Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-01-2007, 01:59 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

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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-01-2007, 02:59 PM
Arp220 Arp220 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 392
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-01-2007, 05:23 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-01-2007, 05:33 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-01-2007, 05:41 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-01-2007, 05:54 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-01-2007, 06:24 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default 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.

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-01-2007, 07:48 PM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: I can hold my breath longer than the Boob
Posts: 10,311
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-01-2007, 07:57 PM
Phil153 Phil153 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,905
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-01-2007, 07:58 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 ]
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.
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 11:01 AM.


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