Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 12:29pm PT
|
what is a non-trivial prediction of the current models that we can later check to see if they get it right?
I understand we may need to wait a few years, that's OK, just something concrete that may allow me to say "nyah nyah nyah" or "oh crap they actually got it right."
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:00pm PT
|
Peeeeeeeeeeeeeerfect, wade.
Thanks Cheese, thought it might be upside down. Welcome to the Anthrocene.
Now, standing by for the proverbial and ongoing name calling, personal attacks, discrediting attempts and all the rest of the protocol sorts....
what are you on about? have a great day Chef.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
|
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:22pm PT
|
Planet Earth and the actual natural component of Climate, do not crunch numbers.
Only egocentric humans that think and claim they know everything, do.
Accept the planet and it's diverse and very COMPLEX behavior as something you CAN NOT control.
This seems to me to be a very telling set of statements, which appear to be the same as saying "do not bother to do any science at all, because the planet is complicated (true) and it is what it is." That was basically the church's position in the Dark Ages and has been judged to be obsolete by most modern societies. In my opinion, that viewpoint is irrelevant to any discussion of the validity of one or another specific science. Personally, I think science is useful because understanding things is helpful in dealing with the consequences of natural and human-influenced processes. Knowing the causal connection between a big earthquake and a soon-to-arrive tsunami is useful to an Indonesian coastal resident, I would think. But apparently The Chief believes, on the contrary, that the tsunami is just going to come - there have certainly been bigger ones in the last 500 million years - so you might as well just get washed away.
In another direction, I think blahblah's question about a non-trivial prediction is a reasonable one, though the answer is not simple for two reasons: it needs to incorporate controls relating to unpredictable or semi-predictable but irregular natural processes (volcanic eruptions, ocean oscillations); and, once one is suggested, the wording and parameters will just be contested along the lines of, they're fudging the temperature data bases anyway, that's not an acceptable prediction. That said, Ed's graph provides a first cut: that for for X number of years (like 45, say) out of Y (50?), observed temperatures, smoothed according to some standard mathematical methodology, will be within Z amount (in absolute numbers, or standard deviations) of the average predicted global temperature of all the models, or some subset of them as we gain an improved understanding of which ones are most valid and are based upon the most realistic patterns of human activities (such as emissions and deforestation). And as his graphic shows, the observed temperatures certainly fall within the range of the collective modeling effort. Probably needs to be expanded to accommodate increasing understanding of ocean heat content. But something along those lines would be useful. Basically, scientists do this general kind of evaluation all the time with modeling, and when something doesn't fit, start looking at all the inputs and calculations to see what might be wrong. I don't do climate, but I do vegetation modeling sometimes, and that's exactly what we do.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:44pm PT
|
Like I said yesterday, it's a sun up to sundown effort for #1.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:57pm PT
|
Boo hoo hoo #1.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:59pm PT
|
Weren't your motorcycle (sweet ride!) and the fuel you put in it directly derived from exactly that Scientism you are criticizing? Unless you are collecting rainwater, a pretty poor approach in the West just now, doesn't your water supply come out of some scientifically designed system? You can't have it both ways. The vast majority of people who do sciences do not in the remotest way believe human beings control everything. Though the species has done a lot of habitat modification, one way or another.
Realistically, I don't think there will be any major collective action about CO2, and whether there even should be is a totally fair question. Absent China buying into the effort in a huge way, my personal answer is No. But either way, it is really useful to do the science that will enable us to have some idea of the timeline of sea level rise, for example, and plan for it. Any kind of useful sea defenses are expensive and take a long time to build. Or changes in precipitation patterns that affect major water systems. It's sensible to try to figure this out and adapt to the reality. Plus, if it turns out that the western U.S. gets one of those mega droughts that you correctly point out have occurred regularly in the centuries prior to the 20th, we'd be better prepared for that too. Maybe we'd even have figured out enough about the natural oscillations that we'd know roughly when one of those was going to come down the road.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 02:04pm PT
|
Up De Nile Summer Iced
Here comes the bullshet streams...
You guys are really getting funny.
Beyond hilarious now.
the proverbial modern day Western Extremist Socialist Sceintissceintism/socialists ideological agenda pursuing climber tribeAGW political/social ideology agenda
Hey dipshet egocentric humans
you egocentric scientism humanoids
you and your extreme left-wing socialist liberal eco-freak scientism political zealots
your eco-freak humans
Here comes the bullshet streams...
You and the rest of your tribe are merely a micro "Blip's and Wiggles" on the ass of this planet
May the God of this Universe be with them having to endure your pathetic mentality and totally negative attitude their entire lives.
Perfect example of your self-centered ego based thinking, ideology and agenda
.Now.. move along useless TARDBAG!
You and etal have taken those statistics and data and merely twisted/manipulated the verbiage,
incorporated your ego/self-centered titles onto them by claiming that only those/you with the knowledge to understand the science can do so intellectually (Scientism), and have used it all to perpetuate your political/social ideological fantasies (AGW fear mongering agenda) of how we humans here on earth need to start living by in order to save ourselves and the rest of the natural world.
You have established the disgusting and pathetic protocol of immediately discrediting, personally attacking and demeaning anyone that does not side with your agenda, as an important component of establishing this ideology throughout the world.having to endure the likes of your sorryass all this time
Hey dipshet egocentric humans
you egocentric scientism humanoids
you and your extreme left-wing socialist liberal eco-freak scientism political zealots
your eco-freak humans
Here comes the bullshet streams...
Not only does your Spouse have to put up with your total negative selfish presence, but you actually were selfish enough to bring kids into this world and then having forced them to endure you for the time you're on this planet???
Pathetic
your eco-freak humans
That bushel of sour cherries must be over loaded
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
FAIL.
Yeah, they match up alright.. if you got your head up your aSSE
Here comes the bullshet streams...
Desperate deflections and discrediting with totally distorted and non-correlating pulling outta their asses scientism information and personal attacks etc.
It is nice to see how you now relinquish that fantasy concept
and the rest of your Three Ring Circus Circle Jerk FAIL and does not go with the Political Ideology of the Buffonary AGW Tribe.
Grab them towels and wipe off your faces, again.
With that said, the/your AGW theory just got shot in the face with a proximity HE 20MM round.
BAM!
Talk about eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeggo!
I thought you were on track on how it was primarily HUMAN EMISSIONS that was causing/forcing all the warming,
You guys are really getting funny.
Beyond hilarious now.
The Graph is spot on.
Here comes the bullshet streams...
so we commence the deflecting/mocking whatever... nice!!!
As you pick your ass and then eat it for dinner
nice!!!
You guys are really getting funny.
Beyond hilarious now.
From the day your poor mother spit your sorry ass out, it has been nothing but down, down, and down......
Hey dipshet egocentric humans
you egocentric scientism humanoids
you and your extreme left-wing socialist liberal eco-freak scientism political zealots
your eco-freak humans
Here comes the bullshet streams...
Desperate deflections and discrediting with totally distorted and non-correlating pulling outta their asses scientism information and personal attacks etc.
Now this is seriously funny!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
FAIL.
Beyond hilarious now
Simply satisfying to see what supposed "professional" PhD's and Scientists truly behave like when their ideological agenda starts failing, big time
STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID human scientists are trying to take ALL the credit for humans causing all the warming
You guys are really getting funny.
Beyond hilarious now.
Same bullshet
You guys are really getting funny.
Beyond hilarious now.
Left Wing Extremist Socialist story telling, photoshopping and propagandist tactics.
Hey dipshet egocentric humans
you egocentric scientism humanoids
you and your extreme left-wing socialist liberal eco-freak scientism political zealots
your eco-freak humans
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
FAIL.
Here comes the bullshet streams...
Next, please!
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 02:31pm PT
|
In another direction, I think blahblah's question about a non-trivial prediction is a reasonable one, though the answer is not simple for two reasons: it needs to incorporate controls relating to unpredictable or semi-predictable but irregular natural processes (volcanic eruptions, ocean oscillations) . . . And as his graphic shows, the observed temperatures certainly fall within the range of the collective modeling effort. Probably needs to be expanded to accommodate increasing understanding of ocean heat content. But something along those lines would be useful. Basically, scientists do this general kind of evaluation all the time with modeling, and when something doesn't fit, start looking at all the inputs and calculations to see what might be wrong. I don't do climate, but I do vegetation modeling sometimes, and that's exactly what we do.
Good point about volcanoes in particular for short term predictions--that alone may make relatively short term predictions impossible I suppose.
But the reason I'm looking for "future" predictions instead of "past" predictions is to keep them from cheating by just tweaking the models to fit with whatever the temperatures happened to be through numerical fudging (that's what I see as the problem with the statistics based approach, which I thought Ed was against, but now I guess he's for).
Here is an analogy: as I understand it, it is entirely possible to create a statistics "model" that accurately links any particular data sets together, such as temperatures, Broncos win-loss record, and the good ol' price of tea in China. Of course there is zero predictive power in such "models."
That's basically why we need to look at future predictions rather than past predictions (yeah it seems ridiculous to have to specify that predictions must be about the "future," but that's not my fault--the modelers are the ones who make "models" that seem to correspond to past data and then brag about how great they are!).
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 02:57pm PT
|
Western Extremist Socialist Sceintism manner of thinking that states man can be and is in control of everything.
This kind of infantile, politically biased propaganda, is the main reason that this thread serves no further purpose. It died a natural death a year ago, and now we are wondering what that awful smell is.
The quote above has nothing to do with the science. Nothing. It just shows that The Chief has this gut feeling about climate change brought on by his political ideals.
Give it up, everyone. Show is over. Pay the lady at the front desk on the way out.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 03:20pm PT
|
Blahblah, yes "prediction" has to be future: that's what the "pre" part is all about. So I'm with you there, seems totally reasonable to ask about forecasting ability, but just accept that the statement of a forecast is not going to be simple, and if it is, I'd bet plenty that it would either be a trivial statement or be wrong. We have tons of data showing that whatever climate parameter you measure varies a lot year to year, decade to decade, and century to century. Just defining the scale of a prediction is not that easy.
Taking your analogy a bit further (tea and temperature and the Broncos), if you constructed such a model, the data sets might quickly show that there's a correlation between the temperature and tea price, but that the Broncos record didn't. The forecasting ability of the tea and temperature model would be good; and the three-parameter one would be poor. So the appropriate next step would be to toss the Broncs out of your plan to buy tea futures. That's essentially the point of the climate modeling conclusion that CO2 is a significant effect for the period after about 1950 or 1970 (I forget which), only in reverse. When you run the mathematical models with CO2 "turned off", the bunch of natural oscillations that are still in there do a poor job of matching observed temperatures and can reasonably be expected to remain poor for predictions too. When you turn CO2 back on, the match is better and can be expected to make a better prediction. Even with the more or less flat global temperatures of the last 10+ years, the wiggly temperature line is still pretty close to the "prediction" line. There are LOTS of such flat or downward wiggles in the historical record that are even longer than the current one, way too early to say this short period invalidates the modeling structure. Still, predictive ability is a fair subject for discussion.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 04:45pm PT
|
Like you would read them...
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 05:03pm PT
|
Like MONO already posted a study conducted for the early 20th Century that states nothing about any human activity.
NONE!!
The Chief shows off his very poor reading comprehension again.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 05:40pm PT
|
Ed's above post is as self refuting as careful comparison of of AR5's SPM and WG1. Take the following examples for instance;
"The models aren't tweaked" vs "additional fundamental additions are made"-both descriptions in regards to model adjustments.
"The models are accurate forecast tools" vs "The observations select the correct models"- in regard to adherence with reality.
Now, let's compare the reality of observations compared to the reality of the models from an independent source, the great Dr. Roy Spencer. Click link below.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 07:55pm PT
|
Sunup to sundown...
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 08:07pm PT
|
Um, no #1.
My first of five posts today was made at 10:44.
Your first of 18 posts today was made at 6:54. I.e., sunrise. Now, #1, I realize math is not your strong suit, but 6:54 is before 10:44, and 18 is more than 5.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 08:23pm PT
|
Lol...#1 Ioves his data cherry picked.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 10:41pm PT
|
Yeah omg, you walked into that one.
The public, which sorta makes decisions in that we elect people who really do make decisions, seems to rank doing something about global warming about as low it can be ranked:
Climate Change: Key Data Points from Pew Research
The American public routinely ranks dealing with global warming low on its list of priorities for the president and Congress. This year, it ranked at the bottom of the 21 tested. http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/
Not that I necessarily agree with the public at large on that or any other issue.
|
|
Braunini
Big Wall climber
cupertino
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2014 - 12:37am PT
|
I was going to get in a couple of solo laps on Astroman before yoga, but when I got to the base, Burt Bronson was roping up with some fat american.
When I asked if I could play through, he gave me the finger, so I beat him into a coma with one of my new Fires. I rescued him later. He is expected to survive.
Moral: Karma
Namaste. Stupid Americans
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!