Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
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
  #2  
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
  #3  
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
Reply


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 05:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.