Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Something wrong with being "a dad"? Are the IPCC folks sterile, and therefore more credible?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TCD View Post
      Something wrong with being "a dad"? Are the IPCC folks sterile, and therefore more credible?

      Hopefully you're just trying to be humorous. The point was that the person posting the link doesn't even know who is backing his experts. The same so called argument that is made against the "alarmists". I must admit this topic has been interesting on several levels but if its not evident by now, nobody has all the answers including those of us killing time by posting responses.
      “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
      ― Cormac McCarthy

      Comment


      • I still have not seen any proof that man made CO2 negatively effects the climate.

        We really have no idea of what is normal when it comes to the climate, because the climate has proven to vary drastically over extremely long periods. We could be in a normal and gradual cooling trend or a normal and gradual warming trend.

        Resources should be used wisely, but that does not mean we should artificially quadruple energy costs to appease a vocal minority that bases their judgement on fiction.

        I am very wary of anyone saying we should do something quick, without a full and comprehensive vetting. Every time the "hurry up and pass the law quick" crowd gets their way, everyone suffers and is much worse. That is one "model" that has been proven time and time again.

        I still maintain that a slow and gradual transition to renewable and sustainable energy sources is our best course of action.

        Comment


        • I swore I was out of this debate but:

          Oscar Wilde:Work is the curse of the drinking class

          Comment


          • So, how many of us will be walking, riding bikes, driving solar cars, ect to the Adirondack Park this year?

            Come on now, it's time to lead the way, save humanity, help Mother Earth.

            Comment


            • Just in case GW is true I bought a smaller car and go 10 mph slower on the highway.
              Just in case it isn't true I still go to the Dacks (120 miles each way).

              For 28 years now I have used a combination of walking and public transit to go (6 miles each way) to work.
              The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.

              Comment


              • I walk EVERYDAY to work and ride my bike as often as possible for exercise when conditions permit. The car typically only gets driven when I go play deeper in the park or to buy things not found within. Beyond that Troy64 has my vote for President!

                Comment


                • I just got done reading a disappointing and long winded article (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/1...t/#more-107650) calling the IPCC Climate model performance mediocre at best.

                  Although I agreed with their conclusions I was very disappointed that they did not mention the most glaring error. Fortunately one of the readers mentions it in the comment section. In addition the article mentions a few things I did not know. Here they are:

                  1. The IPCC acknowledges that over the last 15 years there has been a divergence between Model predictions and real world temperatures. “There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2013).”

                  2. Despite this divergence the IPCC claims that their Models are accurate of the time period of 1951 to 2012. “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend.”

                  3. And that because of this accuracy they are very confident in their models. “The IPCC gave it “very high confidence”—the highest level of confidence that they assign.”

                  I'm happy that the IPCC finally admitted the first although I know the are blowing it off as a “temporary pause”. I was shocked to read 2 and 3 though. The reason why is that point 2 is so flawed I'm surprised that anyone other than a neophyte modeler would try to pull this off unless the motive was DECEPTCION. Its dumb beyond belief. Although the article's authors did not catch it a commenter did. Here is what he said.

                  Pat Frank says:
                  April 16, 2014 at 6:45 pm
                  Models are tuned to reproduce the 20th century air temperature anomaly trend. It would only be surprising if they didn’t successfully track HadCRUT. The reason they don’t track air temperature since year 2000 or so is because the recent years are out of sample and the air temperature trend has inconveniently changed slope.
                  When models are tuned to reproduce the trend of years 1880-2000, they need one set of parameters. Since the observed trend has changed slope since year 2000, there is a need for a different set of parameters. The previous set of parameters is no longer adequate.
                  The embarrassment of the previous trend slow-down, 1940-1974 or so, was fixed by fudging the models with supposed NH aerosols. But aerosols are no longer available. So the modelers are stuck. They haven’t figured out a plausible excuse to re-fudge the models to make them fit the recent data.
                  This all goes to show that climate models are analogous to engineering models. They’re heavily ad hoc parametrized to fit a certain range of data. Outside that range, they quickly diverge from reality. Inside that range, they can reproduce trends, but they can’t explain the causal physics behind the trends.
                  Climate models are, in short, useless. I hope to publish a paper showing exactly how useless they are. Meanwhile here’s my recent AGU Meeting poster (2.9 mb pdf) describing the wonderfully predictive utility of CMIP5 climate models.

                  Do you see his point? When doing model validation you NEVER INCLUDE THE MODELED DATA IN YOU SAMPLE. The model is fitting its answer (coefficients) to form the best fit to the data. To include your modeled years in the evaluation will show that the model performance is much better than it really is. As Frank explains it would be a surprise if the model didn't succeed.

                  Normally in model validation you use a HOLDOUT sample of data that was not included in your modeled data set.

                  This is why the period from 2000 on and the poor model performance is so important. Its essentially you HOLDOUT sample. The fact that the model estimates are poor since 2000 and are getting progressively worse as time goes by indicates a potential fatally flawed model.

                  So is 15 years of holdout enough? No. You need more data. But it does provide enough proof to me that we need to take it slow in our CO2 solutions before we even determine IF there is a problem.

                  I should point out that Climate Models have been poor since 1979 even though I know that 25 years of that were in the Model Dataset. I've shown this graph before. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr..._image0024.jpg

                  Comment


                  • I'm also reposting this as on a simple level would like to know whether or not this has merit:


                    This is plagiarized from a poster on the NY Times comments section. It seems to break the issue down better than arguing over graphs:

                    "Global warming is easy to understand as a result of some simple and basic physics. The more energy retained by a system, the warmer it's going to be. Since we can measure the present energy imbalance going on at the top of the atmosphere, and have been able to do so consistently since 1979, it should be obvious that the overall climate system will warm because of the added energy since we've measured a surplus every year. All the rest is just details, such as where and how fast the average surface temperature goes up, how much heat goes into the oceans, or to melt ice, or to make plants grow, etc. Those are the detailed specifics that scientists from many disciplines are trying to figure out. But they all agree that the system is warming and that we're the cause because of our changing of greenhouse gas concentrations.

                    We've been affecting greenhouse gas concentrations, in one way or another, since the dawn of civilization and agriculture thousands of years ago. .... It's actually only over the last 200 years that we've accelerated the changes enough and really made them noticeable. Of course we know that the changes continue to accelerate as we pursue business as usual."
                    “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                    ― Cormac McCarthy

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Glen View Post
                      I'm also reposting this as on a simple level would like to know whether or not this has merit:


                      This is plagiarized from a poster on the NY Times comments section. It seems to break the issue down better than arguing over graphs:

                      "Global warming is easy to understand as a result of some simple and basic physics. The more energy retained by a system, the warmer it's going to be. Since we can measure the present energy imbalance going on at the top of the atmosphere, and have been able to do so consistently since 1979, it should be obvious that the overall climate system will warm because of the added energy since we've measured a surplus every year. All the rest is just details, such as where and how fast the average surface temperature goes up, how much heat goes into the oceans, or to melt ice, or to make plants grow, etc. Those are the detailed specifics that scientists from many disciplines are trying to figure out. But they all agree that the system is warming and that we're the cause because of our changing of greenhouse gas concentrations.

                      We've been affecting greenhouse gas concentrations, in one way or another, since the dawn of civilization and agriculture thousands of years ago. .... It's actually only over the last 200 years that we've accelerated the changes enough and really made them noticeable. Of course we know that the changes continue to accelerate as we pursue business as usual."
                      There seems to be some confusion here. As I understand it what is proven beyond question is that a doubling of CO2 will cause a corresponding rise in temperature of 1.2C. Its a logarithmic function.

                      What the IPCC is predicting (thru modeling) is a rise of 1.5 to 4C per doubling of CO2. The additional temperature is due to certain positive feedbacks. That part was obtained thru modeling past data and is unproven and in dispute.

                      Comment


                      • Cityboy,

                        I'm not asking about the math or the comparison between any other posts. Just standing on it's own, does the concept stand up to logic?

                        Thx.
                        “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                        ― Cormac McCarthy

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Glen View Post
                          Cityboy,

                          I'm not asking about the math or the comparison between any other posts. Just standing on it's own, does the concept stand up to logic?

                          Thx.
                          "The more energy retained by a system, the warmer it's going to be. Since we can measure the present energy imbalance going on at the top of the atmosphere, and have been able to do so consistently since 1979, it should be obvious that the overall climate system will warm because of the added energy since we've measured a surplus every year."

                          Correct

                          "All the rest is just details, such as where and how fast the average surface temperature goes up, how much heat goes into the oceans, or to melt ice, or to make plants grow, etc. Those are the detailed specifics that scientists from many disciplines are trying to figure out."

                          Correct but those are pretty big "details". The slower the rate the less need for drastic action such as the UN calling for no more CO2 emission by 2100.

                          "But they all agree that the system is warming and that we're the cause because of our changing of greenhouse gas concentrations."

                          In dispute. Most agree that temperature is warming since 1850. Quite a bit of people dispute man's contribution. Most would differ on the percent due to natural versus manmade.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                            There seems to be some confusion here. As I understand it what is proven beyond question is that a doubling of CO2 will cause a corresponding rise in temperature of 1.2C. Its a logarithmic function.

                            What the IPCC is predicting (thru modeling) is a rise of 1.5 to 4C per doubling of CO2. The additional temperature is due to certain positive feedbacks. That part was obtained thru modeling past data and is unproven and in dispute.
                            The physics related to CO2 in the atmosphere are understood and have been since the 1890's. Venus is a good model of what happens when you have way too much of the stuff. So, as Glen's post pointed out, it's a question of where all the extra energy is going. Forget about the data set being played against 'the' model. The guys doing this work are not first year students in statistics and have considered this. The central issue is the net difference in heat captured by the atmosphere over time. For those interested in the theory (not model!) here's a very interesting presentation on a part of the problem:



                            In the end that heat will manifest itself in atmospheric temperature rise.
                            Oscar Wilde:Work is the curse of the drinking class

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by vtflyfish View Post
                              The physics related to CO2 in the atmosphere are understood and have been since the 1890's. Venus is a good model of what happens when you have way too much of the stuff. So, as Glen's post pointed out, it's a question of where all the extra energy is going. Forget about the data set being played against 'the' model. The guys doing this work are not first year students in statistics and have considered this. The central issue is the net difference in heat captured by the atmosphere over time. For those interested in the theory (not model!) here's a very interesting presentation on a part of the problem:



                              In the end that heat will manifest itself in atmospheric temperature rise.
                              "The physics related to CO2 in the atmosphere are understood and have been since the 1890's."

                              The "understood" part is as I've stated 1.2C, no more.

                              "Forget about the data set being played against 'the' model. The guys doing this work are not first year students in statistics and have considered this."

                              Two things:
                              First the IPCC is comprised of two parts. One devoted to science and the other to politics. So your scientists may not be students but the summary committee is political and as is accustomed to politics they're prone to "spin" the news.

                              Second although you want to forget the data I and many others won't.

                              Here is some simple math. If the IPCC is calling for an average of 3.2C per doubling of CO2 and only 1.2C is undisputed that leaves 2C up for grabs.
                              That part was derived from modeling and for the reasons the commenter Frank stated is greatly in dispute, if not flat out wrong.

                              And if according to the IPCC less than 2C is not a big problem then there is every reason to SLOWLY reduce CO2 emissions and NOT disrupt world economies.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                                "The physics related to CO2 in the atmosphere are understood and have been since the 1890's."

                                The "understood" part is as I've stated 1.2C, no more.

                                "Forget about the data set being played against 'the' model. The guys doing this work are not first year students in statistics and have considered this."

                                Two things:
                                First the IPCC is comprised of two parts. One devoted to science and the other to politics. So your scientists may not be students but the summary committee is political and as is accustomed to politics they're prone to "spin" the news.

                                Second although you want to forget the data I and many others won't.

                                Here is some simple math. If the IPCC is calling for an average of 3.2C per doubling of CO2 and only 1.2C is undisputed that leaves 2C up for grabs.
                                That part was derived from modeling and for the reasons the commenter Frank stated is greatly in dispute, if not flat out wrong.

                                And if according to the IPCC less than 2C is not a big problem then there is every reason to SLOWLY reduce CO2 emissions and NOT disrupt world economies.
                                See the presentation in my previous post. We agree that 1.2C is the result of atmospheric CO2 alone and in isolation. The problem is other sources of positive feedback. Per the presentation, the remaining uncertainty is due to feedback in the global atmosphere/earth system, the major variables being atmospheric water vapor, ice-albedo, and cloud feedback.

                                If you are prepared to state these are zero I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying. Otherwise, your approach dooms us to an uncomfortable existence. BTW, concensus is that these could add as little as 2 and as much as 6 degrees to global temperature by 2100.

                                The major argument you put forth for not tackling the problem immediately is expense and difficulty in coordinationg global cooperation. There's a huge downside to your approach if you're wrong.

                                Note this: with every period of technological innovation in human history there has been a positive step change in prosperity. I challenge you to look at the global warming problem as if you were running a hedge fund: where would you place your bet: on the go-slow case???
                                Oscar Wilde:Work is the curse of the drinking class

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X