Do you really believe in climate change? Gambling and global warming

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]


Another way of smelling the BS is looking at the consistency of what they are claiming and how they live their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Gore's movie about global warming they are driving around in a large gas guzzling car/SUV. It's also doubtful he lives in a small home...

In a press conference in California about the future of fuel cells, Schwarzenager drove off in a Suburban and everyone knows he loves the Hummer.

Yes, it would be nice if these guys lead by example...Maybe its our job to sacrifice while they travel the world and drive SUV's.

[TheGrasshopper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Another way of smelling the BS is looking at the consistency of what they are claiming and how they live their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Gore's movie about global warming they are driving around in a large gas guzzling car/SUV. It's also doubtful he lives in a small home...

In a press conference in California about the future of fuel cells, Schwarzenager drove off in a Suburban and everyone knows he loves the Hummer.

Yes, it would be nice if these guys lead by example...Maybe its our job to sacrifice while they travel the world and drive SUV's.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Gore lives in the nicest part of town and ran up a 50k electric bill one month. He is a phony.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're stating that you believe Hansen's climate model is very accurate apparently. I'm not sure there's enough predictions from the model to make that claim but I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The model predicts a lot more than a single average global temperature. Some parts are extremely accurate others (like rain patterns) are not so accurate.

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently Hansen states himself that observations made over 10-20 year time periods don't say too much about the predictive nature of climate models. If that's the case (and I'm fairly certain that it is), then touting the accuracy of such a model over such a time period is bogus, just as bogus as pointing out that a model was incorrect over such a time period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, I prefer quotes that are little closer to the source. This could take several pages of text to explain. Here is a quote from Gavin Schmidt who actually works for Hansen:

Hansen stated that this comparison was not sufficient for a 'precise assessment' of the model simulations and he is of course correct. However, that does not imply that no assessment can be made, or that stated errors in the projections (themselves erroneous) of 100 to 400% can't be challenged. My assessment is that the model results were as consistent with the real world over this period as could possibly be expected and are therefore a useful demonstration of the model's consistency with the real world. Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get.

The models have done an incredible job of reconstructing the past. But exactly how accurate will they be for the future? Well that depends on how you phrase the question. Once we get 50 years out we start dealing with things like massive glacier melt, methane hydrates, soil CO2 respiration which are all positive feedbacks. There are a lot of things that we simply do not understand when it comes to these positive feedbacks and current observational trends are pointing toward the alarming side of things. So the models are very likely underestimating things here. But at the same time we simply don't know enough about this particular aspect of climate change yet.

A sample set from 1988 to 2008 is not enough time to fully asses the accuracy of glacier melt predictions. But it is enough time to assess the accuracy of other parts of the model. To make things worse a 20 year chunk starting in 1988 will give us different information than a 20 year chunk in 2060 because different feedbacks (like permafrost melt) will be kicking in at full steam. Each chunk gives us rock solid information about a different set of feedbacks (of which most are positive feedbacks). But to make the matter even more confusing sometimes the lessons in physics from one chunk can overlap with the physics of another. So our gaps in information are constantly being filled in.

So for some things 12 years is enough to test certain aspects of the models. For other aspects of the models many more years will be required. It depends on what specific aspects of the model/global warming you are analyzing. I hope this makes sense.

[adios]

Hansen stated that this comparison was not sufficient for a 'precise assessment' of the model simulations and he is of course correct. However, that does not imply that no assessment can be made, or that stated errors in the projections (themselves erroneous) of 100 to 400% can't be challenged. My assessment is that the model results were as consistent with the real world over this period as could possibly be expected and are therefore a useful demonstration of the model's consistency with the real world. Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get.

This strikes me as a mea culpa. True my models predictive value can't be relied upon to be all that accurate but it's the best we can do.

Of course modeling the climate is a worthwhile activity but I'd willing to bet a whole bunch of money that over the next 50 years, the models will be improved upon significantly. I'd also guess that you'd be willing to admit this as well.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course modeling the climate is a worthwhile activity but I'd willing to bet a whole bunch of money that over the next 50 years, the models will be improved upon significantly. I'd also guess that you'd be willing to admit this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already admitted this. But at the same time certain aspects of the models such as the effects of greenhouse gases will not be improved upon significantly, if at all. Radiative forcing of greenhouse gases is well understood. The only areas that are left for meaningful improvement are the positive and a couple of negative feedbacks.

[iggymcfly]

Don't give me sh*t about the temperature in Guatemala, don't really see what all the fuss is about. Ain't gonna worry about no future generations cause I'm sure somebody's gonna figure it out.

[GoodCallYouWin]

[ QUOTE ]
I was in a bookstore today (Barnes & Noble) and saw Al Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, in the nature section of the book store. I moved it to the fiction section.

[/ QUOTE ]