Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-01-2007, 09:56 AM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-01-2007, 10:14 AM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions

A non answer answer to a perfectly legitimate and reasonable question. Why?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-01-2007, 11:43 AM
wacki wacki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: reading 1K climate journals
Posts: 10,708
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-01-2007, 11:48 AM
Phil153 Phil153 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,905
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-01-2007, 11:51 AM
ConstantineX ConstantineX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Like PETA, ride for my animals
Posts: 658
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-01-2007, 11:58 AM
wacki wacki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: reading 1K climate journals
Posts: 10,708
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-01-2007, 12:13 PM
wacki wacki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: reading 1K climate journals
Posts: 10,708
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-01-2007, 12:48 PM
wacki wacki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: reading 1K climate journals
Posts: 10,708
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-01-2007, 12:57 PM
Phil153 Phil153 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,905
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-01-2007, 01:37 PM
Kaj Kaj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bet-the-pot
Posts: 1,812
Default 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".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.