Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions

[wacki]

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?

[adios]

[ 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.

[wacki]

[ 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?

[adios]

[ 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?

[adios]

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?

[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.

[adios]

[ 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.

[wacki]

[ 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.

[adios]

[ 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.

[wacki]

[ 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.