|
Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
For 2006 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) made the following predictions regarding the hurricane season in 2006 prior to 2006:
NOAA PREDICTS VERY ACTIVE 2006 NORTH ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON - Residents in Hurricane Prone Areas Urged to Make Preparations "For the 2006 north Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA is predicting 13 to 16 named storms, with eight to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which four to six could become 'major' hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher," added retired Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D., undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. The record? Climate of 2006 - Atlantic Hurricane Season For the season, there were 5 hurricanes (2 major) and 4 tropical storms: a below-average season when compared with the recent 1995-2005 average, yet similar to the average of the preceeding 25 years (1970-1994) listed in the paragraph above. Only 2 storms made landfall with the mainland U.S. during 2006, Tropical Storm Alberto in Florida and Hurricane Ernesto as a tropical storm in Florida and North Carolina. For additional information on individual storms, please see the summaries below. For statistics on the Atlantic storm season, please see NCDC's 2006 Atlantic basin Tropical Cyclone page. [/b] Does the NOAA rely on climate models to make their predictions? Modeling Climate I note the following from their description: The accuracy of climate models is limited by grid resolution and our ability to describe the complicated atmospheric, oceanic, and chemical processes mathematically. Much of the research in OAR is directed at improving the representation of these processes. Despite some imperfections, models simulate remarkably well current climate and its variability. More capable supercomputers enable significant model improvements by allowing for more accurate representation of currently unresolved physics I've maintained in these threads that the climate models are unproven to which wacki has shall we say disagreed. What he overlooks seemingly very often is that I've also stated that the development of climate models is a very worthwhile activity. Also what he seems to me anyway to conviently overlook is that I've stated that I believe that climate models in 50 years will have advanced a great deal. Probably more than we can imagine. So to summarize, climate modeling is a worthwhile activity in it's early stages of development, the models will continue to improve, and are likely to be very, very much more refined and accurate 50 years from now. Does the above statement by NOAA really contradict what I'm saying? Even the NOAA claims the accuracy of the models is limited. Don't know why wacki claims that uncertain accuracy doesn't mean the models predictive value is unproven. I thought it might be interesting to look at the NOAA predictions for 2007: NOAA: 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook Update NOAA is predicting a very high likelihood (85% chance) of an above-normal 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, a 10% chance of a near-normal season, and only a 5% chance of a below-normal season, according to a consensus of scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center, National Hurricane Center, Hurricane Research Division, and Hydrometeorological Prediction Center. The outlook calls for an even higher probability of an above-normal season than was predicted in May (75%), and reiterates the expectation for a sharp increase in activity from the near-normal season observed last year. The 2007 season is expected to become the tenth above-normal season since the current active hurricane era began twelve years ago (in 1995). See NOAA’s definitions of above-, near-, and below-normal seasons. The 2007 outlook calls for a likely range of 13-16 named storms, 7-9 hurricanes, and 3-5 major hurricanes. The likely range of the ACE index is 140%-200% of the median. These ranges are slightly tighter than those predicted in May (13-17 named storms, 7-10 hurricanes, 3-5 major hurricanes, and an ACE range of 125%-210%). The tighter ranges reflect not only an increased confidence for an above normal season, but also a reduced likelihood of seeing as many as 10 hurricanes and 17 named storms. So what was the record? Season Ends, Questions Remain As a whole, the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season produced a total of 14 namedstorms, including six hurricanes, two of which became major hurricanes. NOAA'sAugust update to the seasonal forecast predicted 13 to 16 named storms - ofwhich seven to nine would be hurricanes, including three to five majorhurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher. An average season has 11 namedstorms, with six becoming hurricanes, including two major hurricanes. "The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season produced the predicted number of namedstorms, but the combined number, duration and intensity of the hurricanes didnot meet expectations," said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricaneforecaster at NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. "The United States wasfortunate this year to have fewer strong hurricanes develop than predicted.Normally, the climate patterns that were in place produce an active, volatilehurricane season."The climate patterns predicted for the 2007 hurricane season - an ongoingmulti-decadal signal (the set of oceanic and atmospheric conditions that havespawned increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995) and La Nina -produced the expected below-normal hurricane activity over the eastern andcentral Pacific regions. However, La Nina's impact over the Atlantic wasweaker than expected, which resulted in stronger upper-level winds andincreased wind shear over the Caribbean Sea during the peak months of theseason (August-October). This limited Atlantic hurricane formation during thatperiod. NOAA's scientists are investigating possible climate factors that mayhave led to this lower-than-expected activity.All in all, one hurricane, one tropical storm and three tropical depressionsstruck the United States: Tropical Depression Barry came ashore near TampaBay, Fla., on June 2; Tropical Depression Erin hit southeast Texas on August16 and Tropical Depression Ten came ashore along the western Florida panhandleon Sept. 21; Tropical Storm Gabrielle hit east-central North Carolina on Sept.9, and Hurricane Humberto hit the upper Texas coast on Sept. 13. Also this year, the U.S. was reminded of the dangers of inland flooding. "Texas and Oklahoma experienced deadly flooding when Erin dumped up to 11inches of rain. Fresh water flooding is yet another deadly aspect of tropicalcyclones," said Ed Rappaport, acting director of NOAA's National HurricaneCenter.Other noteworthy statistics of the season include: Again I'm not trying to denigrate the efforts of the scientists here. I'm just saying that the science is relatively new and probably will advance a great deal over time. I think accounts like the above show that this is the case. I'd like to point out another article from NOAA: CLIMATE MODELS SUGGEST WARMING-INDUCED WIND SHEAR CHANGES COULD IMPACT HURRICANE DEVELOPMENT, INTENSITY Global climate model simulations for the 21st Century indicate a robust increase in vertical wind shear in the tropical Atlantic and East Pacific Oceans, which could act to inhibit the development or intensification of hurricanes in these regions. Historically, increased vertical wind shear has been associated with reduced hurricane activity and intensity. (Click NOAA image for larger view of global warming’s multiple influences on hurricanes. Click here for high resolution version. Please credit “NOAA.”) This new finding is reported in a study by scientists at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., and the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami, scheduled to be published April 18 in Geophysical Research Letters. While other studies have linked hurricane intensity to global warming, this is the first published study to indicate that changes to vertical wind shear seen in future climate projections would likely diminish the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. Some effects of global warming, such as coral bleaching and melting tundra, are better understood than the impact on hurricanes. Again this is not a denigration of the scientific efforts put forth and in fact I commend the efforts. Again I think it's fair to say that the we've got a lot to learn about modeling the climate and also that we're making progress. My gripe is with the politicians that exploit the work of climate scientists to acheive their political agenda. I submit that if Al Gore made a movie that stated we need to arrest global warming because of increased vertical windshear he wouldn't have had many people listen to him. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
the biggest problem with laymen relaying this subject is the certainty they attribute to their views and the lack of respect for the complexity being dealt with.
thanks for the post. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
The climate models used to construct predictions for anthropogenic contributions to climate change are completely different to those used for predicting the activity of hurricane seasons. Not least because the activity of a given hurricane season is governed by many factors, or which only one is 'global warming'.
It's also worth noting that the guy at NOAA who actually does the hurricane predictions is a certain William Gray, who is a vehement AGW skeptic. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
The climate models used to construct predictions for anthropogenic contributions to climate change are completely different to those used for predicting the activity of hurricane seasons. Not least because the activity of a given hurricane season is governed by many factors, or which only one is 'global warming'. It's also worth noting that the guy at NOAA who actually does the hurricane predictions is a certain William Gray, who is a vehement AGW skeptic. [/ QUOTE ] Completely wrong about Gray in that he doesn't work for NOAA and is often critical of them. Wrong about NOAA as well and their climate models. From one of the links I posted: Wind shear is one of the dominant controls of hurricane activity, and the models project substantial increases in the Atlantic," said Gabriel Vecchi, lead author of the paper and a NOAA research oceanographer at GFDL. "Based on historical relationships, the impact of the projected shear change could be comparable in magnitude as that of the warming oceans—with the opposite effect." Examining possible impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse warming on hurricane activity, the researchers used climate modeling to assess large-scale environmental factors tied to hurricane formation and intensity. They focused on projected changes in vertical wind shear over the tropical Atlantic and how those changes tie to the Pacific Walker circulation. The Walker circulation is a vast loop of winds that influences climate across much of the globe, and varies during El Niño and La Niña oscillations. (Click NOAA image for larger view of the Pacific Walker Circulation. Click here for high resolution version. Please credit “NOAA.”) Here's another linky that discusses NOAA climate models and the effects on the climate of quadrupling CO2 emissions: Climate Impact of Quadrupling CO2 An overview of GFDL climate model results is presented from a series of experiments examining the possible climate impact of a quadrupling of atmospheric CO2. Much of the recent anthropogenic climate change research has been focused on the issues of climate change detection and projections of climate change over the next century. On the other hand, analyses of future emission scenarios in the IPCC and elsewhere indicate that on a multi-century time scale, CO2 levels are likely to rise well beyond a doubling unless very substantial emission reductions occur. Therefore, longer term aspects of climate change, based on higher-than-doubling CO2 levels, are becoming an increasing part of the debate. In this report, the possible climate impacts of a CO2 quadrupling are examined. Thanks for playing though. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
adios, I think you've been duped. Would you mind telling me where you first read this argument? American Thinker again or somewhere else? The bold text below should explain why I think you've been duped.
[ QUOTE ] On 1 May 2005, the Meteo-France model predicted 22 named tropical storms and hurricanes for the 2005 hurricane season in the North Atlantic. On 1 June the ECMWF and the UK Met Office integrations were showing similar results. What was extraordinary about these forecasts was that their predictions, some months in advance of the hurricanes, were two standard deviations above the already elevated 1995–2004 mean. These models also forecast a reduced number of storms for the northwestern Pacific during the same period. In hindcast mode these three models have outperformed statistical forecasts over the previous 10-year period of elevated storm activity. Yet despite these successes and the clear promise of the techniques, no operational model within NOAA is making extended range forecasts with climate models. [/ QUOTE ] - Published June 2006 http://www.agu.org/report/hurricanes/hurricanes.html Please note that this AGU article was published 1 month AFTER the forecast you linked to. If Jack is wrong that doesn't mean Chris screwed up too. Again, I'm willing to bet some think tank played 3 card monte with your head. BTW, Lautenbacher is was politically appointed by Bush and has been in violation of several laws for nearly half a decade. Despite his position, he's not the best source of information. You are also grossly misunderstanding my position on climate models and hurricanes. My position is: *Even though they weren't designed for hurricane forecasts and aren't even being fed data in high enough resolution to do *local* (e.g. hurricane) forecasts correctly they are still the best tools available, much better than climate change skeptics (e.g. loons like Bill Gray) *What the climate change skeptics said was impossible (like hurricanes forming in certain regions of the globe) they correctly predicted as being possible years in advance *etc... I stated my position a while back here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...page=0&vc=1 and asked for your response. I will copy and paste again with the hope that you reply: [ QUOTE ] Well I missed the words in italics. The models certainly aren't gospel. But this isn't personal this is about facts. The following statements are either true or false: *Climate models aren't made to model hurricanes yet their predictive ability is better than traditional statistical forcasts. *The climate change skeptics (e.g. Bill Gray) are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to predicting hurricanes. *Climate model coupled forecasting is the best tool we have for predicting hurricanes. *Climate model coupled forecasting methods correctly predicted hurricanes in areas where Bill Gray thought was "impossible". *The predictions that beat the old-school methods were made at course resolution (>200km) and current models have nearly double the resolution at ~125 km. *Many top modeling experts believe a resolution of 45km is needed to successfully simulate intensity and tracks. Despite this, 200km resoltion was enough to beat old-school predictive methods. It's not personal. Either these statements are true or they aren't true. If we can't agree on these statements then we have a real problem. Now if we can agree on these statements then I'm a bit confused why you would so harshly criticize the models. Sure there is uncertainty, and sure some people (like Al Gore) try to claim there is no uncertainty, but to use such harsh language is a bit much. [/ QUOTE ] I highly encourage you to keep reading and applaud your drive to stay informed. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
adios, I think you've been duped. Would you mind telling me where you first read this argument? American Thinker again or somewhere else? The bold text below should explain why I think you've been duped. [/ QUOTE ] Uh no. Global Warming and Hurricanes The GFDL hurricane prediction model used for the study is currently the operational hurricane prediction model at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Prediction and has been used successfully to predict tropical storm tracks for the last several hurricane seasons. The GFDL climate model is one of the leading models used by climate researchers to project possible effects of greenhouse gases on future climate. and NOAA: 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook Update NOAA is predicting a very high likelihood (85% chance) of an above-normal 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, a 10% chance of a near-normal season, and only a 5% chance of a below-normal season, according to a consensus of scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center, National Hurricane Center, Hurricane Research Division, and Hydrometeorological Prediction Center. [ QUOTE ] - Published June 2006 http://www.agu.org/report/hurricanes/hurricanes.html Please note that this AGU article was published 1 month AFTER the forecast you linked to. If Jack is wrong that doesn't mean Chris screwed up too. Again, I'm willing to bet some think tank played 3 card monte with your head. [/ QUOTE ] From your link: Predictions of hurricane paths have improved markedly due to dedicated research efforts and advances in numerical forecast models, but predictions of hurricane intensity and detailed structure have made very little progress. Despite the urgency of the problems faced, there has been an alarming decay in the resources provided for hurricane research and development in the past decade. Urgent action is needed to reverse this trend and increase support for multidisciplinary approaches to ameliorating the impact of these dangerous systems. IMO one of the dangers of overstating the predictive value of the climate models in their current state is that they're quite likely to not meet peoples expectations. For long term funding this is a disaster. When have I ever said that research should be abandoned? In fact I've said quite the opposite. I can't remember you once acknowlegdeing that I've endorsed research into climate science and climate modeling. [ QUOTE ] You are also grossly misunderstanding my position on climate models and hurricanes. My position is: *Even though they weren't designed for hurricane forecasts and aren't even being fed data in high enough resolution to do *local* (e.g. hurricane) forecasts correctly they are still the best tools available, much better than climate change skeptics (e.g. loons like Bill Gray) *What the climate change skeptics said was impossible (like hurricanes forming in certain regions of the globe) they correctly predicted as being possible years in advance *etc... [/ QUOTE ] No when I've stated that the predictive value of climate models is unproven, you've taken the position that I'm being too harsh. I think the description of climate models as being useful is an apt description. Sorry claiming that climate models are better than the tools "skeptics" use doesn't prove their predictive value. I think you're the person that's been doing the misrepresentation. I've stated I don't know how many times that I believe the models will improve greatly over time. From my point of view all you've done is disparage my points because I don't agree with you about the significance of what the results of the finding of the models are. [ QUOTE ] I highly encourage you to keep reading and applaud your drive to stay informed. [/ QUOTE ] A display of your typical arrogance displayed when someone doesn't share your all of your views. Also the typical disingenous tactics of trying to disparage people that you disagree with. It's exactly the tactic you use when you accuse someone of being an oil company tool. Instead of actually addressing the arguments and points someone makes, you disparage the person instead. It shows a distinct lack of intellectual honesty. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
wacki,
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do have a question since the debate seems to center around both the predictive value of current models and what expense/measures should be taken in view of same. Implicitly this question is one of whether "best we have" is enough to justify certain responses and the expense of same. To be more explicit, if the equation involves the following variables: X: the degree of certainty as the accuracy of current models Y: the severity of the consequences if those models were 100% accurate Z: the cost of measures required to prevent those consequences then what degree of certainty, X, as to the accuracy of current models do you believe is required to justify the expense, Z, of preventing the worst case scenario, Y? |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
Excellent post. I'd just like to point out that Congress is certainly contemplating measures that will impact the bottom line of US taxpayers, consummers and what have you. When I read stuff like Harry Reid blaming the wild fires in California on man mad global warming (he backed away quickly though) and/or the Secretary General of the UN blaming Darfur on man made global warming I smell a rat, a big fat stinking rat. Then I see offers from my electric company making me an offer to supply me with electricity that is 90 percent generated by wind power for 10 percent more and I'm almost certain the fix is in. IMO politicians in this country are set to embark on programs like carbon taxes, cap and trade policies, international agreements pledging to reduce carbon emissions, etc. where they have no clue whatsover that it will do a friggen thing except line someone's pocket book. It's all based on what the most dire predictions of the climate models are. We've discussed climate models more than a few times. Having a fair amount of experience with developing models for things IMO orders of magnitude less complicated than the climate, it seems absolutely ridiculous to base policy on such output. End of rant and apologies if I muddied this subthread up.
Democrats reach deal on energy bill Hope people aren't driving around in too many "beer cans" when the more stringent CAFE standards get implemented: While details of those provisions were still being worked out, aides said the ethanol provision was expected to mirror Senate requirements for use of 36 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase over today's productions. Power companies would have to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy, aides close to the discussions said. Right on queue. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
Adios, you keep pointing to the GFDL and that's fine but all of the people listed on your forecast are NOT from the GFDL. All of the people you listed on the forecast are Meteorologists which is a field that many claim 'needs to drastically change or face becoming obsolete'. A claim some meteorologists agree with and others are very bitter about. On top of this I know some of the people listed. Chris Landsea is not a modeler and does all of his predictions with statistical forecasts. The forecast itself doesn't mention the GFDL or climate models. No climate model paper is referenced in the "REFERENCES" section but Bill Gray, a statistical modeler, is. Just because NOAA is working with climate models that does not mean their official and publicly released forecasts are climate models. Whether or not climate model forecasts are the best tool for the job is irrelevant in this highly political age. Again, where did you find this argument? You never answered that question.
I'm glad you endorse continued research and funding. The current political pressure in this area is a nightmare to those who are getting the best results thanks to Bush 'n co. Hopefully things will change soon. This is one situation where Europe is better than us by a wide margin. [ QUOTE ] Sorry claiming that climate models are better than the tools "skeptics" use doesn't prove their predictive value. [/ QUOTE ] In this thread I didn't bring up Bill Gray, a climate change skeptic, so I use this argument to help show that these skeptics just aren't credible even in their own specialty. You are correct when it doesn't prove anything (good or bad) when assessing the independent credibility of the models. [ QUOTE ] From my point of view all you've done is disparage my points because I don't agree with you about the significance of what the results of the finding of the models are. [/ QUOTE ] I've had plenty of people strongly disagree with me that I respect and treat fairly, listen to and respect. In this thread I've given you some simple requirements (like linking the GFDL to that specific forecast) otherwise I will have to believe the AGU over you. Right now all you've done is link the GFDL's to NOAA as a whole and not any specific reports. If that is "disparaging" your points well then I guess you are just going to have to get used to being offended. Empirical falsifiability is not something to get emotional about. Especially not with stuff this easy to prove. [ QUOTE ] A display of your typical arrogance displayed when someone doesn't share your all of your views. Also the typical disingenous tactics of trying to disparage people that you disagree with. It's exactly the tactic you use when you accuse someone of being an oil company tool. Instead of actually addressing the arguments and points someone makes, you disparage the person instead. It shows a distinct lack of intellectual honesty. [/ QUOTE ] This is a load of [censored] and you know it. I've posted more links, more graphs, more peer review journals than anyone of the tens of thousands of people on this forum. I've even written a website and blog with thousands of links to and reviews of peer review journals. You've even read my website and posted replies to this link: http://tinyurl.com/y3hmrz among others. My eleemosynary didacticism on this subject is almost masochistic. If you truly believe this then I challenge you to find one single Ph.D. level climate change skeptic posted in this forum that I've not picked apart their arguments with supporting evidence from refereed journals and/or technical data. If you can't do that then apologize. I've given you another chance to falsify a statement of mine. This time all you have to do is mention a name. BTW my encouragement for you to keep reading was meant as a compliment and was not derisive. This is why I used the term "applaud". Although this thread has gotten way out of hand I generally respect your posts and I've repeatedly said so in the past. I'm not sure how I could have made it sound better. Any help on this aspect would be appreciated. I'm tired and will continue this tomorrow. Questions in review (quotin cuz I'm lazy): #1 Again, where did you find this argument? You never answered that question. #2In this thread I've given you some simple requirements (like linking the GFDL to that specific forecast) otherwise I will have to believe the AGU over you. #I challenge you to find one single Ph.D. level climate change skeptic posted in this forum that I've not picked apart their arguments with supporting evidence from refereed journals and/or technical data. or appologize #In my previous post I posted a bunch of bulleted points which were from a previous thread. Do you agree that those bulleted points accurately represent the models? |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
Y: the severity of the consequences if those models were 100% accurate Z: the cost of measures required to prevent those consequences [/ QUOTE ] This question is highlighted in the Stern Report and several others. Every major report from mainstream science, the pentagon, army corps of engineers and retired generals and admirals claims it's cheaper to act. Add in peak oil and many other factors and the pressure to get off of fossil fuels just increases and in a big way. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
This is a load of [censored] and you know it. I've posted more links, more graphs, more peer review journals than anyone of the tens of thousands of people on this forum. I've even written a website and blog with thousands of links to and reviews of peer review journals. You've even read my website and posted replies to this link: http://tinyurl.com/y3hmrz among others. My eleemosynary didacticism on this subject is almost masochistic. [/ QUOTE ] Talk about a load of [censored]. Are you honestly trying to state that you've never disparaged anyone's argument by stating that it stems from a tool of oil company and thus shouldn't be considered? What does an association with an oil company have to do with the merits of an argument? [ QUOTE ] Questions in review (quotin cuz I'm lazy): #1 Again, where did you find this argument? You never answered that question. [/ QUOTE ] What argument? That the predictive value of climate models is unproven? That's one argument I'm making and you know that's what it is. Let me modify that argument which may be the main problem you have with it: In their current state, the predictive value of climate models is unproven. The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years. Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting. Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas. Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research. [ QUOTE ] #2In this thread I've given you some simple requirements (like linking the GFDL to that specific forecast) otherwise I will have to believe the AGU over you. [/ QUOTE ] ????? Believe who ever you want. [ QUOTE ] #I challenge you to find one single Ph.D. level climate change skeptic posted in this forum that I've not picked apart their arguments with supporting evidence from refereed journals and/or technical data. or appologize #In my previous post I posted a bunch of bulleted points which were from a previous thread. Do you agree that those bulleted points accurately represent the models? [/ QUOTE ] Here's something for you, why don't you refrain from making the accusation that someone is nothing more than an oil company tool (as if working for an oil company is evil) or give us your best shot at proving to us how oil companys are in bed together and purposely spreading disinformation. I mean if the arguments are so easy to trash no need to mention who someone is paid by. Also I hope you don't hold the position that skeptics have an agenda and are paid shills of oil companys while all of the non skeptics have pure motives i.e. they don't have agendas and/or arent' shills for someone. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
A non answer answer to a perfectly legitimate and reasonable question. Why?
|
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
Talk about a load of [censored]. Are you honestly trying to state that you've never disparaged anyone's argument by stating that it stems from a tool of oil company and thus shouldn't be considered? What does an association with an oil company have to do with the merits of an argument? [/ QUOTE ] No I do it plenty of times, however I always state that I point out the oil link as merely a trend that is extremely prevalent among skeptics. It does not, in itself, prove anything. This is something I've made clear numerous times. Your argument I objected to was this: Instead of actually addressing the arguments and points someone makes, you disparage the person instead. Which is a totally different accusation. BTW you were the first person to bring up oil in this thread. You were the first person to bring up oil in this thread as well: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1 A thread where you called him an oil shill and I called him a 'TV personality without a relevant undergraduate education or a publishing record'. Kind of ironic. [ QUOTE ] What argument? That the predictive value of climate models is unproven? [/ QUOTE ] The argument that NOAA's forecast is based off of climate models models. You may have come up with this argument on my own but experience tells me that people almost always pick up anti consensus arguments from some blog, newspaper or think tank. [ QUOTE ] ????? Believe who ever you want. [/ QUOTE ] Adios, if the forecast was based off of climate models it should be SUPER easy to link that forecast to the GFDL. This really isn't that difficult of a request. If you have trouble figuring out how to do this you can always e-mail NOAA. They normally reply within 24-48 hours. If you can't accomplish this simple feat or admit you are wrong on this very specific issue then this conversation is going into absurdity. You are better than that adios. I know you are. [ QUOTE ] Here's something for you, why don't you refrain from making the accusation that someone is nothing more than an oil company tool (as if working for an oil company is evil) or give us your best shot at proving to us how oil companys are in bed together and purposely spreading disinformation. [/ QUOTE ] well here is one site of many: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ There was Philip Cooney, a former American Petroleum Institute oil lobbyist, who edited white house documents. Once he was forced to resign due to scandal he went over to Exxon. There's an internal memo from API hosted on my website. You could go to realclimate and type in $100,000 to get another one from the IREA. You could go to sourcewatch and check every other skeptic and especially the websites like junkscience and CEI. Or you could read my websites skeptic profiles to see how some of these skeptics will admit they are wrong on scientific newsgroups and then go to the reporters and say the complete opposite. You can read up on Pat Michaels Ph.D. and how he takes tons of money from API and screws up highschool math to disprove climate change or edits NASAs graphs and lies to congress. You could read rolling stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/sto...l_warming/print You could read about the teachers association being bought off by API: http://tinyurl.com/32g72n The list is tremendous. Desmogblog tends to specialize in covering the oil link. Not all skeptics are oil shills. You will always have skeptics, heck they were debating whether the earth was flat on The View last week. But there is an enormous link between skeptics and skeptical media with oil companies. Heck many of the climate skeptic Ph.D's were former tobacco shills. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz are two ivy leaguers that fit the mold. I could go on. Do I really need to continue because this could end up being a book. But there is plenty on the web. But my challenge still stands. What Ph.D. level skeptic on this forum have I ignored their arguments? |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
The hurricane thing is dumb. Just because I can't predict whether it'll rain over your house next Tuesday doesn't mean I can't predict the effects of increasing water vapor concentration on Mars. Some things are physically well understood, others are not.
And the hurricane models are probability models and their failure doesn't even reach statistical significance by the looks of it. Hurricanes are highly chaotic systems whose formation can never be more than a probability model, whereas the CO2-heat retention link is very simple and well observed physics. I have a question for Wacki though. Since we all gamble...what odds would you give me on temperatures increasing by at least 2 degrees within 50 years? |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Y: the severity of the consequences if those models were 100% accurate Z: the cost of measures required to prevent those consequences [/ QUOTE ] This question is highlighted in the Stern Report and several others. Every major report from mainstream science, the pentagon, army corps of engineers and retired generals and admirals claims it's cheaper to act. Add in peak oil and many other factors and the pressure to get off of fossil fuels just increases and in a big way. [/ QUOTE ] Have you read economist Bjorn Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentalist? He's a prominent environmentalist that argues the prevalent cost-benefit analysis accounting is all wrong. For example global warming will cause drought in some places, but didn't some research discover that overall global food production would increase at least temporarily? As well, comparing heath deaths to cold deaths; while global warming will increase heat deaths, it seems that cold conditions kill more human beings overall, so overall the shifted equilibrium becomes a net positive for human beings. Here is a convenient TED talk to those uninformed, not technical at all (YouTube video). I am grunching here and I apologize if your technical links addressed any of my concerns in the body of your posts. I am not as technically sophisticated on the issues as you and I'm appreciate "low-level" links. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
A non answer answer to a perfectly legitimate and reasonable question. Why? [/ QUOTE ] What have I not answered? Whether the models are unproven or not? Scientists don't even consider the theory of friction or gravity "proved". When behaving accurately they only express it in of the weight of evidence. And in the climate change scenario many top experts believe "all indicators" are pointing towards anthropogenic global warming and there are a TON of indicators. As the models my position is limited to these statements: [ QUOTE ] *Climate models aren't made to model hurricanes yet their predictive ability is better than traditional statistical forcasts. *The climate change skeptics (e.g. Bill Gray) are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to predicting hurricanes. *Climate model coupled forecasting is the best tool we have for predicting hurricanes. *Climate model coupled forecasting methods correctly predicted hurricanes in areas where Bill Gray thought was "impossible". *The predictions that beat the old-school methods were made at course resolution (>200km) and current models have nearly double the resolution at ~125 km. *Many top modeling experts believe a resolution of 45km is needed to successfully simulate intensity and tracks. Despite this, 200km resoltion was enough to beat old-school predictive methods. [/ QUOTE ] #Do you agree or disagree these statements are accurate. It's a simple question that deserves a simple answer. And then we still have these: # If this post was inspired by some resource such as a think tank or blog please share it with us. # Please email NOAA (or find a hard and specific link) and prove me wrong about their forecast methodology or admit you are wrong. # Please find one single Ph.D. level climate change skeptic posted in this forum that I've not picked apart their arguments with supporting evidence from refereed journals and/or technical data. If you can't, please apologize for making a false accusation. These aren't difficult requests. In the name of fairness and civility please oblige. I'm happy to answer any of your questions. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
The hurricane thing is dumb. Just because I can't predict whether it'll rain over your house next Tuesday doesn't mean I can't predict the effects of increasing water vapor concentration on Mars. Some things are physically well understood, others are not. And the hurricane models are probability models and their failure doesn't even reach statistical significance by the looks of it. Hurricanes are highly chaotic systems whose formation can never be more than a probability model, whereas the CO2-heat retention link is very simple and well observed physics. I have a question for Wacki though. Since we all gamble...what odds would you give me on temperatures increasing by at least 2 degrees within 50 years? [/ QUOTE ] Nice post and one I've tried to make but didn't do very well when it comes to laymen terms (I merely talked about spatial resolution and designed purpose). As for your question do you mean 2 degrees C or F? And from with starting point today? I'm not familiar with 50 year projections only 100 year and beyond so I'd have to do a little reading. So much depends on the human element as well. Many people believe the next presidential term is going to be so critical. Global economy, research initiatives, wars and peak oil are all going to be huge wild cards. There is a book I'm extremely eager to read and has gotten excellent reviews in Nature and Realclimate: http://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future...2656&sr=8-3 This layman friendly review of 500 journal articles should be an excellent guide to understand how bad this situation might get. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
Have you read economist Bjorn Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentalist? He's a prominent environmentalist [/ QUOTE ] Try reading this short summary of Lomborg: http://tinyurl.com/2zww3u Includes quotes from scientists claiming that Lomborg 'employs the strategy of those who argue that... Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis' and others claim he lacks even "a preliminary understanding of the science in question." This page needs to be extended but it should give you a decent idea what real experts in a wide variety (and not just climate change) of fields think of him. There are plenty of links to more in depth material on the man. But his ocean arguments should make it blatantly obvious that he's capable of making some massive blunders. [ QUOTE ] For example global warming will cause drought in some places, but didn't some research discover that overall global food production would increase at least temporarily? [/ QUOTE ] CO2 fertilization has been debunked. http://tinyurl.com/3ct5me [ QUOTE ] As well, comparing heath deaths to cold deaths; while global warming will increase heat deaths, it seems that cold conditions kill more human beings overall, so overall the shifted equilibrium becomes a net positive for human beings. [/ QUOTE ] If the glaciers in Asia melt (as they might do in the next 50 years) 40% of the people on the planet will face severe water shortages then food and heat stroke problems will go through the roof. Wars have been fought over this stuff. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ter-usat_x.htm Glacier melt in the Himalayas is projected to increase flooding, and rock avalanches from destabilised slopes, and to affect water resources within the next two to three decades. This will be followed by decreased river flows as the glaciers recede. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf The evidence for this is very strong [ QUOTE ] Here is a convenient TED talk to those uninformed, not technical at all (YouTube video). [/ QUOTE ] Will watch it later, thanks for the link. [ QUOTE ] I am grunching here and I apologize if your technical links addressed any of my concerns in the body of your posts. I am not as technically sophisticated on the issues as you and I'm appreciate "low-level" links. [/ QUOTE ] Have I provided anything too technical for you to understand in this thread? If so feel free to let me know. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
Celsius, starting from current avg temperatures over the recent period.
I'm aware of the 100 year predictions. You've done a lot of reading and I wanted to get your feel on the likelihood of high-medium to catastrophic warming in the coming decades, which the science shows as plausible (and lower probability), but the reports deliberately shy away from for political reasons. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
The hurricane thing is dumb. Just because I can't predict whether it'll rain over your house next Tuesday doesn't mean I can't predict the effects of increasing water vapor concentration on Mars. Some things are physically well understood, others are not. And the hurricane models are probability models and their failure doesn't even reach statistical significance by the looks of it. Hurricanes are highly chaotic systems whose formation can never be more than a probability model, whereas the CO2-heat retention link is very simple and well observed physics. [/ QUOTE ] Excellent post. I know several people who believe along the lines "we can't even predict the waether, how can we predict global warming". |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
Well current glacial trends on the other side of the planet show that they are going to face some really tough water problems. Glacier trends show that with overwhelming evidence. The ocean is showing signs that it has saturated.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702737104v1 The Co2 Growth rate in the atmosphere is almost triple of what it was in the 1990s. Ocean acidification could occur sooner than expected as well. A lot of things have developed that I'm not sure have been included in the AR4. This is the 2001 IPCC projection: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics...arge/05.02.jpg AR4's (more accurate) projections are here: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics...t/figure10.ppt Basically the projections are showing that temps will be a little bit under 2 degrees C in 50 years (there is overlap above 2 degrees C depending on emissions scenario). However recent developments such as ocean saturation has been less than comforting. Good new is that the planet has a lot of inertia so 30-50 years out is considered rather easy to ppredict as CO2 doesn't matter too much. Albedo another story as ice melt is not looking fun either. Things may have changed though I simply don't know. At this moment I'm willing to say 2 degrees C is unlikely in 50 years but again things may change. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
Hmm, could have sworn Gray worked at NOAA at one point. Oh well. As for your second point - the models used to study AGW are generally one of a class of models called coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models. These models are not used to predict the severity of hurricane seasons. Neither of the links you give relate to these class of model. Just out of interest - is it your contention that AGW is negligible and/or will not happen? Thats AGW and not GW, by the way. If so, I have a little proposition for you. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A non answer answer to a perfectly legitimate and reasonable question. Why? [/ QUOTE ] What have I not answered? [/ QUOTE ] To be more explicit, if the equation involves the following variables: X: the degree of certainty as the accuracy of current models Y: the severity of the consequences if those models were 100% accurate Z: the cost of measures required to prevent those consequences then what degree of certainty, X, as to the accuracy of current models do you believe is required to justify the expense, Z, of preventing the worst case scenario, Y? |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What argument? That the predictive value of climate models is unproven? [/ QUOTE ] The argument that NOAA's forecast is based off of climate models models. You may have come up with this argument on my own but experience tells me that people almost always pick up anti consensus arguments from some blog, newspaper or think tank. [ QUOTE ] ????? Believe who ever you want. [/ QUOTE ] Adios, if the forecast was based off of climate models it should be SUPER easy to link that forecast to the GFDL. This really isn't that difficult of a request. If you have trouble figuring out how to do this you can always e-mail NOAA. They normally reply within 24-48 hours. If you can't accomplish this simple feat or admit you are wrong on this very specific issue then this conversation is going into absurdity. You are better than that adios. I know you are. [/ QUOTE ] The arguments I've made: In their current state, the predictive value of climate models is unproven. The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years. Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting. Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas. Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research. Why don't you actually the arguments I'm making instead of ones you'd like to address. You're better than that wacki, I know you are. [ QUOTE ] But my challenge still stands. What Ph.D. level skeptic on this forum have I ignored their arguments? [/ QUOTE ] Where did I claim you did? My claim is that accusing someone of being a tool for an oil company doesn't contribute any useful information to the debates and amounts to nothing more than a smear. That's why I get it out of the way as soon as possible. Let's just assume he's a tool of the oil companies and move on to the arguments/points that he's making. I know that you've answered my posts with that kind of an answer befoe and left it at that. I can't remember all of your posts and you may have used that reply instead of re-hashing your arguments. Fine, but that doesn't make my point invalid either. Instead of dismissing someone as an oil company tool just say you've shown the points to be invalid before in other posts. FWIW those tactics detract from your points. On your stuff on oil companies, I don't think this is anywhere close to proving your apparent claim that oil companies are deliberately spreading disinformation. A question for you is it all possible that disinfiormation is being used to promote agendas? |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
Hmm, could have sworn Gray worked at NOAA at one point. Oh well. As for your second point - the models used to study AGW are generally one of a class of models called coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models. These models are not used to predict the severity of hurricane seasons. Neither of the links you give relate to these class of model. Just out of interest - is it your contention that AGW is negligible and/or will not happen? Thats AGW and not GW, by the way. If so, I have a little proposition for you. [/ QUOTE ] What is negligible vs. significant? My arguments are: In their current state, the predictive value of climate models is unproven. The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years. Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting. Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas. Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research. wacki doesn't seem to want to address them, what do you think? Also does this qualify me as a skeptic, a non skeptic, or something in between? |
Questions for wacki
Would you define a "skeptic" for me in the context of global warming?
Would you define a "non skeptic" for me? Are there only skeptics, non skeptics and people who don'care? If there are others please elaborate. Do you consider me a skeptic? Do you think the term skeptic is perjorative? |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
# If this post was inspired by some resource such as a think tank or blog please share it with us. [/ QUOTE ] It wasn't and I enumerated my points in other posts. [ QUOTE ] # Please email NOAA (or find a hard and specific link) and prove me wrong about their forecast methodology or admit you are wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong about what? That NOAA uses/accesses climate model output and makes predictions using that information. Ok will do. Let's say I'm wrong though. Why is that relevant to the points I made that far you've failed to address specifically? It's a side show. Again those points are: In their current state, the predictive value of climate models is unproven. The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years. Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting. Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas. Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research. [ QUOTE ] # Please find one single Ph.D. level climate change skeptic posted in this forum that I've not picked apart their arguments with supporting evidence from refereed journals and/or technical data. If you can't, please apologize for making a false accusation. [/ QUOTE ] I addressed this in another post. Let's get your cross examination out of the way here: [ QUOTE ] *Climate models aren't made to model hurricanes yet their predictive ability is better than traditional statistical forcasts. [/ QUOTE ] From what I've seen yes. Does this contradict any of my points above? [ QUOTE ] *The climate change skeptics (e.g. Bill Gray) are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to predicting hurricanes. [/ QUOTE ] I'd like to abandon the word "skeptic." I've asked you to define skeptic in another post as well as other questions so I'll just address Gray. From what I've seen Gray has not been as accurate in his predictions. Does this contradict any of the points I've made above? [ QUOTE ] *Climate model coupled forecasting is the best tool we have for predicting hurricanes. [/ QUOTE ] Don't know for sure but I would think so. Does this contradict any point that I've made above? [ QUOTE ] *Climate model coupled forecasting methods correctly predicted hurricanes in areas where Bill Gray thought was "impossible". [/ QUOTE ] Yes I believe so. Does this contradict any points I've made above? [ QUOTE ] *The predictions that beat the old-school methods were made at course resolution (>200km) and current models have nearly double the resolution at ~125 km. [/ QUOTE ] Probably true. Does this contradict any points I've made above? [ QUOTE ] *Many top modeling experts believe a resolution of 45km is needed to successfully simulate intensity and tracks. Despite this, 200km resoltion was enough to beat old-school predictive methods. [/ QUOTE ] Does this contradict any points I've made above? The answer for all of these is that it doesn't contradict the points I've made that so far you've side stepped and again they are: In their current state, the predictive value of climate models is unproven. The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years. Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting. Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas. Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
wacki, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do have a question since the debate seems to center around both the predictive value of current models and what expense/measures should be taken in view of same. Implicitly this question is one of whether "best we have" is enough to justify certain responses and the expense of same. To be more explicit, if the equation involves the following variables: X: the degree of certainty as the accuracy of current models Y: the severity of the consequences if those models were 100% accurate Z: the cost of measures required to prevent those consequences then what degree of certainty, X, as to the accuracy of current models do you believe is required to justify the expense, Z, of preventing the worst case scenario, Y? [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Y: the severity of the consequences if those models were 100% accurate Z: the cost of measures required to prevent those consequences [/ QUOTE ] This question is highlighted in the Stern Report and several others. Every major report from mainstream science, the pentagon, army corps of engineers and retired generals and admirals claims it's cheaper to act. [/ QUOTE ] wacki, Again I'm not getting into the details of this debate. But I do agree with adios that you haven't truly answered my question, even though you seem to be dismissing its legitimacy. Most of us here came to these forums as poker players and have also studied the math of poker and EV calculations. Which means we *should* be willing to apply those calcs to other areas so as to be able to make better decisions than the general non-mathematically inclinded public. The costs associated with preventing climate change, it the measures will even work (another variable actually), are not insignificant, and most are in the form of economic growth loss it seems. And I grant that the purported severity of the consequences means that one shouldn't wish to run high risks of same. Thus a lesser probability of the models being accurate can suffice to act. But still the degree of certainty of the accuracy of those models must matter. I mean if all agreed the degree of certainty was 1%, would you even be debating this? I want to note too, that this question of mine applies to other areas of science, since as you know the scientific consensus of the moment or even decade, can turn out later to be wrong. So while you are correct that we shouldn't demand absolute certainty, it is legitimate to question the degree of certainty *even if* an overwhelming scientific consensus did exist on an issue. In fact, for such an overwhelming consensus to exist, one would think the degree of certainty vs. the possible consequences, was very high. So is that the case or not and what number would you put on it? |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
Since wacki is busy (and probably bored with this) I'll have a stab.
In their current state, the predictive value of climate models is unproven. As an assertion this is a failure as it fails to quantify anything. It also seems dubious. Weren't the climate models used on past data? I believe that's one of the many criteria for any of the many models to be taken seriously. Haven't the predictions of the climate models from last century held up in the last 8 or so years? If climate models are so inaccurate or useless, why do they all show the same trend and similar ranges, even though the underlying algorithms are quite different? Why has no one come up with a climate model that works accurately on past data and predicts no temperature increase? Your criticism of the models lacks depth. The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years. Sure...but that doesn't mean the current models will be proven wrong. The most likely scenario, imo, is that the error ranges of the current models will narrow as precision increases. #2 is neither here nor there as relates to this debate. Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting. Exactly how much stock should we be putting into it? If the eight or so more accurate models on past data, using different underlying physics and algorithms, all come to the same conclusion, are you suggesting we should be ignoring them? Exactly how much stock do you think we should be putting in these models? Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas. How does this relate to the truth or otherwise of the science? As far the IPCC goes, the main role of politics is to water down the scientific conclusions to make them more palatable to governments who have to sign off on the report. Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research. You'll need to elaborate on why this matters. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you actually the arguments I'm making instead of ones you'd like to address. You're better than that wacki, I know you are. [/ QUOTE ] I thought I had. We are obviously having communication problems. [ QUOTE ] The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. [/ QUOTE ] Of course [ QUOTE ] In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years. [/ QUOTE ] The IPCC has a chart of what areas are well understood and what aren't. A lot of papers have been written about what is theoretically possible with the climate models. Will there be unexpected surprises? Of course. But I'm willing to bet we have a good idea what direction the improvements will go. [ QUOTE ] Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting. [/ QUOTE ] I have no way of measuring public confidence. All I can say is that it would be foolish to claim the globe isn't going to warm in the future. The only debate is how much. As for the climate models well I'm of the opinion that Hansen's models have been a stunning success predicting the last 20 years in advance and recreating the past 200. evidence: http://tinyurl.com/y3hmrz Will their accuracy continue? Not without improvements in computing power as well as the removal of political sabotage of scientific satellites (e.g. DSCOVR). However, the error bars of the last 20 years are representative of the models then the error bars could be increased by an order of magnitude and catastrophe could still easily and accurately predicted. [ QUOTE ] Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas. [/ QUOTE ] I've said this many times about BOTH sides. [ QUOTE ] Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research. [/ QUOTE ] Depends on the research. I personally don't think we need anymore climate research to do what needs to be done. Many climatologists are saying the same thing. I hope that answers your questions. I didn't realize I was avoiding you. Next time question marks would certainly help let me know you are asking me to confirm or deny something. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
These results indicate that the range of uncertainty in anthropogenic forcing of the past century is as large as the uncertainty in climate sensitivity and that much of forcing uncertainty is due to aerosols. [/ QUOTE ] Jeffrey T. Kiehl, 2007. Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007 |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
BT,
Your question is a complex one and the subject of an entire IPCC report involving years of research from some of the world's best think tanks. At the end of the reckoning the EV equation is very solidly in the realm of there being a significant net damage to economies, and mitigation being +EV overall. See here for example (I strongly encourage anyone to read the actual reports if they're interested in the topic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...global_warming |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
BT, Your question is a complex one and the subject of an entire IPCC report involving years of research from some of the world's best think tanks. At the end of the reckoning the EV equation is very solidly in the realm of there being a significant net damage to economies, and mitigation being +EV overall. See here for example (I strongly encourage anyone to read the actual reports if they're interested in the topic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...global_warming [/ QUOTE ] Then it should be easy for you to put out a number with a margin of error. So what is the number? |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
I don't know the actual numbers, they're not conveniently published in a summary table anywhere. But click the link. Much of the reasoning and understanding and quantification of the effects on different sectors is solid, and reports have been done on this very thing, including by relatively disinterested parties such as insurance companies and the world bank There's even a pretty graph with errors bars for you.
|
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
What is negligible vs. significant? My arguments are: [/ QUOTE ] Lets say... 'less than 5%' [ QUOTE ] In their current state, the predictive value of climate models is unproven. [/ QUOTE ] I suggest looking at the IPCC report a little more closely. In particular the section where GCMs are used to construct historical temperature records. They don't do too badly. I suppose by definition a model is 'unproven' until the events it is predicting either do or do not happen, but that is not the sole arbiter of a models predictive power. Otherwise, no-one would ever use them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years. [/ QUOTE ] This is true, however it's no reason to ignore the models that exist now. You'd never do anything if you just said 'oh wait 50 years, things will be better' [ QUOTE ] Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting. [/ QUOTE ] The scientists certainly are not. What the media do is their business. [ QUOTE ] Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas. [/ QUOTE ] They do this with EVERY situation. What's different about this one? [ QUOTE ] Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research. [/ QUOTE ] If you're referring to the Bush administrations reprehensible desecration of funding research, and indeed science generally, then I agree with you. [ QUOTE ] Also does this qualify me as a skeptic, a non skeptic, or something in between? [/ QUOTE ] Difficult to say at the moment. |
Re: Questions for wacki
[ QUOTE ]
Would you define a "skeptic" for me in the context of global warming?... Are there only skeptics, non skeptics and people who don'care? If there are others please elaborate. [/ QUOTE ] Depends on the conversation and how it's phrased. Most of the time it's someone who is skeptical of CO2 driven global warming. However, things are changing. 5 years ago Lomborg qualified as well as many other shills. Now they seem to be moving to "it's real but it's good for us" or "it's real but it won't harm us" or even "it's real but there's nothing we can do about it so don't worry". Those tend to be the shady skeptics that are actually denialists. There are definitely shills (who are bought for money), party liners and blind ideology, the good-old-boys-club and the ivory tower haters. There are a lot of people in the world and many many reasons to deny something that can harm a particular industry/organization or benefit one you don't have control of. [ QUOTE ] Would you define a "non skeptic" for me? [/ QUOTE ] Again, it depends on the conversation. [ QUOTE ] Do you consider me a skeptic? [/ QUOTE ] Well you ask lots of questions and read so that is a good skeptic. However, something as simple as discussing whether or not a forecast is based off of old school statistics and gut feelings or climate models should not turn into an intensely heated conversation. Maybe I'm at fault, I'm not sure, but something certainly isn't right. [ QUOTE ] Do you think the term skeptic is perjorative? [/ QUOTE ] Again, it depends on how it's used. Denialist is definitely a pejorative. If I'm calling Bill Gray a skeptic I'm using it as a pejorative. If I'm calling James Annan or W. Connelly, who routinely keeps Hansen and the IPCC on their toes, a skeptic then I'm giving them a compliment. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why don't you actually the arguments I'm making instead of ones you'd like to address. You're better than that wacki, I know you are. [/ QUOTE ] I thought I had. We are obviously having communication problems. [ QUOTE ] The second argument I'm making is that climate models will improve significantly over time and will evolve. [/ QUOTE ] Of course [ QUOTE ] In expect that we can't imagine the improvement that will take place over the next 50 years. [/ QUOTE ] The IPCC has a chart of what areas are well understood and what aren't. A lot of papers have been written about what is theoretically possible with the climate models. Will there be unexpected surprises? Of course. But I'm willing to bet we have a good idea what direction the improvements will go. [ QUOTE ] Third argument is that people are putting way too much stock in what climate models in their current state are predicting. [/ QUOTE ] I have no way of measuring public confidence. All I can say is that it would be foolish to claim the globe isn't going to warm in the future. The only debate is how much. As for the climate models well I'm of the opinion that Hansen's models have been a stunning success predicting the last 20 years in advance and recreating the past 200. evidence: http://tinyurl.com/y3hmrz Will their accuracy continue? Not without improvements in computing power as well as the removal of political sabotage of scientific satellites (e.g. DSCOVR). However, the error bars of the last 20 years are representative of the models then the error bars could be increased by an order of magnitude and catastrophe could still easily and accurately predicted. [ QUOTE ] Fourth argment is that politicians are exploiting the situation to promote their own agendas. [/ QUOTE ] I've said this many times about BOTH sides. [ QUOTE ] Fifth argument is that the conditions for 3 and 4 are a disaster for funding research. [/ QUOTE ] Depends on the research. I personally don't think we need anymore climate research to do what needs to be done. Many climatologists are saying the same thing. I hope that answers your questions. I didn't realize I was avoiding you. Next time question marks would certainly help let me know you are asking me to confirm or deny something. [/ QUOTE ] Thanks. My perception is that public confidence in the viability of climate models and their predictions is eroding. Could be convinced otherwise. As far as politics are concerned, I've tried to tie this into the threads here many times. I remember once trying to pin you down on what you perceive to be the centrist position on public policy is. Never could do that to my satisfaction but again I could be convinced that I'm being unreasonable. I think it's fair to say that the idea that reducing carbon emissions is one centrist goal. Many proposals before Congress now. I also note that Congress passed an "energy" bill yesterday. So things are happening and from my perspective, it's going to be expensive. FWIW when the government starts mandating that people start ponying up more money to implement government policy, they better have a damn good case for why they want to do that. Again FWIW the case being made is unconvincing to the public. Perhaps the following is relevant, perhaps not. I remember the gas lines and oil embargos in the 70's. Carter endorsed many initiatives that basically embraced alternative energy sources with a lot of IMO hype and fanfare. When the promises weren't delivered the excitement waned quickly and ultimately Reagan scrapped the programs that Carter started. Ultimately IMO the U.S. would have been better served with less hype and more candor about what was needed to develop alternative fuel sources. The situation with carbon emissions and global warming reminds me a lot of what went on in the 70's for some reason. The short answwer is I suppose that if you actually want to convince more people you should care a lot about public sentiment, educating John Q. Citizen, and how to gage public sentiment. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
Quickly, in their current state I don't think we have enough data to make many conclusions about climate model predictions.
I never said that we shouldn't use them, in fact I've said the opposite. wacki is right that computing power has to increase in order to provide more "fidelity" but I also strongly believe that we have not identified all of the variables accurately that make up a comprehensive climate model. I think as time passes we will. As far as politicians see my response to wacki. The gist of which is that public policy is being formulated and acted upon. If that policy is such that special interests get to line their pockets at the expense of John Q. Citizen then I think that we would all agree that we don't need that. I am of the believe that is precisely what's happening now. It's one thing to say yeah there's a problem that needs to be addressed. It's quite another thing to actually address the problem. As far as funding, I think that overblown expectations lead to pessimism and distrust which leads to lack of interest. Not saying the Bush administration gets a pass either. Just saying that the lack of funding is not seen by the public as a bad thing. I think the word skeptic is often used perjoratively and thus is polarizing. There is a middle ground IMO. Welcome to the forum [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] and thanks for your reasonable reply. |
Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But my challenge still stands. What Ph.D. level skeptic on this forum have I ignored their arguments? [/ QUOTE ] Where did I claim you did? [/ QUOTE ] Earlier in this thread you said: [ QUOTE ] It's exactly the tactic you use when you accuse someone of being an oil company tool. Instead of actually addressing the arguments and points someone makes, you disparage the person instead. It shows a distinct lack of intellectual honesty. [/ QUOTE ] You clearly accused me using ad hominem exclusively and ignoring the science. [ QUOTE ] My claim is that accusing someone of being a tool for an oil company doesn't contribute any useful information to the debates and amounts to nothing more than a smear. ... Instead of dismissing someone as an oil company tool just say you've shown the points to be invalid before in other posts. FWIW those tactics detract from your points. [/ QUOTE ] The climate critic world (a neutral term :-D) is FULL of Ph.D's on the oil payroll routinely messing up highschool level science. Many of these people have a history of defending tobacco or industrial pollutants. Sorry, but this industry is well documented via leaked internal memos and needs to be exposed. Like I said before I merely point out trends. [ QUOTE ] On your stuff on oil companies, I don't think this is anywhere close to proving your apparent claim that oil companies are deliberately spreading disinformation. [/ QUOTE ] Well then what burden of proof will convince you? [ QUOTE ] A question for you is it all possible that disinfiormation is being used to promote agendas? [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure I understand this question but there are shills on all sides of the debate. |
Re: Questions for wacki
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Would you define a "skeptic" for me in the context of global warming?... Are there only skeptics, non skeptics and people who don'care? If there are others please elaborate. [/ QUOTE ] Depends on the conversation and how it's phrased. Most of the time it's someone who is skeptical of CO2 driven global warming. However, things are changing. 5 years ago Lomborg qualified as well as many other shills. Now they seem to be moving to "it's real but it's good for us" or "it's real but it won't harm us" or even "it's real but there's nothing we can do about it so don't worry". Those tend to be the shady skeptics that are actually denialists. There are definitely shills (who are bought for money), party liners and blind ideology, the good-old-boys-club and the ivory tower haters. There are a lot of people in the world and many many reasons to deny something that can harm a particular industry/organization or benefit one you don't have control of. [ QUOTE ] Would you define a "non skeptic" for me? [/ QUOTE ] Again, it depends on the conversation. [ QUOTE ] Do you consider me a skeptic? [/ QUOTE ] Well you ask lots of questions and read so that is a good skeptic. However, something as simple as discussing whether or not a forecast is based off of old school statistics and gut feelings or climate models should not turn into an intensely heated conversation. Maybe I'm at fault, I'm not sure, but something certainly isn't right. [ QUOTE ] Do you think the term skeptic is perjorative? [/ QUOTE ] Again, it depends on how it's used. Denialist is definitely a pejorative. If I'm calling Bill Gray a skeptic I'm using it as a pejorative. If I'm calling James Annan or W. Connelly, who routinely keeps Hansen and the IPCC on their toes, a skeptic then I'm giving them a compliment. [/ QUOTE ] I think the word skeptic that way it's often used (not by you necessarily) has a polarizing effect. In the implementation of public policy I believe there's definitely a middle ground. When you use skeptic perjoratively sometimes and not sometimes, it seems that most people would assume it's in the perjorative sense. FWIW I think it's become basically an unproductive term for lack of a better word. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.