. Each
of the models claims to have 'the' answer. Obviously they cannot all
be correct. Which one do you think is correct and how do you know
that is the right one?
Bill Ward
> On Apr 10, 10:18 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:50:10 -0700, Stuart wrote:
>> > On Apr 10, 8:37 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:54:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
>> >> > On Apr 10, 7:52 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:05:06 -0500, Unum wrote:
>> >> >> > Excellent paper here collecting the results of about 100
>> >> >> > studies;
>> >> >> >http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>>
>> >> >> > "Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming
>> >> >> > after a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help
>> >> >> > with the translation of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming.
>> >> >> > Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of
>> >> >> > about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C. However, the
>> >> >> > physics of the response and uncertainties in forcing lead to
>> >> >> > fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values."
>>
>> >> >> > And so we see that the lower bounds of the effects of
>> >> >> > anthropogenic warming are fairly well constrained, and the
>> >> >> > numbers are large. But the upper limit isn't as well
>> >> >> > understood. Some estimates are as much as 7 °C as shown in
>> >> >> > figure 3.
>>
>> >> >> > Figure 5 shows the likely effects of the various temperature
>> >> >> > increases. We are already experiencing the impacts of the
>> >> >> > initial warming range such as coral bleaching, water
>> >> >> > availability, and increased extinction risk for many species.
>> >> >> > Likely warming for a CO2 concentration of 450PPM is as much as
>> >> >> > 3 °C. The way things are going we won't stop there, but even if
That, of course, would depend on your hypothesis. When you describe and
explain it, I can be more specific.
Bruce Richmond
You expect us to make decisions that will have a major impact on our
future based on the output of a model that we don't trust? Oh yeah,
that makes a lot of sense.
> Thats where you fall down.
You have obviously fallen for something.
>
> Stuart- Hide quoted text -
odin
Bullshit.
People who don't know how numerical modeling works do not ignore
numerical modeling. They never even think about it.
If someone does not do modeling on their own, it is because they do
not know how to do it or they have no need for it. Lazyness has
nothing to do with it.
Stuart
Actually they don't.
Guess again.
Thanks for playing.
Stuart
Stuart
Struck a nerve. I guess.
Stuart
Bruce Richmond
> On Apr 10, 12:26 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 3:54 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 9:29 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:59:00 -0500, Unum wrote:
> > > > > On 4/10/2010 1:52 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
> > > > >> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:05:06 -0500, Unum wrote:
>
> > > > >>> Excellent paper here collecting the results of about 100 studies;
> > > > >>>http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>
> > > > >>> "Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after a
> > > > >>> doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the
> > > > >>> translation of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various observations
> > > > >>> of about 2�4.5 �C. However, the physics of the response and
> > > > >>> uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling
> > > > >>> out higher values."
>
> > > > >>> And so we see that the lower bounds of the effects of anthropogenic
> > > > >>> warming are fairly well constrained, and the numbers are large. But
> > > > >>> the upper limit isn't as well understood. Some estimates are as much
>
> > > > >>> Figure 5 shows the likely effects of the various temperature
> > > > >>> increases. We are already experiencing the impacts of the initial
> > > > >>> warming range such as coral bleaching, water availability, and
> > > > >>> increased extinction risk for many species. Likely warming for a CO2
> > > > >>> we won't stop there, but even if we do there are some serious
> > > > >>> consequences. Ocean circulation changes, extensive flooding of the
> > > > >>> coastlines, enlarged range of tropical diseases.
>
> > > > >>> Also I notice on the chart a tipping point that seems very ominous.
> > > > >>> "The biosphere itself may turn into a carbon source". We are already
> > > > >>> measuring this. Methane and N2O are being emitted from previously
> > > > >>> frozen terrains.
>
> > > > >> trumps models, and shows there's no significant positive feedback from
> > > > >> WV.
>
> > > > > Actually it doesn't. It is a survey of about 100 papers that draw
> > > > > conclusions based on a large variety of factors and instrumented data is
> > > > > included.
>
> > > > >> Climate models are basically electronic Ouija boards - you get out what
> > > > >> you want to see.
>
> > > > > Bill Ward isn't able to understand the paper. Entirely predictable.
>
> > > > Looking at 100 papers is just as nonsensical as averaging the outputs of
> > > > confuse the issue.
>
> > > There is no *one right model*. Each emphasizes different aspects of
> > > the physics and
> > > use different formulations for the computational methodology. In
> > > aggregate they examine
> > > a wide assortment of scenarios and conditions, and provide a firm
> > > baseline for discussion.
>
> > > Its long been my experience, that people who ignore numerical modeling
> > > do so because:
>
> > > 1. They don't know how they work.
>
> > > 2. To lazy to do any modeling on their own.
>
> > > Stuart- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > of the models claims to have 'the' answer.
>
> Actually they don't.
>
> Guess again.
>
>
> Stuart- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for showing that you are an idiot that I don't need to
respond to.
[plonk]
Unum
> On Apr 10, 10:18 am, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:50:10 -0700, Stuart wrote:
>>> On Apr 10, 8:37 am, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:54:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 10, 7:52 am, Bill Ward<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:05:06 -0500, Unum wrote:
>>>>>>> Excellent paper here collecting the results of about 100 studies;
>>>>>>> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>>
>>>>>>> "Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after
>>>>>>> a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the
>>>>>>> translation of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various
>>>>>>> with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C. However, the physics of the
>>>>>>> response and uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental
>>>>>>> difficulties in ruling out higher values."
>>
>>>>>>> And so we see that the lower bounds of the effects of
>>>>>>> anthropogenic warming are fairly well constrained, and the numbers
>>>>>>> are large. But the upper limit isn't as well understood. Some
>>
>>>>>>> Figure 5 shows the likely effects of the various temperature
>>>>>>> increases. We are already experiencing the impacts of the initial
>>>>>>> warming range such as coral bleaching, water availability, and
>>>>>>> increased extinction risk for many species. Likely warming for a
Don't waste your time asking the troll what he wants. Nobody cares.
Unum
Pretty obvious that you didn't read any of them. Even if you had you don't
have the intellectual capacity to understand them. Pick a few out now Ward
and see if you can find anything that we can explain for you.
Weren't you on your knees recently begging people to show you studies
indicating that doubling of CO2 would cause global temperatures
above 1.2C? Now that we see there is a great abundance of them you are
strangely unappreciative.
Unum
I am guessing your didn't actually read the paper I cited. You
didn't read it did you. It was a survey of many studies related
to climate sensitivity. Models were included of course for
completeness. It seems like you should have noticed that. Why
didn't you notice it.
odin
>
> - Show quoted text -
>I am guessing your didn't actually read the paper I cited.
Correct... I am not interested in reading it, and I did not claim to
have read it.
>You didn't read it did you.
Correct...
>It was a survey of many studies related to climate sensitivity.
OK.
>Models were included of course for completeness.
OK.
>It seems like you should have noticed that.
Nope.
>Why didn't you notice it.
Because I was not interested in that aspect of this thread.
Look at my post again. I was simply making the point that numerical
modeling is a tough game.
Climate models are in the toughest part of the game.
Nothing more.
Read my post again.
-lord fnord
Paul J Gans
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Q8wPkoFAU
All simulations leave out most of the details.
The problem in any model is to capture the important effects.
Folks work long and hard to do that.
If you have a technical problem with a model, you need to discuss
it with someone who actually knows about the model in one way or
another. The habit of asserting unreferenced "facts" and demanding
answers isn't communication.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
odin
> In talk.origins Green Turtle <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote in message
Some systems have no special "important effects". All effects are
equally important. Some systems are so sensitive to all initial
conditions that all effects are equally and totally significant. And
any error in their initial measurement throws the entire simulation
down the tube in the long run. Climate is like that.
Paul J Gans
Total nonsense. That type of situation can be handled by
direct calculation, possibly including approximation to
increase efficiency.
Modelling of various types was created exactly to handle the
non-linear multiple variable situations that are not ameanable
to "standard" computational methods.
>Humans
>design and model mostly in areas that can be represented as modular
>decoupled systems, with simple linear equations, with macro behavior
>governed by aggregate properties, with non-fractal geometries, etc.
>Computer models often do not work in situations involving certain
>nonlinear systems, such as chaotic systems (i.e. turbulent fluid flow
> or cardiac arrhythmia). It does not work in systems where the model
> itself is dynamically modified by the state of the system as it
>evolves
Again, total nonsense.
You drag in the magic buzzword "chaotic". There are ways to
handle chaotic systems too. Chaos, in case you've forgotten
means extreme sensitivity to the intial conditions in the problem.
One handles chaos by NOT doing direct integrations.
Molecular motion is chaotic, but one has no trouble calculating
the laminar flow of fluids simply because one works at a level
*above* the individual molecule.
> (i.e. the stock market or embryonic development). It does not work
> in situations that have macro behavior governed by amplified
> quantum effects (i.e. Schrödinger’s Cat or CMOS latch-up
> metastability). It does not work if the system state is too complex
>or
> too large (i.e. swarm dynamics or cloud formation). It does not work
> when the state that is being modeled is too hard or too expensive to
> physically measure in sufficient detail, and is thus too sparse
>(i.e. long term weather prediction).
Again, mainly nonsense. What exactly do you think folks who
model chemical reactions on a quantum level do?
And yes, there are some computations that can't be done because
of chaos or other effects. Thus we do NOT provide detailed
weather forcasts for May 1st while it is April 10th.
But we can look at the climate from a broader perspective and do
just fine. You seem to be overlooking that.
>Engineers do great things with numerical models. I have done a
>lot of that myself in the area of finite element analysis, and I
>am always thrilled with how well it sometimes works. It’s a rush.
>But I can tell you from experience that it often does not work
>well. And in engineering, you often need to rely on verifying your
>model against very many repeatable, complete, and accurate
>empirical data set measurements (something that climate data
> is very deficient in).
And you know this how? Most, if not all, climate models are
checked against known results. Why would they not be?
>I think that computer models are very cool and fun. But we
>must not get fooled by our success in some areas that we
>can deal with well. There are many areas that will probably
>always be out of reach from numerical methods and modeling.
>Some things are probably inherently impossible to simulate,
>predict or understand. That includes the stock market, fashion
>trends, mental disease, earth quakes, volcanism, the
>Sturm–Liouville equation (generalized fluid mechanics),
>economics, influenza genetics and epidemiology, the
>generalized three body problem, avalanche prediction,
>atomic decay, etc.
Well, you are dead wrong about many of those. Again, just
because they cannot be done in the detail you wish doesn't
mean that nothing can be accomplished. The generalized three
body problem is but one example, and one I happen to know a
little about. What would you like to know about it?
>And guess what.... Climate prediction has just about
>everything mentioned above working against it.
>You say that because computer models are effective
>in one problem category, it should therefore be
>effective in all problem categories. Do you see your
>logical fallacy? For every success that you can point
>to in computational modeling I can point to a hundred
>cases where it fails.
>Please understand this… microchip manufacturers use
>computational models that work surprisingly well at
>understanding semiconductor behavior as well as for
>designing semiconductor fabrication processes, etc.
>But I can tell you that that comes nowhere near the
>problems encountered in numerically modeling
>systems such as global climate.
And you know this how?
Paul J Gans
When the majority of the models agree on the outcome, one has a
certain degree of confidence. Not total confidence, to be sure,
but a great deal.
It would be rather amazing if a bunch of models each using different
sets of assumptions and differing techniques just happened to hit on
the same wrong result, wouldn't it?
Paul J Gans
>> On Apr 10, 12:26 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 10, 3:54 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 10, 9:29 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:59:00 -0500, Unum wrote:
>> > > > > On 4/10/2010 1:52 AM, Bill Ward wrote:
>> > > > >> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:05:06 -0500, Unum wrote:
>>
>> > > > >>> Excellent paper here collecting the results of about 100 studies;
>> > > > >>>http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>>
>> > > > >>> "Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after a
>> > > > >>> doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the
>> > > > >>> translation of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various observations
>> > > > >>> of about 2–4.5 °C. However, the physics of the response and
>> > > > >>> uncertainties in forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling
>> > > > >>> out higher values."
>>
>> > > > >>> And so we see that the lower bounds of the effects of anthropogenic
>> > > > >>> warming are fairly well constrained, and the numbers are large. But
>> > > > >>> the upper limit isn't as well understood. Some estimates are as much
>>
>> > > > >>> Figure 5 shows the likely effects of the various temperature
>> > > > >>> increases. We are already experiencing the impacts of the initial
>> > > > >>> warming range such as coral bleaching, water availability, and
>> > > > >>> increased extinction risk for many species. Likely warming for a CO2
>> > > > >>> we won't stop there, but even if we do there are some serious
>> > > > >>> consequences. Ocean circulation changes, extensive flooding of the
>> > > > >>> coastlines, enlarged range of tropical diseases.
>>
>> > > > >>> Also I notice on the chart a tipping point that seems very ominous.
>> > > > >>> "The biosphere itself may turn into a carbon source". We are already
>> > > > >>> measuring this. Methane and N2O are being emitted from previously
>> > > > >>> frozen terrains.
>>
>> > > > >> trumps models, and shows there's no significant positive feedback from
>> > > > >> WV.
>>
>> > > > > Actually it doesn't. It is a survey of about 100 papers that draw
>> > > > > conclusions based on a large variety of factors and instrumented data is
>> > > > > included.
>>
>> > > > >> Climate models are basically electronic Ouija boards - you get out what
>> > > > >> you want to see.
>>
>> > > > > Bill Ward isn't able to understand the paper. Entirely predictable.
>>
>> > > > Looking at 100 papers is just as nonsensical as averaging the outputs of
>> > > > confuse the issue.
>>
>> > > There is no *one right model*. Each emphasizes different aspects of
>> > > the physics and
>> > > use different formulations for the computational methodology. In
>> > > aggregate they examine
>> > > a wide assortment of scenarios and conditions, and provide a firm
>> > > baseline for discussion.
>>
>> > > Its long been my experience, that people who ignore numerical modeling
>> > > do so because:
>>
>> > > 1. They don't know how they work.
>>
>> > > 2. To lazy to do any modeling on their own.
>>
>> > > Stuart- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > of the models claims to have 'the' answer.
>>
>> Actually they don't.
>>
>> Guess again.
>>
>>
>> Stuart- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>Thank you for showing that you are an idiot that I don't need to
>respond to.
>[plonk]
So you claim that
1) there can be only one correct answer.
2) That each of the models claim to have "the" answer.
Interesting indeed.
You seem to imply that the answer is a number that is either
correct or is wrong.
But what if that's not the answer that folks are looking for.
What if they are looking for warmer or colder? Then
if there are 10 models, nine of them have to give the wrong
answer. Curious way to do science, I'd think.
odin
>
> - Show quoted text -
>That type of situation can be
>handled by direct calculation,
>possibly including approximation
>to increase efficiency.
That type of situation? Systems of
linear differential equations? That
type of situation can be handled by
direct calculation? That type of
situation is not involved in comp
modeling? Really? And what do you
mean by "direct calculation"? Do
you mean where a closed form
solution exists? Is that what you
mean? I can tell by you use of the
term "direct calculation" that you
don;t know yourself what you mean.
And approximation to increase
efficiency? Everything in physics
is approximation due to measurement.
Everything in computation is
approximation due to finite numerical
representation. Its called
discretization error.
>MoModelling of various types was
>created exactly to handle the
>non-linear multiple variable
>situations that are ...
Huh? You don't know much about this
topic. Many numerical methods
algorithms are focused on systems
on linear differential equations.
The non-linear cases are often
chaotic and are not amenable to
numerical simulation.
>You drag in the magic buzzword "chaotic".
It is a technical term with specific meaning.
It is not a magic buzzword.
>There are ways to handle chaotic systems too.
This will be good...
>Chaos, in case you've forgotten
>means extreme sensitivity to the
>initial conditions in the problem.
>One handles chaos by NOT doing
>direct integrations.
What a joke. And what do you mean by
"direct integrations"?
Chaotic systems are inherently hard
to predict. Period. There is no special
way to "handle" them.
Unum
Very well, I looked at your post again. You said "Climate prediction
has just about everything mentioned above working against it." You may
have some experience with modeling, don't know, but this particular
statement clearly shows that you don't have a clue about climate
prediction, and you don't care.
And so I do see that you didn't read the cited paper because you
don't care about the subject. Glad we have cleared that up.
odin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Climate prediction is hard. Do you agree?
Mark Isaak
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:05:06 -0500, Unum wrote:
>
>> Excellent paper here collecting the results of about 100 studies;
>> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>>
>> "Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after a
>> doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the translation
>> of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various observations favour a
>> climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about
>> 2-4.5 °C. However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in
>> forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values."
>>
>> And so we see that the lower bounds of the effects of anthropogenic
>> warming are fairly well constrained, and the numbers are large. But the
>> upper limit isn't as well understood. Some estimates are as much as 7
>> °C as shown in figure 3.
>>
>> Figure 5 shows the likely effects of the various temperature increases.
>> We are already experiencing the impacts of the initial warming range
>> such as coral bleaching, water availability, and increased extinction
>> risk for many species. Likely warming for a CO2 concentration of 450PPM
>> is as much as 3 °C. The way things are going we won't stop there, but
>> even if we do there are some serious consequences. Ocean circulation
>> changes, extensive flooding of the coastlines, enlarged range of
>> tropical diseases.
>>
>> Also I notice on the chart a tipping point that seems very ominous. "The
>> biosphere itself may turn into a carbon source". We are already
>> measuring this. Methane and N2O are being emitted from previously frozen
>> terrains.
>
> It's too bad it depends so heavily on models. Real measured data trumps
> models, and shows there's no significant positive feedback from WV.
>
> Climate models are basically electronic Ouija boards - you get out what
> you want to see.
References, please.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
TUKA
Why? You never provide any. And no, posting article citations without
discussing the content of them doesn't apply.
--
Few blame themselves until they have exhausted all other possibilities.
-- anonymous
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
You allege, without ever providing evidence, that all climate scientists
are wrong and because of your unjustified allegation, you assert that
you are free to make any silly claim you like.
Your ego has gotten the best of your.
Your ignorance has betrayed you.
Your foolishness has made you into a laughingstock.
John Wilkins
when replying to these guys? We have had our teaching moment - yes,
they are as bad as creationists. But unless it's on topic, I'd really
rather not engage these fools in t.o.
Richard Harter
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>When the majority of the models agree on the outcome, one has a
>certain degree of confidence. Not total confidence, to be sure,
>but a great deal.
>
>It would be rather amazing if a bunch of models each using different
>sets of assumptions and differing techniques just happened to hit on
>the same wrong result, wouldn't it?
Not at all. It happens regularly. The usual reason is a common
unquestioned assumption embedded in the models.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.
odin
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:33:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >When the majority of the models agree on the outcome, one has a
> >certain degree of confidence. �Not total confidence, to be sure,
> >but a great deal.
>
> >It would be rather amazing if a bunch of models each using different
> >sets of assumptions and differing techniques just happened to hit on
> >the same wrong result, wouldn't it?
>
> Not at all. �It happens regularly. �The usual reason is a common
> unquestioned assumption embedded in the models.
>
> It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
> it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.
True
odin
What determines our understanding in science is
determined by the interaction between belief-directed
thinking (dogma), evidence-driven conflict (scientific
method), and a complex mix of incentives (politics
and career).
Cognitive dissonance can keep us on the wrong track
for a long time. Politics is a powerful force. Funding
favors the status quo. Conflict of interest in public
policy is a factor. Confirmation bias. And so on. New
facts can be slow to take hold. In the meanwhile,
there is a lot of bandwagon jumping.
So no, it is not surprising to see a lot of mutual
confirmation in the models.
-lord fnord
Unum
I do agree with you on this point, and I appreciate that you
have identified a place where we can have agreement.
odin
> >> On 4/10/2010 7:48 PM, odin wrote:
>
> >>>> On 4/10/2010 4:36 PM, odin wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Bill Ward wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:05:06 -0500, Unum wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Excellent paper here collecting the results of about 100 studies;
> >>>>>>>>http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>
> >>>>>>>> "Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after a
> >>>>>>>> doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the translation
> >>>>>>>> of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various observations favour a
> >>>>>>>> 2�4.5 �C. However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in
> >>>>>>>> forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values."
>
> >>>>>>>> And so we see that the lower bounds of the effects of anthropogenic
> >>>>>>>> warming are fairly well constrained, and the numbers are large. But the
> >>>>>>>> as shown in figure 3.
>
> >>>>>>>> Figure 5 shows the likely effects of the various temperature increases.
> >>>>>>>> We are already experiencing the impacts of the initial warming range
> >>>>>>>> such as coral bleaching, water availability, and increased extinction
> >>>>>>>> risk for many species. Likely warming for a CO2 concentration of 450PPM
> >>>>>>>> even if we do there are some serious consequences. Ocean circulation
> >>>>>>>> changes, extensive flooding of the coastlines, enlarged range of
> >>>>>>>> tropical diseases.
>
> >>>>>>>> Also I notice on the chart a tipping point that seems very ominous. "The
> >>>>>>>> biosphere itself may turn into a carbon source". We are already
> >>>>>>>> measuring this. Methane and N2O are being emitted from previously frozen
> >>>>>>>> terrains.
>
> >>>>>>> models, and shows there's no significant positive feedback from WV.
>
> >>>>>>> Climate models are basically electronic Ouija boards - you get out what
> >>>>>>> you want to see.
>
> >>>>>> You'd better tell that to the car designers, microchip manufacturers and
> >>>>>> aerospace corporations who all use computer models to develop their
> >>>>>> products long before any hardware is cut
>
> >>>>> Human engineering does use computer models very effectively. But it
> >>>>> only works well in certain limited areas of application. Computer
> >>>>> models
> >>>>> are most effective in cases where the governing differential
> >>>>> equations
> >>>>> are linear, or can be approximated closely using linear models. Humans
> >>>>> design and model mostly in areas that can be represented as modular
> >>>>> decoupled systems, with simple linear equations, with macro behavior
> >>>>> governed by aggregate properties, with non-fractal geometries, etc.
> >>>>> Computer models often do not work in situations involving certain
> >>>>> nonlinear systems, such as chaotic systems (i.e. turbulent fluid flow
> >>>>> � � itself is dynamically modified by the state of the system as it
> >>>>> evolves
> >>>>> � � (i.e. the stock market or embryonic development). It does not work
> >>>>> � � in situations that have macro behavior governed by amplified
> >>>>> � � quantum effects (i.e. Schr�dinger�s Cat or CMOS latch-up
> >>>>> � � metastability). It does not work if the system state is too complex
> >>>>> or
> >>>>> � � too large (i.e. swarm dynamics or cloud formation). It does not work
> >>>>> � � when the state that is being modeled is too hard or too expensive to
> >>>>> � � physically measure in sufficient detail, and is thus too sparse
> >>>>> (i.e. long term weather prediction).
>
> >>>>> Engineers do great things with numerical models. I have done a
> >>>>> lot of that myself in the area of finite element analysis, and I
> >>>>> But I can tell you from experience that it often does not work
> >>>>> well. And in engineering, you often need to rely on verifying your
> >>>>> model against very many repeatable, complete, and accurate
> >>>>> empirical data set measurements (something that climate data
>
> >>>>> I think that computer models are very cool and fun. But we
> >>>>> must not get fooled by our success in some areas that we
> >>>>> can deal with well. There are many areas that will probably
> >>>>> always be out of reach from numerical methods and modeling.
> >>>>> Some things are probably inherently impossible to simulate,
> >>>>> predict or understand. That includes the stock market, fashion
> >>>>> trends, mental disease, earth quakes, volcanism, the
>
> - Show quoted text -
cool
Bill Ward
As I said, all you need is one that's convincing. You seem to have a
great deal of trouble coming up with even that.
I wonder why...
Bill Ward
Here ya go:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouija>
"A Ouija board (/ˈwiːdʒə/ also /ˈwiːdʒiː/), also known as a spirit board
or talking board, is a flat board marked with letters, numbers, and other
symbols, theoretically used to communicate with spirits. It uses a
planchette (small heart-shaped piece of wood) or movable indicator to
indicate the spirit's message by spelling it out on the board during a
séance. The fingers of the séance participants are placed on the
planchette, which then moves about the board to spell out messages. Ouija
is a trademark for a talking board currently sold by Parker Brothers.[1]
It has become a trademark that is often used generically to refer to any
talking board."
Bill Ward
And your AGW religion has turned you into an evangelist, but not a very
good one,
Dan Luke
"Bill Ward" wrote:
>>> >> Not until it's been explained to my satisfaction how CO2 is causing
>>> >> it.
>>>
>>> > What is required to get *your satisfaction* ?
>>>
>>> Argument based on verifiable, measured data, that doesn't break any
>>> laws of physics.
>>
>> What type of verifiable, measured data would you be interested in?
>
> That, of course, would depend on your hypothesis. When you describe and
> explain it, I can be more specific.
Haw! Goalposts on roller skates!
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus
Dawlish
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:55:45 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another childish snipe at someone..........
The original meta-study used over 100 papers Bill. I hate to ask this
of you, but it is only what you ask of others, to be fair.
The papers have led the authors of this paper to certain conclusions.
If you are prepared to dismiss such a study by saying; "It's too bad
it depends so heavily on models." I think you should actually read the
papers first (again, you are always asking others to do this. We've
all read Lindzen and Miskowski - some of us before your constant
requests - honestly). Now do some reading in return
Have a read of those 101 papers and comment on their accuracy, if you
would. You may well learn a lot more than you know now.
Free Lunch
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Bill, stop repeating falsehoods.
You have done a fine job of repeating the same lies that all
science-deniers tell, including the fake appeal to science, defamation
of scientists, refusal to look at the evidence and proud commitment to
ignorance. You have never offered anything new or interesting. I will
not respond to your nonsense as long as you refuse to learn (I do not
mean "learn a dozen misleading talking points from lobbyists") anything
about the science that you attack.
Desertphile
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:05:06 -0500, Unum wrote:
>
> > Excellent paper here collecting the results of about 100 studies;
> > http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
> >
> > "Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after a
> > doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the translation
> > of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various observations favour a
> > climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about
> > 2–4.5 °C. However, the physics of the response and uncertainties in
> > forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values."
> >
> > And so we see that the lower bounds of the effects of anthropogenic
> > warming are fairly well constrained, and the numbers are large. But the
> > upper limit isn't as well understood. Some estimates are as much as 7 °C
> > as shown in figure 3.
> >
> > Figure 5 shows the likely effects of the various temperature increases.
> > We are already experiencing the impacts of the initial warming range
> > such as coral bleaching, water availability, and increased extinction
> > risk for many species. Likely warming for a CO2 concentration of 450PPM
> > is as much as 3 °C. The way things are going we won't stop there, but
> > even if we do there are some serious consequences. Ocean circulation
> > changes, extensive flooding of the coastlines, enlarged range of
> > tropical diseases.
> >
> > Also I notice on the chart a tipping point that seems very ominous. "The
> > biosphere itself may turn into a carbon source". We are already
> > measuring this. Methane and N2O are being emitted from previously frozen
> > terrains.
> It's too bad it depends so heavily on models. Real measured data trumps
> models, and shows there's no significant positive feedback from WV.
Clkimate models agree with observation better than 90%: that is
how scientists know the models work well. When you claim the
models do not reflect reality, you are asserting scientists are
lying.
> Climate models are basically electronic Ouija boards - you get out what
> you want to see.
Nut.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Desertphile
wrote:
> > Climate models are basically electronic Ouija boards - you get out what
> > you want to see.
> >
>
> If you follow Professor Knutti's webpage at
> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir you can find a reading list for
> his lecture course on Climate Systems:
> Dennis Hartmann, Global Physical Climatology, Academic Press
> Murry Salby, Atmospheric Physics, Academic Press
> Peixoto and Oort, Physics of Climate, American Institute of Physics
> Ahrens, Meteorology Today
> Fred Taylor, Elementary Climate Physics, Oxford University Press
> Horst Malberg, Meteorologie und Klimatologie: Eine Einfuehrung, Springer
>
> He also has some PDFs online for the course material:
> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/The-Climate-System.pdf
> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/Solar-Radiation-Radiative-Transfer.pdf
> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/Surface-Energy-Balance.pdf
> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/Aerosols.pdf
> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/Ozone.pdf
> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/Global-Balances.pdf
> http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/bachelor/climate_systems/notizen/Terrestrial-Biomes.pdf
>
> The first PDF on pg 12 contains data that show how the WV content is
> increasing.
> Enjoy.
> T.
Thank you. By the way, climate models are known to be very good
fits because they are used to "postdict" past climateas well as
predict future climate. The models match very well the climate of
the past--- convincing evidence the models work well.
Desertphile
<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > you want to see. - Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> These kind of meta-studies show the ovewhelming view of scientists
> that we are a period of warming which is extremely likely to continue.
> The only defence that Bill comes up with is to criticise models, or to
> say that people are bowing to authority.
That was Christy's dishonest ploy--- he wrote a paper showing that
climate models are only about 90% accurate, then concluded that
they are therefore utterly worthless. That paper was published in
a real science journal, telling scientists what they already knew.
No scientist asserts that climate models are 100% accurate and
that they can predict the future with 100% accuracy.
> Bill why is it that so many people simply dismiss what you say? Show
> me a meta-study that in any way supports your view. Such a study shows
> the tiny minority view that you inhabit. If we do (note the word "if"
> as always) see GW at a level heading towards the upper estimates that
> this study suggests could be possible, would you have changed your
> view?
>
> Why is it that in these 101 studies, there are none that show the
> possibility of CO2 levels causing the warming that you suggest?
> Filtering? Conspiracy? Lack of good science? Misunderstanding of the
> temperature data by all these scientists.
>
> The study makes the denialist point of view even more unlikely. In the
> face of all this and global temperatures being so high in spite of a
> negative PDO and an extended solar minimum, how can you denialists
> still keep simply saying...."it's not CO2"? That's what I can't
> understand. If you allowed leeway, I could understand a sceptical
> position, but Temperature and CO2 denialists don't. I'm a dyed in the
> wool sceptic, but as regards climate science, an outright denialist
> position is, well........... *>))
Desertphile
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
Those models, "run backwards," match historic data very closely
(around 90%). If the models were not valid, one would not expect
such a close match.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:33:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >When the majority of the models agree on the outcome, one has a
> >certain degree of confidence. Not total confidence, to be sure,
> >but a great deal.
> >
> >It would be rather amazing if a bunch of models each using different
> >sets of assumptions and differing techniques just happened to hit on
> >the same wrong result, wouldn't it?
>
> Not at all. It happens regularly. The usual reason is a common
> unquestioned assumption embedded in the models.
Okay, I give up: what "unquestioned assumption" is there in
climatology?
Unum
Its one of the papers you are too stupid or lazy to read.
Richard Harter
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Thank you. By the way, climate models are known to be very good
>fits because they are used to "postdict" past climateas well as
>predict future climate. The models match very well the climate of
>the past--- convincing evidence the models work well.
Tsk, tsk. That depends upon what you meant by "work well". If
you mean, "predicts the past well", well, yes. If you mean "can
be relied upon for predictions of the future", not so such.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Richard Harter
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:22:37 GMT, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:33:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >When the majority of the models agree on the outcome, one has a
>> >certain degree of confidence. Not total confidence, to be sure,
>> >but a great deal.
>> >
>> >It would be rather amazing if a bunch of models each using different
>> >sets of assumptions and differing techniques just happened to hit on
>> >the same wrong result, wouldn't it?
>>
>> Not at all. It happens regularly. The usual reason is a common
>> unquestioned assumption embedded in the models.
>
>Okay, I give up: what "unquestioned assumption" is there in
>climatology?
You are kidding, right? If we knew what the unquestioned
assumptions there might be, they wouldn't be unquestioned, now
would they?
The recent financial debacle is a good example of the dangers of
unquestioned assumptions. It came about because of an
unquestioned assumption, to wit, the assumption that foreclosure
rates in the US which had historically always been low and
uncorrelated would continue to be low and uncorrelated.
If that assumption been true, the derivatives would have had the
values that the risk models said they had. However the large
volume of derivatives created conditions that invalidated the
underlying assumption.
In simple terms, the reason that the foreclosure rates had always
been low and uncorrelated was because lenders wanted to get their
money back so they made low risk loans. When lenders could
package up their loans and sell them off they no longer had that
strong incentive to make good loans.
Models are a good tool, but interpolation is much more reliable
than extrapolation.
odin
wrote:
Those models "run backwards" match historic data very closely? See:
http://www.gcrio.org/USGCRP/sustain/michaels.html
odin
> It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
> it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.
The financial debacle was outwardly portrayed as unquestioned false
assumptions, built into their in the Gaussian Copula computer models,
etc.
So the public was told that the cause of the disaster was this honest
mistake.
But the "mistake" was intentional. The perpetrators new the models
were bogus, but, as you say, their incentives lead them. Led them into
a big lie because . They own the politicians. They knew that there was
no downside. The came up with the bogus 2B2F meme. They own the media,
so the public was memetically infected with the lie. And AGW may be
similar. And I suspect that the banksters are behind this one too.
-lord fnord
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
There were folks on Wall Street who had questioned the above assumption,
some were paid as Chief Risk Officers to do so. Their concerns fell on
deaf ears.
Bill Ward
All I need is one that's convincing. Quote the relevant part of the
paper and explain why it convinced you.
Bill Ward
You're rather obviously projecting your own dishonest tactics out onto
others.
TANSTAAFL
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
However, the difference is in the fact that observations of physical
phenomena are different from the human decision making process. The
key is that you compared modeling of humans (financial crisis based on
humans skirting the law), to humans modeling physical phenomena which
obey laws of nature in (climate models).
Geode
> Bill Ward wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:05:06 -0500, Unum wrote:
>
> >> Excellent paper here collecting the results of about 100 studies;
> >>http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
>
> >> "Climate sensitivity, the global equilibrium surface warming after a
> >> doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, can help with the translation
> >> of atmospheric CO2 levels to warming. Various observations favour a
> >> climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about
> >> forcing lead to fundamental difficulties in ruling out higher values."
>
> >> And so we see that the lower bounds of the effects of anthropogenic
> >> warming are fairly well constrained, and the numbers are large. But the
> >> upper limit isn't as well understood. Some estimates are as much as 7 °C
> >> as shown in figure 3.
>
> >> Figure 5 shows the likely effects of the various temperature increases.
> >> We are already experiencing the impacts of the initial warming range
> >> such as coral bleaching, water availability, and increased extinction
> >> risk for many species. Likely warming for a CO2 concentration of 450PPM
> >> is as much as 3 °C. The way things are going we won't stop there, but
> >> even if we do there are some serious consequences. Ocean circulation
> >> changes, extensive flooding of the coastlines, enlarged range of
> >> tropical diseases.
>
> >> Also I notice on the chart a tipping point that seems very ominous. "The
> >> biosphere itself may turn into a carbon source". We are already
> >> measuring this. Methane and N2O are being emitted from previously frozen
> >> terrains.
>
> > It's too bad it depends so heavily on models. Real measured data trumps
> > models, and shows there's no significant positive feedback from WV.
>
> > Climate models are basically electronic Ouija boards - you get out what
> > you want to see.
>
> aerospace corporations who all use computer models to develop their
It is not the same thing. One thing is to draw prints, to develop
blue prints, etc.
Once totally different thing is to know th real stuff in all the
details. We are simulating things we supposed occurred, or that can
occur. So, we are assuming "we know how things are" and so we build a
model in a computer. But the computer itself does not think for them-
self. It is humans who define what the computer should think. So, to
me, the question is not the theory of global warming "could not be" as
catastrophic as many are saying. To me, is that we cannot be sure,
unless we know more intimately the whole thing.
Watching those graphics of temperatures of the ice-core samples, I was
wondering, how suddenly those low temperatures jump like 12 or 14
degrees Celsius? I am missing a scientific explanation of that
happened. I was watching if int he times of the rise had been some
giant volcanoes, or something. I understand that a rise in
temperatures near the Arctic, can liberate a lot of methane in the
permafrost. And this produces more heat, for methane is important as a
greenhouse gas.
I was also, watching a lot of powder in the ice, in the times of great
cold. This had make me think, that the extreme cold, had increased a
lot the surface of the deserts and the winds. So, all those fine
powder from the deserts could lower the albedo of snow and ice. But it
is not any see to quantify the effects of this mechanism. Unless we
not understand a lot better the mechanisms of rain, clouds, etc.
Unless we are not able to explain the sudden jump in temperatures in
glacial times, I do not think we know very clear this business of
global warming.
On the other hand. What really is worrying me, is the enormous
population growth we have. All this growth has been possible, because
we have been expending colossal amount of energy in agriculture. That
feeding these billions of people had became a banal exercise. But oil
and coal would not last for many more years. Unless we found some
cheap substitute for the oil and coal we are now expending, we are
going to a catastrophe of colossal proportions.
Geode
.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
The point being that in the physical world around us things tend
toward conserving energy. However, in factoring how people will skirt
the law, one has to extrapolate based on the human decision making
process. How, far a person will go for personal gain is not limited
by any physical law of nature, but by a personal unique risk vs.
reward rationalization.
Geode
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> that we are a period of warming which is extremely likely to continue.
> The only defence that Bill comes up with is to criticise models, or to
> say that people are bowing to authority.
>
> me a meta-study that in any way supports your view. Such a study shows
> the tiny minority view that you inhabit. If we do (note the word "if"
> as always) see GW at a level heading towards the upper estimates that
> this study suggests could be possible, would you have changed your
> view?
>
> Why is it that in these 101 studies, there are none that show the
> possibility of CO2 levels causing the warming that you suggest?
> Filtering? Conspiracy? Lack of good science? Misunderstanding of the
> temperature data by all these scientists.
>
> The study makes the denialist point of view even more unlikely. In the
> face of all this and global temperatures being so high in spite of a
> negative PDO and an extended solar minimum, how can you denialists
> still keep simply saying...."it's not CO2"? That's what I can't
> understand. If you allowed leeway, I could understand a sceptical
> position, but Temperature and CO2 denialists don't. I'm a dyed in the
> wool sceptic, but as regards climate science, an outright denialist
> position is, well........... *>))
It is not a case of denying that CO2 causes warm. It is the
interpretation of this warming as probably catastrophic. I am not
sure this could be that catastrophic. But, I see more clearly the
catastrophic consequences for feeding a growing population if energy
start to get scarce, as all indicators show. Fossil fuels cannot last
forever. And our train of life, consuming huge amounts of energy in
banal entertainments, would surely cause a more catastrophic calamity
than global warming. And about this nobody is telling anything.
Nobody seems to be alarmed by enormous growth of population, nobody
seems alarmed by the exhaustion of fossil fuels, that had made
possible the planet population had multiplied by seven in only 200
years. While since 1 AD to year 1,800 the population multiplied only
by 4.35. That is, it was duplicating at an average of 448 years,
while in the past 200 it has been duplicating each 74.8 years. The
rate of growth is eleven times faster int this interval from year
1,800 to the present.
Geode
.
odin
> population growth we have. All this growth has been possible, because
> we have been expending colossal amount of energy in agriculture. That
> feeding these billions of people had became a banal exercise. But oil
> and coal would not last for many more years. Unless we found some
> cheap substitute for the oil and coal we are now expending, we are
> going to a catastrophe of colossal proportions.
>
> Geode
There is no statement more true than this. Population is the prolem.
odin
///
>However, the difference is in the
>fact that observations of physical
>phenomena are different from the
>human decision making process.
Exactly how are physical phenomena
different from social phenomena? Are
humans not physical? Are they special?
In what way and how do you know? I
would say that climate is as capricious
as human social behavior.
>The key is that you compared
>modeling of humans (financial
>crisis based on humans skirting
>the law), to humans modeling
>physical phenomena which obey
>laws of nature in (climate models).
Nope. I was not talking about
modeling of the financial crisis.
Read my post again. I was talking
about financial models used to
estimate financial risk that turned
out to be incorrect.
The point I was making was that
numerical modeling is not always
tractable. The financial markets are
even less complex, than the climate.
My point is that you cannot always trust the climate
models. Nothing more.
Bill Ward
Why don't you post the link? Is it secret?
odin
Perfect!
odin
Conserving energy? You mean the law of conservation of energy? The
first law of thermodynamics applies to all physical systems, including
humans, societies, stock markets, etc. Human decision making is
subject to thermodynamics just like every other process.
Also, you seem to be under the delusion that humans make "decisions"
happen.
They don't.
Decisions happen to humans.
-lord fnord
Geode
> On Apr 10, 6:31 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In talk.origins odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Apr 10, 1:34 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> > >> aerospace corporations who all use computer models to develop their
> > >> products long before any hardware is cut
> > >only works well in certain limited areas of application. Computer
> > >models
> > >are most effective in cases where the governing differential
> > >equations
> > >are linear, or can be approximated closely using linear models.
>
> > Total nonsense. That type of situation can be handled by
> > direct calculation, possibly including approximation to
> > increase efficiency.
>
> > Modelling of various types was created exactly to handle the
> > non-linear multiple variable situations that are not ameanable
> > to "standard" computational methods.
>
> > >Humans
> > >design and model mostly in areas that can be represented as modular
> > >decoupled systems, with simple linear equations, with macro behavior
> > >governed by aggregate properties, with non-fractal geometries, etc.
> > >Computer models often do not work in situations involving certain
> > >nonlinear systems, such as chaotic systems (i.e. turbulent fluid flow
> > > or cardiac arrhythmia). It does not work in systems where the model
> > > itself is dynamically modified by the state of the system as it
> > >evolves
>
> > Again, total nonsense.
>
> > You drag in the magic buzzword "chaotic". There are ways to
> > handle chaotic systems too. Chaos, in case you've forgotten
> > means extreme sensitivity to the intial conditions in the problem.
> > One handles chaos by NOT doing direct integrations.
>
> > Molecular motion is chaotic, but one has no trouble calculating
> > the laminar flow of fluids simply because one works at a level
> > *above* the individual molecule.
>
> > > (i.e. the stock market or embryonic development). It does not work
> > > in situations that have macro behavior governed by amplified
> > > quantum effects (i.e. Schrödinger’s Cat or CMOS latch-up
> > > metastability). It does not work if the system state is too complex
> > >or
> > > too large (i.e. swarm dynamics or cloud formation). It does not work
> > > when the state that is being modeled is too hard or too expensive to
> > > physically measure in sufficient detail, and is thus too sparse
> > >(i.e. long term weather prediction).
>
> > Again, mainly nonsense. What exactly do you think folks who
> > model chemical reactions on a quantum level do?
>
> > And yes, there are some computations that can't be done because
> > of chaos or other effects. Thus we do NOT provide detailed
> > weather forcasts for May 1st while it is April 10th.
>
> > But we can look at the climate from a broader perspective and do
> > just fine. You seem to be overlooking that.
>
> > >Engineers do great things with numerical models. I have done a
> > >lot of that myself in the area of finite element analysis, and I
> > >am always thrilled with how well it sometimes works. It’s a rush.
> > >But I can tell you from experience that it often does not work
> > >well. And in engineering, you often need to rely on verifying your
> > >model against very many repeatable, complete, and accurate
> > >empirical data set measurements (something that climate data
> > > is very deficient in).
>
> > And you know this how? Most, if not all, climate models are
> > checked against known results. Why would they not be?
>
> > >I think that computer models are very cool and fun. But we
> > >must not get fooled by our success in some areas that we
> > >can deal with well. There are many areas that will probably
> > >always be out of reach from numerical methods and modeling.
> > >Some things are probably inherently impossible to simulate,
> > >predict or understand. That includes the stock market, fashion
> > >trends, mental disease, earth quakes, volcanism, the
> > >Sturm–Liouville equation (generalized fluid mechanics),
> > >economics, influenza genetics and epidemiology, the
> > >generalized three body problem, avalanche prediction,
> > >atomic decay, etc.
>
> > Well, you are dead wrong about many of those. Again, just
> > because they cannot be done in the detail you wish doesn't
> > mean that nothing can be accomplished. The generalized three
> > body problem is but one example, and one I happen to know a
> > little about. What would you like to know about it?
>
> > >And guess what.... Climate prediction has just about
> > >everything mentioned above working against it.
> > >You say that because computer models are effective
> > >in one problem category, it should therefore be
> > >effective in all problem categories. Do you see your
> > >logical fallacy? For every success that you can point
> > >to in computational modeling I can point to a hundred
> > >cases where it fails.
> > >Please understand this… microchip manufacturers use
> > >computational models that work surprisingly well at
> > >understanding semiconductor behavior as well as for
> > >designing semiconductor fabrication processes, etc.
> > >But I can tell you that that comes nowhere near the
> > >problems encountered in numerically modeling
> > >systems such as global climate.
>
> > And you know this how?
>
> > --
> > --- Paul J. Gans- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> >handled by direct calculation,
> >possibly including approximation
> >to increase efficiency.
>
> That type of situation? Systems of
> linear differential equations? That
> type of situation can be handled by
> direct calculation? That type of
> situation is not involved in comp
> modeling? Really? And what do you
> mean by "direct calculation"? Do
> you mean where a closed form
> solution exists? Is that what you
> mean? I can tell by you use of the
> term "direct calculation" that you
> don;t know yourself what you mean.
>
> And approximation to increase
> efficiency? Everything in physics
> is approximation due to measurement.
> Everything in computation is
> approximation due to finite numerical
> representation. Its called
> discretization error.
>
> >MoModelling of various types was
> >created exactly to handle the
> >non-linear multiple variable
> >situations that are ...
>
> Huh? You don't know much about this
> topic. Many numerical methods
> algorithms are focused on systems
> on linear differential equations.
>
> The non-linear cases are often
> chaotic and are not amenable to
> numerical simulation.
>
> >You drag in the magic buzzword "chaotic".
>
> It is a technical term with specific meaning.
> It is not a magic buzzword.
>
> >There are ways to handle chaotic systems too.
>
> This will be good...
>
> >Chaos, in case you've forgotten
> >means extreme sensitivity to the
> >initial conditions in the problem.
> >One handles chaos by NOT doing
> >direct integrations.
>
> What a joke. And what do you mean by
> "direct integrations"?
>
> Chaotic systems are inherently hard
> to predict. Period. There is no special
> way to "handle" them.
I remember something I read from Richard Feynnman, who went invited to
NASA when the spectacular failure of the Challenger. A technician
told Feynnman that a certain turbo fan had a probability of failure of
1 in some million times. Feynnman was wondering how on hell they could
calculate such a thing.
Geode
.
Geode
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:33:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >When the majority of the models agree on the outcome, one has a
> >certain degree of confidence. Not total confidence, to be sure,
> >but a great deal.
>
> >It would be rather amazing if a bunch of models each using different
> >sets of assumptions and differing techniques just happened to hit on
> >the same wrong result, wouldn't it?
>
> Not at all. It happens regularly. The usual reason is a common
> unquestioned assumption embedded in the models.
It seems quite clear to me. If all the different groups doing the
modeling, share the some common assumptions, they could show similar
results in their models. Even if they show notable differences. While
some models predict modest rises in temperature, others show much
higher rises. But nobody has a model that shows a decrease in
temperature.
Geode
Godevodevo
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is obviously no point in trying to teach or convince you because
you continuously refuse to look at the facts that have been repeatedly
posted here. You're not even sure what would convice you. I strongly
suspect that it's because you do not want to be convinced and
therefore no amount of facts or evidence would be sufficient. If you
ever get to a place where you're willing to look at the facts,
understand the science, and gain a modicum of humitlity, perhaps then
you will go and read all the evidence that has been presented here and
be willing to say your position has in fact been WRONG all along.
Good luck getting there. Let us know if you make it.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Amen to that one. It really doesn't matter what you show Bill, how you
present the evidence, what you cite to back your position, he'll never
accept anything except what he feels is correct. There isn't an ounce
of scepticism in the man.
Geode
> On Apr 10, 8:28 pm, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 8:22 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:33:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
> > > <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > >When the majority of the models agree on the outcome, one has a
> > > >certain degree of confidence. Not total confidence, to be sure,
> > > >but a great deal.
>
> > > >It would be rather amazing if a bunch of models each using different
> > > >sets of assumptions and differing techniques just happened to hit on
> > > >the same wrong result, wouldn't it?
>
> > > Not at all. It happens regularly. The usual reason is a common
> > > unquestioned assumption embedded in the models.
>
> > > It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
> > > it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.
>
> determined by the interaction between belief-directed
> thinking (dogma), evidence-driven conflict (scientific
> method), and a complex mix of incentives (politics
> and career).
>
> Cognitive dissonance can keep us on the wrong track
> for a long time. Politics is a powerful force. Funding
> favors the status quo. Conflict of interest in public
> policy is a factor. Confirmation bias. And so on. New
> facts can be slow to take hold. In the meanwhile,
> there is a lot of bandwagon jumping.
>
> So no, it is not surprising to see a lot of mutual
> confirmation in the models.
>
> -lord fnord
this is very clear. Sometimes one thinks is fruitless to think on a
divergent mood. And realizes is much profitable to follow a partisan
line. I heard someone telling me, that I was helping the oil business
lobby. So, it is either to be pro oil or against oil.
My case is different. I believe that fossil fuels had done the
miracle of feeding seven billion people in this planet. But we are
squandering this miraculous stuff by driving too much in our cars and
making frequent travels by plane. The fossil fuels would be gone, and
we are going to clash over each other fiercely, till there would not
remain more than a billion people or less in this planet.
Geode
.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
However, such laws do not dominate the human decision-making process;
human nature must include someone who is motivated by greed (see you
example of the fiscal meltdown). You are not going to say the greed
in any way shape of form is going to be a variable when modeling
climate, such a thing only factors in when you make value judgments
of risk v.s reward i.e. the human component. Greed motivates humans
to skirt laws that are made by other humans where as co2 has no such
motivation, and requires no such weighting of the variable in a model.
Geode
> It's not much to ask of the universe that it be fair;
> it's not much to ask but it just doesn't happen.
that's clear. The mess of an economic crisis prove that they are
unable to predict the future, or much worse.
Some agents are forcing future events to occur. So it would crash on
those unable to predict some future, like the present crisis.
They are telling lies all the time. That's why those on the top
always win. While the rest of humans are making the mistakes.
So, the cause of this crisis is not over the backs of the financiers,
or on backs of the banks, but on the poor people who the cause of this
shit.
Perhaps they did not predict anything, for they are thriving on
scheming and cheating.
Geode
.
Geode
.
odin
Very true.
Just a few related problems...
-Tragedy of the commons.
-Self vs. community interests.
-Local vs. global interests.
-Short term vs. long-term interests.
-Public policy manipulation/deception.
-Concentration of political power.
-Concentration of media control.
-Concentration of military power.
-Religion.
-Nationalism.
-Greed.
-Deception.
-Irrationality.
I have always been skeptical of AGW.
But I hate oil companies. And I am in
favor of reducing carbon consumption.
But I do not want lies to be used to
justify the good cause.
And guess what... Oil companies don't
give a crap about how many people
believe in AWG. They know that the
population will continue to grow,
and per-capita carbon emissions will
grow continuously, regardless of
what carbon cap system is in place.
They know that the system will be
rigged so that CO2 will continue to
go up, but the banks and the oil
companies will both win. And the
mass population will pay for it.
It is one hell of a big joke.
-lord fnord
Geode
I had written the same thing a moment ago with different words. I am
amazed in the concordance.
Geode
.
odin
Yes. Such laws do not dominate all human decision-making processes.
How do you think we would escape those laws?
[snipped crap]
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
Never said that, and if you think snipping allows you to digress to
the point of making an illogical assertion you are kidding yourself.
You are basing your argument on the premise that the stock market
adheres to physical laws of nature, perhaps you would explain why a
"run" on a stock occurs with only the laws of thermodynamics (good
luck).
Geode
you can see the greed in all sort of animals, wolves, lions, hyenas,
gazelles, zebras, gnus, etc. Dominant individuals eat if they are
carnivores eat first, and as much as possible. while those of lower
rank eat later the rest of the food. In the case of herbivores the
best place to grazed are controlled by the dominant male and his
harem.
When the breeding season comes the dominant male mount all the
females, while the rest look at him. About 85 % of the males, would
never breed in his whole life.
I think that greed forms a part of the natural world.
Geode
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
co2 has no such motivation, so you have no real point.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
my point is that because financial modeling is based on human nature,
it is much more complex than climate modeling.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
The governing board had an obligation to communicate investment risks
to the shareholders, which they did not do.
Geode
Well, they even could know that oil is exhausting, but they are living
with the interests of the present. They are winning money at
present. With this money, they would be better positioned for the
future, they think. So, they are living the present, and disregard the
future, even if it is not remote.
They same thing happened when the OPEP made the cartel to rise the
prices of oil. They soon began to cheat on the amount of oil pumped
out off the ground, and the prices fell again much lower than before.
They wanted "the money now". They do not give damn for the future;
"give me that money now", was their motto.
Most humans are similar. You cannot sell the people that driving in
cars flying planes are a bad thing. They wanted that shit just now.
So, I think there is not solution for this conflict. We are affected
by the Casandra coarse. Casandra is was coarse by the god Apollo,
because she rejected his sexual advances. As the gods can not take
out a gift given previously, Apollo could not take off the gift of
Casandra to foresee the future. So, irritated for the sexual
rejection, made a coarse of the people. Nobody would believe in the
prophetic dreams of Casandra that announced future catastrophic
events.
You have to imagine the people of Easter Island, when they were
chopping off more and more tress to carry big statues from the volcano
to the coast. Someone had to had foreseen the moment in which there
would not have any more trees standing up in the island. They would
not have any more wood to made boats or rafts to flee the forsaken
island. They would be trapped in poverty and war forever. Someone had
foreseen they were growing too fast on the island and had to do
something to avoid a foreseen catastrophe. But they were coarsen by
the god Apollo and could not believe in catastrophic predictions.
The same applied to the Anasasy Indians of the Southwest. Or to the
vikings that colonized Greenland. They had a culture from farther
south, form Norway, their native land. They wanted to live like in
Stavangen or Bergen. They started by burning a woodland that cost like
several hundred years to grow, to clear land for the cows. Cow were
considered possessions of high status. Then for unknown reasons they
renounced to eat fish, or any sea mammals. Then they needed to make
charcoal to feed the forges. Then, when iron began to be very scarce,
they had to produce iron from very low mineral deposits in the bogs.
This was a great burden of the remaining forests. Then, as milk was a
perishable food, they had to boil water daily to wash the vessels in
which milk was stored, to produce cheese. So, this people was trapped
in this land, Greenland, with a culture from lands with a much warmer
climate, with a longer summer and lots of sunlight, compared to
Greenland.
But, then it comes rod speed and tells me, that they were exterminated
by a change in climate. They were exterminated the the stubbornness
of the leaders, that had them trapped in this forsaken a freezing
land. You go there in the brief summer and the temperature rarely is
higher than 10 to 12 degrees Celsius.
Geode
.
Robert Grumbine
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:08:35 -0600, Desertphile
>
>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:22:37 GMT, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:33:43 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >When the majority of the models agree on the outcome, one has a
>>> >certain degree of confidence. Not total confidence, to be sure,
>>> >but a great deal.
>>> >
>>> >It would be rather amazing if a bunch of models each using different
>>> >sets of assumptions and differing techniques just happened to hit on
>>> >the same wrong result, wouldn't it?
>>>
>>> Not at all. It happens regularly. The usual reason is a common
>>> unquestioned assumption embedded in the models.
>>
>>climatology?
>
> You are kidding, right? If we knew what the unquestioned
> assumptions there might be, they wouldn't be unquestioned, now
> would they?
>
> The recent financial debacle is a good example of the dangers of
> unquestioned assumptions. It came about because of an
> unquestioned assumption, to wit, the assumption that foreclosure
> rates in the US which had historically always been low and
> uncorrelated would continue to be low and uncorrelated.
Which is a rather different category of assumption than involved
in climate models. Assumptions about human behavior remaining
unchanged don't sit on par with thinking that the laws of thermodynamics
will continue to hold.
The more so when the field of economics runs off after the
'fresh water school' and decides that pretty mathematics is
more important than observing what people actually do.
> If that assumption been true, the derivatives would have had the
> values that the risk models said they had. However the large
> volume of derivatives created conditions that invalidated the
> underlying assumption.
>
> In simple terms, the reason that the foreclosure rates had always
> been low and uncorrelated was because lenders wanted to get their
> money back so they made low risk loans. When lenders could
> package up their loans and sell them off they no longer had that
> strong incentive to make good loans.
>
> Models are a good tool, but interpolation is much more reliable
> than extrapolation.
Indeed. That's one reason for my discomfort about climate model
results regarding the future. For minor changes of CO2 levels
around 230 ppm (say between 180 and 310) we have about 800,000 years
of more or less good data, and earths which are largely similar
biologically and geologically to the present one. For temperatures
from (global mean) about 5 K colder to 1-2 K warmer than baseline,
we, again, have analogues to work with and test the models. They're
all in the interpolation range there, and work generally quite well
(glacial terminations and inceptions were still difficult last
I looked, about 10 years ago). This is part of the reason that
the low end estimate for warming from CO2 doubling is pretty hard --
1.5-2 K, nothing plausible giving any lower sensitivity. (That range
reflecting more my uncertainty of memory than uncertainty of value.)
For the upper end ... that's extrapolation, and less certain. There
are no good geological analogues. Our current 390 ppm is higher than
anything observed for millions of years. The PETM, which has been mentioned,
was long enough ago that continental drift is a significant part of
determining the climate then versus today. If you could ignore oceans,
that's not such a big deal. But, as I'm an oceanographer, I don't
think you can ignore oceans. So the upper end has much less certainty.
And that's more than a little bothersome because the damages do not
increase linearly. 5 C is far worse than 2.5 C, not merely double.
In terms of an expectation value of damages -- multiplying the
damages expectable from a given degree of warming by the probability
of that degree of warming -- the uncertainty about the high end
means that the peak expected damages currently sit with extremely
high (to my eyeballs) climate sensitivities.
The models being uncertain should be increasing our levels of concern,
not, as it is in practice, making people happier -- concluding that
since there is uncertainty, the reality will come out favorably.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Unum
The Knutti and Hegerl paper clearly and convincingly explains
the science, and has embedded references for each issue. You can
start with that link and work from there. Unless you are stupid,
or lazy.
Geode
CO2 is related to the perceive rank of people. The expansive and
bigger is your car, the more rank a person is showing off their
neighbors or work mates. The more expansive things someone possess is
a showing of his rank. That is why were felt this repugnance for
abandoning our cars, or even for buying smaller more modest and cheap
cars.
So, the more electricity or gas or heating we are expending, the more
sure of our rank we are.
This is the same thing that happens in the animal kingdom. Animal tend
to show off their rank over the others.
That is why I am pessimistic. I believe that we all will end like the
people of the Easter island. At least the trees were seen tall over
their heads, clearly remarked over the blue sky or the gray clouds.
While the oil reserves are underground and cannot be seen. So, this
is an added reason to believe that we are coarsen by god Apollo, and
would not believe in the dreams of Casandra. So, were are doomed. In
the few days that preceded the great crisis of Wall Street in 1,929,
many experts were telling loud and clear, that the prospects of the
economy never were better. But there was a Casandra in the times
preceding the crisis, but nobody heard him. After the crisis become a
reality, nobody among the financiers or the bankers were dealing with
him. He was a ostracized for life.
The other read that the most great financiers of US were quietly
deserting the Stock Exchange. They were quietly selling their stocks
and shares. Then the collapse happened. The Casandra of Wall Street
was telling undesirable news if you wanted to quit stock market in a
discreet manner. In the end, only the stupid middle class was
trapped with worthless paper and had to foreclose all their mortgaged
properties for a few dollars. The story repeats itself with little
variations.
the economic crisis is due to the fact the capitalist economy grows
exponentially. But it can grow exponentially for long. Profits can
not grow that fast for long, and business can keep growing either.
There is not any way to change that. You can be be fleecing a fixed
population with the same salary mass for a long time. Profits simple
means to take out money from the loop of salaries. Each time people
buys something is paying some profit. the profit is only a minor part
between the cost and the price. But if you take this money out, there
is an unbalance. Until you return this money in the form of an
investment the market is out of balance. But if if the investor want
to earn a profit from this investment, they the unbalance shows again.
After a while is very clear all those new business and shopping
centers cannot be profitable as before the investments, when they were
less numerous.
So, it is a irrational drive of human beings. The same would happen
with the global warming and any other shit prediction, like the
exhaustion of fossil energy. We are like the rats of Easter island,
unable to see what would happen in a few years, when the last tree
would be chopped out of the existence.
So, we are not with a problem of global warming. We are coarsen by
god Apollo. We cannot believe in the prophetic dreams of Casandra.
Geode
.
Geode
those gangsters of executive board are simply expropriating the
shareholders. They earn their huge salaries and bonus, even if the the
damned company looses money. They are a gang of crooks.
Geode
.
Bill Ward
Ok, I'll extend the invitation to you. Find the paper that you think
makes the best case for anthropogenic CO2 causing more then 1K/century of
warming, quote the part you think is the most relevant, and we'll discuss
it. Wouldn't that be the best way to prove your point?
Otherwise, it looks like you know there's no real case to be made, and
you're trying to send me off on a snipe hunt. I'm not buying that, as
I've made a pretty good effort to understand the AGW argument, and nobody
seems to be able to say specifically, (falsifiably) what it is.
If you have a convincing argument showing that anthropogenic CO2 can
cause more than 1K of warming per century, let's see it. Otherwise it
looks like you're trying to push an agenda you don't understand.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do not call the people who occupied Rapa Nui some years ago "rats",
for you know very little about them, and you should pay them more
respect. See link below, and you will find their story is one of
migration, and as usual with most indigenous peoples their story is a
fight for recognition.
Chilean Library of Congress
http://asiapacifico.bcn.cl/archivo/japon/en/articles/japan-recognizes-ainu-as-an-indigenous-people
18 Jul 08 | Japan recognizes Ainu as an indigenous people
Geode
> 18 Jul 08 | Japan recognizes Ainu as an indigenous people
I have read enough about the Rapa Nui. The feat of colonizing most
Polynesian island is remarkable. But when the islands began to get
crowded, the leaders made some decisions about the present and the
imaginary future. Most of this natives ended up prisoners of their
ranking chiefs. The militarize the society, to limit the growth. Most
of the solutions were proved right, like in other places, frequent
wars. If I said rats, I was considering ourselves also rats. We are
dominated by an elite that cannot change the course of society, for it
would amount to a confession of their own failures of foresight. They
knew they were on a collusion course to the reefs but they did not
change the rules.
So, the ordinary people had been unable to think rationally, for they
were misinformed by the dominant class. One you got your head full of
bullshit, you are unable to think rationally. So were are like rats.
Even if we are living in an industrialized society.
So, poor rapa nui people; it is sad, but we, western people, would not
end any better than them.
Geode
.