Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:03 PM
Jcrew Jcrew is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 302
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:06 PM
Phil153 Phil153 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,905
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:08 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 ]
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?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:15 PM
Phil153 Phil153 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,905
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:19 PM
Arp220 Arp220 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 392
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:30 PM
wacki wacki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: reading 1K climate journals
Posts: 10,708
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:33 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default Re: Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:50 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:50 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 ]


[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-01-2007, 08:55 PM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default 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.
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 09:06 AM.


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