This was an eye opener

[jdhuyvetter]

"calibrated proxies going back millions of years" Please explain tht one.

You also imply that calibrated observation stations have been operated continuously for 160 years. I seriously doubt the degree of accuracy/calibration 160 years ago was as good as today. Also, a huge amount of the data backing up the "global warming" theory has come from Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic ice masses. Where were those stations located?

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15323413#post15323413 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Huh? The two chief uses of models are to forecast and hindcast. You hindcast to test your understanding of the fundamental factors at play and to test the skill of the model and you forecast to project what to expect in the future if those factors continue to interact in the way they have in the past.

I would argue that forecasting for the purposes of trying to predict the future is a misuse of modeling. Forcasting for the purposes of learning something about the way in which a complex system may behave is more appropriate. There is subtle, but key, difference there.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15323413#post15323413 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Yes, but there is a big difference between assumptions built into the model itself and assumptions built into the input scenarios.

When your assumptions built into the model are based on physics or on relationships between variable that have been constrained within certain ranges then assuming continuation is pretty sound.

Your input scenarios are always going to contain questionable assumptions. However, you can violate assumptions of the input scenario leading to incorrect projections, but the model itself is still sound.[/B]

Yes, there is a distinction between input assumptions and model assumptions. Both are problematic. In my experience, there can be some pretty hefty assumptions that are actually built into the models themselves. Most of these assumptions have some rational basis in physical theory/law, but they are not always entirely faithful to the theory/law from from which they are derived. Individually, the assumptions seem rational enough, but when you compile the effects of all of these seemingly valid assumptions you can drift pretty far from reality.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15323413#post15323413 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
I've never met a modeler in any field that makes that assumption. It's understood that models are simplifications of reality. However, rather than making any assumptions about whether you've included all of the most important factors you can TEST it by applying the model to hindcasts.[/B]

You are right, you will never hear them make that assumption explicitly, but you will notice that some modelers make that assumption implicitly in the way they advocate that their model ouputs should be interpreted/used.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15323413#post15323413 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Well they are our best estimates of what to expect. Would you prefer policy based on naive assumptions or best estimates?[/B]

I would argue that much of the "best estimates" are based around "naive assumptions" themselves. I would prefer that policy not be based upon modeling. Modeling may be considered, but it should be understood that modeling cannot tell us what will happen.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15323413#post15323413 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Yes, but I'm not sure how the limitation of understanding gives any comfort. It's a two way street. It means we're just as likely to be UNDERestimating the impacts as we are to be overestimating. Judging by the performance of forecasts, we've been erring more to the side of underestimation. [/B]

I wouldn't say it ought to give comfort, just a dose of reality.

Scott

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15322996#post15322996 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
Modeling results can be considered, but only with the caveat that they shouldn't be treated as a prediction. Modeling may help us understand how certain aspects (i.e. temperature) of the environment might respond to specific changes (i.e. CO2 concentrations), but it must be understood that we do not know 1) if our models address all of the relevant factors involved and 2) if the underlying assumptions in our models are valid.

Scott

Well, come on Scott, you know that almost ALL scientific studies fall short of PROVING anything. As far as I can tell, you aren't bringing up any issue regarding modeling that isn't already considered in the final conclusion.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15323535#post15323535 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
I would argue that much of the "best estimates" are based around "naive assumptions" themselves. I would prefer that policy not be based upon modeling. Modeling may be considered, but it should be understood that modeling cannot tell us what will happen.

Scott

What are we going to base policy on then? Are you suggesting that we we throw out everything we know about climatology, accumulated observations, and dare I say a little common sense just because we don't have an infallible crystal ball? Good god man, excuse me while I sit on my thumb and forget that I have a brain.

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15324436#post15324436 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Well, come on Scott, you know that almost ALL scientific studies fall short of PROVING anything. As far as I can tell, you aren't bringing up any issue regarding modeling that isn't already considered in the final conclusion.

I think you are misinterpreting me here. I am not stating that modeling must prove something to be useful or that true scientific studies must prove something to be useful. I am simply stating that a correlation does not imply causality, though people often interpret them that way. Also, it is important to make a distinction between scientific studies and modeling studies. Modeling is not science. Actually, it is much more of an art than a science.

From my own experience dealing with people who have little direct modeling experience, I would disagree with you on your second comment. Politicians, as well as the general public, are not familiar with what modeling can truly tell us. They get reports or media coverage of some new finding based upon modeling that shows that climate change is a problem. These modeling results often are interpreted as hard fact. They do not generally understand the limitations associated with modeling.

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15324554#post15324554 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
What are we going to base policy on then? Are you suggesting that we we throw out everything we know about climatology, accumulated observations, and dare I say a little common sense just because we don't have an infallible crystal ball? Good god man, excuse me while I sit on my thumb and forget that I have a brain.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. When did I say we should ignore anything? We should base policy on methodical rational evaluation of the risks, costs, and benefits. This probably should include consideration of modeling results, but should not be based on them because of their associated limitations. Extrapolation is a very dangerous thing to base decisions on.

Scott

 

[virginiadiver69]

Scott, I'm sure there are many of use that are delighted to have you explain the concerns we've had with the assumptions that often get thrown around as conclusions.
Be careful though, you've poked the bear and, as you've noticed, your gonna have innuendo and straw man arguments heaped on you.

 

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15323522#post15323522 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
[BYou also imply that calibrated observation stations have been operated continuously for 160 years. I seriously doubt the degree of accuracy/calibration 160 years ago was as good as today. Also, a huge amount of the data backing up the "global warming" theory has come from Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic ice masses. Where were those stations located? [/B]

Where exactly are ALL of these stations located? What are they adjacent too?

 

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15302637#post15302637 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
When did "we" start removing sulfate from factory emissions? Was it just the U.S. that did this or worldwide?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15303411#post15303411 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Prince Myshkin
The early 1970s. It was the US and Japan at first with about 25 other countries joining in since then.

Your right...sulfur aerosols do have a localized and temporary cooling effect and are also naturally present in the atmosphere, produced mainly by volcanic activity. I wonder how much the lack of volcanic activity, thus less sulfur aerosols, has to do with the natural warming trend (that's been dormant for ~10 yrs.)? I guess it may be some time before we really know, due to the low level of scientific understanding of stratospheric sulfate aerosols. This lack of understanding may be why wild ideas of projects to limit the effect of this naturally occurring climate shift by loading the atmosphere with sulfate aerosols has been ridiculed as fanciful.

Now concerning this graph:

and your explanation discrediting it...
First you say this:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15302450#post15302450 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> Prince Myshkin
The climate does not respond instantaneously to any changes, especially to very short-term trends. You would not expect to see a 4 year trend in emissions have a noticeable effect on such a noisy dataset. Even if we completely stopped emitting all CO2 today the climate would continue to get warmer for several decades. That's such an important concept that it has its own term- climate inertia.

Then:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15302450#post15302450 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> Prince Myshkin
It's also no secret that there was a downturn in temp during the post-war boom, nor is that downturn a mystery. It's been widely known for some time that it was due to sulfate aerosols- which was the reason that a few scientists in the 1970s predicted continued cooling. After we started scrubbing them from factory emissions and switching to low-sulfur fuels, their influence went away and the warming trend dominated.

So a couple of countries reducing a minor contributor to a localized and temporary cooling effect changes the entire planet's climate...immediately?
Please don't accuse me of being "willfully ignorant"...I just wanna know where you stand before I finally right you off as a very smart sounding person that has sadly been blinded by your peer reviewed philosophy.
I've followed your strained philosophy through several of these threads and have watched you blatantly contradict yourself to suit your argument.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15225666#post15225666 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Parsifal
What isn't known is when it will peak.

Since we've had about 10 yrs of insignificant temp. variations...I would say it's possible that it’s already peaked.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15225666#post15225666 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Parsifal
The fact is that we are experiencing, and will continue to experience warming that is above what should be happening (yes, we would probably still be warming without humans).

What "should be happening"? Still...no one has had the courage to state what the GMT should be.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15225666#post15225666 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Parsifal
Hopefully the warming will offset the coming ice age until we have the tech to reverse it. It's a win win.

Amen brother!
I think we can all agree that any warming...natural or otherwise is much preferable to global cooling!

 

[billsreef]

Sigh....

virginiadiver69 what's with changing names of people when you quote them? Can't you debate without making it personal? I've yet to see you debate one of these climate threads without resorting to such insulting tactics, and I've warned you about such on multiple occasions. Do I need to ban you before you'll learn not go down that path?

 

[billsreef]

BTW consider this last warning I will give on the subject, next time the line gets crossed I'll put Buster to work.

 

[virginiadiver69]

Just having fun...I won't let it happen again though. No need to but buster to work.
Do you have any insight on my questions. I'm interested in your opinion.

 

[billsreef]

[chimp]

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15324682#post15324682 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. When did I say we should ignore anything? We should base policy on methodical rational evaluation of the risks, costs, and benefits. This probably should include consideration of modeling results, but should not be based on them because of their associated limitations. Extrapolation is a very dangerous thing to base decisions on.

Scott

There are two scenarios that the planet can follow here, both require modeling, and if you can think of a different route, please share.

Scenario 1: We act upon what the models are projecting, thereby giving us a chance at avoiding potential disaster.

Scenario 2: We wait for one or two hundred years while we collect more data through observation (because apparently that is the only valid data). Then we will still have to rely on model projections to determine what is needed.

We can not get away from using projections, the only question is when we decide to trust them. Are you willing to defer that decision to your kids or grandkids?

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15326468#post15326468 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Your right...sulfur aerosols do have a localized and temporary cooling effect and are also naturally present in the atmosphere, produced mainly by volcanic activity.

It's not localized, it gets into the upper atmosphere. And your little trick with the names was cute, except you wouldn't use Parsifal as an insult if you understood it, genius.

 

[Joshsmit56001]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15326442#post15326442 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Scott, I'm sure there are many of use that are delighted to have you explain the concerns we've had with the assumptions that often get thrown around as conclusions.
Be careful though, you've poked the bear and, as you've noticed, your gonna have innuendo and straw man arguments heaped on you.

Exactly!! You are considered an idiot if you don't believe in man-made climate change. Even if you show that they are completely wrong, you are still wrong. It is a losing situation for the global warming skeptic. I will leave with this quote from the great Rush Limbaugh ( Yea I listen to him because he is much smarter than you and I and most other Americans, most would see this if they would actually listen to him instead of making false assumptions) "I don't fight with the ignorant because it will make you look like an idiot as well!"

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15327608#post15327608 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Joshsmit56001
Exactly!! You are considered an idiot if you don't believe in man-made climate change. Even if you show that they are completely wrong, you are still wrong. It is a losing situation for the global warming skeptic. I will leave with this quote from the great Rush Limbaugh ( Yea I listen to him because he is much smarter than you and I and most other Americans, most would see this if they would actually listen to him instead of making false assumptions) "I don't fight with the ignorant because it will make you look like an idiot as well!"

Sorry, you haven't shown anything other than the inability to read this entire thread. I also listen to Rush probably 3 days a week, along with other right wingers, and I have to say that they are woefully ignorant when it comes to science. I mean, really, really bad. Rush is seriously one of the most scientifically ignorant people I can think of.

 

[billsreef]

Since we can't seem to keep people from going back to politics...and yes bringing up a media pundit that specializes in political commentary is bringing up politics...it's time to close this thread.

[chimp]