New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford

True enough, the real question is which one is the correct one? Is it the one that happens to agree with what you already think? Sorry, chief, science doesn't work like that.

Then you MMGW peeps need to stop already with the "debate is over" BS.

I'm not the one saying I know which is correct - tha's you guys. I've been saying nobody knows, that it's a work in progress.

Actually, you haven't been saying that. What you've been saying is that the presence of any uncertainty at all means we don't know what the heck is going on and we should just assume MMGW is an Al Gore fantasy. The debate is not over, but the debate is also not what you think it is. MMGW is pretty well settled fact Well, there you go again , the debate is really over the details of exactly how much we're contributing and how big of a problem it will be. But that isn't the position you guys have taken at all. There are more than two alternatives here My proposed 3rd alternative, as expressed here many times, has been let 'em keep working at it. , and your "work in progress" line is just a passive-aggressive way to argue against the science without having to make a real argument. The fact that you borrowed the approach from the "intelligent design" people should tell you something... WTH? Hehe, oh I get it. Good one. If we're not ready to unconditionally buy into MMGW it's because we're ignorant science-hating creationist-types who believe the world is 6,000 yrs old

Is it the one that happens to agree with what you already think? Sorry, chief, science doesn't work like that

That's pure fscking irony.

Fern

How's that? I have at no point expressed a politically motivated interest in this debate, and I formed my conclusion after actually looking at the facts There you go again. Jeez, you're making ne repeat myself. What you refer to as facts are contested assertions. Aside from the disagreements among scientists, those espousing the "facts" have so often and materially changed their "facts" as to create doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that they have yet gotten it right. I will not be surprised to see the "facts" or predictions revised again. Prolly often. Of course, that means they weren't facts to begin with. There was no "I already think" going on, I didn't HAVE an opinion until I looked at the data...can you say the same?
My opinion, for the above enumerated reasons, remains that the issue is still open. Wide open. Yeah, that's based on the data - that of some scientists who are of the contrary opinion, and the ever changing nature of the "data" so far supplied.

Fern

"There you go again" was a pretty braindead line when Reagan used it, but at least he was being original. Being a cheap copy of a worthless politician isn't exactly something to aspire to...

Repeating your argument over and over again doesn't make it more true, and repeating your alleged position over and over again doesn't make it any closer to what you are actually saying. If the issue is so "wide open", why the vicious attacks on anyone who thinks there might be a kernel of truth to the idea that human beings are causing climate change? If you REALLY believe the science was still undecided, you'd be interested in science that DOES point towards a conclusion of some kind. Instead, all you care about are the results that raise questions, because that supports your theory not that we don't know, but that we CAN'T know.

I have no problem with someone who honestly thinks humans aren't causing global warming and is willing to argue the point, but you're just being dishonest. You ignore evidence suggesting MMGW is true, and amplify "contrary opinions" and then come to the conclusion that we're in a perpetual state of confusion as a result of your cherry picked perspective. Yeah, "some scientists" have a contrary opinion...on the other hand, many, MANY more support the idea that humans are causing global warming. What kind of "reasonable person" listens to the former group but not the latter?

As for the facts changing, that's how science works...as our knowledge grows, we revise our theories and ideas. Are you honestly suggesting that since science has been wrong in the past, it must ALWAYS be wrong? Because you seem to be suggesting that because incorrect climate theories have been pushed in the past, ALL present and future theories must also be incorrect. Of course following that logic, the Earth can't possibly be round because leading scientists used to think it was flat.

My point about multiple options was that science isn't 100% right or 100% wrong, which is what you seem to think. Current global warming theory doesn't have to be either right or wrong, it could be partially right and partially wrong. In fact, almost all science is that way. Questions and problems with a theory don't make it entire wrong, a few dissenting scientists does not make this issue "wide open", it means the theory isn't perfect yet. But all in all, it looks pretty accurate and pretty well developed. Dismissing the entire theory as complete bunk is unscientific.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What kind of "reasonable person" listens to the former group but not the latter?

The kind that doesn't want to be soaked for thousands of $, like they were during Y2K, by a bunch of snake oil salesmen. :laugh:

The problem with you, Rainsford, is that for every attempt at taking the middle-ground, there you are jumping on the MMGW bandwagon at the first opportunity. You see and hear only what you want to.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What kind of "reasonable person" listens to the former group but not the latter?

The kind that doesn't want to be soaked for thousands of $, like they were during Y2K, by a bunch of snake oil salesmen. :laugh:

The problem with you, Rainsford, is that for every attempt at taking the middle-ground, there you are jumping on the MMGW bandwagon at the first opportunity. You see and hear only what you want to.

As opposed to a genius like you who sees only dollars and snake oil salesmen? Unfortunately, of course for you, insane brainwashed loons like you can distort reality only for yourself and other self centered fools. A reasonable person not only can listen to many points of view, he can and does hear.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What kind of "reasonable person" listens to the former group but not the latter?

The kind that doesn't want to be soaked for thousands of $, like they were during Y2K, by a bunch of snake oil salesmen. :laugh:

The problem with you, Rainsford, is that for every attempt at taking the middle-ground, there you are jumping on the MMGW bandwagon at the first opportunity. You see and hear only what you want to.

Actually, I'm glad you brought up Y2K. Because while it might appear this way to the uneducated, Y2K could have been a major problem, it was mostly averted because people realized it early enough and did something about it. And while you and the rest of the Luddite crowd dismiss the danger involved, had nothing been done and various computer systems stopped working correctly, you would no doubt have bitched and moaned about that too. The folks predicting unavoidable doom were wrong too, but that was mostly the media, not the folks trying to fix the problem.

I've said this over and over, but your response really says it better than I ever could. You aren't against MMGW theory because you understand the science or think there are too many unanswered questions, you oppose MMGW theory because you dislike and distrust all scientists everywhere. In fact, you really are a Luddite...you oppose science on principle, you don't like people who make you feel stupid. Y2K has nothing to do with global warming, even if Y2K didn't happen the way you think it did. But you make the connection anyways because in your mind, it proves all science is always wrong. And if that's the case, you can just sit back and keep watching American Idol and not have to deal with smart folks trying to get you to understand something.

The conservative war on science has a long and proud history, suggesting it's just this particular issue that has your collective panties in a bunch is silly. This is just the latest in a long line of bullshit arguments made because you folks didn't like the nerds in high school.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The folks predicting unavoidable doom were wrong too, but that was mostly the media, not the folks trying to fix the problem.

They were wrong then, and they're wrong now.

I've said this over and over, but your response really says it better than I ever could. You aren't against MMGW theory because you understand the science or think there are too many unanswered questions, you oppose MMGW theory because you dislike and distrust all scientists everywhere. In fact, you really are a Luddite...you oppose science on principle, you don't like people who make you feel stupid. Y2K has nothing to do with global warming, even if Y2K didn't happen the way you think it did. But you make the connection anyways because in your mind, it proves all science is always wrong. And if that's the case, you can just sit back and keep watching American Idol and not have to deal with smart folks trying to get you to understand something.

I don't watch American Idol. And I take issue with your laughable (and inaccurate) synopsis. I do not "dislike and distrust all scientists everywhere", nor do I "oppose science on principle". I think you have this boogeyman view of a Conservative which is wrong, doubly so in my case. I have great respect for the field and many who choose to make it their life's work.

The conservative war on science has a long and proud history, suggesting it's just this particular issue that has your collective panties in a bunch is silly. This is just the latest in a long line of bullshit arguments made because you folks didn't like the nerds in high school.

Conservative "War On Science?" ... Come on, Rainsford. You're starting to become more like Harvey every day. :roll:

PS ... I was "that nerd in high school" ... and proud of it

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Actually, I'm glad you brought up Y2K. Because while it might appear this way to the uneducated, Y2K could have been a major problem, it was mostly averted because people realized it early enough and did something about it. And while you and the rest of the Luddite crowd dismiss the danger involved, had nothing been done and various computer systems stopped working correctly, you would no doubt have bitched and moaned about that too. The folks predicting unavoidable doom were wrong too, but that was mostly the media, not the folks trying to fix the problem.

I've said this over and over, but your response really says it better than I ever could. You aren't against MMGW theory because you understand the science or think there are too many unanswered questions, you oppose MMGW theory because you dislike and distrust all scientists everywhere. In fact, you really are a Luddite...you oppose science on principle, you don't like people who make you feel stupid. Y2K has nothing to do with global warming, even if Y2K didn't happen the way you think it did. But you make the connection anyways because in your mind, it proves all science is always wrong. And if that's the case, you can just sit back and keep watching American Idol and not have to deal with smart folks trying to get you to understand something.

The conservative war on science has a long and proud history, suggesting it's just this particular issue that has your collective panties in a bunch is silly. This is just the latest in a long line of bullshit arguments made because you folks didn't like the nerds in high school.

Man, you can't win this argument. You are arguing science and they are arguing ideology. I mean how many times are you going to make the same case to the same people, and have them "refute" your thought out, reasonable post with "hurf blurf Y2K"?

It's not like they don't know that the vast majority of the evidence supports MMGW, it's that they don't care.

 

[Comanche]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Actually, I'm glad you brought up Y2K. Because while it might appear this way to the uneducated, Y2K could have been a major problem, it was mostly averted because people realized it early enough and did something about it. And while you and the rest of the Luddite crowd dismiss the danger involved, had nothing been done and various computer systems stopped working correctly, you would no doubt have bitched and moaned about that too. The folks predicting unavoidable doom were wrong too, but that was mostly the media, not the folks trying to fix the problem.

I've said this over and over, but your response really says it better than I ever could. You aren't against MMGW theory because you understand the science or think there are too many unanswered questions, you oppose MMGW theory because you dislike and distrust all scientists everywhere. In fact, you really are a Luddite...you oppose science on principle, you don't like people who make you feel stupid. Y2K has nothing to do with global warming, even if Y2K didn't happen the way you think it did. But you make the connection anyways because in your mind, it proves all science is always wrong. And if that's the case, you can just sit back and keep watching American Idol and not have to deal with smart folks trying to get you to understand something.

The conservative war on science has a long and proud history, suggesting it's just this particular issue that has your collective panties in a bunch is silly. This is just the latest in a long line of bullshit arguments made because you folks didn't like the nerds in high school.

Man, you can't win this argument. You are arguing science and they are arguing ideology. I mean how many times are you going to make the same case to the same people, and have them "refute" your thought out, reasonable post with "hurf blurf Y2K"?

It's not like they don't know that the vast majority of the evidence supports MMGW, it's that they don't care.

The problem is that we do care. On the one hand we have people who are motivated by personal gain, whether that is money from lectures of selling oil; those folks should all be ignored. On the other hand we have people telling us that the ice is melting in the arctic at record levels, and others telling us that it is freezing at record levels. There are people who tell us that the Antarctic is in danger of melting and flooding the earth and the other side is telling us that ice in the Antarctic is getting thicker. Sea levels rising; sea levels falling; Glaciers in danger of disappearing, Glaciers growing larger. In response to all of this there are people out there that want to tax us for our carbon use, using only one side of the information as evidence that MMGW is real. Then there are all those folks in developing countries that have a little hope now to dig out of poverty, but if we put all these restraints on them it would take them all that much longer because of the cost.

If the MMGW Theory is so strong, why don't they relable it to a Law. You know, all those things in science that are undisputable, things like The Doppler Effect and the Drake Equation (high school science). In reality, MMGW Theory is just that and nothing more. It is a bunch of people who have come up with this idea and are trying to force it on everyone else. There are other theories out there, but they don't get the airtime because the scare tactics don't work for them.

Everyone is so Knee Jerk when is comes to the weather it isn't funny. From the 1940's to the 1970's there was a slight cooling trend and the thought was that we were going into another ice age. Now that it is on the other side there is this MMGW Theory. What were the folks thinking from the 1880's to the 1940's as it was getting warmer? What were the folks thinking around 1800 when it was getting colder. Every one's perspective is only during thier lifetime and should be considering the big picture.

Level heads, as someone so elequantly pointed out, should be considering all these questions before we lay a burden on the world that we can't afford. I for one have no desire to be paying a carbon tax for something that is not proven, and is not a law.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Comanche

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Actually, I'm glad you brought up Y2K. Because while it might appear this way to the uneducated, Y2K could have been a major problem, it was mostly averted because people realized it early enough and did something about it. And while you and the rest of the Luddite crowd dismiss the danger involved, had nothing been done and various computer systems stopped working correctly, you would no doubt have bitched and moaned about that too. The folks predicting unavoidable doom were wrong too, but that was mostly the media, not the folks trying to fix the problem.

I've said this over and over, but your response really says it better than I ever could. You aren't against MMGW theory because you understand the science or think there are too many unanswered questions, you oppose MMGW theory because you dislike and distrust all scientists everywhere. In fact, you really are a Luddite...you oppose science on principle, you don't like people who make you feel stupid. Y2K has nothing to do with global warming, even if Y2K didn't happen the way you think it did. But you make the connection anyways because in your mind, it proves all science is always wrong. And if that's the case, you can just sit back and keep watching American Idol and not have to deal with smart folks trying to get you to understand something.

The conservative war on science has a long and proud history, suggesting it's just this particular issue that has your collective panties in a bunch is silly. This is just the latest in a long line of bullshit arguments made because you folks didn't like the nerds in high school.

Man, you can't win this argument. You are arguing science and they are arguing ideology. I mean how many times are you going to make the same case to the same people, and have them "refute" your thought out, reasonable post with "hurf blurf Y2K"?

It's not like they don't know that the vast majority of the evidence supports MMGW, it's that they don't care.

The problem is that we do care. On the one hand we have people who are motivated by personal gain, whether that is money from lectures of selling oil; those folks should all be ignored. On the other hand we have people telling us that the ice is melting in the arctic at record levels, and others telling us that it is freezing at record levels. There are people who tell us that the Antarctic is in danger of melting and flooding the earth and the other side is telling us that ice in the Antarctic is getting thicker. Sea levels rising; sea levels falling; Glaciers in danger of disappearing, Glaciers growing larger. In response to all of this there are people out there that want to tax us for our carbon use, using only one side of the information as evidence that MMGW is real. Then there are all those folks in developing countries that have a little hope now to dig out of poverty, but if we put all these restraints on them it would take them all that much longer because of the cost.

That's NOT what people are saying, it just sounds that way because that's how people want you to hear it.

If the MMGW Theory is so strong, why don't they relable it to a Law. You know, all those things in science that are undisputable, things like The Doppler Effect and the Drake Equation (high school science). In reality, MMGW Theory is just that and nothing more. It is a bunch of people who have come up with this idea and are trying to force it on everyone else. There are other theories out there, but they don't get the airtime because the scare tactics don't work for them.

Yeah, I have a new rule...learn the scientific difference between a theory and a law, THEN talk. Doing it in the reverse order is just pointless, how can you argue a scientific issue as complex as global warming when you don't even know basic science terminology? "It's just a theory" is only an argument if you slept through high school science, if you're not going to at least make a small effort to understand the debate, what's the point of having it? I know it flies in the face of the populist revolution we're experiencing right now, but there are certain issues where you can't just be some gomer off the street if you want to make an intelligent argument. And understanding what the word "theory" means in a scientific context is not an unreasonable barrier to entry, if you ask me.

Everyone is so Knee Jerk when is comes to the weather it isn't funny. From the 1940's to the 1970's there was a slight cooling trend and the thought was that we were going into another ice age. Now that it is on the other side there is this MMGW Theory. What were the folks thinking from the 1880's to the 1940's as it was getting warmer? What were the folks thinking around 1800 when it was getting colder. Every one's perspective is only during thier lifetime and should be considering the big picture.

Level heads, as someone so elequantly pointed out, should be considering all these questions before we lay a burden on the world that we can't afford. I for one have no desire to be paying a carbon tax for something that is not proven, and is not a law.

eskimospy is right, arguing with you guys is pretty pointless...you just don't want to hear it. It's not that you're stupid, it's that you're being INTENTIONALLY stupid. Scientists point to models and data and well thought out theories, and you guys say "well, there was a slight cooling trend before that didn't last forever, so you must be wrong". That's not an argument against what MMGW supporters are saying now, so it's kind of hard to refute...we're not even on the same page, or even in the same book. It's like you're responding with "this crayon is purple".

Imagine if you went to your mechanic and said you're car was running unevenly, and he told you it looked like a few of your spark plugs were misfiring. How do you think he'd respond if you told him you didn't believe him because the LAST time you brought your car in with a problem, it was a bad oxygen sensor, so OBVIOUSLY it couldn't be the spark plugs now? That's kind of how I feel in this argument, it's not that we disagree, it's that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. And while I have no problem having a reasonable debate with someone...I'm getting a little tired of discussing science with people who can't tell the difference between Fox News and the Discovery channel.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
The study was published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology. Here's the Link to an article summarizing the results and there you'll find a link to the actual study. A few choice quotes as follows:

"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

"The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts," said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. "Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution."

I went over to RealClimate to get their spin on this study but nothing's been posted yet.

Here's the $64 question...if the models can't come close to predicting what actually happened over the past 30 years, how can they predict climate changes 100 years in the future?

Ya forgot the quotes that come at the end of the study. The conclusion that I come up with is they cooked their data.

The findings of this study contrast strongly with those of a recent study that used 19 of the same climate models and similar climate datasets. That study concluded that any difference between model forecasts and atmospheric climate data is probably due to errors in the data.

"The question was, what would the models 'forecast' for upper air climate change over the past 25 years and how would that forecast compare to reality?" said Christy. "To answer that we needed climate model results that matched the actual surface temperature changes during that same time. If the models got the surface trend right but the tropospheric trend wrong, then we could pinpoint a potential problem in the models.

"As it turned out, the average of all of the climate models forecasts came out almost like the actual surface trend in the tropics. That meant we could do a very robust test of their reproduction of the lower atmosphere.

"Instead of averaging the model forecasts to get a result whose surface trends match reality, the earlier study looked at the widely scattered range of results from all of the model runs combined. Many of the models had surface trends that were quite different from the actual trend," Christy said. "Nonetheless, that study concluded that since both the surface and upper atmosphere trends were somewhere in that broad range of model results, any disagreement between the climate data and the models was probably due to faulty data.

"We think our experiment is more robust and provides more meaningful results."

Adapted from materials provided by Wiley-Blackwell.

Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA

MLA Wiley-Blackwell (2007, December 12). New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 30, 2007, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2007/12/071211101623.htmAds by GoogleAdvertise here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Ocean Adventure
Bring the Ocean into Your School! Fun & Educational School Assemblies
www.theoceanadventure.com
Environmental Sensors
Solar Radiation, Spectroradiometer, Infrared Temperature, & Soil Oxygen
www.apogeeinstruments.com
Keck Graduate Institute
Science or engineering undergrad degree? Looking for options?
www.kgi.edu
Join the Green Revolution
Organic, Sustainable, Fair Trade Luxury Goods at Barney's New York.
www.Barneys.com
Math and Science Tutors
OnlineTutoring in Math and Science Free Trial-No credit card
www.esteinstutor.com
Related Stories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact Of Global Warming On Weather Patterns Underestimated (Sep. 22, 2005) ? The impact of global warming on European weather patterns has been underestimated, according to a new report published in Nature this week. The Northern Hemisphere Circulation study found that ... > read more
Insides Of Clouds May Be The Key To Climate Change (Feb. 25, 2007) ? As climate change scientists develop ever more sophisticated climate models to project an expected path of temperature change, it is becoming increasingly important to include the effects of aerosols ... > read more
Evidence Shaky For Sun's Major Role In Past Climate Changes (Oct. 1, 2004) ? Computer models of Earth's climate have consistently linked long-term, high-magnitude variations in solar output to past climate changes. Now a closer look at earlier studies of the Sun casts ... > read more
Satellite Instruments Reveal Evidence The Atmosphere Has Gotten Warmer And Wetter Over The Past Decade (Jan. 28, 2000) ? Frank Wentz, a physicist at Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., has confirmed that the atmosphere has gotten warmer and wetter over the last decade. The results of his research will appear ... > read more
Rising Surface Ozone Reduces Plant Growth And Adds To Global Warming (Jul. 27, 2007) ? Scientists have just released new findings that could have major implications for food production and global warming in the 21st century. Researchers have found that projections of increasing ozone ... > read more

 

[piasabird]

Glen Beck suggest that the government should do nothing. How often has Government intervention actually solved problems?

Someone gets this great idea to use Corn to make a blend of gasoline. So now a bottle of soda costs more. Do you realize what an affect a rise in the price of High Fructose Corn Syrup has had? This sweetener is in an alarmingly wide array of food products. All of these products now cost more. I do not call that progress or improvement.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Glen Beck suggest that the government should do nothing. How often has Government intervention actually solved problems?

Someone gets this great idea to use Corn to make a blend of gasoline. So now a bottle of soda costs more. Do you realize what an affect a rise in the price of High Fructose Corn Syrup has had? This sweetener is in an alarmingly wide array of food products. All of these products now cost more. I do not call that progress or improvement.

If I don't drive 100 mph on the freeway, it takes me slightly longer to get to work. On the other hand, I have much less of a chance of getting in a horrible accident and not making it to the office at all.

Every action has trade-offs, do you honestly expect there to be a perfect solution to every problem? The fact that cheap food sweeteners are slightly more expensive is not an argument against cleaner gas that uses less oil, at least not without quantifying the benefits of each solution. Maybe cheaper HFCS is better than ethanol gas, but maybe not. The fact that using corn in gas is not without side-effects doesn't mean it's a bad idea, for God's sake, EVERY solution is like that.

And what the heck are you doing letting Glen Beck tell you what to think? The assertion that government has never solved problems is one of the dumber things I've ever heard. If there is anything government is ideally suited for, it's trying to solve large scale, long term problems that threaten our national well-being. The climate is one of those long-term externalities that industry and consumers simply won't care about until it's too late.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Glen Beck suggest that the government should do nothing. How often has Government intervention actually solved problems?

Someone gets this great idea to use Corn to make a blend of gasoline. So now a bottle of soda costs more. Do you realize what an affect a rise in the price of High Fructose Corn Syrup has had? This sweetener is in an alarmingly wide array of food products. All of these products now cost more. I do not call that progress or improvement.

The price of corn and other grains is driven by the meat industries, especially pork and beef. Over 60% of grain production is used as animal feed. People eating meat has a far larger impact on grain demand that the comparatively tiny amount that is used for fuel production. So if you want to find the correct someone to blame for high corn prices, blame the meat eaters.
http://www.openi.co.uk/h031222.htm

Meat requires far more land, water, and food to produce than eating legumes and other vegetables. Thus any argument against corn on the basis of grain costs must first be levied against the meat industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_rate
Animals that have a low FCR are considered efficient users of feed. Poultry usually can convert 2-3 kg of feed into 1 kg of live weight, while sheep and cattle need more than 8 kg of feed to put on 1 kg of live weight. The U.S. pork industry claims to have an FCR of 3.4-3.6 [1]. Farm raised Atlantic salmon apparently have a very good FCR, about 1.2. Nonetheless this value is an underestimation of the FCR, for it does not take in account that more than often the feed is in kg of ?dry? weight and the live weight is in kg of ?wet? weight.