Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Difference between Global Warming Science

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 4 [5] >

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,05:18    Quote (skeptic @ April 25 2008,23:24) ok, a couple of quick points.  first, how are prehistoric CO2 levels irrelevant in this debate, if that is indeed what you are saying?  The idea that CO2 levels have changed dramatically throughout history reinforces the robust nature of climate to withstand variability. Please tell me what I'm missing here. It's not about the earth or nature here, climate change IS a part of nature. This problem is purely about us humans: how do wé as a species manage with the changing enviroment. The answer is, a large part of our species manages véry shitty with the changing envoriment and is likely to be in a world of hurt.     Quote An investment that, IMO, would be wholly and utterly wasted on my part because Louis isn't really interested in those things. And thát kind of attitude grinds discussions to a halt, or even preventing them to take off in the first place. Just try, show it to us, and wait for a reaction. The only thing we ask for is to explain why climate tipping points are bogus in your eyes. Just dive a little bit in the deep, show us what you got, and we can have a discussion about the content. That would be a nice change, wouldn't it? EDIT: It seems Louis posted a split second before me (my my you're up early), and as you can see he talks about the content. Now please, be a sport, and help this make a constructive discussion, ok? ;-)     Quote for me GW is about as relevant in my daily life as who's going to win the Stanley Cup. And that short-sightness is 1 of the main problems we're facing. It's not neceseraly about you, it's about our children and grand-children. It's not even about us Westren folks, we'll manage in the end, it's about those millions of near-dead people in developing country's who have no way to go.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,05:37    Quote (Assassinator @ April 26 2008,11:18) [SNIP]         Quote An investment that, IMO, would be wholly and utterly wasted on my part because Louis isn't really interested in those things. And thát kind of attitude grinds discussions to a halt, or even preventing them to take off in the first place. Just try, show it to us, and wait for a reaction. The only thing we ask for is to explain why climate tipping points are bogus in your eyes. Just dive a little bit in the deep, show us what you got, and we can have a discussion about the content. That would be a nice change, wouldn't it? EDIT: It seems Louis posted a split second before me (my my you're up early), and as you can see he talks about the content. Now please, be a sport, and help this make a constructive discussion, ok? ;-) [SNIP] Here fucking here! Look I can, justifiably, be told off for being too nasty. Mea culpa, I accept the opprobium wilingly. BUT: What I will never accept is content free bloviation being treated as if it were fact. I want to know about Obvliviot's opinions, I genuinely do, I want even more to know what the basis for them is, the evidence and logic behind them is, I want to know from whence they spring. Thus far, based on N months/years of encountering Obliviot the answers to the questions posed by that statement are: Opinion: vapid, Basis: prejudice, Evidence: nil, Logic: fallacious, Source: his arse. I want that to change, but *I* cannot change it, only *he* can. In all things, as usual, Obliviot has the situation backwards. He would contend that his opinions butter no parsnips with me because I dislike them and thus I declare them to be without support. The situation is entirely the opposite: his opinions are without support, thus I declare that I dislike them. Ok so not dislike, more accurately "find unworthy of intellectual attention until evidence is forthcoming". He's entitled to his opinions, no matter how ignorant, he is not entitled to his opinions being unscrutinised, no one is. His behaviour is derived from his fear that upon scrutiny his opinions will be shown to be even more vacuous than they already have been. His fear in this matter is well founded. Like I said in the previous post, this is PRECISELY the large problem we have writ small. If people are unwilling to make the intellectual effort required to discuss a topic then why should people who HAVE made that effort and are willing in general to make it, treat their uninformed opinion as anything else? That is so relevant to any discussion of the politics and science of climate change it hurts! Louis ETA: P.S. Up early? It's 11:34 am here. As it seems to be of interest: I've been up since 6:30am as is my habit at weekends (I don't sleep a lot, 5 or 6 hours is more than enough, 4 is more usual), I've read this week's Nature*, Science, Angewante Chemie, CE and N, Chemistry World, (I skimmed the latter two for anything interesting, I'll read them later fully) and I'm working on reading Organic and Biomolecular Chemistry, Organic Letters and  a couple of back issues of The Skeptic before 4pm. Then it's off for a nice long walk around some segment of the Chilterns, a pub supper, and a terrifying visit to the In-Laws (How To Ruin A Perfectly Good Day Part 1). All in all, apart from the in-laws a standard Saturday! Admittedly coming online usually puts a spanner in the day's working plan, but meh, it's my weekend, I can fuck it up if I want to! ;-) ETA *There's a n interesting piece on Greenland and tipping points......oops have I said too much? ;-) -------------- Bye.

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,05:46    The "please be a sport, and help this make a constuctive discussion" was ment against skeptic, not you Louis ;) I don't really think you're too harsh, I amaze myself why I keep so calm sometimes. But ofcourse, can't agree more, there can't be a fruitfull discussion without support for any claim. Now let's wait what he comes up with (I keep hoping, but that's just me).

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,09:35    Assassinator, if indeed we are facing the greatest threat humanity has ever known then my attitude is short-sighted.  I'll take that.  But you do touch on a good point, in reality, developed nations are going to plod right along and the third world is going to suffer.  Unfortunately, this sounds conveniently like an agenda.  Only in this case, not only will the third world suffer disproportionantly, but we are the primary cause according to scientific fact.  Almost like a case of white guilt on the global level.  Again, while this may in fact be the case, the similarity to the existing agenda causes immediate skepticism and rejection. quick point before I move on, Louis I read the first two lines of your long post and skipped the rest entirely.  If you said anything novel you might want to post that separately. Computer models - my experience does not reach the level of the massive super computers currently used but some of the basic principles are the same.  I develop predictive toxicity models for small molecules and the biggest trick in developing a relevant model is picking contributing variables.  If we relate this to climate, we want to make sure we pick variables that are actually involved in the climate in a causative manner and not just a correlative one.  This relies heavily on our understanding of the science of climate to quantify it as accurately as possible but unlike my field we don't have a test system with which to refine and strengthen this model.  This doesn't mean it's hopeless it just limits our level of confidence. What we have is history and historical data points and current data points.  So ignoring a question of the quality of the data at this point we're going to build a model based upon past climate and past data and bring that forward in an attempt to model current climate.  When I produce a model using a data set I can get fairly accurate with an interpolative model but the true test comes when I try to extrapolate.  Say for a climate model we look at CO2 and temperature change (this is obviously simplistic but just as an example) over a period of time.  Over our data set both temp and CO2 increase and we end up with a model in which we can predict the temperature increase as a function of increasing CO2 conc.  Good so far right.  Now we run this model forward with our best estimates of CO2 increases and we have an idea of the temperature increases.  This is the extrapolation step and here's where the problem comes in. Automatically we've introduced bias into the model because we've correlated CO2, accurately or not, with temperature increase.  In this simplistic model we've also completely weighted CO2.  We could be looking at two completely unrelated independent variables but the model we built looks good and conforms to past data.  We have a good mechanistic basis for using CO2 conc. but we have to add   in other factors to account for the complexity of climate.  This becomes a test of what we actually know about climate as opposed to what we think we know.  Our model is going to be force fit to the past data no matter which variables we choose and the true power will be revealed as we go down the road and deal with the predictions as they become current data points.  Again we're hampered by the lack of a test system.  But that's the limitation we have to deal with. As an example I can produce CCs in the 70-80% range when interpolating data and when I move outside that set to the data set I can watch those CCs drop to 50-60%.  Don't get me wrong, computer models are a powerful tool but there are limitations and those should always be kept in mind when proclaiming their results.  The pharma industry is a real good example.  As a real of thumb, at each stage of development only 10% of your molecules are going to advance to the next stage.  Starting with the models predicting activity and toxicity you'd think that of the thousands of molecules screened you could do better than 10% but you can't and sometimes 10% is a dream.  I would propose the same for climate modeling, a good tool but to be taken with a grain of salt or at least a moderate dose of skepticism when looking at the predictive power. Gotta go for now but that's really just the tip of the iceberg  and that's just one topic, phew!

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,10:02    Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,17:35) Assassinator, if indeed we are facing the greatest threat humanity has ever known then my attitude is short-sighted.....  ...blardy blah. I cynically agree but only just   .....Almost like a case of white guilt on the global level.  Again, while this may in fact be the case, the similarity to the existing agenda causes immediate skepticism and rejection. quick point before I move on, Louis.... fuck off and write shorter I't will give you more time to chase pussy Computer models - my experience does not reach the level of the massive super computers currently used but some of the basic principles are the same..... I think I know everything .....but whateva....  I develop predictive toxicity models for small molecules and the biggest trick in developing a relevant model is picking contributing variables.  If we relate this to climate, we want to make sure we pick variables that are actually involved in the climate in a causative manner and not just a correlative one......   So you will have to prize my carbon footprint out of my cold dead hands .... ....This doesn't mean it's hopeless it just limits our level of confidence..... Got that fuckers? What we have is.... blah blah x 10^^52 .....  but to be taken with a grain of salt or at least a moderate dose of skepticism when looking at the predictive power. Gotta go for now but that's really just the tip of the iceberg  and that's just one topic, phew! My brain is hurting Oh yes please rush back and tell us teh glaciers are not melting but YOU are white so you don't have to give a fuck...again. I can't wait. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,10:14    lol, not sure I mentioned that but the glaciers melt every year.  Otherwise thanks for your support.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,10:35    Moved discussion of posting styles to the BW. Quote Caca?, by ch1mp -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,10:42    Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,18:14) lol, not sure I mentioned that but the glaciers melt every year.  Otherwise thanks for your support. Yes of course..... what's left of them do.... for now. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,10:47    Quote (k.e.. @ April 26 2008,11:42) Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,18:14) lol, not sure I mentioned that but the glaciers melt every year.  Otherwise thanks for your support. Yes of course..... what's left of them do.... for now. My Pop was stationed at Fort Greely, Alaska back in the late fifties, and he loved it there.  He always keeps an eye out for news about the area, so he caught something on TV a few days ago about it, and they had a lot of footage of places he'd been and whatnot. He was shocked at how much change in the ice (and snow, presumably) there'd been since he was there.  He said he was looking at ground (tundra?) in places where he'd trained on skis in the summer. Anecdotal, but it really upset him. Edited for a bit of clarity. Edited by Lou FCD on April 26 2008,11:48 -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,11:02    Quote (skeptic @ April 25 2008,19:55) The idea that CO2 levels have changed dramatically throughout history reinforces the robust nature of climate to withstand variability. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,07:11) I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry. Do you have any other explanation for this graph?   Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,09:35) What we have is history and historical data points and current data points.  So ignoring a question of the quality of the data at this point we're going to build a model based upon past climate and past data and bring that forward in an attempt to model current climate.  When I produce a model using a data set I can get fairly accurate with an interpolative model but the true test comes when I try to extrapolate.  Say for a climate model we look at CO2 and temperature change (this is obviously simplistic but just as an example) over a period of time.  Over our data set both temp and CO2 increase and we end up with a model in which we can predict the temperature increase as a function of increasing CO2 conc.  Good so far right. No. My understanding, admittedly not profound, is that this is not how the climate is modelled. The models are built from basic physical principles and the past and current climate is used purely as validation for the models. I agree with people about media reports being too simplistic. About a year ago there was a flurry of support here in Canada for developing biofuels that completely ignored the energetic costs of producing the fuel. For many years I have been struck by the demand for everything possible to be biodegradable, yet if we are serious about reducing atmospheric CO2 this is the last thing we need. Far better to leave the carbon locked up in plastics than to release it as CO2. I know, we also don't want escaped fishing nets to be catching and killing fish for the next 1000 years but my point is that there are few simple answers. I'm sorry about the scrappy (as in 'wandering minstrel', not fox terrier-like) post. -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,11:44    Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,15:35) Assassinator, if indeed we are facing the greatest threat humanity has ever known then my attitude is short-sighted.  I'll take that.  But you do touch on a good point, in reality, developed nations are going to plod right along and the third world is going to suffer.  Unfortunately, this sounds conveniently like an agenda.  Only in this case, not only will the third world suffer disproportionantly, but we are the primary cause according to scientific fact.  Almost like a case of white guilt on the global level.  Again, while this may in fact be the case, the similarity to the existing agenda causes immediate skepticism and rejection. quick point before I move on, Louis I read the first two lines of your long post and skipped the rest entirely.  If you said anything novel you might want to post that separately. Computer models - my experience does not reach the level of the massive super computers currently used but some of the basic principles are the same.  I develop predictive toxicity models for small molecules and the biggest trick in developing a relevant model is picking contributing variables.  If we relate this to climate, we want to make sure we pick variables that are actually involved in the climate in a causative manner and not just a correlative one.  This relies heavily on our understanding of the science of climate to quantify it as accurately as possible but unlike my field we don't have a test system with which to refine and strengthen this model.  This doesn't mean it's hopeless it just limits our level of confidence. What we have is history and historical data points and current data points.  So ignoring a question of the quality of the data at this point we're going to build a model based upon past climate and past data and bring that forward in an attempt to model current climate.  When I produce a model using a data set I can get fairly accurate with an interpolative model but the true test comes when I try to extrapolate.  Say for a climate model we look at CO2 and temperature change (this is obviously simplistic but just as an example) over a period of time.  Over our data set both temp and CO2 increase and we end up with a model in which we can predict the temperature increase as a function of increasing CO2 conc.  Good so far right.  Now we run this model forward with our best estimates of CO2 increases and we have an idea of the temperature increases.  This is the extrapolation step and here's where the problem comes in. Automatically we've introduced bias into the model because we've correlated CO2, accurately or not, with temperature increase.  In this simplistic model we've also completely weighted CO2.  We could be looking at two completely unrelated independent variables but the model we built looks good and conforms to past data.  We have a good mechanistic basis for using CO2 conc. but we have to add   in other factors to account for the complexity of climate.  This becomes a test of what we actually know about climate as opposed to what we think we know.  Our model is going to be force fit to the past data no matter which variables we choose and the true power will be revealed as we go down the road and deal with the predictions as they become current data points.  Again we're hampered by the lack of a test system.  But that's the limitation we have to deal with. As an example I can produce CCs in the 70-80% range when interpolating data and when I move outside that set to the data set I can watch those CCs drop to 50-60%.  Don't get me wrong, computer models are a powerful tool but there are limitations and those should always be kept in mind when proclaiming their results.  The pharma industry is a real good example.  As a real of thumb, at each stage of development only 10% of your molecules are going to advance to the next stage.  Starting with the models predicting activity and toxicity you'd think that of the thousands of molecules screened you could do better than 10% but you can't and sometimes 10% is a dream.  I would propose the same for climate modeling, a good tool but to be taken with a grain of salt or at least a moderate dose of skepticism when looking at the predictive power. Gotta go for now but that's really just the tip of the iceberg  and that's just one topic, phew! Well I'll be jiggered! This almost constitutes a coherent argument. Colour me surprised. I'll get back to you tomorrow on this. Thanks. Louis P.S. If you read and acted on what you refer to as my repetious, redundant rants the first time you'd have never heard them again. Think on that. -------------- Bye.

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,11:46    Quote (skeptic @ Posted on April 26 2008,09:35) Assassinator, if indeed we are facing the greatest threat humanity has ever known then my attitude is short-sighted.  I'll take that.  But you do touch on a good point, in reality, developed nations are going to plod right along and the third world is going to suffer.  Unfortunately, this sounds conveniently like an agenda.  Only in this case, not only will the third world suffer disproportionantly, but we are the primary cause according to scientific fact.  Almost like a case of white guilt on the global level.  Again, while this may in fact be the case, the similarity to the existing agenda causes immediate skepticism and rejection. An agenda to whipe out the poor country's?? Before this goes on the conspiracy-express, care to explain? Ofcourse more things are at work, things aren't as simple as we portrait it. But yea, we're to blaim with our huge amount of overconsumption, what's so wierd about that? Quote quick point before I move on, Louis I read the first two lines of your long post and skipped the rest entirely.  If you said anything novel you might want to post that separately. You do know that skipping posts doesn't give you any real credibility? Really, how can we ever discuss with you like that? You may skipped it, but unfortunatly he has some valid points there if you like it or not. Ignoring only makes it worse. Quote Computer models - my experience does not reach the level of the massive super computers currently used but some of the basic principles are the same.  I develop predictive toxicity models for small molecules and the biggest trick in developing a relevant model is picking contributing variables.  If we relate this to climate, we want to make sure we pick variables that are actually involved in the climate in a causative manner and not just a correlative one.  This relies heavily on our understanding of the science of climate to quantify it as accurately as possible but unlike my field we don't have a test system with which to refine and strengthen this model.  This doesn't mean it's hopeless it just limits our level of confidence. Science is never sure, ofcourse, but are you saying we're not picking the correct variabeles? Care to explain more about that piece of text? Quote What we have is history and historical data points and current data points.  So ignoring a question of the quality of the data at this point we're going to build a model based upon past climate and past data and bring that forward in an attempt to model current climate.  When I produce a model using a data set I can get fairly accurate with an interpolative model but the true test comes when I try to extrapolate.  Say for a climate model we look at CO2 and temperature change (this is obviously simplistic but just as an example) over a period of time.  Over our data set both temp and CO2 increase and we end up with a model in which we can predict the temperature increase as a function of increasing CO2 conc.  Good so far right.  Now we run this model forward with our best estimates of CO2 increases and we have an idea of the temperature increases.  This is the extrapolation step and here's where the problem comes in. Automatically we've introduced bias into the model because we've correlated CO2, accurately or not, with temperature increase.  In this simplistic model we've also completely weighted CO2.  We could be looking at two completely unrelated independent variables but the model we built looks good and conforms to past data.  We have a good mechanistic basis for using CO2 conc. but we have to add   in other factors to account for the complexity of climate.  This becomes a test of what we actually know about climate as opposed to what we think we know.  Our model is going to be force fit to the past data no matter which variables we choose and the true power will be revealed as we go down the road and deal with the predictions as they become current data points.  Again we're hampered by the lack of a test system.  But that's the limitation we have to deal with. First of all, isn't the whole ideá of a model like that to try to find a connection between temperature and CO2? If the variables are completly unlinked, we don't expect to see a relation between the 2. But like you say, it's an oversimplification, so do you have a more realistic example then? Quote As an example I can produce CCs in the 70-80% range when interpolating data and when I move outside that set to the data set I can watch those CCs drop to 50-60%.  Don't get me wrong, computer models are a powerful tool but there are limitations and those should always be kept in mind when proclaiming their results.  The pharma industry is a real good example.  As a real of thumb, at each stage of development only 10% of your molecules are going to advance to the next stage.  Starting with the models predicting activity and toxicity you'd think that of the thousands of molecules screened you could do better than 10% but you can't and sometimes 10% is a dream.  I would propose the same for climate modeling, a good tool but to be taken with a grain of salt or at least a moderate dose of skepticism when looking at the predictive power. This goes a little bit above my head, it's more something for Louis (at least he's more at home in the pharma industry). Gotta go for now but that's really just the tip of the iceberg  and that's just one topic, phew!

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,12:25    Ok, for Assassinator and Richard both, or at least it's the same theme, we can look at to variables that may increase independently but have no correlation between them.  It is possible that CO2 and temp can increase and have no connection.  The model will reflect the variables we use and we have to hope that the variables that we selected are the correct ones.  This will not show up while building the models because you're forcing the data through the selected variables.  It does show up when analyzing a data set or in this case making the predictions but there's no way we can test this beforehand with the climate.  We just have to sit and wait to see how accurate the models are and further refine them.  Also, the historical record is used both in the test set and the validation which is not ideal but in this case we have no alternative. No, sorry if I wasn't clear, the agenda is not to wipe out poor countries but I should have said "this sounds conveniently like the narrative."  Rich countries bad, poor countries are poor because of bad rich countries...you know that one.  Sorry I can see how that was confusing the way I wrote it. Oh and Rich, I'm not sure about other explanations for that graph.  I could speculate or make up something like there is a third variable not shown and CO2 and temp are both a function of it.  But that's just fantasy and I would propose that we continue to study it and further refine the models.  If I remember right the predicted increase in the eighties was 2-5C over the next 50 to 100 years and we've actually seen a .4-.6C increase over the last 25.  That would indicate a significant deviation but that's not firm I'm gonna go back and look that up to make sure I've got that right.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,13:41    Corals, carbonate and temperature, see this post: http://simondonner.blogspot.com/2008....ew.html Now, we have already pushed the carbonate ion concentration towards the point at which coral species will not dominate. What this means is that loss of coraline species dominance = loss of coral reefs= loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of resources, in fact ecosystem services of coral reefs are estimated at somewhere over 40 billion a year. Corals would not cease to exist, but would be badly damaged.  Think of it this way.  You have a local woodland which is dominated by a specific tree species, whcih produces nice fruit.  Over a few decades it gets warmer, and the trees stop fruiting so much, and start dying out.  A small population survives because they are further up the hill on the north side where it is cooler.  300 years later things cool down, and the trees spread back down where they used to grow. In the meantime, you lose the ability to harvest and eat this fruit. The dangerous thing Skeptic is doing with regards to coral reefs, CO2 levels etc, is taking multi megayear studies, which do not necessarily have yearly or even century size discrimination, and have not been summarised in a way which is relevant to today.  This is a very common thing for someone who doesn't know the science, and can be seen in the evolution debate, as well as a whole bunch of other areas.

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,14:12    Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,12:25) Ok, for Assassinator and Richard both, or at least it's the same theme, we can look at to variables that may increase independently but have no correlation between them.  It is possible that CO2 and temp can increase and have no connection.  The model will reflect the variables we use and we have to hope that the variables that we selected are the correct ones. The way you phrase this implies that climatologists knowingly leave out factors that may affect climate when in fact they try to include everything that they can model. What do you suggest is being omitted?   Quote I could speculate or make up something like there is a third variable not shown and CO2 and temp are both a function of it.  But that's just fantasy . . . It may be fantasy but isn't it what you are relying on to justify not paying much attention to the subject? Do you have any suggestions as to what might be a third, more basic, variable or are you just engaging in wishful thinking? Your argument is akin to saying that we don't know that birds flapping their wings results in them flying, it may be that there is a third variable that causes both the flapping of wings and the birds flying.   Quote If I remember right the predicted increase in the eighties was 2-5C over the next 50 to 100 years and we've actually seen a .4-.6C increase over the last 25.  That would indicate a significant deviation but that's not firm I'm gonna go back and look that up to make sure I've got that right You may be thinking of this http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/39/14288/F2 The upper line, the one that comes closest to your predicted increase, was Hansen's extreme scenario. His most plausible scenario (B) is much closer to what has actually been observed. -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,16:58    Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,12:25) Ok, for Assassinator and Richard both, or at least it's the same theme, we can look at to variables that may increase independently but have no correlation between them.  It is possible that CO2 and temp can increase and have no connection.  The model will reflect the variables we use and we have to hope that the variables that we selected are the correct ones.  This will not show up while building the models because you're forcing the data through the selected variables.  It does show up when analyzing a data set or in this case making the predictions but there's no way we can test this beforehand with the climate.  We just have to sit and wait to see how accurate the models are and further refine them.  Also, the historical record is used both in the test set and the validation which is not ideal but in this case we have no alternative. No, sorry if I wasn't clear, the agenda is not to wipe out poor countries but I should have said "this sounds conveniently like the narrative."  Rich countries bad, poor countries are poor because of bad rich countries...you know that one.  Sorry I can see how that was confusing the way I wrote it. Oh and Rich, I'm not sure about other explanations for that graph.  I could speculate or make up something like there is a third variable not shown and CO2 and temp are both a function of it.  But that's just fantasy and I would propose that we continue to study it and further refine the models.  If I remember right the predicted increase in the eighties was 2-5C over the next 50 to 100 years and we've actually seen a .4-.6C increase over the last 25.  That would indicate a significant deviation but that's not firm I'm gonna go back and look that up to make sure I've got that right. Skeptic, Your understanding of this kind of modeling is so wrong as to make me suspect that you use some totally different thing, perhaps a captain marvel decoder ring, and equate it to systems modeling. You don't have correlation/causation issues in climate modeling the way you use the terms because the models tune. i.e. when the individual differentials go up and down, you look what it does to the system. If you can tune multiple variables to achieve different combinations that match the historical data points you probably don't have a very complex system model. If climatologists had that problem, they would attach 0 confidence to their models. I don't even know where to begin with your idea other than to say that you are so grossly misunderstanding modeling of complex systems that I suspect you simply get your information from the boxes you ordered your decoder ring from. The white thing, you are the one deriving value from it. What if I said, fuck the 3rd word, lets just try not to exterminate humanity? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,18:23    Quote For many years I have been struck by the demand for everything possible to be biodegradable, yet if we are serious about reducing atmospheric CO2 this is the last thing we need. Far better to leave the carbon locked up in plastics than to release it as CO2. Now that's an interesting twist on what I've heard/read about recycling and using recyclable stuff. Huh. Henry

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,19:34    Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2008,12:25) Ok, for Assassinator and Richard both, or at least it's the same theme, we can look at to variables that may increase independently but have no correlation between them.  It is possible that CO2 and temp can increase and have no connection.  The model will reflect the variables we use and we have to hope that the variables that we selected are the correct ones.  This will not show up while building the models because you're forcing the data through the selected variables.  It does show up when analyzing a data set or in this case making the predictions but there's no way we can test this beforehand with the climate.  We just have to sit and wait to see how accurate the models are and further refine them.  Also, the historical record is used both in the test set and the validation which is not ideal but in this case we have no alternative. No, sorry if I wasn't clear, the agenda is not to wipe out poor countries but I should have said "this sounds conveniently like the narrative."  Rich countries bad, poor countries are poor because of bad rich countries...you know that one.  Sorry I can see how that was confusing the way I wrote it. Oh and Rich, I'm not sure about other explanations for that graph.  I could speculate or make up something like there is a third variable not shown and CO2 and temp are both a function of it.  But that's just fantasy and I would propose that we continue to study it and further refine the models.  If I remember right the predicted increase in the eighties was 2-5C over the next 50 to 100 years and we've actually seen a .4-.6C increase over the last 25.  That would indicate a significant deviation but that's not firm I'm gonna go back and look that up to make sure I've got that right. Here is the graph of actual temperatures vs Hansen's 1988 paper (projections started in 1984).  The only significant difference is that Hansen included a large volcanic eruption in 1995, and one actually happened in 1991 instead. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2008,19:37    Quote (Richard Simons @ April 26 2008,11:02)   Quote (skeptic @ April 25 2008,19:55) The idea that CO2 levels have changed dramatically throughout history reinforces the robust nature of climate to withstand variability. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I wouldn't be surprised if skeptic has tipping point and runaway greenhouse effect confused. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 28 2008,12:55    Quote I find malaria much more threatening than GW but that's just me. The irony is palpable. What you're missing is the inter-connectedness of things when you're dealing with a dynamic feedback system on a global scale. From The NRDC website's page on GW:         Quote Consequences of Global Warming Global warming is expected to increase the potential geographic range and virulence of tropical diseases as well. Disease-carrying mosquitoes are spreading as climate shifts allow them to survive in formerly inhospitable areas. Mosquitoes that can carry dengue fever viruses were previously limited to elevations of 3,300 feet but recently appeared at 7,200 feet in the Andes Mountains of Colombia. Malaria has been detected in new higher-elevation areas in Indonesia. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 4 [5] >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard