Of Climate Models and Hurricane Predictions

[BluffTHIS!]

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?

[adios]

Excellent post. I'd just like to point out that Congress is certainly contemplating measures that will impact the bottom line of US taxpayers, consummers and what have you. When I read stuff like Harry Reid blaming the wild fires in California on man mad global warming (he backed away quickly though) and/or the Secretary General of the UN blaming Darfur on man made global warming I smell a rat, a big fat stinking rat. Then I see offers from my electric company making me an offer to supply me with electricity that is 90 percent generated by wind power for 10 percent more and I'm almost certain the fix is in. IMO politicians in this country are set to embark on programs like carbon taxes, cap and trade policies, international agreements pledging to reduce carbon emissions, etc. where they have no clue whatsover that it will do a friggen thing except line someone's pocket book. It's all based on what the most dire predictions of the climate models are. We've discussed climate models more than a few times. Having a fair amount of experience with developing models for things IMO orders of magnitude less complicated than the climate, it seems absolutely ridiculous to base policy on such output. End of rant and apologies if I muddied this subthread up.

Democrats reach deal on energy bill

Hope people aren't driving around in too many "beer cans" when the more stringent CAFE standards get implemented:

While details of those provisions were still being worked out, aides said the ethanol provision was expected to mirror Senate requirements for use of 36 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase over today's productions.

Power companies would have to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy, aides close to the discussions said.

Right on queue.

[wacki]

Adios, you keep pointing to the GFDL and that's fine but all of the people listed on your forecast are NOT from the GFDL. All of the people you listed on the forecast are Meteorologists which is a field that many claim 'needs to drastically change or face becoming obsolete'. A claim some meteorologists agree with and others are very bitter about. On top of this I know some of the people listed. Chris Landsea is not a modeler and does all of his predictions with statistical forecasts. The forecast itself doesn't mention the GFDL or climate models. No climate model paper is referenced in the "REFERENCES" section but Bill Gray, a statistical modeler, is. Just because NOAA is working with climate models that does not mean their official and publicly released forecasts are climate models. Whether or not climate model forecasts are the best tool for the job is irrelevant in this highly political age. Again, where did you find this argument? You never answered that question.

I'm glad you endorse continued research and funding. The current political pressure in this area is a nightmare to those who are getting the best results thanks to Bush 'n co. Hopefully things will change soon. This is one situation where Europe is better than us by a wide margin.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry claiming that climate models are better than the tools "skeptics" use doesn't prove their predictive value.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this thread I didn't bring up Bill Gray, a climate change skeptic, so I use this argument to help show that these skeptics just aren't credible even in their own specialty. You are correct when it doesn't prove anything (good or bad) when assessing the independent credibility of the models.

[ QUOTE ]
From my point of view all you've done is disparage my points because I don't agree with you about the significance of what the results of the finding of the models are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had plenty of people strongly disagree with me that I respect and treat fairly, listen to and respect. In 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. Right now all you've done is link the GFDL's to NOAA as a whole and not any specific reports. If that is "disparaging" your points well then I guess you are just going to have to get used to being offended. Empirical falsifiability is not something to get emotional about. Especially not with stuff this easy to prove.





[ QUOTE ]
A display of your typical arrogance displayed when someone doesn't share your all of your views. Also the typical disingenous tactics of trying to disparage people that you disagree with. 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 ]

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.

If you truly believe this then 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. If you can't do that then apologize. I've given you another chance to falsify a statement of mine. This time all you have to do is mention a name.

BTW my encouragement for you to keep reading was meant as a compliment and was not derisive. This is why I used the term "applaud". Although this thread has gotten way out of hand I generally respect your posts and I've repeatedly said so in the past. I'm not sure how I could have made it sound better. Any help on this aspect would be appreciated.

I'm tired and will continue this tomorrow.

Questions in review (quotin cuz I'm lazy):
#1 Again, where did you find this argument? You never answered that question.
#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.
#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?

[adios]

[ 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.

[wacki]

[ 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.

[adios]

A non answer answer to a perfectly legitimate and reasonable question. Why?

[wacki]

[ 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.

[ConstantineX]

[ 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.

[wacki]

[ 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.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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?