rushmc 23
Recommended Posts
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go again. Predicting a long term trend is not the same as predicting tomorrow's weather, or next year's average temperature. You are too smart not to know this; the only conclusion is deliberate deception on your part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you being obtuse deliberately?
On this kallend is correct. Different methodology is used for long-term forecasting than short term. GCM's are different from weather forecasting.
However, there is something interesting about weather forecasting. There are different models that make different predictions. SO let's say you are looking to forecast weather for tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. You take a look at the different predictions and say, "How do I choose?"
One way that is frequently used is to compare the predictions with your thermometer. Which one is best? Go back and see the record for the past two or three days. Whichever has been the most accurate you'd put a bit more faith in and use it.
Weather forecasters can do this every day. The feedback and data comparisons can be determined through ten daily iterations. For ten iterations of climate modeling takes a millenium, though.
I see little reason why a climate scientist is prohibited from looking out the window to see, "How's my model coming along?" And tweaking and making changes as he/she goes along in time.
If additional data is plugged in it should have an effect on the model's end-predictions. Which is another way of saying that present climate data is relevant to future climate data.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,108
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou forgot to mention the report was peer reviewed too.
He must not have read the 2007 editorial by Dr. Lindzen that states:
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Ouch, that is going to leave a mark
But it doesn't mention his consulting activities, does it?
None of my research was ever funded by ALCOA, but they paid me a lot in consulting fees.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,108
QuoteQuote
Using chaotic (in the mathematical sense) short term fluctuations in a vain attempt to discredit a model whose purpose is to predict long term trends despite being told repeatedly that what you are doing is mathematically and scientifically invalid simply shows that your intention is to deceive.
And your insistence on the validity of a model " whose purpose is to predict long term trends" throws scientific method on its head.
John - give me empirical observations that show the validity of the predictions odf these long term trends. .
Predicting the future is always difficult and one of the reasons is that you have to wait for the future to arrive to see if the prediction is correct.
If the predictions relate to data that are only valid averaged on a 30 year period, then you have to wait some 30 years.
The same kind of issues arise in testing new drugs and treatments for chronic ailments. How long did it take before we had enough data to show that HRT was not actually beneficial?
If you claimed that the climate data we have collected in the last decade are insufficient by themselves to verify any of the long term predictive models, I would agree with you. But you are not saying that. You are saying the data we have now invalidate the models, and that is simply NOT TRUE.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rehmwa 2
QuoteIf you claimed that the climate data we have collected in the last decade are insufficient to verify any of the long term predictive models, I would agree with you.
thank goodness we have that out of the way
...
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
chuckakers 426
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteStill waiting for your list of scientists who are paid for their opinions by Big AGW.
Still waiting for you to converse about the DATA.
Sshhh: grown ups are talking.
Yes, they are - so why do you keep interjecting into the conversation?
ClickyQuoteMar. 5, 2001
Dr. Jim Hansen, Chief of the Goddard Space Flight Center's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, N.Y., and one of this year's recipients of a $250,000 Heinz Award, receives his award tonight at a ceremony at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C.
The award, bestowed annually by the Heinz Family Foundation since 1993, honors the memory of Sen. John Heinz, R-Pa., who died in a plane crash in 1991. The award is given in recognition of people who enhance the lives of others.
In announcing this year's winners, the Heinz Award cited Dr. Hansen "for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change. The theory that industrial pollution continues to create an atmospheric 'greenhouse effect' or warming has pitted scientist against scientist and politician against politician. "
Well, I guess you can quit using Hansen as a source....
C'mon, that's just profit sharing. Capitalism at its dirty, slimey best!
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX
D-10855
Houston, TX
QuoteIf you look at a graph of temperatures over the last 10 years, you'll note that it jukes all over the place, just like the stock market.
Yessir. As it did before. But with no upward trend from the previous ten years.
QuoteThis is because there are factors that influence temperature on a day-to-day, week-to-week, and month-to-month basis that have stronger input than manmade CO2 (for example, a volcanic eruption).
Indeed. This is a given. Mind you, there has been no significant volcanic eruption a la Pinatubo in the last ten years. But I follow you.
QuoteBecause a lot of these factors are difficult/impossible to predict in the short-term, it's ludicrous to try and use a model designed to predict long-term temperature fluctuations to predict temperature change over the course of 10 years.
Correct. It either predicts an end point and reduces a a trend or it predicts a trend and picks an end-point.
I'm not suggesting that the long-temr forecast should say, "How's the weather today compare?" I do suggest, however, that there is nothing wrong with comparing data over, say, the last ten years to see, "How are we coming along in our predicted trend."
I've got two kids whom I take to the pediatrician. They actually have growth charts for kids - height, weight, etc. The charts are not necessarily to see where a kid stands in comparison to other kids. Rather, they check at regular interverals to determine whether my kids are progressive with interval growth within normal limits.
The responses I'm getting are similar to saying, "We're predicting he'll be 6'3". Measurements right now are useless when comparing the long term trend." Meanwhile, I can say, "Data suggests that his interval growth is 50% of normal over the last year. He was 65th percentile in height 1 year ago. He's 25th percentile now. Let's keep an eye on this."
A year later:
"He's measured now at 8th percentile."
"This is insignificant. Short term data mean nothing. We have computed this using environment, genetics, nutrition, and other such factors to calculate with 95% confidence that he will be 6'3" in 15 years."
"Not at this rate."
"It's short term noise. Focus on the signal. This data is irrelevant."
A year later
"He's 1st percentile. He hasn't grown in a year."
"The model is correct."
"But it looks like something is going on that you don't know about."
"We were very careful in our predictions. Trust me, genetics and environment are given substantial weight in this. We have considered everything."
"The doctor says he's got a craniopharyngioma."
"I cannot recall weather that was weighted, but please, let us wait until he is 20 to decide."
QuoteBecause a lot of these factors are difficult/impossible to predict in the short-term
Yes. I'm repeating this. Those "impossible to predict" have ramifications down the line. And since there is no data to validate the "long term trend" it is not a scientific conclusion.
QuoteThe background noise is too high to pull anything meaningful out of that set of data.
The background noise makes it difficult to pull out the signal that you want! So when a couple of scientists were trying to detect evidence of the big bang, they couldn't get any reliable measurements because the background noise kept heating their antenna. Then they figured out that the pesky noise WAS the signal of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
The noise of natural variability may make it impossible to find anthropogenic activity. When the noise drowns out the signal, shouldn't the noise be the focus? No AGW signal for ten years. Either the noise is too loud or the signal isn't loud enough.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quotereputable climatologists (unlike lawyers) typically use a 30 year period for climate analyis, and certainly NOT a 10 year period.
Okay.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/uah_lt_since_19792.jpg
I haven't looked at the raw data. But this is a 30-year running average. It appears to show the commencement of a downward trend on the curve. So we've got ourselves the signal over the noise that you are looking for. 30-years is established and that average has been going down since about 05 to a 30 year anomaly of roughly .13.
Hey, it's warming. But we should be at around .6 right now. Meaning that if .13 is the anomaly for 100 years, we can expect warming of .43 degrees celsius. Which seems dramatically lower than the 3-5 degree celsius warming predicted by the 200) National Assessment.
Hey, I'm using a 30 year trend here. Actually, the only one I could find through 2008.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteData, dear boy, data
Funny. I've been saying the same thing. "Here's some data.
"That's irrelevant."
"Well then, show me data that shows the climate prediction is accurate."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteJohn - give me empirical observations that show the validity of the predictions odf these long term trends. .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicting the future is always difficult and one of the reasons is that you have to wait for the future to arrive to see if the prediction is correct.
Yep. That's another way of saying, "We have no data." But, credible and reputable scientists observe and report and rethink on the basis of observations.
QuoteOne of the interesting things about being a scientist is seeing how unexpected observations can galvanize the community into looking at a problem in a different way than before. A good example of this is the unexpectedly low Arctic sea ice minimum in 2007 and the near-repeat in 2008. What was unexpected was not the long term decline of summer ice (this has long been a robust prediction), but the size of 2007 and 2008 decreases which were much larger than any model had hinted at. This model-data mismatch raises a number of obvious questions – were the data reliable? are the models missing some key physics? is the comparison being done appropriately? – and some less obvious ones – to what extent is the summer sea ice minimum even predictable? what is the role of pre-conditioning from the previous year vs. the stochastic nature of the weather patterns in any particular summer?
This statement was by Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt of NASA-GISS, and one of the moderators of realclimate.com. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/
Here's the link to the statement: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/summer-sea-ice-round-up/
Observations play a crucial role. Here he is talking about events from 2007 and 2008 that leaves him scratching his head. Note his statement about the data? The physics? The comparisons?
And - the [bu]model data mismatch. This is exactly what I am saying. It raises questions about the continuing validity of the model.
And, he cites to a comparison of the observed data with the IPCC AR4 model sea ice trend.
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2009/stroeve.png
So, John, it ain't like you say it is. I do not questing Dr. Schmidt's credentials. And I think it IS appropriate to contantly reassess on the basis of observations.
These observations are valid and brought up when it supports the cause. They are no less valid because they are contrary to a set of beliefs.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,108
Of course some physics are missing from the models! If we knew everything we could predict the weather a year in advance, accurately, anytime, anywhere, rather than just predicting long term climate trends.
Jeez!
Jeez!
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
But the point is that the deviations of observations from the models' predictions - even with another 92 years before the models come due - are enough to warrant reconsideration.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,108
QuoteBut the point is that the deviations of observations from the models' predictions - even with another 92 years before the models come due - are enough to warrant reconsideration.
Models are models, nature is nature.
Our models are refined all the time. Pretty much all scientific research literature is about refining models of the natural world.
Newton's laws are pretty good models of dynamic systems over a large range of sizes.
Quantum mechanics and relativity are more sophisticated models developed to deal with situations that Newton's laws can't handle. However, we don't use quantum mechanics to design a bicycle.
I'm sure better climate models are being developed as we discuss this. Maybe they will be able to predict El Ninos. However the existing models ARE based on known laws of physics, such as thermodynamics, absorbtion spectra, evaporation rates, etc. so in the grand scheme of things they are unlikely to be far wrong when averaged over many decades even if they can't predict if we will have a bad winter in Illinois this year or if the Arctic ice pack will melt more than usual in 2010.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
So the data that you agree with, paid for people you approve of is right. Other data is wrong because you don't like the researchers or the entities subsidizing even though you can't fault the data itself. Thanks for clearing that up.
You are only as strong as the prey you devour
kallend 2,108
QuoteSo the data that you agree with, paid for people you approve of is right. Other data is wrong because you don't like the researchers or the entities subsidizing even though you can't fault the data itself. Thanks for clearing that up.
You could always try reading the thread before making an ignorant comment.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Shit, he was right-attacking the messenger is the only weapon in your holster.
That was a pretty accurate Reader's Digest synopsis of what you've been doing. I'll never understand how someone who has their head buried in the sand manages to get so much in their vagina.
That was a pretty accurate Reader's Digest synopsis of what you've been doing. I'll never understand how someone who has their head buried in the sand manages to get so much in their vagina.
You are only as strong as the prey you devour
Ouch, that is going to leave a mark
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites