Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 07:50pm PT
|
rick, where do you get the acid?
seems like good stuff.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 10:27pm PT
|
Craig where you been man? I missed your surly self.
No Eddy, I've finally decided you've been imbibing of the cartoons for too long and just can't see the forest through the psychedelic trees anymore. What do you have, something like three thousand posts here if you count that which you erased in your little fit? You're a good man Ed Hartouni ,though a wee bit past prime, tired and losing your once considerable faculties to a cult. Will you eventually reawaken, who in the hell knows. Just don't be drinking the Reverend's koolaid when the cult comes crashing down.
Out in the great basin, the void Wade, grows some rather unique plant species.
|
|
AndyMan
Sport climber
CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 11:05pm PT
|
Wake up scammers, you have been conned.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2014 - 11:37pm PT
|
AndyMan, you shouldn't take credit for those plots, you should actually post where you got them from... don't you think? (oh, you don't...)
rick, really, I've forgotten more science than you will ever know, much more (and that's not a lot). on the other hand, you've been selling real estate for a long time, and I have to give it to you guys, you know how to make a sale.
but I'm not buying what you selling, looks like it's built in a flood plane, not that there's been a flood around lately, eh?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2014 - 07:31am PT
|
Sketch said to Ed: "You like to pretend you're not really being an as#@&%e. But we know better."
This is not right at all.
Ed is a straight up professional guy who lays all his cards on the table and takes full responsibility for his action here.
Ed actually truly cares about the subject matters he engages in and the people he interacts with.
You, Sketch, remain anonymous and take no responsibility for your actions.
Who's the real aszhole Sketch?
Seriously .... you need to think about what you're dealing with here ......
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2014 - 07:44am PT
|
One of the best things you have ever said,Braun.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2014 - 07:54am PT
|
The greatest thing about the internet is that is provides a level playing field; absolutely anyone can post their personal opinion on any topic.
The worst thing about the internet is that is provides a level playing field; absolutely anyone can post their personal opinion on any topic.
There are only two reasons to deny climate change. Either you have a vested interest in promoting the status quo (Koch brothers, etal) or, you are among the rather large percentage of Americans who simply don't believe in science. However, as Neil deGrasse Tyson has pointed out, "the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Curt
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 11, 2014 - 09:03am PT
|
Sketch is like a clueless puppy that barks when he doesn't get his way. Ed and other knowledgeable folks politely show him what's up, but Sketch won't have any of it, he's too foolish to see just how far off the mark he is.
Instead of giving in, Sketch tries to bite with his little puppy jaws--throwing out insults as if they inflict some sort of pain. The irony is, his mouth has no teeth--there's not a single reasonable person on this thread who respects what Sketch has to offer.
So instead of biting, he's just gumming the leg of the folks who do know what they're talking about. No, it's not a bite but more of a tickle.
Why he continues is anybody's guess.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2014 - 09:18am PT
|
Sketch and Chief, a match made in heaven.
Best thing Ed could do is stop posting to these idiots, he is just feeding the beasts.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2014 - 09:51am PT
|
And just so we're clear about my main point (in this recent back and forth), it doesn't matter how the climate models agree with historical data, if they are inaccurate moving forward.
so the logic is that you can't trust the concurrence of the models with the historic data, therefore you cannot demonstrate the accuracy of the models and lacking that, the models are irrelevant in predicting the future (since we can't demonstrate that the models will agree with the future, the future not having happened yet).
I've posted the link to the definitions of the model experiments before, the "experimental design" of the CMIP5 runs:
http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/Taylor_CMIP5_design.pdf
it's a lengthy and detailed document, but the whole point of the computational "experiments" is to probe the issue of accuracy and model fidelity.
from that document:
CMIP5 promotes a standard set of model simulations in order to:
• evaluate how realistic the models are in simulating the recent past,
• provide projections of future climate change on two time scales, near term (out to
about 2035) and long term (out to 2100 and beyond), and
• understand some of the factors responsible for differences in model projections,
including quantifying some key feedbacks such as those involving clouds and the carbon cycle
for the decadal experiments, the initialization is described in detail, but also briefly in this paragraph:
Details will be given below regarding these experiments, but by way of introduction we note that there are two core experiments, one a set of 10 year hindcasts or predictions initialized from climate states in the years 1960, 1965, 1970, and every five years to 2005, with this last simulation representing the sole actual prediction beyond the present (i.e., beyond 2009). In these 10-year simulations, it will be possible to assess model skill in forecasting climate change on time-scales when the initial climate state may exert some influence. The other core experiment extends the 10-year simulations initialized in 1960, 1980, and 2005 by an additional 20 years. It is at this somewhat longer timescale that the external forcing from increasing GHGs should become more important. It is desired that at least three ensemble members be performed for each of the core experiments, with extension to at least 10 members as a tier 1 experiment.
While you don't like "hindcasts" (presumably because the "answer" is known) the experiments are setup with the idea that, if we had these models in, say 1970, we'd use them to predict the next 30 years of climate... having done that we can check our "1970" prediction against what happened. That's a "hindcast."
Obviously part of what is going on in this exercise is to check whether or not the models are "getting it right" and to determine their accuracy, especially as it depends on the initial conditions. And that information will be used by the people writing the models to improve (you'd say "tune") the models to provide higher accuracy results. And understand what influences the accuracy.
For the long term "hindcasts" of the 20th and 21st century, the models are initialized to a 450 year period before 1850, again from that document: "The length of the pre-industrial control run (after initial spin-up) should be long enough to extend to the end of each perturbation experiment that is spawned from it. In order to accommodate an historical run (~1850-2005) followed by a future scenario run (~2006-2300), we need a control run of at least 450 years."
The point being that if we had the models in 1850, with all the initial condition information, then we'd run the models and predict the 20th and 21st century climates. What we can change in these runs is the various "non-forced" inputs like the solar irradiance, volcanic activity, GHG production, etc...
All this data is available to look at, and many of the plots made, as well as papers published, are based on these model results.
The models contain our best understanding of the climate, integrated into a computational tool that allows us to make forecasts, as well as understand the accuracy of those forecasts. The dependence on the climate science input, and the climate observations, make these tools superior to other tools (such as linear trend lines on time-series plots).
If the climate models don't give you the results your "intuition" gives, you have to modify your intuition... it's unlikely to be correct (unless you've been working in climate science for a very long time, and even then, the models are a better representation of the "collective intuition").
As for the philosophical debate regarding the use of complex computational models in physics (or science in general), that's an important factor in this discussion. There is a changing of the guard aspect to this and it tends to evoke strong passions. Certainly you can take the position that no complex model "works." However, there is no a priori proof that the models cannot work, and determining whether or not they can is the process you see unfolding publicly in climate science.
If I have some gripe, it is that the absolute transparency of the this process is attacked by some very opaque interests.
For instance, Sketch gets insulted if I "talk down to Sketch" and insulted if I "talk over Sketch's head," I have no idea what Sketch is likely to know or not know, Sketch has gone to the length of hiding who Sketch is... yet when my impatience bleeds through to my responses, it is interpreted by Sketch as "snarky" and insulting. Sketch is opaque by construction.
A basic foundation for trust is openness. What I don't get is why a group being totally open, the climate science community, can be accused of being untrustworthy by a totally closed group, the "climate change skeptics". What has that group done to demonstrate trustworthiness?
In science we put all our cards on the table... it is because those cards are accessible to anyone else, independently. So no bluffing, no cheating, it will all be found out in the end. You can doubt it all you want, but put your cards on the table.
If you think the entire enterprise of thousands of scientists around the world are lying and have been lying for decades, you should say so, certainly rick has, and The Chief, and dave729, and AndyMan. If you think I'm lying you should say so, even rick can't quite bring himself to say that... funny how personal it gets when you actually "know" who you're talking to.
Otherwise, I'll respond to questions I'm interested in responding to... if you want me to conduct a "civil" discussion, you could begin with the first step of any civil discussion, by introducing yourself. If you don't want to do that, I don't consider you having any claim to deciding the terms of the discussion. You've opted out of that by your choice of anonymity. The principle rule governing my civility is the image of my mother reading my posts... since I use my name it would be hard to deny... but this is largely a theoretic notion as my mother is long past.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2014 - 10:59am PT
|
Well Eddy, I already told you what I saw in the land surface temp graph-it was largely a series of questions of what the criminal climate enterprise had done with truth in production of the cartoon. You didn't answer. So again; what happened to the distinct warming of 1910-1940's (regardless of current claims the 1930's are well established as the peak of land surface temps over the instrumental record), why does the observed temp end in a flat line from approx. 2000 to only sub 2010 when it is now almost 2015? While your exploring for published gobbled gook to answer this let me say the filter you use in standards of online civility are appropriate. Your mother, god rest her soul, would be proud of the truth's you spoke like " the anthropogenic signal is feeble in comparison to the range of natural variation".
Yes, im sure you have forgotten far more science than my keenly interested laymens understanding ever allowed for. Therein lies a problem, with the inevitable calcification of the brain with age so goes it mass and the synaptic connections that in youth allowed nimble creative understanding at a rapid clip. What else have you forgotten?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2014 - 11:22am PT
|
nice rick, the essence of an ad hominem argument... which neatly sidesteps the issue.
The climate models track through the SST's from 1850 to 2005 quite nicely, 2005 being the end date of those particular simulation runs.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2014 - 01:55pm PT
|
Ha , ha , ha , ha .....LOL sketch...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2014 - 04:47pm PT
|
But until they demonstrate accuracy over time, they don't have significant value.
there you go, playing dumb again...
...what do you think the simulation experiments are doing? they are doing exactly that, up to some point in the past, then "predicting" the later points, demonstrating their precision.
Not only that, they can explore just what that precision depends on...
The linear trend lines are not "predictions" but "projections", unless you want to make the hypothesis that the SST changes linearly with time (easily demonstrated to be wrong)... a better "prediction" is the analysis that Chiloe showed us from the Forster & Ramsdorf paper, which takes the behavior of past climate indices and predicts what the future climate will be.
Even better are the computational models.
once again, what is your criticism of showing this sort of plot? The accuracy, over a century, is much better than the linear trend line drawn (or fit) through all of the data points.
[you might also cite the source of the graphs you plot]
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2014 - 06:21pm PT
|
+1.4 degrees C.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2014 - 07:46pm PT
|
another anonymous troll heard from...
...sorta went over that plot by Spencer... maybe you missed that.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!