This was an eye opener - cont.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love this quote from the article linked above:

"By its very nature, this kind of failure (of the model) is inconceivable before it is observed to have happened; because we cannot assign a meaningful probability to this occurrence, all results at the boundaries of our understanding must be treated as fundamentally uncertain."

This is basically what I was trying to get across to ctenophors rule: that scientists are sure they are right until proven wrong, he just said it far more eloquently than I.

What that statement means is: there is no way to show a model is wrong until it fails to predict the future ( or the outcome of the system being modeled).
WHEN will we know if a Climate model was/is no good?.... IN THE FUTURE!

That is the best way of describing the uncertainties in a model that I have ever read.


Sorry - EDIT - HAD to add this quote "nothing horrible happens that takes the model beyond its range of validity (e.g., no asteroid collides with the earth)," HA!

Stu
 
SO if we try to model the climate back only 1 million years, then any significant "event" (super volcano, asteroid impact, etc. ) throws the validity of the model out the window.

Models cannot be made to fit long term data when there are disturbances ( or forcing functions ) that come from OUTSIDE the system being modeled.

SO... our climate models can only be valid as far back as the last "non-modeled perturbation to the system".

Anyone know when that was? ( I sure dont )

the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?....sorry couldnt resist

Stu
 
I really have to say that was the best article on modeling I have ever read. I could quote that gem for days....

"œThere is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain." Alfred N. Whitehead

"Models, when they do apply, will hold only in certain circumstances. Belief in extrapolation outside observed circumstances is largely a question of faith: we cannot know a priori whether we are discovering Neptunes or Vulcans. We may, however, be able to identify shortcomings of our model even within the known circumstances and thereby increase our understanding. "

"There are many more ways to be wrong in a 106 dimensional space than there are ways to be right. But there is also a difference between not knowing where to start, and no such place existing. The first is a question of state estimation, the second a question of shadowing, and thus model error."

So many more....

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15431890#post15431890 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
SO if we try to model the climate back only 1 million years, then any significant "event" (super volcano, asteroid impact, etc. ) throws the validity of the model out the window.

Models cannot be made to fit long term data when there are disturbances ( or forcing functions ) that come from OUTSIDE the system being modeled.

SO... our climate models can only be valid as far back as the last "non-modeled perturbation to the system".

Anyone know when that was? ( I sure dont )

the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?....sorry couldnt resist

Stu
Click to expand...

If we want to get technical, that would be about 1E-34 seconds ago (Planck's time). I just blinked my eyes and that sort of thing isn't in the model.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15430853#post15430853 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
No, not at all. Let me give an example...

If a new movie came out, you might ask your friends if they have seen it. You might ask them if it was good or not. You are likely to get a variety of answers. One person will say that they didn't like the movie because the plot was thin. Another person might say that they loved the movie because the action was so intense, etc. None of those opinions are wrong, but they all let you know something different about the movie.

It is a different way of finding the "mean", as you described it. Instead of relying on a few "consensus documents", I prefer to go to the actual primary sources of information because they usually give a better detail about the subject and are better at demonstrating the diversity of opinions.

Lets say you asked all your friends to get together and write you a report about their collective opinion of the movie. To achieve a consensus, they might have to sacrifice some of the details that they dispute amongst themselves in order to give you something that they all agree on. I'd rather have all the details by asking each friend individually.

Scott
Click to expand...

i am confused as to how only reading individuals reports will give you a better consensus....because the percentage of believers would amost definately be smaller than the percentage of non believers.....
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15431954#post15431954 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
i am confused as to how only reading individuals reports will give you a better consensus....because the percentage of believers would amost definately be smaller than the percentage of non believers.....
Click to expand...

Why would you say that? Thats not true at all.

Scott
 
ScooterTDI,

" I just blinked my eyes and that sort of thing isn't in the model. "


So what youre trying to say is ( from article above again):

"Consider the earth's climate system as a nonlinear dynamical system. The current state of the atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, and so on, ......... It is, of course, unlikely that such a deterministic state space exists, because it would have to include, among other things, us."

Geez I love that article, wish we could have quoted from it at the beginning of this whole thing ;-)

Stu
 
WOW! I go on vacation for a couple of days and you guys all go to town! It's going to take me a day to catch up.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15432056#post15432056 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
ScooterTDI,

" I just blinked my eyes and that sort of thing isn't in the model. "


So what youre trying to say is ( from article above again):

"Consider the earth's climate system as a nonlinear dynamical system. The current state of the atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, and so on, ......... It is, of course, unlikely that such a deterministic state space exists, because it would have to include, among other things, us."

Geez I love that article, wish we could have quoted from it at the beginning of this whole thing ;-)

Stu
Click to expand...

Yea, I exagerated a bit, but a small perturbation to the system is still a perturbation to the system.

Scott
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15431983#post15431983 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
Why would you say that? Thats not true at all.

Scott
Click to expand...

i mean those that write scientific documents.

more scientist are in agreance with the "catastrophy" than the lesser effect, how many times can you say the same thing? so if eah group had ten scientist that wrote reports, the percentage of scientist would be greater on the side with less scientist believing.

2%of 100=2

2% of 1,000=....>2

2> >2
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15432581#post15432581 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
i mean those that write scientific documents.

more scientist are in agreance with the "catastrophy" than the lesser effect, how many times can you say the same thing? so if eah group had ten scientist that wrote reports, the percentage of scientist would be greater on the side with less scientist believing.

2%of 100=2

2% of 1,000=....>2

2> >2
Click to expand...

I don't understadn your math here. Let me attempt to rewrite your math in a reasonable form to make sure I am understanding you:

100 X 0.02 = 2 lesser effect advocates publishing papers
1000 X 0.02 = 20 catastrophe effect advocates publishing papers

Now, 1000 people are in the catastrophe population and 100 people are in the lesser effect population. So, there are 10 times as many people who advocate a catastrophe stance as who advocate a lesser effect stance.

Of those publishing papers, 20 people are in the catastrophe group and 2 people are in the lesser effect group. there are 10 times as many people who publish papers advocating a catastrophe stance as who publish papers advocating a lesser effect stance.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. In your scenario, the relative proportions of stances are not distorted by looking at the published papers.

Believe me, as apparent from abundant literature on the possible effects of AGW, there is not shortage of ways to say similar things.

I am not sure why you are contesting the manner in which I choose to gather data. In almost all cases in life, relying on a single source (or a very limited set of sources) of information is a risky thing. There is a lot of information that isn't included in broad consensus documents.

Scott
 
i was saying that 2 is greater than a number less than 2 using the signs

> greater than and <less than i made 2>(is greater than) >(less than)2

but i digrest the point....might pick back up on it later...tooo damn buissy
 
Here's another question I have about the Climate Models:

How much do they account for the life on Earth in the global CO2 consupmtion, O2 generation, & GWGs budget? ( OTHER than livestock farts? ;-)

It occurred to me that recent discoveries about the extensity of biota in extreme locales may put another unknown into the climate model.

Last I heard: No matter how deep we dig into the earth, we still find life there...

Does the Climate model account for the possibility that the REAL life on the earth ( Under ground ) might exceed the "surface life" by a factor of thousands or millions?

Is it not possible that underground processes might account for HUGE quantities of generation or sequestration of GWGs?

THIS is what I really think generates oil & NG.

Curious

Stu
 
can u please explain a little more about your, microbes create oil theory? do u mean, they al die and keep reproducing and that creates oil? or they eat the dead organics, and turn that into oil through some metabolic process?

jw sounds interesting..i'm not yet sold....but.....maybe if u tell me why ur sold i might "convert" (now theirs an odd word for scientific disussion)
 
I would assume it is a similar process like getting biodiesel from phytoplankton.

I too am curious. Very interesting theory. If correct, that would have implications for placing oil in the renewable resource category. (I realize, that technically it is, but over many millenia)
 
For the question about the source of Oil:

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

( And DONT ding me because of the quick Google source ;-)

Here's the source about Titan I mentioned before:

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMCSUUHJCF_index_0.html

(FWIW - I worked on the DISR instrument that actually took the pictures of Titan's surface during descent & AFTER landing )


I have been following the "Oil fields seem to be refilling themselves" discussion for years.


However I am still interested in the question:

"DO the standard Climate models account for the life that exists within the earth BIO system?"

Stu
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Paul B
IMO How to set up a tank to stay healthy and immune
2
Replies
20
Views
770
Paul B
Paul B
Fiish
Nitrites and nitrate toxicity
Replies
10
Views
566
Fiish
Fiish
Paul B
Earthworms as fish food
Replies
4
Views
354
xLennie
xLennie
3
Ammonium Chloride and oxidizer (KMnO4), to grow corals, less water changes, and very low organo-phosphates:
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
JCOLE
JCOLE
Noah_Reefing
An essay on sustainable fishing
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
jamsymaz
J
Back
Top