Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures.

[Absentglare]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

First off, Even if we could succeed in doubling the CO2 level, which is unlikely,
the ECS would be much closer to 2 C rather than 3.8 C.
While there have been many shroud wavers speculating on the numbers of people who will
die if "X" happens, it is speculation. We think we understand a few of the variables of climate,
yet the uncertainty is still very close to the prediction level, and has been such for almost 20 years.

And you don't see a problem with using their estimates while simultaneously doubting their estimates ?

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Global Sulfur Emissions Database

Hmmm. From your link.

 

[Tpaine]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

+3.8 c would impact food production. It would increase it dramatically.

+3.8c is about the same as moving 300 - 450 miles south. How would that effect the crops that are grown bearing in mind that the desert zones are likely to shrink because a warmer world is a far wetter world.

Also, of course, increased CO2 increases crop productivity.

World hunger, outside war zones, would be instantly solved by the removal of all agricultural subsidies and market manipulations by governments. Biodeisel is a crime against humanity.

I'm going to assume you accept the estimates that the ice ages were the result of 5-8 degrees lower and the little ice age we just had is estimated to have been around 0.5 degrees lower. Since those caused major weather disruptions does it concern you that you are talking about temperature changes that are getting close to amount that caused ice ages?

 

[Poor Debater]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Hmmm. From your link.

Hmm. This is not 1990. From your calendar.

 

[Poor Debater]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Wrong. Utterly wrong.

The default answer in science is "I don't know".

Using an answer/model that you know is wrong is religion not science.

Wrong again. All models are wrong. Some models are useful. Not having a model is never useful. What you've got is no model. You lose.

 

[Poor Debater]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

When the IPCC misrepresents the science, why should we give them respect?

Please cite two cases where the IPCC has misrepresented the science, directly quoted with page numbers.

 

[Poor Debater]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

LOL...

Talking out your ass again, right?

No link?

Provided in my earlier post to Jack. I would have assumed that anyone competent in climate science would already know ... hey, what am I saying? This is Denierstan I'm talking to.

Now I would suspect that sulfates are actually a bit higher than the 60, but where they are produced makes a difference too. It matters how the winds carry them, and where they are blocking the sun. A 5% reduction in an area that gets little sun is not as pronounces as a 5% reduction of strong sun. Also, if the winds carry the aerosols over water, land, or ice. Think about the areas of the past production vs. today. Large amounts of aerosols and the regions of concentration are different today.

Your thinking is too simplistic.

Please provide data to support your hypothesis regarding actually recorded changes in albedo of areas underlying sulfate emissions. Otherwise, your thinking is -- to coin a phrase I just heard -- talking out of your ass.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Please cite two cases where the IPCC has misrepresented the science, directly quoted with page numbers.

What?! You're going to make him cite paragraphs!?

The horror.

 

[Poor Debater]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

My mistake.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/1101/2011/acp-11-1101-2011.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014003/pdf

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

So you want to warm the planet on purpose ?

But you also think we don't understand how it's warming ?

And you don't see any flaw in your reckless "plan" ?

1, It's not a plan.

2, Yes it would be a good thing.

3, We do know that it has been lots warmer in the past. That there has also been periods of higher CO2 and colder.

4, Why do you want to kill millions of people to avoid a none-problem?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

I'm going to assume you accept the estimates that the ice ages were the result of 5-8 degrees lower and the little ice age we just had is estimated to have been around 0.5 degrees lower. Since those caused major weather disruptions does it concern you that you are talking about temperature changes that are getting close to amount that caused ice ages?

Cold is bad. Cold is less rainfall and thus doubly less food.

Warm is good. See holocene optimal.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Wrong again. All models are wrong. Some models are useful. Not having a model is never useful. What you've got is no model. You lose.

Wrong. Using the wrong model is much worse than not knowing what the future holds. Admitting you don't know is always better than making up ****.

The use of the wrong model is killing between 200 thousand people to more than 20 million people per year utterly needlessly, depending on the model you prefer.

 

[longview]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

And you don't see a problem with using their estimates while simultaneously doubting their estimates ?

Which estimates am I using, and which am I doubting?

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Hmm. This is not 1990. From your calendar.

Your #85 said level now is roughly the same as mid-1960's. Your assertion then is that level has fallen by roughly half since 1990?

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

1, It's not a plan.

It's a "feature" like when medication causes anal leakage ?

2, Yes it would be a good thing.

You think changing the climate is a good thing, though you insist that our experts don't even know what consequences that would have ? Interesting.

3, We do know that it has been lots warmer in the past. That there has also been periods of higher CO2 and colder.

Sure but not when the planet was supporting 7 billion humans. There was a time when our entire solar system was a bunch of gas, should we embrace living in gas, too, because it happened before ?

4, Why do you want to kill millions of people to avoid a none-problem?

Caution doesn't kill, you're just using that same, failed appeal to emotion fallacy again because your ridiculous argument can't stand the light of day.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Which estimates am I using, and which am I doubting?

"Uncertainty is very close to the prediction" or did you forget saying that already ?

 

[longview]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

"Uncertainty is very close to the prediction" or did you forget saying that already ?

The Uncertainty is very close to the prediction of the amplified feedback warming.
The Uncertainty range is 3 °C, While the amplified feedback warming range is 3.3 °C.
I should add, although I really should not have to, the having the uncertainty almost as large as the prediction,
is not a good thing!

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

The Uncertainty is very close to the prediction of the amplified feedback warming.
The Uncertainty range is 3 °C, While the amplified feedback warming range is 3.3 °C.
I should add, although I really should not have to, the having the uncertainty almost as large as the prediction,
is not a good thing!

Large uncertainty is never a good thing, which is why caution is warranted.

 

[longview]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

Large uncertainty is never a good thing, which is why caution is warranted.

In this case the uncertainty is about the final ECS from a doubling of the CO2 level, (1.5 to 4.5 °C),
and we should be cautious to accept as concrete, any suggestion that reliable future temperature prediction
can be obtained from such a large level of uncertainty.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

In this case the uncertainty is about the final ECS from a doubling of the CO2 level, (1.5 to 4.5 °C),
and we should be cautious to accept as concrete, any suggestion that reliable future temperature prediction
can be obtained from such a large level of uncertainty.

Seems to me that we should be cautious of anyone who states the ECS is between 1.5-4.5, yet tells us that we shouldn't worry because it's most likely 1.5-2 degrees.

 

[Absentglare]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

In this case the uncertainty is about the final ECS from a doubling of the CO2 level, (1.5 to 4.5 °C),
and we should be cautious to accept as concrete, any suggestion that reliable future temperature prediction
can be obtained from such a large level of uncertainty.

You don't have to accept the risk of being robbed after leaving your house unlocked as "concrete" to lock your ****ing house on the way out.

 

[longview]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

You don't have to accept the risk of being robbed after leaving your house unlocked as "concrete" to lock your ****ing house on the way out.

Risk analysis is something we all do, weather we are understand it or not.
From the data I have seen, there is very little risk of the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC actually happening.
Long before we could actually worry or do anything meaningful about AGW weather real or not,
market forces will move us off of fossil fuels for transport. I am talking likely a decade or two at the outside.
We have several real problems in the future, that the solution will leverage each other.
We first and foremost have an energy problem, alternative energy sources are capable of the volume, but not the
density and duty cycle of a first world lifestyle.
Secondly alternative energy sources are not comparable with vast amounts of transport, and farming infrastructure.
Research done over the last decade, starting with Audi, and the Naval Research Labs, have developed a method
of using surplus energy to create man made hydrocarbon fuels.
These fuels are chemically identical to fuels derived from fossil oil, except the Carbon is from atmospheric CO2,
Or on the Navy's case sea water, and so are carbon neutral.
This process is compatible with a modern refinery Cracking unit.
The other side of alternative energy, Solar and Wind, is that they can provide good power, just maybe not where it is
needed or at the level it is needed. On self contained (off Grid) solar systems, they have a dump load to deal with the surplus.
on a grid hundreds of miles across, the spikes could become unmanageable.
The refineries could provide a necessary dump load, and store all the surplus as usable fuel.
The advantages of a carbon neutral fuel, compatible with all existing distribution infrastructure,
and existing vehicles are very good.
The transition to carbon neutral fuel would be almost transparent to the end user,
and the cutover would occur much faster.
At about $90 a barrel, it will start to become cheaper for refineries to make their own feedstock,
rather than buy spot oil. As the oil reservoir supplies drop, a greater and greater percentage will be carbon neutral fuel.
Oil supplies will only be needed to feed plastics, and other production.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

You don't have to accept the risk of being robbed after leaving your house unlocked as "concrete" to lock your ****ing house on the way out.

Do you board up your windows and plant land mines around the house?

There is a thing called over reaction.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

It is about the reliability and accuracy of the computer models.

Sure, but he has no response other than ad hominem.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Dr. Patrick Frank says the models are incapable of predicting future temperatures

IOW: All weather forecasts are total BS.

:lol:

Weather isn't climate. But if you want an example of the predictability of weather then pay close attention to the next hurricane track predictions and results.