 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Astro - Amateur Forum » Good news on the weather front... |
|
Page 4 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| yourmommycalled... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 6:51 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
[quote]SNIP
The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global
warming is tenuous, but possible.
_____________________________________
No it doesn't. This is what it states:
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future
tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will
become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds
and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing
increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC
report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you posted
which said there was no connection.
What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect?
[/quote]
Exactly where does it say they will be more frequent, which is what
the original poster questioned? The link between frequency and global
warming is again tenuous at best. The paragraph from the IPPC report
that states A hurricane will be more intense and have more rainfall
when sea-surface temperatures are higher is merely a statement of
observed fact. The relationship between hurricane intensity/rain and
sea-surface temperatures is well-established theory and one of the
tools HRD uses to predict hurricane strength. One of the reason
Katrina strengthened after passing over Florida was that the sea
surface temperatures in the Gulf were warmer than usual (Read NCDC
tech-report 2005-01 for the details). All you have shown is that you
can hunt down a phrase or word that looks like it fits your
preconceived notion, unfortunately you don't understand what you are
reading and drew the wrong conclusion. You shown you're right up there
with Gerald and Ajay with your understanding of science. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| oriel36... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 2:32 am, yourmommycalled <mommycal... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
You shown you're right up there
[quote]with Gerald and Ajay with your understanding of science.
[/quote]
With all the modern imaging power at your disposal and the subsequent
ability to make planetary comparisons and you still can't explain the
Earth's seasons properly which requires one,count it,one additional
orbital component to shift the dynamic away from 'tilt' and place it
in the specifics of orbital motions.Both guys who believe carbon
dioxide governs global temperature and their opponents are weak
because they travel in the same 'scientific method' circles which
amounts to a question begging scheme and experiment/predictions
mantra.
The Earth has an equatorial climate due to its 'tilt' whereas Uranus
has a polar climate,this is an actual fact and something that is new
whereas the old explanation and hypothesis of no tilt/no seasons does
not stand.I strongly suggest people come to terms with the actual role
of rotational orientation,the dynamic behind it and the actual cause
of seasonal effects based on the specific way the Earth orbits the
Sun. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris.B... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 8:12 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
[quote]
I think you want to pull out for the same reasons the few people I know with
an interest in astrology will not discuss astrology with me.
They tend to not believe in the scientific method, either.
[/quote]
The only constants around here are the trolls. Never a pinch of
humour, a teaspoonful of warmth or a knob of wit. All they do is
endlessly stir their grey tripe and offal porridge. Forgetting that we
are neither starved of stimulation nor lacking in choice regarding our
mental nutrition. Their predictability is matched only by the
conversations of train spotters, the occupants of betting shops, bingo
hall queens and football fans. Do we actively seek out their company?
Then why do they need us so badly? There is no finer sight than a
troll post lying unanswered until it gathers dust and finally falls
off the bottom of Google Groups thread list. To join the worn out
detritus of Chinese Paypal Spam and fossilised, religious, mumbo
jumbo. Do we not deserve infinitely better trolls? Trolls with mirth
and girth and imagination? Who come charging out from their lairs
emitting loud farts, pulling at their red nose hair and flashing a
wicked twinkle from their one good eye? Bring the noise! Clash your
cymbals and bang your drums! Then be off stage again before we have
time to draw breath. Do not tarry beyond all reason or politeness. So
that only a broad shovel and a hose may do your stinking corpse final
justice. You are not kings to overstay your welcome. Nor clown nor
jester enough to warrant our royal pardon. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:jfqte552hlmrg7uipgt0vdek9pu8k83qbn at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:01:41 +1100, "Peter Webb"
webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
You have not supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have
turned out to be true, which is my starting point for evaluating the
likely
truth of scientific theories.
I'll say it one last time, although the concept appears beyond your
ability to understand, so I'm not optimistic.
AGW makes no predictions. AGW is an observation. It is what most people
would call a simple fact. AGW is not a "theory" in the scientific sense
of the word.
[/quote]
OK, AGW is not a scientific theory.
[quote]The theory behind it is increasingly well developed, and that is what
makes predictions.
[/quote]
OK, the theory behind AGW is a theory.
Seems like you are splitting hairs, but if that is what you want ...
[quote]Those predictions, applied to actual climate, have
proven exceptionally successful when applied to real climate over the
last 150 years. If you don't understand what "prediction" means when
applied to historical data, you should not be discussing this at all.
[/quote]
Anybody can fit a curve to existing data. The test of a scientific theory is
its predictive ability, ie its ability to successfuly predict outcomes where
the results of the experiemnts are not known in advance.
If the scientific theory behind AGW is getting better, then it must be more
accurate at predicting the results of novel experiments.
Is it? Are the models developed in 1999 any better at predicting what
happened in 1999 to 2009 than the 1989 models were at predicting what
happened in 1989 to 1999?
[quote]Climate only makes sense when analyzed over decades or longer. It is
obvious why this is when you look a the historical record: there is a
significant warming trend over the last 150 years, but it is invisible
over any selected period of a few years, and usually difficult to detect
even over 10 years. That's simply not long enough to see the signal
against the noise. Good quality models have not been in place long
enough for most future trends to show up.
[/quote]
So you are saying that the models have not been tested successfully with
novel data?
[quote]Sensible people look at the
success of these models in explaining the past,
[/quote]
No, sensible people look at the success of the models in predicting the
future.
If all you want is agreement with the past, I can easily produce a perfect
model which exactly reproduces the past.
[quote]and recognize that there
is a high probability they will come close with their future
projections.
[/quote]
Why do you think that is the case?
If I used polynomial interpolation to exactly model historical data, would
you then assume on the basis of the perfect fit with experimental data that
my model will also predict the future with some accuracy?
[quote]Fools refuse to accept the science, and instead just keep
asking "what predictions have come true",
[/quote]
That is what science is. Theories are formed, the predictions are compared
to novel experimental data, and the agreement between theory and experiment
is used to determine the likely truth of the theory.
You may think it is foolish to use the scientific method to determine the
truth or otherwise of scientific theories, but many fools have used this
approach over the last 500 years with spectacular results.
[quote]while the climate crashes
[/quote]
So you say, even in the absense of any evidence of apparent ill effects
whatsoever over the 100 years we have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Whoops, sorry, you don't think that evidence matters; only a fool would ask
for it.
[quote]around them and it finally becomes too late to do anything about it.
[/quote]
Yeah, yeah, the sky is falling in.
Or so you keep telling us.
I have a friend (an acquaintance) who believes that WW3 will shortly start,
because it is predicted in Nostradamus.
Nostradamus and AGW have about equal confirmation through experimental
evidence. Both appear great at predicting the past but hopeless at
predicting the future.
My bet is that neither the predictions of AGW or those of Nostradamus will
eventually come true.
We shall see.
[quote]_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris L Peterson... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:13:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote]Anybody can fit a curve to existing data.
[/quote]
Climate models do not use curve fitting. They are nothing more than
collections of standard physics equations. Simulations are used because
the system is too complex for any single equation to describe it, and
because you can't experiment with the real climate.
[quote]If the scientific theory behind AGW is getting better, then it must be more
accurate at predicting the results of novel experiments.
[/quote]
I'm done. You're clearly too stupid to understand this. You may be a
simple computer program that produces standard responses, but most of
the programs I've seen along these lines do a better job.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"yourmommycalled" <mommycalled at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:abf9def5-cb4e-4d6e-ae1a-07e511fd711e at (no spam) t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 7:18 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
[quote]"Sam Wormley" <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:J%pHm.111332$5n1.60474 at (no spam) attbi_s21...
Peter Webb wrote:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the
coming
century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates
than
present-day hurricanes."
That's NOAA, folks.
Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved
to
be incorrect.
Actually there is data supporting that prediction.
Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
1. That AGW is correct.
2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes.
3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low)
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
You seem to believe:
1. That AGW is correct
2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes
3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
Is that the situation?
Any of you other AGW believers out there?
If so, do you believe that:
1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes.
2. These have increased.
3. Therefore AGW is correct
*** OR ****
1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes
2. Their intensity has *not* increased.
3. Therefore AGW is correct.
C'mon, speak up!
[/quote]
Try rading all the posts before you shoot your mouth off and prove you
haven't a clue.
Try the following for science rather than your own ill-informed
opinion
Emanuel, K. Environmental Factors Affecting Tropical Cyclone Power
Dissipation, 2007 Journal of Climate
DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1571.1
Vecchi, G, and T. Knutson, On Estimates of Historical North Atlantic
Tropical Cyclone Activity, 2008, Journal of Climate DOI:
10.1175/2008JCLI2178.1
Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-
first-
century warming conditions, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo202
The IPPC makes no definitive statement about the relationship between
hurricanes and global warming. It suggests that a link is tenuous at
best and needs more work to filter the naturally occurring cycles in
hurricanes from that of global warming. Quoting from a recent
conference summary
i) It is premature to conclude that human activity--and particularly
greenhouse warming--has already had a discernible impact on Atlantic
hurricane activity.
ii) It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the
coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall
rates than present-day hurricanes.
Once again rather than believing a disgraced television news reader
try the reading the science.
________________________________________
complete bollocks. The 1992 IPCC report nowhere states that the link is
"tenuous at best", and in fact states quite clearly:
"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the
coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall
rates than present-day hurricanes."
However, the links you have provided state the exact opposite.
So its your position that the IPCC was wrong about tropical cyclones, and
they will decrease in intensity?
So regardless what the observed data shows you going to still claim no
global warming!
___________________________________________
Places warm, places cool, has been happening for 4.7 billion years. From
about 1850 to 1998 the earth was generally warming; I don't know if it is
currently warming or cooling. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:c5due51qk351skf0v1evjgsvlf50ducrds at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:18:36 -0600, "David Staup" <dstaup at (no spam) sbcglobal.net
wrote:
I'm just curious, what is scientific truth?
I'd say it is knowledge arrived at by a scientific process: observation,
theorizing, testing, correction. It isn't usually an absolute, but an
endpoint that we are converging on- sometimes asymptotically.
[/quote]
Testing!
[quote]at the beginning of the era of science the consensus was that all material
was made up of four types of atoms (earth, wind, fire, and water), that
consensus was 2000 years old and continued to hold for decades with
considerable attempts to modify.. seems current theories don't give that
much credence...
I'd argue that this doesn't represent the beginning of "the era of
science". I'd put that much later- just a few hundred years ago. Prior
to that, the methods of seeking knowledge of nature were very different,
and very inefficient and error prone compared to science.
[/quote]
There are many, many examples which aren't 2,000 years old. Up until 50
years ago nobody believed in plate techtonics. We had the scientific method
in the 1950s. Go back 100 years and people (scientists) believed in
Newtonian gravity and that particles had defined position and momentum. Now
its dark matter.
The fact is that scientific theories are just that - theories. Their
longevity and support is based upon how well they adhere to observation (ie
their predictive ability).
[quote]
However, as I noted, scientific knowledge converges on truth. I think
that in most areas we are quite close. It's hardly surprising that if
you go back to early beliefs, they were substantially in error. The
corrections we make to our understanding these days tends to be much
smaller- just little fixes here and there.
_________________________________________________
[/quote]
Interesting argument:
1. All our scientific theories are correct excepting for little fixes here
and there.
2. AGW is a scientific theory
3. Therefore AGW is correct except for little fixes here and there.
Complete crap, of course.
[quote]
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"yourmommycalled" <mommycalled at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f25c6d5-5665-4761-9423-3dbf5f7bdeb4 at (no spam) m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 6:51 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
[quote]SNIP
The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global
warming is tenuous, but possible.
_____________________________________
No it doesn't. This is what it states:
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future
tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will
become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds
and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing
increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC
report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you
posted
which said there was no connection.
What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect?
[/quote]
Exactly where does it say they will be more frequent, which is what
the original poster questioned? The link between frequency and global
warming is again tenuous at best. The paragraph from the IPPC report
that states A hurricane will be more intense and have more rainfall
when sea-surface temperatures are higher is merely a statement of
observed fact. The relationship between hurricane intensity/rain and
sea-surface temperatures is well-established theory and one of the
tools HRD uses to predict hurricane strength. One of the reason
Katrina strengthened after passing over Florida was that the sea
surface temperatures in the Gulf were warmer than usual (Read NCDC
tech-report 2005-01 for the details). All you have shown is that you
can hunt down a phrase or word that looks like it fits your
preconceived notion, unfortunately you don't understand what you are
reading and drew the wrong conclusion. You shown you're right up there
with Gerald and Ajay with your understanding of science.
_______________________________
So you disagree with the recent papers (posted here) that AGW will *not*
increase the frequency or severity of tropical cyclones? I guess the authors
of these papers "can hunt down a phrase or word that looks like it fits
[their] preconceived notion, unfortunately [they] don't understand what
[they] are
reading and drew the wrong conclusion.". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris.B" <chris.b at (no spam) nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:020eab52-a804-4099-bad9-4e140dbbc5ab at (no spam) 15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 7:15 am, "Peter Webb" mumbled:
[quote]
Or is your argument that these are all things which should have been
predicted by AGW, but weren't, and so AGW is wrong?
[/quote]
It is no shame to be educationally challenged but which part of "AGW
predicts nothing" do you not understand?
Stay behind after class and write 100 times: "AGW predicts nothing."
Perhaps it will finally sink in. Like walking on yesterday's
permafrost.
_____________________________________
So AGW does not predict the earth will continue to warm if we increase our
CO2 emissions?
This is news to me, and presumably also news to the authors of the 124,000
web pages which contain the words "AGW predicts". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quadibloc... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 9:13 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
[quote]Anybody can fit a curve to existing data. The test of a scientific theory is
its predictive ability, ie its ability to successfuly predict outcomes where
the results of the experiemnts are not known in advance.
[/quote]
This is true.
If anthropogenic global warming were a theory that someone came up
with yesterday, so that the only "evidence" we had of it was that some
people had climate models which predicted global warming, and the only
validation of those climate models was that, gosh, before the
scientists made them public, they were tweaked to match climate in the
past, then you would be right to point out there is a problem.
But that isn't really an accurate picture of the situation.
The blackbody radiation curve has been established for quite some
time. So we know that our Sun, at a temperature of 6,000 degrees
Celsius, emits radiation which peaks in visible light, and the Earth's
surface, on the other hand, radiates heat in the form of very long-
wave infrared radiation.
We know that "greenhouse gases" let the warming rays of the Sun in,
but are warmed by the long-wave infrared radiation which normally
escapes into space, thus cooling places on the Earth at night.
We know that since the Industrial Revolution, we have been burning a
lot of fossil fuels; this is something humans have chosen to do, thus
it is in addition to any natural cycles. And we know that the level of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased over the last several
decades.
Climate models represent an attempt to study the details of the
outcome of this. And modelling climate is perhaps a science in its
infancy.
Right now, due to the el Nino/la Nina oscillation, the next few years
are not going to be unusually warm in certain highly-populated areas.
But that shouldn't obscure some very significant observations that
have been made:
Various areas of the Earth, such as Russian peat bogs, and the ocean
floor, that have the potential to release greenhouse gases under
unusually warm conditions, are starting to do so.
The concentration of carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean, something
that compensates for other factors that put more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, has increased to the point where some major coral reefs
are threatened. Coral reefs are valuable to many important forms of
marine life.
The arctic polar ice cap has retreated so much that it is now felt
that very little of the Arctic will remain covered by ice all summer,
which is very much unlike the situation familiar over the past hundred
years.
If your house was on fire, would you demand scientific studies to
prove you should consider getting out of there?
It's true that environmentalists have, in the past, made exaggerated
claims, and do seem to have a political agenda.
It's also true that going back to the days of horse-and-buggy, or
riding bicycles to work, would seem to be too much of a sacrifice to
many simply to keep a few bugs out of Florida and Texas, to prevent a
crop failure in Borneo, and the loss of perhaps one or two coral reefs
in the middle of the Pacific.
Do we really know the consequences of global warming will be bigger
than that; like a sustained failure of the monsoons in India, the
death of the Great Barrier Reef, unprecedented mega-hurricanes
battering the Eastern Seaboard, a new Ice Age triggered by the
collapse of the Gulf Stream, and so on?
And in any event, China seems to be intending to go away from the days
of everyone riding bicycles to work, and they look like they have no
intent to go back.
Given all this, it's not surprising that people have questions about
global warming. However, while before a few isolated environmentalists
were making sensational claims that were widely reported in the news
media, but which were not accepted by others, the seriousness of the
global warming threat is generally accepted by the world scientific
community. There are people with scientific credentials who argue
otherwise, but they're very few in number - even before you subtract
those in the pay of vested interests such as the oil industry.
The world scientific community is not some kind of vast left-wing
conspiracy to hoodwink the rest of the world. No, you didn't say that,
but that IS what someone would have to believe to claim that global
warming is nothing to worry about. It doesn't surprise me that the
same radical-right climate in which global warming skepticism is taken
seriously is that in which Creationism is treated with respect. That,
too, requires a belief that those "scientists" are up to no good.
If our only choices were:
- accept whatever consequences there are from global warming, and hope
for the best (since we don't have hard proof of how bad it will be) or
- drastically cut down our own industrial production, leading not only
to a worsening of poverty in our own country, but even worse, a loss
of our own ability to defend ourselves, so that Russia or China ends
up taking over the world...
putting up with the bad consequences of global warming might indeed be
the least bad choice.
But we don't have only those two choices.
We don't need to accept on faith claims that we could get along just
fine with a little energy conservation, with long-distance power
lines, and wind and solar farms - such as were prominently featured in
the latest Scientific American.
We have another choice. We can produce as much reliable electrical
energy as we need, for existing electrical uses, for home heating, and
for producing hydrogen to fuel cars - and in any location, not just
those suited to hydroelectric dams, or to wind, solar, or geothermal
power.
As much as we need understates it. While claiming "as much as we want"
would not be accurate either, because we might desire more energy than
the Sun's total output, we can produce just as much energy as we're
using now, and significantly more as well, without significant carbon
dioxide emissions.
Because there's such a thing as nuclear power. And if we use our
natural resources of nuclear fuel efficiently, without waste, by
ensuring that we convert the U-238 to nuclear fuel as well instead of
letting it go to waste, we have enough resources to last for several
decades.
We do not have to play games with world climate to keep our way of
life, to remain able to defend our freedom. We have a course open to
us that avoids the catastrophic possibilities of *both* of the courses
that usually get offered in the public debate.
Of course, even with the Thorium breeder brought into the mix, it is
true that fuel for fission power won't last forever. But a century of
technical progress will give us the time to build solar power
satellites, to unlock the mysteries of fusion power, and therefore
build a sustainable energy future of abundance instead of scarcity.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
oriel36 wrote:
[quote]The Earth has an equatorial climate due to its 'tilt'
[/quote]
Nope, the earth has equatorial as well as polar climates. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp at (no spam) alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:dhbve5pn41d01vs4dlaj7scqbf45ei11rb at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:13:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
webbfamily at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
Anybody can fit a curve to existing data.
Climate models do not use curve fitting. They are nothing more than
collections of standard physics equations. Simulations are used because
the system is too complex for any single equation to describe it, and
because you can't experiment with the real climate.
[/quote]
ROFL!
You have obviously never looked at a climate model.
Let me explain how they work.
There are typically some hundreds or thousands of "constants" that are
actually treated as variables, and their values are reverse-engineered to
align with historical data.
For example, the heat transfer rate between different ocean layers is not
known with any accuracy by anybody. So the model will assign this some
nominal value, which is believed to be more or less accurate. Nobody knows
exactly how fast glaciers move as a function of temperature, physical
dimensions etc, so some first order approximation is used, such
v=k+h*f(T,V), etc. Nobody really knows the full range of effects of
different vegetation types, so functions are estimated which link things
like albedo, growth rate, CO2 concentration. These all have "constants"
which will be ultimately "refined".
There are, as I said, typically hundreds or thousands of these estimates
made, none of them known by virtue of the underlying physics, and none of
them experimentally verified or even verifiable to any accuracy. Not just
constants, whole equations are estimated - heat transfer functions, mixing
between hemispheres, etc. Again, these involve unknown constants.
There is then a process undertaken which is generally called "refining the
model". Actual historical data is fed into the program, and the numerous
"constants" that exist in the model are "tweaked" until the model agrees
with the historical data.
I guess they call it "refining the model" because it sounds better than
"curve fitting".
BTW, this provides a very easy explanation of why AGW models are becoming
increasingly accurate in predicting the past. Basically, as you make the
models more complex - as inevitably occurs - then you introduce more unknown
constants that need to be (or can be) refined. With a larger pool of
"constants" that can be tweaked, you can match the observed data more
accurately. For example, my own AGW model has 200 such constants which I
have refined, and fits the last 200 years of observed data perfectly. Had I
only 100 such constants to refine, the match would not have been nearly as
good.
[quote]If the scientific theory behind AGW is getting better, then it must be
more
accurate at predicting the results of novel experiments.
I'm done. You're clearly too stupid to understand this. You may be a
simple computer program that produces standard responses, but most of
the programs I've seen along these lines do a better job.
[/quote]
Actually, I don't think you want to pull out of this conversation because
you think I am an automated computer program, or even because you think I am
stupid. Quite the contrary.
I think you want to pull out for the same reasons the few people I know with
an interest in astrology will not discuss astrology with me.
They tend to not believe in the scientific method, either.
_________________________________________________
[quote]
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quadibloc... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 5:43 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
[quote]The only thing I found completely unreasonable was your attempt
earlier to link creationism and AGW skepticism. That is completely
unjustified by anything I have said; I have no doubts whatsoever in the
correctness of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
[/quote]
How about this:
[quote]I think you want to pull out for the same reasons the few people I know with
an interest in astrology will not discuss astrology with me.
They tend to not believe in the scientific method, either.
But
somehow that makes me a believer in creationism, and a disbeliever in
science! What gives here?
[/quote]
I'm not claiming that *you* believe in Creationism, any more than you
were claiming that other fellow believed in astrology.
Creationists, though, can vote. And they might well find global
warming skepticism easy to accept. After all, they already believe
that the scientific community can be wrong. And the idea that human
beings could bring about the end of the world before it comes up on
God's timetable is repugnant to them as well; they believe that all
will be well if individuals simply obey God in their daily lives,
remembering that they are in charge of their own behavior, and God is
in charge of the "big picture".
So it would be highly irresponsible to present arguments against
global warming that are not really sound from a scientific standpoint
to the public, because there are people out there who would believe
those arguments, and be influenced in their voting behavior because of
them.
[quote]I see no evidence - none at all - of any bad climactic changes over the last
100 years that we have had coal fired electricity and motor cars.
[/quote]
50 years ago, not many people in China had automobiles. 50 years ago,
the world's population wasn't, what, six billion? The rate at which we
are pumping extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is increasing.
For the world to get a little warmer doesn't have to be a "bad"
climate change. We live in a time not far removed from an ice age.
In any case, there is abundant evidence that things are now happening
that hadn't happened in the last 50 to 100 years which are bad. You
might be able to view the death of the Great Barrier Reef with
equanimity.
John Savard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jax... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 7:36 am, Quadibloc <jsav... at (no spam) ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
[quote]
In any case, there is abundant evidence that things are now happening
that hadn't happened in the last 50 to 100 years which are bad. You
might be able to view the death of the Great Barrier Reef with
equanimity.
John Savard
[/quote]
The reef, which stretches for 1,200 miles off the northeast coast of
Australia, has "poor" prospects of survival as a result of over-
development and a failure by the relevant authorities to protect it
from illegal fishing and chemical run-off, the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority said its first report on the state of the reef's
health.
I would hate to see the GBR go, andt there are immediate measurable
problems to be fixed first. Martin Rees says we need to cut CO2
emissions by 50% in 40 yrs to protect the oceans. How much do you
think we need to reduce to save the reef? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| yourmommycalled... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 10:40 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote]"yourmommycalled" <mommycal... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f25c6d5-5665-4761-9423-3dbf5f7bdeb4 at (no spam) m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 6:51 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au
wrote:
SNIP
The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global
warming is tenuous, but possible.
_____________________________________
No it doesn't. This is what it states:
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future
tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will
become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds
and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing
increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC
report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you
posted
which said there was no connection.
What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect?
Exactly where does it say they will be more frequent, which is what
the original poster questioned? The link between frequency and global
warming is again tenuous at best. The paragraph from the IPPC report
that states A hurricane will be more intense and have more rainfall
when sea-surface temperatures are higher is merely a statement of
observed fact. The relationship between hurricane intensity/rain and
sea-surface temperatures is well-established theory and one of the
tools HRD uses to predict hurricane strength. One of the reason
Katrina strengthened after passing over Florida was that the sea
surface temperatures in the Gulf were warmer than usual (Read NCDC
tech-report 2005-01 for the details). All you have shown is that you
can hunt down a phrase or word that looks like it fits your
preconceived notion, unfortunately you don't understand what you are
reading and drew the wrong conclusion. You shown you're right up there
with Gerald and Ajay with your understanding of science.
_______________________________
So you disagree with the recent papers (posted here) that AGW will *not*
increase the frequency or severity of tropical cyclones? I guess the authors
of these papers "can hunt down a phrase or word that looks like it fits
[their] preconceived notion, unfortunately [they] don't understand what
[they] are
reading and drew the wrong conclusion.".
[/quote]
Strange the only paper posted here that suggests an increase in
frequency is:
Emanuel, K. Environmental Factors Affecting Tropical Cyclone Power
Dissipation, 2007 Journal of Climate
DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1571.1
The other papers posted suggest a decrease in the frequency
Vecchi, G, and T. Knutson, On Estimates of Historical North Atlantic
Tropical Cyclone Activity, 2008, Journal of Climate DOI:
10.1175/2008JCLI2178.1
Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-
first-century warming conditions, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/
ngeo202
As I keep saying there is little debate as to whether hurricane
intensity and rainfall amounts will increase with global warming. An
increase in frequency is at best tenuous and certainly still being
researched. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:23 am
|
|