Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no record and/or proof that man can predict global weahter 100 years in advance accurately yet you claim it is much easier than predicting short term weather fluctuations accurately. Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Climate models can reconstruct the past 130 years with a pretty high accuracy. Given that the models are based off of physics and not statistics (i.e. they don't use training data) this says mountains about their usefulness.



[/ QUOTE ]

If the data produced by such algorithms did not reflect the real data in the past, they would be tossed. So of course everything that shows up here fits the past perfectly.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no record and/or proof that man can predict global weahter 100 years in advance accurately yet you claim it is much easier than predicting short term weather fluctuations accurately. Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Climate models can reconstruct the past 130 years with a pretty high accuracy. Given that the models are based off of physics and not statistics (i.e. they don't use training data) this says mountains about their usefulness.



[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't, that's just plain wrong. As others have pointed out the models better fit past data. That doesn't say a thing about their predictive value.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no record and/or proof that man can predict global weahter 100 years in advance accurately yet you claim it is much easier than predicting short term weather fluctuations accurately. Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Climate models can reconstruct the past 130 years with a pretty high accuracy. Given that the models are based off of physics and not statistics (i.e. they don't use training data) this says mountains about their usefulness.



[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't, that's just plain wrong. As others have pointed out the models better fit past data. That doesn't say a thing about their predictive value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in the past they knew the exact date and time that certain volcanoes exploded. And as I explained before deviations in the predictions can be attributed to short term noise like Pinatubo, a strong El Nino, etc. This noise was accounted for but obviously there are time differences. Knowing exactly when and where the short term noise hits will ALWAYS make the past reconstructions more accurate than the future predictions. This would be true even if God himself came down and endorsed the models as being 100% correct.

Your statement of: "doesn't say a thing about their predictive value" is rather strong. I would understand your statement if the model was statistical but it's not. I would understand if you said it was "incomplete" but you didn't.

[Phil153]

How do these models work? Do you have a quick primer? How accurately are they accounting for things like temperature induced cloud type changes? I did oceanography and meteorology for two semesters but I'm not up to date with what they use today.

Also, how much gaming is there?

[ QUOTE ]
short term noise like Pinatubo, a strong El Nino, etc. This noise was accounted for but obviously there are time differences.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there any "gaming" in the models to account for this? For example, if the earth was blanketed in aerosols/sun blocking particles in the 60s, how are the models accounting for this?

The other concern I have is that they may be using the data that suggested the model to verify the model. Feynman had something to say about that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

BTW I think anyone who denies the greater than 90% likelihood of human caused global warming is ignorant. I'm just interested in the response.

@ adios:
[ QUOTE ]
There's no record and/or proof that man can predict global weahter 100 years in advance accurately yet you claim it is much easier than predicting short term weather fluctuations accurately. Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are two different things. Short term forecasts are for the presence of local clouds/rain and local temperature. Climate change forecasts are for the temperature of the whole system given x input of sunlight and y concentration of heat trapping gas (basic physics). Because the system is effectively isolated, you can make pretty solid predictions on its state given various inputs. The only complications are the feedbacks present in the system, which may either mitigate or amplify the effects.

A simple analogy is turbulent water in a pipe. It's impossible to predict the pattern of water flow at any particular point for a reasonable length of time, but looking at whole system, you can tell where it's flowing.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]

@ adios:
[ QUOTE ]
There's no record and/or proof that man can predict global weahter 100 years in advance accurately yet you claim it is much easier than predicting short term weather fluctuations accurately. Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are two different things. Short term forecasts are for the presence of local clouds/rain and local temperature. Climate change forecasts are for the temperature of the whole system given x input of sunlight and y concentration of heat trapping gas (basic physics). Because the system is effectively isolated, you can make pretty solid predictions on its state given various inputs. The only complications are the feedbacks present in the system, which may either mitigate or amplify the effects.

A simple analogy is turbulent water in a pipe. It's impossible to predict the pattern of water flow at any particular point for a reasonable length of time, but looking at whole system, you can tell where it's flowing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying it's easy to predict weather 100 years from now? Anyway the poster I responded to explained his points and we moved on. I'm aware of the difference between climate and weather.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no record and/or proof that man can predict global weahter 100 years in advance accurately yet you claim it is much easier than predicting short term weather fluctuations accurately. Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Climate models can reconstruct the past 130 years with a pretty high accuracy. Given that the models are based off of physics and not statistics (i.e. they don't use training data) this says mountains about their usefulness.



[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't, that's just plain wrong. As others have pointed out the models better fit past data. That doesn't say a thing about their predictive value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in the past they knew the exact date and time that certain volcanoes exploded. And as I explained before deviations in the predictions can be attributed to short term noise like Pinatubo, a strong El Nino, etc. This noise was accounted for but obviously there are time differences. Knowing exactly when and where the short term noise hits will ALWAYS make the past reconstructions more accurate than the future predictions. This would be true even if God himself came down and endorsed the models as being 100% correct.

Your statement of: "doesn't say a thing about their predictive value" is rather strong. I would understand your statement if the model was statistical but it's not. I would understand if you said it was "incomplete" but you didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I had jumped up and down, screamed at the top of my lungs, etc. with caveats stating that I see a great of value in climate science and the development of climate models. Apparently I haven't done this enough so I'm now officially jumping up and down, screaming at the top of my lungs and proclaiming to the world that I see a great deal of value in climate science and the development of climate models.

I think this is another caveat I've made but not strongly enough. I'm officially jumping up and down and screaming the following at the top of my lungs. The most dire predictions made by climate models may be correct and thus erring on the side of caution is a prudent to follow IMO. We just don't know if the most dire of predictions are correct.

With those caveats in mind. I understand fully that climate models aren't intended to make accurate short term predictions about weather and such. My statements about the predictive value of climate models is not criticism, they're facts. The predictive value of climate models are unproven because they're relatively new. Statistics vs. physics have nothing to do with the idea that they're unproven. At the end of this post I'm going to post an article that encapsulates the ideas that I've been stating about the models. Here's a simple way to understand what I'm talking about, there are climate models that have vastly different predictions and I'm quite sure that they fit well with past data. Models fit well with past data by definition or they're not models.

I'd say that the chances that current climate models weigh all the factors that go into climate correctly is small. Note that this entertains the possibility that greenhouse gas emissions may be more destructive than what the models tell us. I also believe that the chances that the models get better as we learn more over time (a long time albeit) is very,very high.

Here's the article which encapsulates a lot of thoughts on the climate models. I'm not necessarily agreeing with the portion about the motivation to get research money part but more with the ideas of the complicated nature of the models and the physical influences on climate. Saying climate models are unproven isn't a negative criticism it's a fact. And it's a fact that should be more than obvious to anyone who actually understands the nature of climate science to at least some degree; understands something about models and what they're used for; understands that climatic periods are relatively long; and that climate science is relatively new. Very new when we compare climate history of the world and the onset of climate models.

Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory

To me here's the crux of the problem with taking what the models predict as fact:

Finally, the computer calculation can commence: A unit of time (a second, minute, day) is assumed to pass and the computer calculates the next "state" of the model based on the initial conditions, the boundary conditions and the other equations of the model. This process is repeated again and again, with the new state being the initial condition for calculating the subsequent state, until e.g. 100 years has passed.


Errors can accumulate rapidly. Let's list some of the factors that must be included (by no means an exhaustive list):

Solar flux
Gravity, Pressure
Temperature
Density
Humidity
Earth's rotation
Surface temperature
Currents in the Ocean (e.g., Gulf Stream)
Greenhouse gases
CO2 dissolved in the oceans
Polar ice caps
Infrared radiation
Cosmic rays (ionizing radiation)
Earth's magnetic field
Evaporation
Precipitation
Cloud formation
Reflection from clouds
Reflection from snow
Volcanoes
Soot formation
Trace compounds

And many, many others
Even if mathematics could be developed to accurately model each of these factors, the combined model would be infinitely complex requiring some simplifications. Simplifications in turn amount to judgment calls by the modeler. Can we ignore the effects of trace compounds? Well, we were told that trace amounts of chlorofluoro compounds had profound effects on the ozone layer, necessitating the banning of their use in refrigerators and as aerosol spray propellants. Can we ignore cosmic rays? Well, they cause ions (electrically charged molecules) which affect the ozone layer and also catalyze formation of rain-drops and soot particles.

As with all models, it is perilous to ignore factors in the absence of complete experimental data which might have otherwise have significant effect.


Unproven != wrong.

Unproven != right.

Unproven != worthless.

[Phil153]

Adios,

If all of what you say is true, and the uncertainty is as large as you claim, why don't the models run off in all kinds of strange directions? Why don't some point up, and others down?

And the most compelling question is: Why is that the predictions given from multiple models in 1997 have accurately described the warming that has occurred in the last 10 years?

Good old fashioned luck?

[wacki]

Adios I don't have time to review everything now (I shouldn't even be making this post) but scanning that website I saw this:

Interestingly, starting about two decades ago (1988), the total increase of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere has abruptly stopped, in spite of increased burning of fossil fuels.

....

This might account for the very recent net cessation of emission of green house gases into the atmosphere starting about 1988, in spite of increasing generation of anthropomorphically-sourced industrial-based green house gases.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...r_radia_1.html

which has nothing to do with reality:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

will review more later.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Adios I don't have time to review everything now (I shouldn't even be making this post) but scanning that website I saw this:

Interestingly, starting about two decades ago (1988), the total increase of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere has abruptly stopped, in spite of increased burning of fossil fuels.

....

This might account for the very recent net cessation of emission of green house gases into the atmosphere starting about 1988, in spite of increasing generation of anthropomorphically-sourced industrial-based green house gases.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...r_radia_1.html

which has nothing to do with reality:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

will review more later.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting that you would:
1. Find a different article by a different author rather than address the one posted.
2. Refute a statement about total global greenhouse gas emissions with information about CO2 emissions only.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
The IPCC is a highly politcal organization. Most of the so called "scientists" are government shills who are part of a international group that hates the US and capitalism as a whole.

Funny how all the third world countries get a pass, eh? Mass polluters like China get a free pass.

Ironically, the "scientists" claim their forward thinking is saving the planet, like they honestly think they can influence a 4 Billion year old planet. LOL, how arrogant. The cruel irony is the world they envision ultimately deprives third world countries like those in Africa, from getting affordable energy, further causing these countries misery.

Meanwhile, the do gooder global warming shill, errr, "scientist" in France takes a hybrid car to an airport where he flys to some Global Warming conference half way around the world pontificating how to save the planet while he turns down the AC.

Exactly what was the worldwide temprature in 1847? Yep, the global warming crowd has no idea. Yet, they draw iron clad conclusions on a 4B year old planet by looking at temp data from the past 30 years.

Suckers born every day.

[/ QUOTE ]

i like the idea that there is some massive financial machine with near-infinite resources hell bent on destroying big business.

my favorite thing about the global warming crisis is that, in 10 years, we'll likely know for sure one way or the other; the political debate will have no effect on the veracity of the claims.