Scientists pull an about face on global warming

[Ion01 1]

Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?

Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents.

Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.

Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.

When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.

"How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."

But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.

While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.

Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030.

In the past year, two other groups of scientists--one in Germany, the second in the United States--have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans, but it will resume.

But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?

My point is they cannot. It's true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.

Lorne Gunter is a columnist with the Edmonton Journal and National Post.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do%3Dpost_write%3Bforum%3D35=Post+New

[JohnDeere 0]

Thanks for the read. Global cooling is back. Maybe Al Gore can switch his stance and get people to buy into more of his BS!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[lawrocket 3]

Putting this out there will be absolutely useless in terms of the debate. Those who are Believers will find this to be useless. The last 10 years are irrelevant. Any cooling or stabilization of temperature, while being directly contrary to AGW theory, must be ignored and stated to be irrelevant.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Putting this out there will be absolutely useless in terms of the debate. Those who are Believers will find this to be useless. The last 10 years are irrelevant. Any cooling or stabilization of temperature, while being directly contrary to AGW theory, must be ignored and stated to be irrelevant.

The impact of human activity on the planets ecosystems and environment is negative on a scale unimaginable, as we are still not fully aware of all the life forms and factors that allow us to exist.

Do you think they they knew that crustacians in antarctica effected the food chain on the ther side of the world 100 years ago? I bet they didn't, but i also would bet that they knew what was right and wrong just like we pretend to do these days.

It seems civilisations over 2000 years ago were more in touch with nature than we are today, we are stupid not intellegent. We are arrogent, not open minded.

Thise debate really comes down to whether you want to care for the world and respect it, or if you want to continue to use and abuse without contemplating the negative result of your actions.

only a fool will believe we can continue to consume the recources we are without having a devistating effect on our own ability to live in relative harmony with nature.

Once the world is poisoned we will all suffer.

I'm sure we can all agree with that, although most will be unwilling to admit it!

primates out of control!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[shropshire 0]

Hey If you don't support the 'popularist' view of global warming then you're clearly ungreen and a world hater

You're either with us or against us

[/sarcasm mode]

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

negative on a scale unimaginable

We are arrogent, not open minded.

whether you want to care for the world and respect it, or if you want to continue to use and abuse without contemplating the negative result of your actions

only a fool will believe.......devistating effect

world is poisoned we will all suffer.

most will be unwilling to admit it!

primates out of control!

certainly a cohesive and non-emotive argument, without arrogance or self-righteousness or judgement - designed to appeal and convince rather than name call - the use of facts and trends is particularly compelling

either that, or cut and paste from a typical religious zealots arguments on the existence of deity

either way - it's cool

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The impact of human activity on the planets ecosystems and environment is negative on a scale unimaginable, as we are still not fully aware of all the life forms and factors that allow us to exist.

It seems as though you've imagined it.

Quote

Do you think they they knew that crustacians in antarctica effected the food chain on the ther side of the world 100 years ago? I bet they didn't, but i also would bet that they knew what was right and wrong just like we pretend to do these days.

No. I doubt it. And this relates to anthropogenic global warming in what way?

Quote

It seems civilisations over 2000 years ago were more in touch with nature than we are today, we are stupid not intellegent. We are arrogent, not open minded.

Yes. They lived in jungles without such things as innoculations against diseases or other such matters. Yes, nature touched them all in a very distinct way. And nature's touching has its long-lasting effects, such as sickle cell.

Quote

Thise debate really comes down to whether you want to care for the world and respect it, or if you want to continue to use and abuse without contemplating the negative result of your actions.

That's nice. A good thing. You seem to be saying, "Our reasons for this AGW stuff aren't panning out so let's get serious. Human activity must be slowed because of its effects on the earth." This is completely unscientific, but I follow you.

Quote

only a fool will believe we can continue to consume the recources we are without having a devistating effect on our own ability to live in relative harmony with nature.

We are living in harmony with nature. But I personally like melodies, as well. THe harmonies of God Only Knows are wonderful, but I'm glad it was decided some lead vocals would be nice. Wouldn't it be nice?

Quote

Once the world is poisoned we will all suffer.

That's what was said. Not only will the world suffer, but it was said that we would suffer by .2C-.8C warming per decade. This would cause intense suffering and hardship.

Now, science is saying, "Hey. This catastrophe hasn't occurred."

Quote

I'm sure we can all agree with that, although most will be unwilling to admit it!

It depends. If we fight global warming by pumping sulfur into the atmosphere, the fix would be immediate. Sure, we'd kill off a substantial part of the oceans, but hey.

You are proposing human suffering. Which is worse? The suffering of losing energy production? Or the suffering of continuing energy production?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Try this, and I don't give a damn if it is from NewsMax. At least someone reported it

Quote

Treasury Memo: Cap and Trade Would Devastate U.S. Industrial Base, Trigger Energy Rationing

Tuesday, September 22, 2009 7:11 PM

Article Font Size

President Obama's cap-and-trade plan could deliver several blows to the U.S. economy, according to a Treasury Department memo that one observer described as "damning."

The country could lose 1 percent of its gross domestic product, face accelerated outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, and experience energy rationing if cap and trade became law, according to the memo, which the Competitive Enterprise Institute obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

“The memo was damning particularly . . . by pointing out what opponents of cap and trade have long said is the point of cap and trade, and has been proven by Europe’s experience,” said Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the institute. "You will chase off energy intensive industries ? meaning manufacturing jobs. The memo singles out steel, cement, chemical . . . glass, plastic, and ceramics ? the same ones that have been clobbered in Europe by this.

“This is the largest outsourcing scheme in history, not just in theory, but in practice,” he said.

The memo, prepared after Obama’s Feb. 24 speech to a joint session of Congress, details Treasury's analysis of the economic impact of cap and trade, which ties climate change to business practices.

The United States gained steel jobs from Spain because the manufacturer's costs under the European Union’s cap-and-trade program chased the jobs to Kentucky, Horner said. However, that foreshadows how cap and trade could cost the United States jobs that move abroad, he said.

The report concludes that cap and trade could result in the loss of the U.S. market share in the global economy.

The administration expects cap and trade to double the economic costs of all environmental regulations to the economy, and Horner said the 1 percent reduction in GDP would “institutionalize recession.”

Cap and trade could generate between $100 billion and $200 billion in federal revenue each year and would increase the cost of existing energy tax provisions, according to the memo.

The Treasury official who wrote the memo suggests using either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would price carbon at either a fixed tax rate or at a variable market price of emission allowances. The price would be set at a level where firms and consumers would experience enough financial pain to compel them to reduce their emissions.

“Cap and trade has one purpose, and that’s axiomatic, and that is to increase the cost of energy,” Horner said. “The president’s proposal ? and that’s what the Treasury is talking about ? would cause electricity prices to skyrocket [because] the cost of energy is embedded in everything, so you are talking about a very economically damaging proposal.

“Unless it really hurts, you are not going to really change your lifestyle.”

The memo also estimates that auctioning carbon allowances would generate $300 billion annually and could be used to offset taxes on labor and capital.

These internal revenue estimates stand in stark contrast to the Obama administration’s public statements concerning cap and trade.

“They are only vowing in their budget proposals, both in February and just three weeks ago in August, that they plan through selling all the ration coupons to raise only $65 billion,” Horner said. “The key is [they are] admitting privately what they won’t admit publicly.”

Cap and trade is a tax scheme, Horner said, noting that even Obama budget director Peter Orszag repeatedly wrote reports and testified that cap and trade is a tax when he ran the Congressional Budget Office.

“It quacks like a tax, looks like a tax, and does everything else like a tax,” Horner said. “The problem is cap and trade is too high of a tax.”

Horner speculated that the Treasury admission could impact the votes of certain senators such as Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who have sat on the fence regarding cap and trade. It also could affect the votes of some moderate House Democrats if cap and trade goes back to the House for a final vote.

The liberal Center for American Progress believes a large shift of U.S. jobs abroad is unlikely as a result of cap and trade because much of the world already has far more stringent environmental rules than the United States does.

“Unlike the United States, the rest of the world is actually already governed by a climate treaty,” said Brad Johnson, a climate researcher with the Center for American Progress. “And the entire European Union has not only committed to act, they have committed to essentially redouble their efforts if the U.S. joins. Other nations have already enacted things that are above and beyond what the United States is considering to enact.”

The free trade policies of the Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush administrations have had a far greater negative economic impact on the American manufacturing base than cap and trade would have, Johnson said.

“The idea that the reform of the energy sector ? that closing this huge pollution loophole and increasing regulatory oversight over the energy markets ? would do harm in a way that hasn’t been done by our current system . . . I find hard to stomach,” Johnson said.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rhys 0]

Quote

certainly a cohesive and non-emotive argument, without arrogance or self-righteousness or judgement - designed to appeal and convince rather than name call - the use of facts and trends is particularly compelling

either that, or cut and paste from a typical religious zealots arguments on the existence of deity

either way - it's cool

Thank you!

It was written off the top of my head with a fair bit of editing, as some of you can imagine, but they are my truthful thoughts and are parallell and consistent with my thoughts on many different subjects discussed here in the SC and in everyday life.


We all have opinions and most of us stand by them, if we don't know each others' opinions, then how can we ever be so sure that the way we are thinking is indeed... (what word would you use?).... correct?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

It seems as though you've imagined it.

Ahhh? Explain?

Quote

No. I doubt it. And this relates to anthropogenic global warming in what way?

It applys in the sence that we try to pretend that we know everything, when in fact we know fuck all in the great scheme of things, as life goes on and we learn and descover, we find that things we once thought correct, are in fact incorrect due to an overlooked and unaccounted factor.

Quote

Yes. They lived in jungles without such things as innoculations against diseases or other such matters. Yes, nature touched them all in a very distinct way. And nature's touching has its long-lasting effects, such as sickle cell.

They were more primative than us, yes.

As we will have been to those that may live well beyond our lifetimes. That is only if we allow them to use the very planet that has granted us our wellbeing.

We are so selfish and ignorant of the destruction that is going on around us, we only care of what we can achieve in our own lifetimes, Never even stopping to consider what may be, or may not be if we continue this ruthless pillage of the earths natural rescources.

The carnage we have achieved over the last couple of hundred years is already irreversable, but we could manage to develop a healthy sustainable ecology if we wish to understand and respect it, and give thought to others (Including all life forms) than ourselves.

Unfortunately that is not exactly mainstream thinking in this period, I can see a slow progression though and things are looking like we are making progress in the right direction.

The problem with human beings however, is things need to get to a point where we absolutely need to change before we do anything about it, if only we could ingest the information we consatntly have surrounding us, instead of living day by day, trying to survive, while living our megre lives in the society we are born and raised into.

Quote

You seem to be saying, "Our reasons for this AGW stuff aren't panning out so let's get serious.

I'm saying, lets be entirely sure before we draw conclusions. You seem to want an excuse to keep billowing out pollution.

Quote

That's what was said. Not only will the world suffer, but it was said that we would suffer by .2C-.8C warming per decade. This would cause intense suffering and hardship.

Now, science is saying, "Hey. This catastrophe hasn't occurred."

Thats nice, how about the extinct species that never even had the chance to be known by us let alone respected. The nice beaches now full of plastic and other waste, all the dessets that were once forsets full of life, the clean rivers that are now full of heavy metals and un-necessary waste that could actually have been used for some good, somehow.

I suppose that stuff has no effect on the balance of our milieu has no impact on our existance either?

Quote

It depends. If we fight global warming by pumping sulfur into the atmosphere, the fix would be immediate. Sure, we'd kill off a substantial part of the oceans, but hey.

oh you mean the little old lady that swollowed a fly?

the quick fix?

Like super sized diet coke? and non fat mayo.

What a stupid thing to say!

Quote

You are proposing human suffering. Which is worse? The suffering of losing energy production? Or the suffering of continuing energy production?

Both are worse, Continuing with energy consumtion with a thought of the long term impact is what I propose.

We need the available use of all technologies that are in existance that will significantly reduce the negative impact society has on its surrounding and providing area.

Balance is more than achievable and the total loss of current pleasures and lifestyles is the main fear people have of achieving this balance.

The real truth is that alternatives can be more fun, potentially less expensive, and likely more productive.

That is aside from having a positive impact on our health and the wellbeing of all living things.

Your current sig line,

Quote

Don't try to out-asshole a lawyer - especially one who has the legal experience equivalent of 300 jumps.

Says it all.

Your reply was quite shallow and very narrow minded in my opinion. Thanks for being so forward with us all.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[riddler 0]

Given the number of scientists that agree with global warming, vs. the very few deniers, you all should probably stand on a street corner with a sign that says "the end is NOT near".

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

Because by doing that, he's no longer part of the 'consensus' and thus his research and conclusions are now immaterial, duh...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DanG 1]

I guess you guys missed the part where he says that the warming will continue after the brief cooling period ends in about ten years. If that's the best "about face" you can point to, your arguments are weak.

- Dan G

[warpedskydiver 0]

Guess what will happen after the cooling trend ends, then the warming trend ends?




Geez, do you guys need a picture drawn in crayon so you will understand?

[DanG 1]

When the warming trend ends there will be a cooling trend, duh. The question is what will the planet look like at that point. Most scientists believe it will look drastically different than it looks now. The fact that trends are cyclical says nothing about their relative magnitudes.

How's that for drawing YOU a picture in crayon?

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Given the number of scientists that agree with global warming, vs. the very few deniers, you all should probably stand on a street corner with a sign that says "the end is NOT near".

So when a believer becomes a skeptic based on evidence, what does that mean? I can draw a parralel between your thinking and a bible thumper's denial of the prior existence of dinosaurs.

Please note - the climate science community IS concerned about this. More concerned than you are. They are trying to explain it and admit they cannot yet do so.

But they are so ingrained in their paradigm, they are not saying to themselves that it calls their entire theory into question. (When the data does not match the hypothesis, the theory is questionable).

Either way, there are problems with AGW science. Either the theory is wrong (unlikely - CO2 warming is testable in the lab); or the physics are wrong (unlikely); or the assumptions are wrong (bingo!).

Note: perhaps this can be explained by the failure of CO2 emissions to increase at the exponential level predicted by the models. A continuous warming trend due to CO2 absolutely requires exponential growth of CO2 emissions to counter the decrease in marginal warming of additional CO2. (Again, this is from the science).

So we may look at the CO2 emissions data. I haven't seen it, but if the emissions have stabilized by any measure, then we won't see the robust warming predicted.

That is but one possible explanation. It would also invalidate every climate model out there and the IPCC's projections. That being the case, I'd expect there to be heavy efforts to resist data contrary to predictions.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,260]

Quote

So when a believer becomes a skeptic based on evidence, what does that mean?

But he hasn't become a skeptic - he still believes that the broader warming trend will continue.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[warpedskydiver 0]

Fine, but I see you colored outside the lines again

And only used a brown crayon.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I guess you guys missed the part where he says that the warming will continue after the brief cooling period ends in about ten years. If that's the best "about face" you can point to, your arguments are weak.

It is a serious about face. Perhaps you haven't read up on the predictions over the last 20 years of between .2 and .8 degree C warming per decade. AGW theory leaves no room for 10-20-30-50 year gaps. The warming may vary in intensity, but it will continue.

Think about taking a balloon. Adding heat to the balloon will expand the air inside. But imagine if you moved the balloon from a 2
10 degree C environment to a 30 degree environment and expansion of gases paused after 20 degrees.

Simply saying, "just wait. They'll expand" misses the point of, "what the hell is going on? This was not predicted."

AGW has reached the popularity of PV=nRT. Without nearly the same degree of experimental validation. This pause in temperature is the to a pause in gas expansion. It either blows the theory all to hell or it points to faulty assumptions.

Either way, the predictions - all of them - have sucked ass. And if warming pauses for 20 or 30 years, I'd reckon that in 2040, the climate will be much the same as it is now. None of the AGW alarmists predicted that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

I've read a lot of your posts on this topic, and it's clear you've given a lot of thought to the subject. In my opinion, you often misunnderstand the results of climate models when you attempt to compare them to real-world observations. The climate models we have today are very coarse. They can't predict events on a small scale, both spatially and temporally. They can, however, still make valid predictions about long-term effects. The models do not predict small-scale events because they are simply not refined enough. They may never be. For a model to accurately predict long-term events, it does not need to take into account every small-scale perturbation.

In response to your ballon analogy, I'll offer a different one. I drop an apple and want to predict the apple's velocity during its fall. I decide to use a simple model that says v=v0 + at. Newton at his finest. When I drop the apple and record the velocities, I notice that the velocities I record are a little different than what I predicted. Aha! I diddn't take into account air resistance. So I add a term for constant air resistance. Still a little off, so I add in terms for air resistance that varies with velocity. Not quite there, but getting better all the time.

The fact that my models don't predict everything that happens to the apple doesn't mean that the models are useless. It just means they need improvement. For the same reason, climate models that don't predict small scale events are not useless, they just need improvement. So when a respected scientist like the one referenced in the OP makes a new prediction based on a new model, you can't say that he didn't know what he was talking about before. The apple is still accelerating and its velocity is increasing. Maybe it's accelerating a little slower than we initially thought, but it's still going to hit the ground.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

So when a believer becomes a skeptic based on evidence, what does that mean?

But he hasn't become a skeptic - he still believes that the broader warming trend will continue.

Indeed. He has, however, publically backed off of the predictions that make policy.
By implication, he is saying the predictions of the models won't be attained. He is also now predicting that the models are on the high side.

Again - he is predicting. Actually, he is making revised predictions about the predictions.

The problem is that we don't know how it will turn out because we don't know why it hasn't warmed in more than a decade. The usual cooling suspects (volcanoes and La Nina) have been ruled out.

So nobody can explain it. Predictions in a world of uncertainties are hard to get right.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I've read a lot of your posts on this topic, and it's clear you've given a lot of thought to the subject.

Thanks. I've found myself studying this stuff on my own for hours per week to better understand it all.

[Reply] In my opinion, you often misunnderstand the results of climate models when you attempt to compare them to real-world observations.

[Dewhast 0]

Here is an article from 1975

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

In the first paragraph there are two links. The first link is to a PDF of the original article and the second is to an article on how often there have been warnings of a global temperature trend.

Now I will concede that our measurement techniques and overall technology have improved over the years, but to me, it seems that the weather is not the only thing that goes in cycles.

It really reminds me of advertising. Advertising has been around forever, and the number one selling method is fear. Look at how long religion has been using it. Go to church, pay your tithe, or go to hell. There is a reason the saying is “No news is good news!” That’s because you see a happy story and then you change the channel, they tell you your kids are being exposed to Dihydrogen Monoxide, and you are glued to the screen. There are so many ads out there designed to make you think you need their product.

Side Note, it is really funny to me is how a good majority of them are designed around fear of not getting laid. Buy our clothes, our cars, our male enhancement products, etc …, or you will never have sex again!!

Back to the topic, so what is wrong with them advertising “Global Climate Change”? At least they are preaching for responsibility, surly that can’t be a bad thing. When proponents agree that they do not have the means to understand the entire process why in the hell would you close discussion? Why would you limit your research to only greenhouse gasses? I believe it is because that is what people are currently afraid of and that is going to make it easier to get your research funded. Even PETA joined the bandwagon and was trying to create a tax on dairy and beef farms that would make it almost impossible to operate because of all Methane emissions.

I will admit that methane is a more effective greenhouse gas then CO2 but I also submit the following:

“As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmoshere contains 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/4 of one percent.” -- Marc Jeric MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer

Now this is only comparing Water and CO2. Just remember this when someone talks about hydrogen powered cars.

“I thought the Sun caused Global Warming?!”

[Ion01 1]

Quote

Given the number of scientists that agree with global warming, vs. the very few deniers, you all should probably stand on a street corner with a sign that says "the end is NOT near".

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

[DanG 1]

Quote

First: our climate predictions, I allege, are not taking something into account. Something as important as air resistance to an apple dropping. This explains why the models are so far off right now. No matter what, the models of apples dropping will not get more accurate as time goes on, regardless of the iterations, until such factor is accounted for.

I allege that our climate models are not taking a whole bunch of things into account. Probably things that we haven't even thought of. The climitologists are not just reiterating the same model over and over, they are constantly refining those models and comparing them to past data. We do not need to wait 100 years to verify the accuracy of a 100 year model. We can apply the model to the last 100 years of data and see how it matches. Model validation can be done with any set of data, it does not have to be future data.

Quote

Second: you have proven a point. After ten attempts of dropping that apple you can be fairly reasonable that the predicted average for 5000 attempts won't be met.

If after ten attemps my model is getting closer and closer to the experiemental results, I'm betting that after 5000 improvements it'll be pretty damn good. With climate models were are still pretty early in the refinement process.

Quote

You realize that your assumptions failed to include atmospheric drag. Your model is invalidated.

The model is not invalid, it is just not perfect. The apple still falls, I just haven't figured out exactly how to describe it. The dominant forcing function in my apple analogy is gravity. That is well understood and my model is very good at predicting it. The dominant forcing function for global climate models is the heat balance from basic thermodynamics. That is very well understood as well. Air resistance on my apple and secondary climitalogical effects are lower order inputs.

Quote

You are talking both sides. If small scales don't matter, then there is no need for improvement. If they do matter, then the model predictions must be scrapped and redone with newer assumptions.

Waiting 100 years is foolhardy.

I didn't say small scales don't matter, I just said we can't predict them yet. Models can be improved without being scrapped. That what modelers do.

Quote

Or maybe the apple stopped accelerating. Perhaps it hit a point when gravitational acceleration could not overcome atmospheric drag.

A model that predicts consistent accelleration through an atmosphere based upon the assumption that it will continue to accelerate could mean the model's predictions can be shown untrustworthy. "The apple is not going nearly as quickly as it should. I've accounted for the effect of air, but it's like it stops accelerating."

If a model doesn't account for terminal velocity, must we wait another 80 years before we scrap its predictions?

That's the point. We are outside the trend. Consistently. And I don't accept as fact this new prediction, either. Because he's given 20 years before it can be validated.

But it can be invalidated in ten years.

The apple does stop accelerating. I didn't predict that. On the other hand, the apple keeps falling. I did predict that because I understand the dominant forcing function. For the same reason climatologists can predict that Earth will keep warming even though they are having trouble nailing down the rate. They understand the dominant forcing function, they are just working on the secondary inputs.

Quote

p.s. Thanks for the discussion!!

No, thank you.

- Dan G