Page 43 of 46 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 452

Thread: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent [W:437]

  1. #421
    Sage
    flogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Wokingham, England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,338

    Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Um.... this is how stochastic processes work and are modelled.

    Statistically significant is a scientific term with an actual meaning. Basically, you form a statistical model of the process and then determine the probability that the differences you see between your model and the measured values can be explained with the given noise.
    p-value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Climate models are essentially mathematical constructs though. Given we cannot ascribe empirical values to the largest and most important of the variables used in its construction then how are we expected to reach any worthwhile result ? Errors inherent in the subjective inputting of such variables will multiply exponentially the longer the model runs which is indeed what we see with climate models vs observations today. In short garbage in = garbage out

  2. #422
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-16 @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    576

    Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

    The EPIC failure of climate models is getting pretty embarrassing by now, don't you think? Nature, a reliable spin shill for the climate lobby, is doing their best to put lipstick on dozens of model oinkers. It's increasingly clear that alarmist flim-flams are reality's new roadkill.

    The discrepancy between models and actual surface temperatures in 2014 was the fourth highest in “recorded” history and that the 5 largest warm discrepancies have occurred in the past 6 years. The repeated and growing discrepancy between models and observations is beyond precedent - for both surface and satellite comparisons.

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/11/u...l-discrepancy/

    For example, the figure below compares CMIP4.5 RCP4.5 models to updated surface observations, with a lower panel showing the discrepancy between observations and CMIP5 RCP4.5 model mean. The red and blue dotted lines show what the current vs. required future trends that are necessary for the model to 'catch up' to it predictions by 2030.



    And a graphic plot for satellite temperature shows the discrepancy between model and observed data is even larger, and is increasingly dramatic.



    Piltdown Man...Lysenkoism...steady state theory...climate models...the history of fraud and flim-flam continues...

  3. #423
    Professor

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:55 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,175

    Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

    Quote Originally Posted by maxparrish View Post
    That graph, from the non-skeptical 'skeptical science', is a bit of a strawman. Skeptics have a variety of views, including that the "natural climate variability" occurs over many centuries...not just decades. Hence, they note that the Holocene, the era of Rome, and the MWP were as or more warm than today. And then there are other skeptics (myself included) that believe there is man-enhanced global warming, but such warming is very modest and likely beneficial.

    Pointing out a linear trend upwards from 1950 to 2010 is mainly undisputed. The real question is how much of the trend since the end of the little ice age is 'natural' and how much of it is man induced.
    I'm not sure that's the real question, but it is certainly a fair point. It's difficult to keep any rigor in these sorts of discussions as many of the participants are approaching this with about a 3rd graders understanding.

    A more important question, which is seldom addressed, is what is the likely climate outcome given a particular set of policy actions on CO2 (etc...) emissions. How does bending the emissions curve bend the temperature curve? How does it bend the economy curve?

    Forget the reasons why, increasing global temperature will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy. So too will scarcity of fossil fuels. Restrictions and efficiency mandates will also have a negative effect on the economy. However, they will also offset some of the negative effects of climate change AND resource scarcity. So the real question is what should we do now to put us in the best shape economically for the future?

  4. #424
    stb
    Nilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    4,334

    Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    Since the diurnal asymmetry seems to be present everywhere they look, and CO2 is one of the
    well distributed greenhouse gasses, it could be tied to CO2.
    For a given geographic location the intensity of incoming radiation is radically affected by day and night.
    I have a theory, that in sunlight conditions, nitrogen is excited, and passes a quantum vibrational mode
    to almost all of the CO2. (Yes it is a contact transfer).
    while the quantum excited cycle of CO2 is short in Human time, it is long in quantum time,
    between 20 and 50 ms. While the molecule is spontaneously decaying, it cannot absorb
    the 14 um ground emissions.
    (Basically I am saying that CO2 in the daytime stays in a state of population inversion.)
    This would explain why CO2 does what we think it should at night, but not in the daytime.
    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    I am not quite sure what in particular you are talking about, but my post was a theory
    about the observation of diurnal asymmetry.
    The vibrational exchange between nitrogen and CO2 is quite a common energy path.
    Carbon dioxide laser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I think I'm missing how the nitrogen is going to be excited given the lack of free electrons in the atmosphere?? Also vibrational contact transfer of energy is far more feasible in an enclosed container rather than out in the open.
    "Education is the only thing you can do that will change society. Everything else is just a band-aid." - Jacqueline de Chollet
    "Boys will be boys. But boys will not be president." - Ronald Regan

  5. #425
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 08:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

    Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

    Quote Originally Posted by flogger View Post
    It looks like both you and Travis 007 are here to waste everybody elses time by turning this into a US centric political hate game.
    In order to debate an issue meaningfully, one must understand the terms one chooses to employ, and whenever travis has been asked to define, in his own words, the terminology used in the evidence he attacks, he can't do it.

    And that's typical of conservatives--they're simply too dumb to understand any scientific words. So if you want a meaningful debate, then conservative posters either have to be ignored or removed.

  6. #426
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-16 @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    576

    Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    I'm not sure that's the real question, but it is certainly a fair point. It's difficult to keep any rigor in these sorts of discussions as many of the participants are approaching this with about a 3rd graders understanding.

    A more important question, which is seldom addressed, is what is the likely climate outcome given a particular set of policy actions on CO2 (etc...) emissions. How does bending the emissions curve bend the temperature curve? How does it bend the economy curve?

    Forget the reasons why, increasing global temperature will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy. So too will scarcity of fossil fuels. Restrictions and efficiency mandates will also have a negative effect on the economy. However, they will also offset some of the negative effects of climate change AND resource scarcity. So the real question is what should we do now to put us in the best shape economically for the future?
    The problem is a rational policy maker has to deal with uncertainty and a chain of known (and unknown) probability. For example, suppose the chances of a temperature rise of greater than 1 degree centigrade is 50-50. Then suppose that the chances of significant climate change is 50-50. Then suppose the chance of good or bad effects are 50-50? One ends up with a 12.5 percent chance that there will be a significant rise in temperatures, that will in turn cause a significant change in climate, that will turnout to be "bad" rather than "good" economically.

    Now add in the uncertainty of just "how bad" the economics effect will be, as well as whether or not it is worth a penalty on the world economic to address? And if so, then there is the uncertainty of what strategy will actually work and is "best" (e.g. adaptation to change vs. geo-engineering vs. attempts to slow or stop change via heavy carbon taxes and/or regulation of greenhouse emissions).

    To say nothing of the political reality that any serious, verifiable, and coordinated plan will almost certainly never arise in the next 20 years.

    My own view is simple: the next generations will be far richer than today, and their technology far more advanced. Let them fix it - after all, they will be the one's inheriting the standard of living and capital built by their fore-fathers.

  7. #427
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,344

    Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Um.... this is how stochastic processes work and are modelled.

    Statistically significant is a scientific term with an actual meaning. Basically, you form a statistical model of the process and then determine the probability that the differences you see between your model and the measured values can be explained with the given noise.
    p-value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Statistically significant is a scientific term with an actual meaning that is not well understood by most people (and most scientists).

    In the model you described earlier, there was no comparison between the model and measured values. All you were doing (insofar as it was described in that post) was testing the hypothesis that any fluctuations in climate are entirely due to random processes with no real change in climate over time.

  8. #428
    Sage
    flogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Wokingham, England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,338

    Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    A more important question, which is seldom addressed, is what is the likely climate outcome given a particular set of policy actions on CO2 (etc...) emissions.How does bending the emissions curve bend the temperature curve? How does it bend the economy curve?
    Given that as I mentioned earlier the human CO2 fingerprint on global temperature has yet to be detected against the noise of natural background variability much less quantified in its impact any economic move would be premature in the extreme.

    Forget the reasons why, increasing global temperature will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy.
    How so ? Longer growing seasons and greater crop yields will potentially benefit millions. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere will help compound that added growth too.

    So too will scarcity of fossil fuels.
    The new gas fracking technologies coming online in the US and elsewhere have rather pushed that gloomy scenario further away than ever. With the potential for much cheaper plentiful energy in the future we could in fact be looking at a new economic boomtime much like the one we enjoyed in the 25 years after WW2

    Restrictions and efficiency mandates will also have a negative effect on the economy
    So don't introduce them

    However, they will also offset some of the negative effects of climate change AND resource scarcity.
    Not necessarily as previously outlined. Indeed the very opposite might well be the case

    So the real question is what should we do now to put us in the best shape economically for the future?
    I'd say invest in cheaper cleaner gas fracking technologies with all haste. This also has the added bonus of negating the need for the costly replacement of energy generation infrastructure too

  9. #429
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,858

    Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    I'm not sure that's the real question, but it is certainly a fair point. It's difficult to keep any rigor in these sorts of discussions as many of the participants are approaching this with about a 3rd graders understanding.

    A more important question, which is seldom addressed, is what is the likely climate outcome given a particular set of policy actions on CO2 (etc...) emissions. How does bending the emissions curve bend the temperature curve? How does it bend the economy curve?

    Forget the reasons why, increasing global temperature will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy. So too will scarcity of fossil fuels. Restrictions and efficiency mandates will also have a negative effect on the economy. However, they will also offset some of the negative effects of climate change AND resource scarcity. So the real question is what should we do now to put us in the best shape economically for the future?
    My answer is to encourage massive photovoltaic roof installs.
    I don't like regulations, but France may be on to something requiring new construction to have ether solar or green roofs.
    France decrees new rooftops must be covered in plants or solar panels | World news | The Guardian
    We should revamp the home solar rules to smooth the path for surplus energy purchase,
    and perhaps provide some tax incentives to older refineries that switch to man made hydrocarbon fuels.
    The surplus energy from the solar roofs would be stored as hydrocarbon fuels, and sold through
    existing distribution chains.
    Once the petrochemical Engineers get working on the processes, they will likely be able to improve the efficiency.
    It could also be possible to look at some sort of energy credit to solar homeowners, where they could use the credit
    to pay off season utility bills, or purchase fuel.

  10. #430
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    21,950

    Re: Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are

    Quote Originally Posted by solletica View Post
    In order to debate an issue meaningfully, one must understand the terms one chooses to employ, and whenever travis has been asked to define, in his own words, the terminology used in the evidence he attacks, he can't do it.

    And that's typical of conservatives--they're simply too dumb to understand any scientific words. So if you want a meaningful debate, then conservative posters either have to be ignored or removed.
    You mean if you want a circle jerk of Progressives who can parrot off their meaningless talking points without being challenged then Conservatives must be removed.

    If thats what you want why do you post here ? Go to the Democrat Underground. They don't let Conservative posters in there.

    You can slap each other on the back and gush over how smart you think you are and there's no one to correct you.

    Pretty cowardly if you ask me, but hey I don't post there.

Page 43 of 46 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •