Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 04:44pm PT
|
Any sufficiently complex computational model is built with elements possessing varying degrees of validation. The point of building and running them is to progressively validate the various components and their interactions.
To cast all the components and interactions as having some sort of homogeneous level of validation is a matter of being either naive, misinformed, or malicious. To say that all aspects of the model are 'unbounded' is equally ridiculous. The reality is as Ed states - elements of the models are continually researched, questioned, and refined over time striving for greater correlation with observed data.
Lots of modeling is tough, particularly big models like climate, weather, galaxy formation, 777 materials performance, automotive combustion, etc. But that doesn't mean those models are in any way worthless.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 05:09pm PT
|
The Fet's response really hits the crux of this issue. Yes, our climate models are imperfect. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that those who argue that there is no AGW also use imperfect models, though mostly without acknowledging that they do so.
As Ed and others have repeatedly pointed out, the science is getting incrementally better, precisely because it recognizes its imperfections.
For this reason, the criticisms that seem directed against the science are, to my observation, misdirected. We have plenty of reason to discredit proposed solutions such as Naomi Klein's -- or mine -- but, despite the PR damage done by Climategate and certain rhetoric used by its participants, the science has been at least as rigorous and honest here as in any other area.
John
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 05:12pm PT
|
Thank you John.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 05:13pm PT
|
Well? A simple yes or no is all I ask
Well, I guess that would fall in the naive category when it comes to models then.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 05:18pm PT
|
Thanks John.
There is plenty of uncertainty in what the negative effects may turn out to be and as you mention any proposed solutions. That is what needs debate. IMO the data is very compelling that there is GW and people are contributing or causing it.
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 05:18pm PT
|
simply that if we don't apply some brains to our endless growth and polute paradigm we're asking for trouble in that our nice little world ain't likely to be as nice any more
I wholeheartedly agree. I am just not convinced that the AGW path is the most successful approach. It may be, but currently it is lacking in proof from where I stand. Now if you want to air pollutionregulate fracking, or deep water drilling, or habitat preservation, I am already on the bandwagon.
I think we should go at these problems of pollution and development more directly.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 05:26pm PT
|
The Chief,
Yes, I do think it justifies its claims to being "good science." We simply need to recognize that "good science" differs from unchanging truth. At this point, I've seen nothing else that explains climate anomalies at any level close to AGW. The fact that its hypotheses are consistent with experimental data leads me to believe that we are not witnessing a "nonsense correlation."
That said, I recognize that many predicitons have not been accurate, although the accuracy seems to these eyes to be improving. That simply says we understand what's going on imperfectly. That, again, is no different from any other area of scientific inquiry.
I expect the science to keep getting better as we learn more. That's why I've repeatedly objected to the title of this thread -- any good scientist is a skeptic. I'm just skeptical in both directions, namely I'm skeptical of the AGW hypothesis, and I'm skeptical of the no-AGW hypothesis. In this state of data and knowledge, however, I doubt AGW much less than its alternative.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 05:52pm PT
|
I've reviewed those forecasts frequently, because I forecast something even more unpredictable -- the economy. One of the things forecasters learn very early is that the shorter the time interval, the more inaccurate the forecast. That's why I prefer forecasting annually to forecasting quarterly to forecasting monthly. The models, made for predicting aggregate effects over fairly substantial periods of time, will not produce accurate predictions of the high for Fresno next month, much less next century.
That does not mean we ignore them. It means we treat short-term forecasts with the uncertainty they deserve. If you've followed my earlier posts, I have consistently argued that the standard statistics that tell how well our climate models fit understate the uncertainty. That doesn't mean they're useless.
More to the point, the models for measuring and predicting climate anomalies are not designed for -- and don't purport to -- predict Fresno's climate next month. I guess I would illustrate it this way. I think it's a pretty good bet that a majority of voters in California will vote for Obama next year (sorry fattrad). It's a tougher bet to say that a majority of voters in Fresno will vote for him, and I have no idea what a majority of voters on my block will do. Using an imprecision in predicting Fresno's weather to invalidate AGW is like saying that because I can't predict how my block will vote, I must not know how California will vote.
John
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 05:58pm PT
|
Not all AGW science goes by this logic, but it seems nearly universal certainly among the general public. The logic goes something like this, "if we have adjusted for x, y, and z natural factors in the data set, all the rest of the warming must be anthropomorphically caused." Instead of being honest about our ignorance of the causative links and interrelationship between climate factors, we forego self skepticism to give ourselves certainty, where little exists.
It seems to me our knowledge is not only incomplete to naildown all the inner workings of the relationships between global climate factors that we know about…we don’t even know what we don’t know about the other factors that no one is even looking at.
Do we know well how CO2, water vapor, and solar radiation interact…or if we throw in ocean currents, thermoclines, and metalimnion do we really understand accurately how one effects another?
It is a complicated problem, but the logic of elimination is insufficient. There are innumerable factors that we cannot account for, because we do not know that they exist.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 06:13pm PT
|
it seems nearly universal certainly among the general public. The logic goes something like this, "if we have adjusted for x, y, and z natural factors in the data set, all the rest of the warming must be anthropomorphically caused." Instead of being honest about our ignorance of the causative links and interrelationship between climate factors, we forego self skepticism to give ourselves certainty, where little exists.
I believe you are making assumptions that are not true. I don't think it "must" be anthropomorphically caused, but I think it's very probable. Yes there is uncertainty, but we do know co2 is a very efficient greenhouse gas, we know it's rising, and we know billions of people are putting billions of tons of it into the air. And it's very likely the average global temperature is rising. Even if there are other factors at play it is likely that people are at least contributing to GW.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 06:30pm PT
|
Each of the post you give as examples were remarks given in "figurative" terms and no where intended as a personal demeaning direct point, as many of the others have posted towards skeptics on this thread.
8-)
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 06:36pm PT
|
You diseased Warmists are really masochists seeking gratification gained from the pain, deprivation, and degradation that you seek to inflict on us ordinary taxpayers. Such gratification is just totally sick; why can't you leave us normal people alone?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 06:36pm PT
|
Chief, it's not about controlling the climate, it's about not making it worse (changing it) for people. We probably can't control natural processes, but people can control what they do. And people absolutely could change the climate, blow up a hundred nuclear bombs and we would almost instantly and completely change the climate.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 06:48pm PT
|
I'd call data from ocean and lake sediment, ice cores, drill cores, tree rings, isotope analysis from a variety of sources, geologic magnetic analysis and historical weather data all viable and solidly validated [data] elements of the model.
Historical data on human industrial activity I'd also call highly validated.
Historical data on ocean chemistry / temps / currents, solar conditions, and atmospheric conditions somewhat less so, but there's plenty of evidence in the above previously mentioned data to infer many such historical trends.
Given we've only had good solar observation tools for a comparatively brief time I'd say we're just now learning more about solar trends and the relationship between our climate and the Sun.
Overall, I'd say the climate model is coming together quite well with no shortage of validation checks and balances. As Ed pointed out, the whole point of the model is to be challenged and improved on every front. It's also not that difficult to discern anthropogenic sources / influences in the data, when they begin, and their rate of growth.
Where things get sticky is people making 'predictions' based on the model or sub-components of it. It's yet another leap to project policy onto those 'predictions'. But, CO2 is a clear marker and, while we may not know the precise consequences of our rate of production of it, the odds are pretty reasonable it ain't good and that we should consider curbing it to the degree that we can.
Personally, the idea that we can exterminate a solid chunk of the living species on the planet and replace them with what is essentially a variety of new [mechanical] 'species' based on fossil fuel powered internal combustion and jet engines (70 million per year) and do it without short and long term consequences seems far fetched to me at best.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 06:52pm PT
|
Chief when humanity is gone, you are right, the earth will continue and life will adapt to whatever the conditions are at that point.
What I am saying is that AGW could pose degradation to the standard of living and quality of life of people starting approximately mid century and continuing until it's dealt with. I think it would probably be cheaper (more efficient) to deal with it now, rather than later.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 07:01pm PT
|
The Chief and I certainly agree on one thing - the planet is always verging towards equilibrium and is not imperiled in the least by any human activity.
From my perspective - and I suspect his - all environmental discussions in the end are discussion about our [human] lifestyle and quality-of-life. If, either due to human or 'natural' events, the planet becomes less hospitable for human life then the global pool of DNA will fruit some other form of life better suited to taking advantage of those new conditions - no worry there.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 07:21pm PT
|
That is why I wrote it that way.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 07:32pm PT
|
My take on the odds of humans doing anything meaningful about CO2 production? 5% max; about the same as the odds of humans getting off oil before it runs out from underneath them. Are humans smarter than slime mold? Only time will tell...
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 07:43pm PT
|
Bruce Kay : It is so nefarious to want to tax -CO2- for such a blatantly false goal of climate change remediation. Or any other process that releases CO2.
Media campaigns to deprogram the public from thinking CO2 is bad and causing
climate change need to be instituted asap.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!