BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

ArtK78, on 2014-January-20, 12:59, said:

Well excuse me all to Hell.

climate=long term weather. so weather is the main factor along with time.
too say climate is not weather is just silly.

variance


variancePhrase

Houghton Mifflin

n.noun

1.The act of varying.


2.The state or quality of being variant or variable; a variation.


3.A difference between what is expected and what actually occurs.


4.The state or fact of differing or of being in conflict.


5.A discrepancy between two statements or documents in a proceeding.


6.License to engage in an act contrary to a usual rule.

a zoning variance.


7.The square of the standard deviation.


8.The number of thermodynamic variables, such as temperature and pressure, required to specify a state of equilibrium of a system, given by the phase rule.

What a treat!


Lindzen was asked whether models had improved. He cited something called the quasi-biennial oscillation – where the wind in the upper atmosphere blows from one direction for 26 months and then from the other for 26 months. “It’s very well-observed . . . but no model got this. And yet we knew the physics of it.”

He said that a technique called “parameterisation” was being used to fudge the physics. “The things they can’t resolve, they force the model to behave the way nature is observed to do. Is that an advance? I don’t know . . . You can add complexity to a model but it hasn’t helped them to do major things with ocean processes.”

Ian Mearns: (seeming to understand): You don’t think the models are reliable?

Lindzen: No! Of course not! If you can’t get TODAY’s distribution of regional climate right why would that be reliable for the future?

A must-read, if only for the obtuseness of the alarmist rhetoric...

In models we trust?

I am just old enough to recall the frigid 50's and the soggy 60's. That 60 year semi-cycle is also somewhat evident in the CET record (Central England Temps) going back to the 1700s.

Are we in a stall, a descent or a pause? Time will tell but not those damn computer models that only show warming apace....

Al_U_Card, on 2014-February-27, 09:16, said:

The idiot doesn't even understand the pictures that he's posting to support his argument.

1. The solid black line that shows a steady upward trend is an ensemble (probably the average) of a large number of individual models
2. The individual models show plenty of variance

At the risk of posting for the second time in the global warming thread, has anyone else read Nate Silver's book? He has a chapter on climate science and Bayesian analysis, I thought that was a nice read.

Interesting points (no, not his head, although that is peculiarly fascinating....) as far as variability and Bayesian priors go, this too is interesting.



And since professor emeritus Lindzen isn't crazy about the models either, perhaps someone else is wrong on this topic...




Nic Lewis has some good commentary on the use of appropriate priors in various TCR studies.


Observations trump theories... R. Feynman

Al_U_Card, on 2014-February-27, 11:07, said:

If you're looking for a source of error, it probably lies with Richard Lindzen.
His track record over the last 30 years has been abysmal.

Here's a list of his greatest hits on the climate side of things
http://www.skeptical...ard_Lindzen.htm

If you prefer, we can delve into his explanations why cigarette smoking isn't related to cancer.

hrothgar, on 2014-February-27, 09:48, said:

Most not near the actual data we are experiencing.

Ahhh yes. Skeptical Science. The site of serial mis-quoting (See Michael Mann's legal pleadings vs. Steyn), comment tampering, survey twisting, Nazi wannabee, cartoonist turned expert science communicator? ROTFLMAO

Next, I suppose that Gavin Schmidt's most recent hand-waver about "coincidences" being responsible for the last 17 years of no warming, will be venerated and presented as proof of concept? Holy Lemony Snicket!

The models are all they have and with every passing day, the "projections" are shown to be as worthless as their position.

An interesting and somewhat prescient analysis:

The Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell (1995)



“What all the [ideological crusades of the twentieth-century] have in common is their moral exaltation of the anointed above others, who are to have their very different views nullified and superseded by the views of the anointed, imposed via the power of government....[S]everal key elements have been common to most of them:

1. Assertions of a great danger to the whole of society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.

2. An urgent need for action to avert impending catastrophe.

3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.

4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes....(p.5)

What is remarkable is how few arguments are really engaged in, and how many substitutes for arguments there are. This vision so permeates the media and academia, and has made such major inroads into the religious community, that many grow into adulthood unaware that there is any other way of looking at things, or that evidence might be relevant to checking out the sweeping assumptions of so-called "thinking people". Many of these "thinking people" could more accurately be characterized as articulate people, as people whose verbal nimbleness can elude both evidence and logic. This can be a fatal talent, when it supplies the crucial insulation from reality behind many historic catastrophes. (p. 6)”

Cascade, on 2014-February-28, 08:02, said:

When 87 out of 90 models are skewed to one side, then one has to question the assumptions and/or data inputted into the models. The average of the 90 models is ~0.6, while the actual measured is half that. Modelers have countered that the observations are still within the uncertainty of the models. While this is true, one has to wonder whether this is just natural variation or a bias in the models. Many explanations have been postulated as to why the models are running high. But this begs the question, of why the models are not recalibrated to incorporate the new information. Which brings up another question, if these factors are influencing the current measurements, could they not have also influenced the past measurements? Recent observations suggest that natural climatic forces have been undervalued in modeled calculations, while carbon dioxide has been overvalued. This does not eliminated carbon dioxide from the equation, but reduces its influence.

I see that Nobel prize-winner (for his work in revealing the chlorofluorocarbon emergency) Mario Molina is spearheading the committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that has taken on the task of explaining the facts about global warming in an easy-to-understand manner. The site looks good: What We Know.

Quote

No conservative wants to take on the risk of environmental disaster, so it's important to explain to everyone the very real risks of modifying the air that we all depend upon.

Yet another statement "explaining" the "urgent" need to better communicate the "danger" to the tax-payers. And they use the same old, tired out, consensus and appeal to authority arguments... Since 99.3% of scientists (from real, proper polls) agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (to some OBVIOUSLY minor extent, seeing as it continues to increase apace yet global temps have remained steady for 17 years and counting...) and that man has some effect on the climate (be it UHI, or GHG or other) we can take a closer look at the "urgency" and the "danger". The models (all they have) fail to accurately predict any current situation. The danger, as presented by the IPCC itself is not a danger at all, but a benefit up to 2C warming by their own reckoning. The AAAS does, however, recognize the significant uncertainty....so they then fall back on strike 3, that we must do something just in case...

What a sad state of affairs when scientific principles and observational data are end-run around by warmist zealots that want our money and control of everything (Remember that we breathe out the only stuff that they can control.)

PassedOut, on 2014-March-18, 12:18, said:

What strikes me about the passage you quote is what it doesn't say, rather than what it does.

"climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk" - Indeed, and presumably that applies just as much to non-manmade climate change as to manmade climate change?

"human-caused climate change is real" - OK. I'm not sure that is seriously in dispute, is it?

"while the public is becoming aware that climate change is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters, many people do not yet understand that there is a small, but real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people in the United States and around the world." - OK, I guess, though presumably climate change is reducing the likelihood of certain other local disasters, too. But nowhere does it say that it is manmade climate change rather than other climate change that is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters. And nowhere does it recognise that climate change is inevitable anyway, even if we can have some impact at the margin on the manmade component of it.

WellSpyder, on 2014-March-19, 03:46, said:

The site seems to feed into the old adage that change is bad. Looking back at the past century, temperatures have warmed compared to previous, but the previous centuries were unusually cold. All evidence point to the colder centuries putting the population at greater risk than the warm; poorer harvests, colder winters, worse droughts. Historically, warmer periods have been more prosperous, while colder ones have resulted in greater hardship. Maybe some people are just nostalagic, reminiscing about better times, which were not so much better. This leads to the idea that, somehow, the temperatures of some bygone era were optimal; that some prosperity was tied to the climate. Most of the great human migrations occurred during the cold periods, while civilizations flourished during the warm epochs. Warmer climates have shown to be more beneficial, and no limit has been demonstrated (presumably there is such a limit, but it is unknown). Change is inherently risky. However, that does not necessarily make it harmful.
The other issue is the claim concerning 97% of climate scientists. This claim is somewhat circular, as a climate scientist is loosely defined as someone who believes in manmade warming. When expanded to include all the scientists who study some aspect of the Earth's climate, the number falls substantially. The range of warming is also quite broad, including those who feel that the warming will be insignificantly small to dangerously high.

Be very, very afraid.....or?



35 years of gentle warming brought to you by Mother Nature.

Daniel1960, on 2014-March-19, 05:12, said:

For conservatives like me, taking an unnecessary risk of disaster on the off chance that climate change might not turn out to be harmful to one's own geographic area seems absurd and irresponsible. I realize that the folks who want to take that risk calculate that any disaster would be borne mainly by our children and grandchildren, but I loathe that line of reasoning too.

PassedOut, on 2014-March-19, 16:41, said:

I agree with your thinking. However, is there really a risk of disaster? How do we know that some of the changes proposed to fight global warming would not put us at a higher risk of disaster? In all likelihood, the risk of disaster is probably quite small. The changes occurring are rather small, certainly not on a disaster scale. The bigger issue is whether these changes will be harmful or beneficial. Obviously, with any change, there will be winners and losers. We consider the change bad, if the negatives outweigh the positives. This far, the positives of the warming have far outweighed the negatives. Some predict that at some point (usually 2C, but this appears arbitrary) the negatives will outweigh the positives. Obviously, it the Earth were to heat up substantially, it would be detrimental to life as we know it. The bigger question is, at what point would that occur? We know that the cooler periods over the past several centuries led to many hardships. The cooler temperatures resulted in more freezes, droughts, and famines. Can we actually say that the temperature today is ideal for life on this planet? We know that previous times experienced temperatures warmer than today, and life flourished and civilizations prospered. Are the risks associated with further warmer greater than the risks associated with planetary cooling? There are those scientists predicting that the planet has reached the maximum of the current warming trend, and that we have already entered a cooling period.
What is more absurd and irresponsible? To go forward into the unknown without adequate knowledge, or to not go forward out of fear of the unknown?

Daniel1960, on 2014-March-20, 05:21, said:

I think you meant to say "So far, the negatives of the warming are predominantly being paid by a bunch of darkies"