Let's Be Sensible Please

[SCYUKON 0]

LOL.u guys can't stop equating global warming w/ gore, haha.

You are right. Here is why: I don't recall hearing much about it until his movie came out. Sure everyone had heard about Kyoto and such but no one was paying much attention to it. Now suddenly it is a political hot potato, so of course the politicians are falling in line lest they be ostracized too. Thank God our Prime Minister sees the bigger picture, like your Mr. Bush (whom the rumor has is way more eco friendly at his personal home than is the said Mr. Gore)..Did Gore do anything about it during his Clinton years? Was it on his failed Presidential campaign agenda? I don't recall seeing anything, but then again I did not follow that election other than the interesting chad thing.Oh well, time to go see what is going on in the AP Scandal.

[KramitDaToad 0]

I get that- the problem is, it doesn't make the minority any less educated or credible, considering they have the same degrees as the majority, not to mention there is all that nasty business of having to deal with alienation and ridicule from your peers.

Actually it does. All motives for doing away with credibility lie with the those that want to suggest GW is a myth or that humanity is not a major influence. You said just a few posts ago that it became a money-grabbing exercise. Well the most money to be grabbed is in the anti-GW camp.So you weren't going to buy into the yes camp because it was money driven but when shown that the no camp will pay more you say they don't lose credibility?Me thinks your arguments are not fact based or objective.

I have more respect for the person that puts himself out there for ridicule, much like myself.

oooh your such a radical dude! way to stick it to the man! you're so cool! don't bow down to the capitalist tyrants dude!So I suppose that if you went to 5 doctors with a broken arm you'd go with the one who 'puts himself out there' and suggests you get your leg amputated as a cure. Or if you went to 5 mechanics with starter motor problems you'd go with the one that sells you his brand of muffler to fix it.Fact remains that an appeal to experts is a good thing, something we do on a regular basis. When you have a strong consensus by experts that something needs to be done, listening is probably advised.American Meteorological Society said it pretty well:"The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus" and the IPCC represents that consensus view and states that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.What baffles me is how this can be debated on a poker website. Any good poker player should be well educated in variance and how to deal with it.

[KramitDaToad 0]

You are right. Here is why: I don't recall hearing much about it until his movie came out. Sure everyone had heard about Kyoto and such but no one was paying much attention to it. Now suddenly it is a political hot potato, so of course the politicians are falling in line lest they be ostracized too. Thank God our Prime Minister sees the bigger picture, like your Mr. Bush (whom the rumor has is way more eco friendly at his personal home than is the said Mr. Gore)..Did Gore do anything about it during his Clinton years? Was it on his failed Presidential campaign agenda? I don't recall seeing anything, but then again I did not follow that election other than the interesting chad thing.Oh well, time to go see what is going on in the AP Scandal.

I agree that GW is being over hyped by a lot of tree huggers. I agree Al Gore is using a lot of it for political gains, and in no way deserved a Nobel Peace prize for his efforts. However it doesn't change the facts.GW either exists or it doesn't. If it does it is either accelerated by human activities or it isn't.By focussing on the fact that Gore is a hypocrite or turning this into a liberal-conservative issue, you are reaching the dizzying heights of a gossip columnist.Any true scientist would be embarrased

[akoff 0]

By focussing on the fact that Gore is a hypocrite or turning this into a liberal-conservative issue, you are reaching the dizzying heights of a gossip columnist.I will keep an eye on fox for a reference to this siteAny true scientist would be embarrasedis anyone posting in this a true scientist?

[KramitDaToad 0]

is anyone posting in this a true scientist?My guess is it would be the person I was speaking to...

But if you want to talk science, I am game. I went to University for 7 years, getting a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Civil Engineering for my efforts (obv. brag post .

[akoff 0]

is anyone posting in this a true scientist?My guess is it would be the person I was speaking to...

So 7 years and being civil eng. makes him a scientist...smart maybe or not so much (7 years) but a scientist? Still not so sure but fair enough.

[Balloon guy 158]

edit image removed from websiteChart showing the mild year we've had of hurricanes.If the other side can point to Katrina and shout the sky is falling, then they have to live with the proof that the sky is still floating

[KramitDaToad 0]

So 7 years and being civil eng. makes him a scientist...smart maybe or not so much (7 years) but a scientist? Still not so sure but fair enough.

I don't know. Maybe his Bachelor of SCIENCE or his Masters in SCIENCE are a clue. Scientists are not a small hidden fraternity of white-coat wearers that have secret meetings and conspire to dupe the world, as much as some evangelicals, flat-earthers or IDiots would have you believe.A practising scientist is essentially anyone observes phenomenon in the real world and analyses the results looking for a real world explanation.More broadly speaking a scientist is a person having expert knowledge of one or more of the sciences.SKYUKON easily fits these definitions as an engineer, yet on this subject he has thrown his professional rigor out the window and is throwing around stuff like..."Al Gore didn't do anything 10 years ago so I'm not going to listen to him""Because Al Gore is a hypocrite, anyone that suggests there is a GW problem is lying too""I've had my head stuck up my arse for the last 20 years and hadn't heard about GW until recently, therefore it's not an important subject"As I said, a true scientist would be embarrassed

[KramitDaToad 0]

If the other side can point to Katrina and short the sky is falling, then they have to live with the proof that the sky is still floating

Agreed. Pointing to isolated events like Katrina and jumping up and down saying we have a problem is head-line-grabbing, scare-mongering at best.

[seemorenuts 0]

Did any of you hear about those two Canadian electric car companies who sell their products outside of Canada just fine, but keep getting blocked by the Canadian feds from selling a single car in Canada? Heard it last week on the CBC. One company is in Quebec, the other in B.C. Disgusting.

[SCYUKON 0]

A practising scientist is essentially anyone observes phenomenon in the real world and analyses the results looking for a real world explanation.YUP - have not seen one yet. See my earlier posts about "Where are the calibrated models?". I could do up a 2 variable model in an Excel spreadsheet that shows that the GW alarmists are full of crap. No calibration whatsoever, but hey it is a computer model right? All I see thus far is speculative at best. Speculation does not equal causation. That is my point all along and until someone shows me some solid, CALIBRATED models (how the hell can you do that?????), I ain't jumping on the bandwagonI mean, what if I noted that there were a lot of import cars on the bridge that collapsed in the US recently? Would it be correct to say that import cars cause bridge failure? I could model that and show the high corellation but we all know that such a conclusion would be embarrassing, no?SKYUKON easily fits these definitions as an engineer, yet on this subject he has thrown his professional rigor out the window and is throwing around stuff like..."Al Gore didn't do anything 10 years ago so I'm not going to listen to him""Because Al Gore is a hypocrite, anyone that suggests there is a GW problem is lying too""I've had my head stuck up my arse for the last 20 years and hadn't heard about GW until recently, therefore it's not an important subject"Al Gore has whipped up this shitestorm for his personal reasons. And now the rest of you with your head stuck up your ARSE for the last 3 years are in a tizzy over speculation AT BESTAs I said, a true scientist would be embarrassedNot me pal, I am embarrassed for you. Quote me some solid facts and calibrated explanatory models (and for the unitiated, calibrated means you work on the model until it can reproduce a significant piece of observed phenomena based on certain explanatory variables, then you shoot it off into the future with assumptions about what the explanatory variables will be to get the resulting forecast), not the latest "speculation" and I will be most impressed and quite happy to change my "scientific mind", as I am quite willing to do when presented with the proper logic to cause such a shift, like I can get about playing poker from the experts in this forum.

Thanks for being smart enough to understand that I am not Doogie Howser and got 2 degrees in the 7 years. LOL at the donkey who thought it took me 7 years to get one.

[SCYUKON 0]

Oh and if you wonder how I am qualified to talk about "Calibrated Models", computer modelling is what I did from 1990 until 2004. For 8 years I worked on the regional traffic model for a large city in Alberta, the results of which were used to determine where best to spend the multi-million dollar transportation budget each year. And after that I did the revenue forecasting for a $550M/year Major Utility in Alberta. Obv brag post but you had to have your model in pretty damn good shape before you wandered in telling these bosses where the traffic would be in 10 years or how much the company was going to make in the next 3!

[KramitDaToad 0]

Oh and if you wonder how I am qualified to talk about "Calibrated Models", computer modelling is what I did from 1990 until 2004. For 8 years I worked on the regional traffic model for a large city in Alberta, the results of which were used to determine where best to spend the multi-million dollar transportation budget each year. And after that I did the revenue forecasting for a $550M/year Major Utility in Alberta. Obv brag post but you had to have your model in pretty damn good shape before you wandered in telling these bosses where the traffic would be in 10 years or how much the company was going to make in the next 3!

You're obviously very impressed with yourself. Good for you. You may have failed to notice though that I am not in a 'tizzy' as you suggested. In fact if you scroll up a couple of posts there you will see I am agreeing with BalloonGuy regarding over-hyping of GW.I am simply going over some objective points:1) The warnings about GW have been going on since the '80's2) It used to be an argument as to whether or not GW existed or not3) It is now accepted that GW exists, the debate has shifted to whether or not it is related to human activity or not.4) The overwhelming majority of trained experts on the subject are willing to state that human activity is 90% likely to be a cause5) People on both sides of the debate are over-hyping their claims6) Al Gore is the biggest most successful media-whore related to the subject7) You are taking your dislike for Al Gore and using it as an argument against GW - this is retarded8) He may have been running to his own agenda but it has finally got you to talk about what is potentially the biggest concern for all nations for the forseeable future.9) Given it's taken 20 years to get your attention maybe the recent over-hyped propaganda is warrantedRealistically what happens if we get behind measures to counter GW and find out it is not related to human activities?-More recycling-Less pollution-National infrastructures built around renewable energy-Oil producing regions like the middle-east having less of the world's bollocks in their gripetc etc etcObviously all of these come at a cost, however the big cost - changing energy infrastructures - will need to start some time in the not too distant future regardless of GW. I suspect nations that have a head start in this area will reap big economic rewards in the future. You only have to look at oil prices for the last decade to see the reasoning thereAll of the above are not really sacrifices and probably are quite beneficial long term.Now what happens if GW is related to human activities and we go on as is?Obviously you have all the dooms-day scenarios put forward by Gore et al (nice Latin pun there), and they may well be feasible, but at a very minimum you would get massive climate shifts. Area's that currently get a lot of rain get less, area's that get less may get more and like it or not this will be hugely disruptive to economies. Our infrastructure, cities and even nations are built on centuries of investing in and refining areas of food production. If there are massive and relatively rapid shifts we are in a spot of bother. You can't take the food producing regions for 6 billion people and just 'shift them around a bit'.The entire list for potential GW problems is well known and doesn't need reiterating here.If in 50 years we have done nothing and GW is real and was stoppable our grandkids are going to look at us and say 'How ****ing stupid were you? Even Al Gore knew better.'My main point is that if we are faced with what is potentially a rather huge global problem, listening to the experts is not such a stupid thing. Not listening to the experts because your politics or religion don't agree is incredibly stupid.How would you feel if after all your years of study, real world experience and fancy modelling some meteorologist walked into your office and stated that your traffic predictions were wrong? And then argued it was obviously wrong because Al Gore said it was right and was milking this fact for political gain?

[SCYUKON 0]

You're obviously very impressed with yourself. Good for you. Someone has to beYou may have failed to notice though that I am not in a 'tizzy' as you suggested. In fact if you scroll up a couple of posts there you will see I am agreeing with BalloonGuy regarding over-hyping of GW.I am simply going over some objective points:1) The warnings about GW have been going on since the '80's2) It used to be an argument as to whether or not GW existed or not3) It is now accepted that GW exists, the debate has shifted to whether or not it is related to human activity or not.4) The overwhelming majority of trained experts on the subject are willing to state that human activity is 90% likely to be a cause"State". Here, let me state somthing: You ARE in a tizzy over a "statement".5) People on both sides of the debate are over-hyping their claimsI am not overhyping anything. I am requesting to see any calibrated predictive models - can you point me to some? Doubt it.6) Al Gore is the biggest most successful media-whore related to the subject7) You are taking your dislike for Al Gore and using it as an argument against GW - this is retardedShow me where I have said that the reason to not believe the GW hype is because Al Gore says it is so. If you would read my posts, my reason for disbelief is the lack of predictive calibrated models. How often must I repeat that. Oh yes, can you show me any?8) He may have been running to his own agenda but it has finally got you to talk about what is potentially the biggest concern for all nations for the forseeable future.Bravo - he got me to talk about it to debate lemmings like you who buy the bluster and don't look at the problem as objectively as you may think you are. If 90 % of this forum stated that you were in a tizzy on this, would you believe it too?9) Given it's taken 20 years to get your attention maybe the recent over-hyped propaganda is warrantedRealistically what happens if we get behind measures to counter GW and find out it is not related to human activities?-More recycling-Less pollution-National infrastructures built around renewable energy-Oil producing regions like the middle-east having less of the world's bollocks in their grip- screw up a few economies for naught while the rest of the world is cruising around in their SUVS- move on to the next "sky is falling" hot potato without learning the lessons of the past. Remember the Ice Age predictions?etc etc etcObviously all of these come at a cost, however the big cost - changing energy infrastructures - will need to start some time in the not too distant future regardless of GW. I suspect nations that have a head start in this area will reap big economic rewards in the future. You only have to look at oil prices for the last decade to see the reasoning thereAll of the above are not really sacrifices and probably are quite beneficial long term.Thanks - but I will determine what defines a sacrifice and what is beneficial long term, and what you list don't meet my criteria in either case.Now what happens if GW is related to human activities and we go on as is?Obviously you have all the dooms-day scenarios put forward by Gore et al (nice Latin pun there), and they may well be feasible, but at a very minimum you would get massive climate shifts. Show me something that says this was not going to happen naturally anyways. Have any proof? Area's that currently get a lot of rain get less, area's that get less may get more and like it or not this will be hugely disruptive to economies. Our infrastructure, cities and even nations are built on centuries of investing in and refining areas of food production. If there are massive and relatively rapid shifts we are in a spot of bother. You can't take the food producing regions for 6 billion people and just 'shift them around a bit'.The entire list for potential GW problems is well known and doesn't need reiterating here.Bingo - I love the word "potential". We are all "potentially" billionaires. Bit of wiggle room there, I would say.If in 50 years we have done nothing and GW is real and was stoppable our grandkids are going to look at us and say 'How ****ing stupid were you? Even Al Gore knew better.'I hope in 50 years our Grandkids don't say "What a bunch of retarded lemmings you were, going all eco-friendly when there was no scientific proof that you were causing a problem to begin with"My main point is that if we are faced with what is potentially a rather huge global problem, listening to the experts is not such a stupid thing. Not listening to the experts because your politics or religion don't agree is incredibly stupid.And where do my politics or religion enter into this? Don't recall writing anything about that. Are you in a tizzy, causing speculation now?How would you feel if after all your years of study, real world experience and fancy modelling some meteorologist walked into your office and stated that your traffic predictions were wrong? And then argued it was obviously wrong because Al Gore said it was right and was milking this fact for political gain?I would know if they were right or wrong by comparing the data observed at the later date against my forecast. And by the way I have, and I have done pretty damn good! No wonder I am so impressed with myself

By the way, what are your qualifications to be speaking about all this? I would put you as an English major at worst and a Philosophy major at best. I would be very surprised if you had any scientific background at all given your style of debate.

[ghoti 0]

By the way, what are your qualifications to be speaking about all this? I would put you as an English major at worst and a Philosophy major at best. I would be very surprised if you had any scientific background at all given your style of debate.

This is a faulty line of argument, similar to attacking Al Gore. What is relevant is not KdT's "qualifications" - at most most what is relevant is the qualifications of his sources, say the 2500+ scientists that reviewed the most recent IPCC report, and the 1000's more scientists that did the research plus wrote and refereed the papers that the IPCC report is based on. In any event appeal to "qualifications" is the fallacy of argument by authority. You shouldn't believe/disbelieve in global warming based on WHO is saying what but based on WHAT they are saying.As for the what...You seem to be hung up on whether or not the models are calibrated, not sure what you mean. Do you honestly think that climate models are never checked against the real world? Considerable effort is spent in calibrating models against the observational record and paleoclimates. Chapter 8 of the current IPCC working group 1 report (free to download from their website) is entirely on the current state of climate modelling and may answer some of your questions. You might also want to take a look at Rahmstorf et al., 2007, "Recent Climate Changes Compared to Predictions"; which compared the predictions in the previous IPCC report with observations of CO2, Temp and Sea-level rise made since 1990 (note that the post-1990 data is not included in the models even though they were run more recently). The models do a good job on CO2, are a bit low on Temp rise (but observed is within the range of model results) and underestimate sea-level rise. Does that count as calibrated predictive models?In any case the global warning hypothesis doesn't hinge on the models, although they are clearly needed to attempt detailed predictions of future impacts. There is a whole range of observational evidence and established physics/chemistry/biology theory that indicate that humanity's activities are significantly raising the atmospheric CO2 concentration and that increading CO2 causes an increase in average global temperature plus other climate changes.

[KramitDaToad 0]

By the way, what are your qualifications to be speaking about all this?

I do not need any qualifications, I am not making any claims. I am suggesting that we the unqualified (and that includes you) should reasonably listen to what the qualified have to say.Let me requote something"The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus" Now that's the American Meteorological Society regarding the consensus on GW. Not the Red Cross or the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. These are one of the many groups of people who actually know what they are talking about and agree that GW is an issue and is very likely caused by human activities

I would put you as an English major at worst and a Philosophy major at best. I would be very surprised if you had any scientific background at all given your style of debate.

I'll take that as a complement to my writing skills and not the insult to English and Philosophy students you intended it to be. However English was never a strength. My background is in organic chemistry, applied mathematics and computer science. Years of book smarts and unfortunately too many YOBE.All of it irrelevant to being an expert on the subject, just the same as civil engineering is.You keep asking for these calibrated studies:

I mean do we have the historical data ... from 1000 years ago to calibrate our models with?

Yes we do. There are dozens of links through this thread. They lead to studies based on models just like you ask. You keep asking for them and all you have to do is click a mouse.However because you are predisposed for whatever irrational reason to ignore the information at hand you therefore assume these models are impossible

Or are they just models that have never been calibrated (because they could not) and simply turned loose to produce the D&G forecasts.

So let me summarise your position.You are presented with an issue that may well have catastrophic consequences for all humans. The vastly overwhelming majority of people who are experts in this field say it is highly likely that these claims are true.You claim that you won't believe them until you see calibrated models. You are shown them/have them at your finger tips, but they are not good enough because in your humble, unqualified opinion they are impossible to produce.Ergo you are left with "I would know if they were right or wrong by comparing the data observed at the later date against my forecast"ie We will know that we could've avoided the problem once we have the problem.This is why we don't let civil engineers play with scissors.

[akoff 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1267uuz2Wv4

[ghoti 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1267uuz2Wv4

That was moderately entertaining, but i think he needs to build up into his rant not just start out blasting full barrel.

[SCYUKON 0]

I do not need any qualifications, I am not making any claims. You have made many claims, such as "Even if this turns out to be false, all of this eco-friendly stuff is good for us" and "SCYukon has abandoned rigor and simply discounting all of this just because it is backed by Al Gore". Or have I misread your posts? I think notThese are one of the many groups of people who actually know what they are talking about and agree that GW is an issue and is very likely caused by human activities Hmmn - looks like another claim to me. "Very likely" - that is pretty strong I'll take that as a complement to my writing skills and not the insult to English and Philosophy students you intended it to be. However English was never a strength. My background is in organic chemistry, applied mathematics and computer science. Years of book smarts and unfortunately too many YOBE.You are very clever with words I will give you that. What exactly do you mean by "my background"? Do you have a degree in each? Or did you try each and flunk out of each? Or did you do the payroll (applied mathematics) on a computer (computing science) at a cosmetic plant (organic chemistry)? Sorry but your background is relevant because if you have 3 degrees to your name I instantly give you more credibility than most, otherwise when you make a claim like that (there is another one - gotcha) with no backup I just assume you are blowing more smoke out of your rearend. So which of the above applies?You keep asking for these calibrated studies:Yes we do. There are dozens of links through this thread. They lead to studies based on models just like you ask. You keep asking for them and all you have to do is click a mouse.I have been following this thread since the day after DN saw the AG move and made his blog on it which started this thread. Sorry but the hockey stick and the lead/lag screwup don't do it for me. I was hoping you may have something new to point me to.However because you are predisposed for whatever irrational reason to ignore the information at hand you therefore assume these models are impossibleHmmn - looks like another claim to me. Maybe it is just me......So let me summarise your position.Don't bother, you have made enough claims without claiming to know my position, TYVMThis is why we don't let civil engineers play with scissors.Correction - that is why we let Arts majors work at McDonalds...

[SCYUKON 0]

Chapter 8 of the current IPCC working group 1 report (free to download from their website) is entirely on the current state of climate modelling and may answer some of your questions. You might also want to take a look at Rahmstorf et al., 2007, "Recent Climate Changes Compared to Predictions"; which compared the predictions in the previous IPCC report with observations of CO2, Temp and Sea-level rise made since 1990 (note that the post-1990 data is not included in the models even though they were run more recently). The models do a good job on CO2, are a bit low on Temp rise (but observed is within the range of model results) and underestimate sea-level rise. Does that count as calibrated predictive models?Thanks for this, I shall check it out. This is the kind of information I was after.In any case the global warning hypothesis doesn't hinge on the models, although they are clearly needed to attempt detailed predictions of future impacts. Exactly. But is manmade CO2 like peeing in a shotglass or peeing in the ocean? In other words, what is the significance of our impact???? More than just the "man made" impact needs to be modelled accurately for any of this to be usefulThere is a whole range of observational evidence and established physics/chemistry/biology theory that indicate that humanity's activities are significantly raising the atmospheric CO2 concentration and that increading CO2 causes an increase in average global temperature plus other climate changes.Observational evidence - don't confuse correlation with causation - BIG DIFFERENCE. Same thing with theory. As for significant, see my earlier post, significant compared to what? That is the key question. If insignificant compared to what happens naturally (my strong strong suspicion until I am shown solid proof otherwise) we are making MUCH MUCH ado about nothing, with a great great cost. No one ever looks at the cost of being wrong about this, there is another side to this with major implications, it is not like we are on a freeroll here.[/quote]

[SCYUKON 0]

Here is a useful (for me anyways as it confirms what I suspected about "how the hell do you model this accurately?") from the IPCC website (a report linked to it). The link was in here:http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-01.PDFPredictability, global and regionalIn trying to quantify climate change, there is a fundamentalquestion to be answered: is the evolution of the state of theclimate system predictable? Since the pioneering work by Lorenzin the 1960s, it is well known that complex non-linear systemshave limited predictability, even though the mathematicalequations describing the time evolution of the system areperfectly deterministic[/b].The climate system is, as we have seen, such a non-linearcomplex system with many inherent time scales. Its predictabilitymay depend on the type of climate event considered, the time andspace scales involved and whether internal variability of thesystem or variability from changes in external forcing is involved.Internal variations caused by the chaotic dynamics of the climatesystem may be predictable to some extent. Recent experience hasshown that the ENSO phenomenon may possess a fair degree ofpredictability for several months or even a year ahead. The samemay be true for other events dominated by the long oceanic timescales,such as perhaps the NAO. On the other hand, it is notknown, for example, whether the rapid climate changes observedduring the last glacial period are at all predictable or areunpredictable consequences of small changes resulting in majorclimatic shifts.Got to give the dude credit, they are objective. Not predictive, but objective.Another link to chapter 7 on model "improvements" here:http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-07.PDFPretty wishy washing wording in the executive summary. No solid developments yet. I await Chapter 8!From Chapter 8:Oh this makes me want to rush out and sell my sport utes:http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-08.PDF8.2.2 The BasisRecent discussions by Randall and Wielicki (1997), Shackley etal. (1998 and 1999), Henderson-Sellers and McGuffie (1999) andPetersen (2000) illustrate many of the confusions and uncertaintiesthat accompany attempts to evaluate climate modelsespecially when such models become very complex. Werecognise that, unlike the classic concept of Popper (1982), ourevaluation process is not as clear-cut as a simple search for“falsification”. While we do not consider that the complexity of aclimate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a model“false” in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluationextremely difficult and leaves room for a subjective component inany assessment. The very complexity of climate models meansthat there are severe limits placed on our ability to analyse andunderstand the model processes, interactions and uncertainties(Rind, 1999).

[ghoti 0]

Exactly. But is manmade CO2 like peeing in a shotglass or peeing in the ocean? In other words, what is the significance of our impact???? More than just the "man made" impact needs to be modelled accurately for any of this to be useful

At last glacial maximum CO2 concentration was a little under 200ppm, over ~10k years it rose by about 80ppm. It was then fairly stable for another ~10k years (about a 10-20ppm increase). Since 1750 the CO2 concentration has risen by about 100ppm due to anthropogenic effects. So closer to a shot glass than an ocean I would say.

Observational evidence - don't confuse correlation with causation - BIG DIFFERENCE. Same thing with theory. As for significant, see my earlier post, significant compared to what? That is the key question. If insignificant compared to what happens naturally (my strong strong suspicion until I am shown solid proof otherwise) we are making MUCH MUCH ado about nothing, with a great great cost. No one ever looks at the cost of being wrong about this, there is another side to this with major implications, it is not like we are on a freeroll here.

I'm aware of the difference between correlation and causation; however when I say theory I mean for example the fact that CO2 absorbs strongly in IR and therefore produces a "greenhouse" effect in the atmosphere. Increasing the CO2 concentration will increase that greenhouse effect, it's a simple energy balance argument that is calibrated by measurements of current atmospheric absorption. It is really much more of a stretch to think that the current increase in CO2 will have a negligible effect when previous increases of similar size are associated with large climate changes due to firmly established physics/chemistry/biology principles.Certainly the models aren't perfect and since the climate system is chaotic and non-linear we can't 100% predict what will happen based on our imperfect theory/observations. But that very fact should probably argue in favour of not making drastic changes to fundamental aspects of the system (e.g. CO2 concentration).The costs of action vs inaction are a whole other debate and one that I haven't read up on as much. Certainly people do look at the costs but it seems to my eye that there is great disagreement about the economic models/assumptions. Assuming the climate models are correct, the Stern report found that inaction would almost certainly be more costly than action, Bjorn Lomberg argues that the costs will be relatively low in the future but high now so action on climate change is a waste of resources (or that the actions we can take will only slightly reduce/delay high future costs which the future will be more capable of dealing with than we are now); both have their economic models/assumptions harshly questioned. There is general agreement that some actions could be taken now with current technology that would reduce carbon emissions and be at worst revenue neutral. I really need to get around to giving the IPCC WG3 report/summary a proper read.

[ghoti 0]

Here is a useful (for me anyways as it confirms what I suspected about "how the hell do you model this accurately?") from the IPCC website (a report linked to it). The link was in here:http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-01.PDFPredictability, global and regionalIn trying to quantify climate change, there is a fundamentalquestion to be answered: is the evolution of the state of theclimate system predictable? Since the pioneering work by Lorenzin the 1960s, it is well known that complex non-linear systemshave limited predictability, even though the mathematicalequations describing the time evolution of the system areperfectly deterministic[/b].The climate system is, as we have seen, such a non-linearcomplex system with many inherent time scales. Its predictabilitymay depend on the type of climate event considered, the time andspace scales involved and whether internal variability of thesystem or variability from changes in external forcing is involved.Internal variations caused by the chaotic dynamics of the climatesystem may be predictable to some extent. Recent experience hasshown that the ENSO phenomenon may possess a fair degree ofpredictability for several months or even a year ahead. The samemay be true for other events dominated by the long oceanic timescales,such as perhaps the NAO. On the other hand, it is notknown, for example, whether the rapid climate changes observedduring the last glacial period are at all predictable or areunpredictable consequences of small changes resulting in majorclimatic shifts.Got to give the dude credit, they are objective. Not predictive, but objective.Another link to chapter 7 on model "improvements" here:http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-07.PDFPretty wishy washing wording in the executive summary. No solid developments yet. I await Chapter 8!From Chapter 8:Oh this makes me want to rush out and sell my sport utes:http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-08.PDF8.2.2 The BasisRecent discussions by Randall and Wielicki (1997), Shackley etal. (1998 and 1999), Henderson-Sellers and McGuffie (1999) andPetersen (2000) illustrate many of the confusions and uncertaintiesthat accompany attempts to evaluate climate modelsespecially when such models become very complex. Werecognise that, unlike the classic concept of Popper (1982), ourevaluation process is not as clear-cut as a simple search for“falsification”. While we do not consider that the complexity of aclimate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a model“false” in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluationextremely difficult and leaves room for a subjective component inany assessment. The very complexity of climate models meansthat there are severe limits placed on our ability to analyse andunderstand the model processes, interactions and uncertainties(Rind, 1999).

You appear to have found a link to the Third Assessment Report; the newest report is #4, out this year and available here.

[SCYUKON 0]

You appear to have found a link to the Third Assessment Report; the newest report is #4, out this year and available here.

TYVMAt least these fellows understand calibration (I would hope so), and acknowledge how difficult it will be. Good on them. However, just reinforces my belief at well at how far they have to go, if it is even possible to go there. Check this out:8.1.1 What is Meant by Evaluation?A specifi c prediction based on a model can often bedemonstrated to be right or wrong, but the model itself shouldalways be viewed critically. This is true for both weatherprediction and climate prediction. Weather forecasts areproduced on a regular basis, and can be quickly tested againstwhat actually happened. Over time, statistics can be accumulatedthat give information on the performance of a particular modelor forecast system. In climate change simulations, on the otherhand, models are used to make projections of possible futurechanges over time scales of many decades and for which thereare no precise past analogues. Confi dence in a model can begained through simulations of the historical record, or ofpalaeoclimate, but such opportunities are much more limitedthan are those available through weather prediction.

[SCYUKON 0]

At least these dudes are honest, but here they admit that they are just now starting to find out ways to attempt to measure the accuracy of their models (my take of these words). 8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model ReliabilityWhat does the accuracy of a climate model’s simulationof past or contemporary climate say about the accuracy of itsprojections of climate change? This question is just beginningto be addressed, exploiting the newly available ensembles ofmodels.So in other words, all of the predictive work done until now is based on models that are just now starting to be measured to see if they are accurate. Can't wait to see how accurate they are. Good reading - thanks for the link!Wow - here they admit that they will never be able to fully calibrate the model against observed phenomena. Was this not the point I made a few posts back aka how the hell do you calibrate such a model???? Instead they are "exploring" relationships between observable metrics. I am so done arguing about this. Thanks again for the link, it has put to bed any doubts I had.For any given metric, it is important to assess how gooda test it is of model results for making projections of futureclimate change. This cannot be tested directly, since there are noobserved periods with forcing changes exactly analogous to thoseexpected over the 21st century. However, relationships betweenobservable metrics and the predicted quantity of interest (e.g.,climate sensitivity) can be explored across model ensembles.And the Coup de grace:More complex metrics have also been developedbased on multiple observables in present day climate, and havebeen shown to have the potential to narrow the uncertainty inclimate sensitivity across a given model ensemble (Murphy etal., 2004; Piani et al., 2005). The above studies show promisethat quantitative metrics for the likelihood of model projectionsmay be developed, but because the development of robustmetrics is still at an early stage, the model evaluations presentedin this chapter are based primarily on experience and physicalreasoning, as has been the norm in the past.What a goldmine. And this work won the Nobel.........wow.