Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1194 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostMon May 15, 2017 1:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
They're not needed to 'prove' it?

Where can we find the fully defined and detailed comprehensive theory published? Newton did. Einstein did. Everyone else does.

Where is the source for the non model, comprehensive single global warming theory used to 'prove' warming is human caused?

That's right, computer GCMs are not needed. The three-legs of physics/chemistry, physical measurements, and climate history are fully adequate. But I'm really not going to be pulled into some long drawn up debate with you about it. Been there, done that, with others, too many times. You wouldn't be saying what you are if you were genuinely open to it. You can look it up if you want to, as most of us have done.

Btw Einstein wrote out a series of equations, like was done for the greenhouse effect, a long time ago. But physical experiments that could not be performed in his day were required to prove it. Similar is true for anthro global warming. The equations were worked out almost 200 years ago, and modern physical measurements are continuously collected to add to the overwhelming evidence.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5082 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostMon May 15, 2017 3:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Also If you "don't trust" computer modeling, forget about flying in any aircraft or motor vehicle or using any other engineered item (like a bridge or building) less than 40 years old.  Computer modeling and simulation has played an increasing role in engineering design and analysis.  The resulting designs are stronger, lighter, safer, more durable and more fuel efficient.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 402 | TRs

thunderhead
Member
PostTue May 16, 2017 8:36 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
The complex computer models are not needed to prove that global warming is happening and that human activity is causing it.

True.  The slow but clear trend of global warming is not based on computer modelling.  And computer modelling certainly has many uses and benefits.  That doesnt stop news agencies and scary sounding facebook posts from finding a computer model run that shows something scary and overhyping it.  This is true for both short term weather forecasts and long term climate forecasts.

Computational fluid dynamics is great technology that offers us some pretty amazing things, like a Boeing 787 or an accurate 5 day weather forecast.  But its important to understand what the tools can do and what they cannot do.

Don't get me started on economics models though smile.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5082 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostTue May 16, 2017 9:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Don't get me started on economics models though smile.gif

AFAIK there is nothing equavalent to the Navier–Stokes equations for mathmatically describing human behavior -- of which economics is one specific area.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1194 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostTue May 16, 2017 3:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
That doesnt stop news agencies and scary sounding facebook posts from finding a computer model run that shows something scary and overhyping it.

This is not really an issue specifically for model results. Any science result can be overhyped - just think of studies that somehow involve food safety or diet or lifestyle health impacts. Most people have little conception of science as a gradual process of building knowledge and confidence over time, as studies are validated and new studies attempt to deal with confounding issues in previous ones.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 402 | TRs

thunderhead
Member
PostTue May 16, 2017 8:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I always thought economics models were based on a random number generator and perhaps a cauldron and some frogs biggrin.gif

Quote:
This is not really an issue specifically for model results.

True.  I don't disagree.  But in the context of this thread, and given the lack of accuracy at both long range and low resolution(and climate models are both), its proper to mention climate model hype as an especially egregious form.

Perhaps I should make a simple point and get off the subjective subject of hype: extrapolating the current trend is a better forecast than any CFD-climate model, or even any group of climate models.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1194 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostWed May 17, 2017 6:34 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The biggest challenge with GCMs is regional forecasts, the more so the smaller the region. What will the impact be on PNW snowpacks, on southwest droughts, on the Indian monsoon? I think the scientists involved understand both the value and the limitations. But media and sometimes organizations will hype a single result as being absolute proof when in reality it is just one more piece in a puzzle.

As to economics models, I think suffice to say it depends on what they are trying to model. There are probably some well-defined aspects that can be modeled accurately, but it does sometimes seem more like a case of physics envy.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
CC
cascade curmudgeon



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 388 | TRs

CC
cascade curmudgeon
PostWed May 17, 2017 9:58 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:

An appropriate post, given that the poster and the Dilbert author have the same level of scientific training and expertise.

--------------
No matter how cynical you become, it's not enough to keep up.  Jane Wagner/Lily Tomlin
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 13363 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostThu May 18, 2017 7:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Scott Adams has been a denier for years about as long as Dilbert ceased being fresh. zzz.gif

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 22765 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob
PostFri May 19, 2017 7:39 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It's just amazing how non of you guys will admit that as many scientists disagree with this entire premise as agree with it.  Why arent they as credible as "YOUR" guys? huh.gif

--------------
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."

— Abraham Lincoln
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15132 | TRs

Tom
Admin
PostFri May 19, 2017 12:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I think BPJ suffers from short term memory loss as this myth seems to be reposted about once a month. embarassedlaugh.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
cdestroyer
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 275 | TRs
Location: montana
cdestroyer
Member
PostSat May 20, 2017 7:55 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/may/18/climate-change-is-turning-antarctica-green-say-researchers

https://arstechnica.com/.../the-arctic-seed-vault-had-to-deal-with-melting-permafrost-last-winter/
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 9931 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed May 31, 2017 7:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Also If you "don't trust" computer modeling, forget about flying in any aircraft or motor vehicle or using any other engineered item (like a bridge or building) less than 40 years old.  Computer modeling and simulation has played an increasing role in engineering design and analysis.  The resulting designs are stronger, lighter, safer, more durable and more fuel efficient.

I don't trust modeling which can't be falsified /tested against control cases.

Those models work because they can be. Climate models cannot be and worse, represent numerical/code implementations of interpretations of climate processes never put into print as cohesive, comprehensive works which can be examined.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 9931 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed May 31, 2017 7:25 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
CC wrote:
An appropriate post, given that the poster and the Dilbert author have the same level of scientific training and expertise.

Good thing it doesn't take much to recognize that climate claims fly in the face of by the numbers scientific practice.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 9931 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed May 31, 2017 7:34 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:
They're not needed to 'prove' it?

Where can we find the fully defined and detailed comprehensive theory published? Newton did. Einstein did. Everyone else does.

Where is the source for the non model, comprehensive single global warming theory used to 'prove' warming is human caused?

That's right, computer GCMs are not needed. The three-legs of physics/chemistry, physical measurements, and climate history are fully adequate. But I'm really not going to be pulled into some long drawn up debate with you about it. Been there, done that, with others, too many times. You wouldn't be saying what you are if you were genuinely open to it. You can look it up if you want to, as most of us have done.

Btw Einstein wrote out a series of equations, like was done for the greenhouse effect, a long time ago. But physical experiments that could not be performed in his day were required to prove it. Similar is true for anthro global warming. The equations were worked out almost 200 years ago, and modern physical measurements are continuously collected to add to the overwhelming evidence.

Nah, I wouldn't be saying it if the theory(s) as posited were ever actually published as I noted. They're not. There's no need for any long drawn out debate over what is factual, as my assertion is.

The three legs are completely inadequate. Rolled together into the unholy mess we currently see, they're nothing more than glorified correlation=causation arguments.

The equations for CO2 were worked out a while back, sure. But that is not the only factor. The Earth and it's bazillions of interactions and ever changing conditions are a bit more complex than a few equations for gasses in a lab jar. And it is the assumptions and additions surrounding all these things and describing their implementation, in code, which are not published in comprehensive form. Your argument is similar to claiming Einstein's equations needn't be published for critique because he used some much simplified form of some other equation known to be true within his greater work.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday JVT!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy