CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

[Doc Savage Fan]

Was looking at some old threads on this subject and found this one from a couple years ago where eskimospy argued that GCR theory was debunked.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=173073

(Note to self: soften rhetoric).

 

[spacejamz]

Well, they will argue it is just a very small percentage of overall global pollution. Technically they are right. Morally they are wrong. Because indeed they do not set the proper example. If you want to change the percentage of total pollution, just use the Denmark (preferably the city Copenhagen alone) numbers alone for smog production. Then they will not be able to talk themselves out if it. During the conference, there will be a spike.

Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? The people at this conference are the biggest proponents of Climate Change...

 

[Lemon law]

To William Gaatjes,

I some what feel your distinction between MMGW and Man Man global pollution is somewhat of an trivial difference because both mean the same thing. But point granted, global pollution of the atmosphere is probably a better descriptor as its clear man made climate change is no longer just about carbon.

And there is another thing to say, as its quite clear that a correlation between two variables is not causation, but when atmospheric global pollution and carbon levels go hand in hand, to talk about one is to talk about the other. When in fact science does not yet understand how the multitude of variables interact. As we have yet to talk about a major unknown player, namely deep ocean currents that also play a large part.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? The people at this conference are the biggest proponents of Climate Change...

Of course they are. They feel they need to make a positive attribution to change the world for the better and in the process make a name in history and a buck. We all desire this, only some are fortunate enough.

 

[William Gaatjes]

To William Gaatjes,

I some what feel your distinction between MMGW and Man Man global pollution is somewhat of an trivial difference because both mean the same thing. But point granted, global pollution of the atmosphere is probably a better descriptor as its clear man made climate change is no longer just about carbon.

No, i can not agree with you. There is enough pollution that will not create
global temperature changes but is or will be hazardous to our environment on this planet. The point is that i try to make ever since i started posting on this forum a few years ago, is that nature does not stop. Call it god as the power behind it if you wish to do so. But life will not end, it will just evolve to cope with different circumstances as long as there is energy to power the needed chemical reactions. This means that species will go extinct as always have been the case. What i mean to say is that the current species on this planet from the smallest to the largest are good to have. When you create an toxic environment , the chance will arise that lethal pathogens will arise first.
Call me a walking hyperbole if you wish. I do not mind. Especially if we have the technology to make changes for the better.

And there is another thing to say, as its quite clear that a correlation between two variables is not causation, but when atmospheric global pollution and carbon levels go hand in hand, to talk about one is to talk about the other. When in fact science does not yet understand how the multitude of variables interact. As we have yet to talk about a major unknown player, namely deep ocean currents that also play a large part.

Of course they play a part. But it is not the ocean currents, it is what they carry. Microscopic life forms. Millions of tons that love CO2. There is so much we do not want to see. It is the micro organisms that made this planet a habitable planet. And it were the same microorganisms that stabilized it.
If you want to look for god, forget humans. God favors micro organisms beyond humans at any time. We just as any large species are just transport and a save environment to get from A to B.

 

[ProfJohn]

Since we haven't figured out every last detail of astronomy yet we should wait for more data before deciding if the earth really does orbit the sun.

Nice straw man...


We thought that the sun circled the earth (actually scientists didn't believe this it was forced on them by religious types)

But then we found proof that it didn't and we changed our model.

Fast forward a few hundred years.

We thought that XYZ was causing the earth to get warmer (at least that is what our models say)

Now we learn that part of the models are wrong so we have to change them.

When I grew up Pluto was a planet, now I am told it isn't.
I also thought that the electron, proton and neutron were the foundation of the atom, now I learn they aren't.

New discoveries change old ideas all the time and models change all the time.

 

[Jhhnn]

Now we learn that part of the models are wrong so we have to change them.

Not really. We just learned that there may be other factors at work, with stress on the *may* part. The observations in hte OP's linked article are very much along the lines of "if, then, and if true, then maybe, and if true, then" we need to change the model.

Jaskalas link wrt ancient climate is similar- it's a highly assumptive complex model, not actual measurement like obtained from ice cores of more recent vintage. Which is not to say it's wrong, but rather to point out that it is what it is.

With global temps 10C above current levels, ancient ocean level was obviously much, much higher, not to mention that the continents were arranged entirely differently as well.

 

[Hacp]

Jaskalas link wrt ancient climate is similar- it's a highly assumptive complex model, not actual measurement like obtained from ice cores of more recent vintage. Which is not to say it's wrong, but rather to point out that it is what it is.

The models are wrong. They are what they are, which means they are plain and simple wrong.

Let me elaborate. The assumptions made in climate models are not simple assumptions, like XYZ do not contribute to temperature increases so we'll ignore them. Instead, the biggest assumptions are the empirical variables used. Many times, climaters just guess values based on their limited understanding of the climate (which no one fully understands). There is no or very little experimental evidence to back up the guesses. This leads a huge range of different temperature predictions made by different models, using different values for the variables.

What does this mean? It means you shouldn't trust any of the current models coded by climaters until they have a good track record of predicting the future.

 

[Jhhnn]

What does this mean? It means you shouldn't trust any of the current models coded by climaters until they have a good track record of predicting the future.

So, uhh, we need to wait a few 10K or 100K years (in the case of Jaskalas' model, a few M years) before we can have a plausible explanation of climate? And that the introduction of a new variable, the massive de-sequestration of carbon as CO2 can be ignored, or what?

 

[Lemon law]

Hasp says, "What does this mean? It means you shouldn't trust any of the current models coded by climaters until they have a good track record of predicting the future."

Which is actually a gross distortion, our climate models actually do accurately the amount of total global warming. The problem is that our climate models predict more warming at the equator and the least warming at the poles, and in the real world, the exact opposite occurs.

As it basically shows Jhhnn is correct, there are many complex interacting factors we do not yet understand. What we do understand is that MMGW is happening.

 

[Rainsford]

The models are wrong. They are what they are, which means they are plain and simple wrong.

Let me elaborate. The assumptions made in climate models are not simple assumptions, like XYZ do not contribute to temperature increases so we'll ignore them. Instead, the biggest assumptions are the empirical variables used. Many times, climaters just guess values based on their limited understanding of the climate (which no one fully understands). There is no or very little experimental evidence to back up the guesses. This leads a huge range of different temperature predictions made by different models, using different values for the variables.

What does this mean? It means you shouldn't trust any of the current models coded by climaters until they have a good track record of predicting the future.

That's not really how science works, and that's really the core of this discussion. In science, there is a great deal of gray area between "perfectly accurate" and "not to be trusted".

People following scientific debates for political reasons often seem to treat scientific ideas as if a single flaw in the idea invalidates the whole theory. But revising ideas is not the same thing as invalidating them. Nor does improving our understanding of a concept demonstrate that everything that was said before is totally inaccurate, as you seem to believe.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Hasp says, "What does this mean? It means you shouldn't trust any of the current models coded by climaters until they have a good track record of predicting the future."

Which is actually a gross distortion, our climate models actually do accurately the amount of total global warming. The problem is that our climate models predict more warming at the equator and the least warming at the poles, and in the real world, the exact opposite occurs.

As it basically shows Jhhnn is correct, there are many complex interacting factors we do not yet understand. What we do understand is that MMGW is happening.

You know what i wonder about ?
CO2 is only talked about. But the pollution of the sea is what worries me.
The microorganisms in the sea currents i mentioned, the primary organism in the ocean is fytoplankton or diatoms. And fytoplankton consumes CO2. I wonder if a delay in the arrival of fytoplankton could have an effect on the amount of CO2 in the air. We must also not forget that waste chemicals that are dumped in the air by the major industrial countries accumulate at the axes of the planet. There is also a cyclic release of ice water from the antarctic moved around by the antarctic circumpolar current.
And there is a cyclic boom bust behavior from diatoms. This fytoplankton consumes CO2 in short cycles. Although MMGW believers only think about CO2 in the air and how CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is not what i think. It is the pollution of land and sea and the antarctic that are serious concerns.

Man made global pollution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom

 

[Murloc]

And temperature has varied greatly too. That's the point. If we're triggering those kinds of temperature changes now we're in trouble.

nope.
Plants caused huge changes in the atmosphere.
Look at what happened to them: they're thriving.
The earth survived the catastrophe that killed the dinosaurs.

There is nothing unethical about changing forever the world, life won't disappear even if we nuke everything.

The only question is whether we would survive these changes.

 

[Jhhnn]

nope.
Plants caused huge changes in the atmosphere.
Look at what happened to them: they're thriving.
The earth survived the catastrophe that killed the dinosaurs.

There is nothing unethical about changing forever the world, life won't disappear even if we nuke everything.

The only question is whether we would survive these changes.

There's an enormous difference between humans and the rest of life on this planet in the sense that our consciousnesses are much greater. We can understand and alter our own behavior in ways that other lifeforms simply cannot. Yes, the humblest of creatures altered the ancient planet ecosystem profoundly by the sheer act of existence, but they had no choices other than that.

Our unprecedented ability to alter the environment in a conscious way changes everything, makes us stewards of the ecosystem. The red tide, for example, has no mechanism to change the behavior of the microscopic creatures responsible for it, but we do have the means to alter our own effects.

They have no morality- they simply exist outside of that frame of reference. While there are some indications that some non-human lifeforms possess a sense of morality, that's only within their own groups, and does not extend any further than that. We are unique in the ability to assign morality to larger outcomes like pollution, deforestation, MMGCC, and unique in the ability to perceive the feedback loops which affect our own relative well being. And the ability to do that is a very recent thing, even in terms of human development. Examples of primitive people acting against their own self interest wrt the environment are legend, with Easter Islanders being the best known example. Once a seafaring people, they cut all their trees to make canoes, thus stranding themselves on their island.

It's fundamentally immoral to ignore things like that, to pretend that we're not responsible in ways that other creatures simply cannot comprehend, and wrong to pretend that we have no control whatsoever. We do.

 

[Hacp]

That's not really how science works, and that's really the core of this discussion. In science, there is a great deal of gray area between "perfectly accurate" and "not to be trusted".

People following scientific debates for political reasons often seem to treat scientific ideas as if a single flaw in the idea invalidates the whole theory. But revising ideas is not the same thing as invalidating them. Nor does improving our understanding of a concept demonstrate that everything that was said before is totally inaccurate, as you seem to believe.

We're talking about models here. Either it accurately models the system, or it doesn't. Heck, its hard enough to model, to 1 or 2 C , a simple system that we humans build like a mixed tank of heated water. Now, increase the complexity and try to do that with the earth.

 

[Hacp]

Hasp says, "What does this mean? It means you shouldn't trust any of the current models coded by climaters until they have a good track record of predicting the future."

Which is actually a gross distortion, our climate models actually do accurately the amount of total global warming. The problem is that our climate models predict more warming at the equator and the least warming at the poles, and in the real world, the exact opposite occurs.

As it basically shows Jhhnn is correct, there are many complex interacting factors we do not yet understand. What we do understand is that MMGW is happening.

If this is occurring, then there is something wrong with your model and any sane person won't trust any of the results the model spews out.