Globval warming reality check

[hallam]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you actually have no idea how complicated or simple the models are. When the goal is to predict global average temperatures, your outcome of the model is going to be a line of temperature. That doesn't mean the model is simple.

That would be a limb for you since you have not shown how complicated these models are and I have shown you how easy it is to detail the concept of the models. To get a line of temperature is not that complicated. The fact remains that these models are simple due to their nature. They are not complicated because they are just trajectories and they don't include human behavior.

I think maybe the problem here is the difference between you and I and what we consider the model itself and the graphics that we see and statistics that go come out of the raw data. The graphics are immensely complex. The statistics that are running in the back ground are complex as well. However, the statistics are not the model. The graphics on TV are not the model. The model is just the outcome of the statistical data versus time. If you include the statistical equation in the model, then I may agree with you depending on the statistics used. But since the statistic are just math and could be used for many things, it is inappropriate to say the complexity of the statistic can be contributed to the model.

 

[iangb]

That would be a limb for you since you have not shown how complicated these models are and I have shown you how easy it is to detail the concept of the models. To get a line of temperature is not that complicated. The fact remains that these models are simple due to their nature. They are not complicated because they are just trajectories and they don't include human behavior.

I think maybe the problem here is the difference between you and I and what we consider the model itself and the graphics that we see and statistics that go come out of the raw data. The graphics are immensely complex. The statistics that are running in the back ground are complex as well. However, the statistics are not the model. The graphics on TV are not the model. The model is just the outcome of the statistical data versus time. If you include the statistical equation in the model, then I may agree with you depending on the statistics used. But since the statistic are just math and could be used for many things, it is inappropriate to say the complexity of the statistic can be contributed to the model.

You do, indeed, have it backwards.

The global model of the climate is constucted, and then used to spit out new predictions. The way of testing the model is to run it in a historical period and see if it generates results that are statistically close enough to the actual readings for that period; that little section is about as close as you get to 'easiness', but constructing the model itself is immensely complicated.

The model is not merely extrapolating a line of best fit.

 

[hallam]

You do, indeed, have it backwards.

The global model of the climate is constucted, and then used to spit out new predictions. The way of testing the model is to run it in a historical period and see if it generates results that are statistically close enough to the actual readings for that period; that little section is about as close as you get to 'easiness', but constructing the model itself is immensely complicated.

The model is not merely extrapolating a line of best fit.

I understand that statistical methods are complex but you should stick to what you know and not talk about this complexity. They have to create the model first simply because you cant predict things without a model. But unfortunately, that doesn't mean the model is complex.

All of these models are a line of best fit whether it is being test against historical data or making future predictions. Again, you have danced around any solid evidence showing complexity. You claim complexity but you don't seem to show complexity.

 

[ricksfolly]

I disagree. Climatologists models are not complicated nor are they precise nor are they even remotely accurate.
Mind you, I have no problem stopping polluting or creating better fuels than oil. The goal is fine; climatologists fear mongering on Red Scare levels is not.

I agree. From what I read in the the latest time, NOAA has only been in operation since 1970, so their hundred year 1.8 degree temp rise is an assumption because they had no control, besides, back then there was no world wide organization with any kind of standard. only indicators in 1 degree increments and the human factor.

Ricksfolly

 

[Manc Skipper]

You agree with his refuted assumption? That points to te fact that your assumption that there was no worldwide organisation is also erroneous. All over the globe, every day at noon, it has been standard practice for every ship of the Royal Navy to record the current local weather in the ship's log. For over 300 years.

 

[iangb]

I understand that statistical methods are complex but you should stick to what you know and not talk about this complexity. They have to create the model first simply because you cant predict things without a model. But unfortunately, that doesn't mean the model is complex.

All of these models are a line of best fit whether it is being test against historical data or making future predictions. Again, you have danced around any solid evidence showing complexity. You claim complexity but you don't seem to show complexity.

I refer you to This page for a very brief overview, or this page for a more thorough read.

Just a sample quote: "Climate models are systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. To “run” a model, scientists divide the planet into a 3-dimensional grid, apply the basic equations, and evaluate the results. Atmospheric models calculate winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface hydrology within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points.
...
These computationally intensive numerical models are based on the integration of a variety of fluid dynamical, chemical, and sometimes biological equations."

It gets complicated. Actually doing the maths is left to the computers - but working out which maths should be used is a lot more tricky that it appears.

 

[ricksfolly]

You agree with his refuted assumption? That points to te fact that your assumption that there was no worldwide organisation is also erroneous. All over the globe, every day at noon, it has been standard practice for every ship of the Royal Navy to record the current local weather in the ship's log. For over 300 years.

That might work as an average if the ships didn't move, but only a place average, not world wide, and exact data is what GW is all about. Not only that but the ships would be in different time zones with no way to amass all the data at the same time.

That's the problem with using exact facts and exact numbers. The time and place also has to be exact.

ricksfolly

 

[Manc Skipper]

That might work as an average if the ships didn't move, but only a place average, not world wide, and exact data is what GW is all about. Not only that but the ships would be in different time zones with no way to amass all the data at the same time.

That's the problem with using exact facts and exact numbers. The time and place also has to be exact.

ricksfolly

On what basis do you make these claims? Each ships log records basic metereological observations. Each entry is timed and dated and includes the ship's position at the time of recording.

 

[ricksfolly]

On what basis do you make these claims? Each ships log records basic metereological observations. Each entry is timed and dated and includes the ship's position at the time of recording.

Okay if they're all at the same place at the same time, but but that won't happen. They're scattered all over the world, some in different time zones, some in the hot parts, some in the cool parts. Today, instant world wide averaging could be done, but only because we have world wide computers.

ricksfolly

 

[Deuce]

Okay if they're all at the same place at the same time, but but that won't happen. They're scattered all over the world, some in different time zones, some in the hot parts, some in the cool parts. Today, instant world wide averaging could be done, but only because we have world wide computers.

ricksfolly

Taking enough random measurements will provide an accurate average. Outliers get eliminated when your sample size is large enough. Our sample size is enormous.

Anthony Watts had a team that went around checking land temperature stations around the world and photographing them. He was trying to show evidence that the temperature stations were biased due to the urban heat island effect and improper placement. Hundreds of poorly placed stations were found, stations that don't meet the established standards. One problem, though, that Watts never mentioned. Even if you use only stations that his team of skeptics labeled "good" or "best," your temperature record is identical. Like within a hundredth of a degree. Big sample sizes eliminate variations.

 

[hallam]

I refer you to This page for a very brief overview, or this page for a more thorough read.

Just a sample quote: "Climate models are systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. To “run” a model, scientists divide the planet into a 3-dimensional grid, apply the basic equations, and evaluate the results. Atmospheric models calculate winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface hydrology within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points.
...
These computationally intensive numerical models are based on the integration of a variety of fluid dynamical, chemical, and sometimes biological equations."

It gets complicated. Actually doing the maths is left to the computers - but working out which maths should be used is a lot more tricky that it appears.

I was clear. The complexity of differential equations is not equatable to the climate model. The number of variables may make a model complex but here we are not talking about that great many variables. The plug and play with 5 variables is again not that difficult. If all the model does is calculate temperature based off an equation where the inputs are wind, heat transfer etc then it is a fairly simple model.

I was clear at the beginning of this. If you believe humans cause or at least significantly partially cause the increase in temperature and the model doesn't include some type of human behavior, then the model is simple because it is leaving out major variables.

 

[iangb]

I was clear. The complexity of differential equations is not equatable to the climate model. The number of variables may make a model complex but here we are not talking about that great many variables. The plug and play with 5 variables is again not that difficult. If all the model does is calculate temperature based off an equation where the inputs are wind, heat transfer etc then it is a fairly simple model.

I was clear at the beginning of this. If you believe humans cause or at least significantly partially cause the increase in temperature and the model doesn't include some type of human behavior, then the model is simple because it is leaving out major variables.

The model is including human behaviour - hence the variety of predictions it makes based on how much emissions are cut by. See the IPCC reports

 

[ricksfolly]

Taking enough random measurements will provide an accurate average. Outliers get eliminated when your sample size is large enough. Our sample size is enormous.>>

Only if they're taken at the exact place at the exact time every day. Adding or subtracting stations will break the exact result, and even if you keep everything constant, there's still people error and acceptable tolerances to contend with.

>>Anthony Watts had a team that went around checking land temperature stations around the world and photographing them. He was trying to show evidence that the temperature stations were biased due to the urban heat island effect and improper placement. Hundreds of poorly placed stations were found, stations that don't meet the established standards. One problem, though, that Watts never mentioned. Even if you use only stations that his team of skeptics labeled "good" or "best," your temperature record is identical. Like within a hundredth of a degree. Big sample sizes eliminate variations.>>

Unfortunately, the more stations, the more human error and more tolerance accumulations that could easily make an overall difference of one or two degrees...

ricksfolly

 

[Manc Skipper]

Let me remind you of your actual assertion.

... besides, back then there was no world wide organization with any kind of standard. ... Ricksfolly

The Royal Navy is and was precisely such a worldwide organisation. You may nitpick with spurious objections and try to qualify your claim, but it failed.

 

[iangb]

Unfortunately, the more stations, the more human error and more tolerance accumulations that could easily make an overall difference of one or two degrees...

ricksfolly

I seem to be asking this a lot at the moment. Do you know what a 'mean' is?

 

[ricksfolly]

Let me remind you of your actual assertion.



The Royal Navy is and was precisely such a worldwide organisation. You may nitpick with spurious objections and try to qualify your claim, but it failed.

I don't nit pick. I make startling revelations...

ricksfolly

 

[Deuce]

Unfortunately, the more stations, the more human error and more tolerance accumulations that could easily make an overall difference of one or two degrees...

ricksfolly

Statistics do not work that way.

 

[hallam]

The model is including human behaviour - hence the variety of predictions it makes based on how much emissions are cut by. See the IPCC reports

If your links are the even a measure of of the climate models, then your links do not support you. Nothing in those models includes human behavior.

 

[Deuce]

If your links are the even a measure of of the climate models, then your links do not support you. Nothing in those models includes human behavior.

They run several different models based on different scenarios of human-driven global carbon emissions.

 

[ptif219]

Statistics do not work that way.

Statistics in the GW community are manipulated to get a certain result. We see this with station put in places to give false readings.

What's Wrong With The Surface Record?

Hot Air » NASA climate data worse than East Anglia CRU?

 

[hallam]

They run several different models based on different scenarios of human-driven global carbon emissions.

And yet they don't seem to include that in the described model.

 

[Strelok]

ITT: Misunderstanding of what global average temperature means.

Anyone wanting to support or contest global warming + climate change should consider the below:

A global average increase since the industrial revolution.
How the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere has effect the equilberium between the energy absorbed in the atmosphere and the energy projected out of the atmosphere.
How this therefore can affect the climate (This article is not primarily about man caused climate change but possible causations of climate change)
Ensure you know what global average temperature means.
Don't use local climate examples in this thread like you have tried to in other threads because it is fallacious and irrelevant.

Since no part of the "official" theory actually provides a set percentage of how much Human influence is there - there is only the correlation and therefore it is a theory that has credibility but not absolution. The only legitimate argument against climate change is the percentage in which man contributes to it.

Therefore I establish the logical position is a neutral position.

 

[Deuce]

And yet they don't seem to include that in the described model.

The IPCC reports talk about this in great detail.

 

[Strelok]

Our added disruption of equilberium of how much heat is deflected back and how much is trapped into the Earth when the sun deflects the heat of the suns light rays. The sun projects light rays that hit the Earth, the Earth projects a good portion of that out - as it escapes, some of it escapes the atmosphere and into space and some of it comes back into the Earth. The green house gases are mostly are what responsible in the the atmosphere for the ability to trap the heat instead of into escaping out of the atmosphere. When the concentration of GHG's in the Earth change, this changes the difference between how much heat is deflected and how much is trapped. Increase GHG's? More energy is trapped. This happens to raise the global average temperature. Equilberium can be distorted naturally, but we happen to produce a constant increase that changes the concentration of GHG's in the atmosphere - that ads to any natural cycle or lack thereof. Roughly 78% of the atmosphere is composed of nitrogen. 21% is oxygen. 99% of the atmosphere is already not a green house gas and 99% of the atmosphere doesn't do a good job at trapping the needed (or if the concentration is more potent, unnecessary) heat from what escapes. Then you have Argon which is composes 0.9%. So, 99% of the atmosphere is not composed of GHG. So, a little increase in GHG's goes a long way. How is this not human caused again? You know, with the added CO2 we pump out and everything. Since my whole post is basically about the greenhouse effect, I conveniently only have to use one source. 1 - which sources itself, of course. I love being lazy. I don't think I have to say anything about how the industrial revolution and the effects afterwards plays right into this.

 

[ptif219]

The IPCC reports talk about this in great detail.

IPCC is not trustworthy and only reports if it promotes GW it is a bias source