Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Will this be the warmest summer in Northwest history?
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
contour5
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 2962 | TRs | Pics
contour5
Member
PostMon Oct 20, 2014 6:06 pm 
Quote:
anyone even partially aware of this topic has no idea of the kinds of claims being made and how common these end times arguments are from environmentalists on this subject
The fact that they are common makes them neither true nor untrue. The fact that many of them have been based on science, or other largely irrefutable evidence tends to lend them credence. And there's plenty of evidence that we're killing the oceans and quickly changing the composition of the atmosphere- two of the primary drivers of climate. Although we are not directly affecting the sun, we are having a profound impact on the way in which it interacts with the earth.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 10:28 am 
Unfortunately the core argument that humans are responsible for any changes to the climate is not included in the 'irrefutable' evidence.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 12:37 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
Unfortunately the core argument that humans are responsible for any changes to the climate is not included in the 'irrefutable' evidence.
Of course the only way scientists have been able to explain the observed changes is by accounting for human forcing of the climate system. At least the only way that holds up to any real scrutiny... However, in a world where we may argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, this may not be enough for the deductivists. Yet much of what humans accomplish in this world is based on inductivist approaches. I would be quite happy, however, to see a new theory that explains observed phenomena better than the AGW theory.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 12:56 pm 
joker wrote:
I would be quite happy, however, to see a new theory that explains observed phenomena better than the AGW theory
I'll look and see what I can come up with. wink.gif That is the bottom line. Looking for irrefutable proof it is probably better to look at something well in the past. Looking for a predictive theory that seems to be represented by meteorological history and that answers questions about the predictive capabilities of models (like the ones that give us good weather forecasts today), then look no further.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 1:58 pm 
joker wrote:
Of course the only way scientists have been able to explain the observed changes is by accounting for human forcing of the climate system. At least the only way that holds up to any real scrutiny... However, in a world where we may argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, this may not be enough for the deductivists. Yet much of what humans accomplish in this world is based on inductivist approaches. I would be quite happy, however, to see a new theory that explains observed phenomena better than the AGW theory.
Of course the only way they've been able to explain the changes is by the presumption they know what the temperatures 'should' be. So what we have is not an actual fact, but an assertion. As for 'real scrutiny', it too relies 100% upon the same presumption. Much of what is accomplished in the world does not depend on untestable assertions, or 100% reliability, because in these endeavors they're not asking for what warming enthusiasts seek. If you look at the history of these discussions, all I need do is reference normal scientific standards, the falsifiability standard for what can be 'known', and to avoid logical fallacies. Meanwhile, the other side uses a host of arguments violating all of the above at some point in their arguments, but insists they must be correct. The call for a theory to replace another theory is not a scientific requirement. Falsification eliminates theories just fine, even without a replacement theory. We can carry on like this a long time, and that's perfectly fine with me. I'll stick with standard practice and the fundamental epistemology of all sciences (other than this field, curiously), and you folks can use all the other methods.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 2:13 pm 
My, my.
MtnGoat wrote:
Much of what is accomplished in the world does not depend on untestable assertions, or 100% reliability, because in these endeavors they're not asking for what warming enthusiasts seek.
Because only by looking in the past will we have 100% reliability. And looking in the past will only be of value if some time, in the distant, future we look back and say, "We really f&%$ed things up."

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 2:20 pm 
It won't be of value if we're looking back and saying 'gosh, we didn't screw anything up'?

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 2:33 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
It won't be of value if we're looking back and saying 'gosh, we didn't screw anything up'?
Only in your dreams. That is why 99.9% of scientists who had published papers in 2012-13 related to the subject believe in AGW. Sooner or later, you've got to look up and say, Why am I all alone on this? This argument scientifically is a dead horse. Politically, it is alive and …well I won't say well. There is a political argument over the relative costs of sitting on our thumbs and of trying to keep the worst from happening and, of whether we have, or could have, the technology, social will (worldwide), and wealth to do something about it. There is absolutely no valid scientific argument. Oh wait…maybe a 0.1% chance. You might as well be arguing that, no, this wasn't the warmest summer, or no, the nighttime temperatures in October haven't been unusual (which is the topic of this thread, anyway).

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 2:40 pm 
You're sure casual about your inversions....using political measurements for 'science'. Of course there are valid scientific arguments, you just don't like them. Wether or not they impede your beliefs is not the metric of science. The fact that there is no empirical way to validate the temperature we 'should' be at, for example. This is a perfectly valid, factual scientific observation. The argument against it is not science based, it's goal based. Gosh, I know we can't but it's so important that we act anyway, etc. Or some other argument which never actually falsfies the fact that it cannot be done. Instead, we're treated to arguments why this fact doesn't matter. Yet it remains a fact, and a valid, scientific fact. Then there are the gaping holes in the modeling, which are so extensive as to render it's use as a predictive agent laughable. The way data from an infinitesimal number of stations on land alone is spread over areas around the globe as needed in order to generate input for models is little discussed, and an example of working the data to fit the model.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 4:28 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
Of course there are valid scientific arguments, you just don't like them. Wether or not they impede your beliefs is not the metric of science. The fact that there is no empirical way to validate the temperature we 'should' be at, for example. This is a perfectly valid, factual scientific observation.
and so on…. I'm not talking about your argument against AGW. I'm talking about your providing a science based alternative theory for why temperatures have risen as they have since the 1880's. In your second statement you say there is no empirical way to evaluate temperature. I’ll ignore the “we should be at” for now. Try this: http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/23/ You can read how the data was collected by following links. If you have reason to doubt the data collection I’d like to see your point by point analysis. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke. As to the “where we should be at now” argument. You mention modeling correct? You know how modeling works, right? Weather models were usable by the early 80’s. I used to go down to the Atmospheric Sciences building at that time and I would look at five day runs of data on paper before I took trips. I had friends getting advanced degrees throughout that period and if I needed help in interpretation I could get it. Occasionally, I would call the NWAC forecasters for their take. Even then, in many cases, if the pattern was not in transition I could look at the forecasts for the five days and then interpolate to extend the forecast. This was reliable for longer trips. And weather models have gotten better and better. Sunday I went hiking in the South Cascades and wasn’t in a hurry because the WRF model from the U of W showed it to be cloudy until 11:00 am. Voila. You probably noticed I’ve looked at the weather and posted on the main page about heavy rain and wind five or more days in advance. You might go back and notice these things did/will come to pass. Sure, there will be minor variations...a little warmer, a little later, a little earlier, a little farther south, a little farther north, a little stronger, a little weaker. But, by and large models work. Clearly long term climate modeling is more difficult, and additional variables, many with positive feedback loops, have to be included in the correlative equations. These models have been run many years now - and as I understand - some of these model runs took as much as a year to run on computers. And they have been re-run with numerous tweaks so the models could be followed to model historic meteorology reasonably well. They have been run by many different scientists in many different countries and there are many different solutions. But spaghetti plots can be analyzed to find “average” solutions and the range of possible different solutions. Are weather models perfect? No. But are the trends they pick up especially when analyzed as spaghetti plots generally correct? Yes. The question isn’t whether or not models and especially spaghetti plots are accurate in their projections, the question is whether the trends more or less accurately reflect reality. You can argue that the consortium of models have over-estimated warming in the past 15 years. If it made sense I would argue (and bet) that looking back on this in 20 years your argument will evaporate into thin air. If you want to see how this is done. If you want to know how a group of well funded scientists have perfected their modeling over numerous re-iterations, each time perfecting their models over a period of years, read this study - you may learn something: http://www.seaci.org/publications/documents/SEACI-1%20Reports/Phase1_SynthesisReport.pdf You will see that they have analyzed (repeatedly) how climate has and will change in southeast Australia not only annually, but seasonally. They suggest the changes and their range and the probabilities of outcome. They have measured changes in the position of the Hadley Cell, and of the average height of the sub-tropical ridge over the period of years. And they conclude that their models only arrive at the correct (time proven) solutions when anthropomorphic changes are used in their modeling. It is the best study I’ve seen because of the inclusion of all the known drivers of climate in the area and because they numerically evaluate seasonal effects and provide probabilities for outcomes. You ignored this study when I posted it before. You ignore it now at the risk of understanding a good deal less about this topic.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 4:48 pm 
We already covered this. Falsification of a theory does not require it's replacement with another theory. All that's necessary is to falsify a crucial element of the theory in question, or falsify a prediction. They've 'perfected' their models...but they cannot test them against an empirical control case. We can go over this time and again and using a lot of words, and we'll wind up in the same spot. I can argue they overestimated warming over the past years, because they did overestimate, and the scramble to account for it proves they know it. Thank you for presuming I didn't read your evidence, when I don't actually recall seeing it.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 5:32 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
joker wrote:
Of course the only way scientists have been able to explain the observed changes is by accounting for human forcing of the climate system. At least the only way that holds up to any real scrutiny... However, in a world where we may argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, this may not be enough for the deductivists. Yet much of what humans accomplish in this world is based on inductivist approaches. I would be quite happy, however, to see a new theory that explains observed phenomena better than the AGW theory.
Of course the only way they've been able to explain the changes is by the presumption they know what the temperatures 'should' be. So what we have is not an actual fact, but an assertion. As for 'real scrutiny', it too relies 100% upon the same presumption.
The "presumption" is that having models that can reasonably accurately "predict" (via back-testing) what we've seen happening with climate variables are far more likely to help us understand the causal factors than models that don't offer up such accurate predictions. And as it turns out, the only models that have such accuracy reflect significant human forcing. Ta da. The theory behind these models have not been falsified except in the most naïve sense of the term. Might there arise a completely different theory that proves even more accurate at describing reality, which does not include human forcing? Maybe, but in the meantime, I'm inclined to pay attention to the theory that has a pretty good track record, notwithstanding your mix of cherry-picked and hand-wavy claims of "falsification."

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 6:14 pm 
I'm inclined to stick with standard methods of science, hand wavey as they may be. No amount of verbiage, or processing power, or model complexity, or really really complicated theories, renders them inapplicable. Can you provide an example of a model which got the hindcasting correct *and* predicted the plateau, before it happened, not after? A track record of predicting what already happened is a given in terms of claiming a model 'works', and tweaking until you match what already occurred is data chasing, not prediction.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion
joker
seeker
PostTue Oct 21, 2014 6:20 pm 
You are implying that this field violates crucial "standard methods of science" but this is simply untrue. Yes, there are methods such as control cases in experiments which can't be applied here, but this is hardly the only field where this is the case. WRT the plateau, I find it encouraging that researchers have been able to improve the models so as to better "predict" it via hindcasting. The theory of course did predict the fact of significant warming. How many of the past 20 years are on the list of the 20 warmest ever recorded?? We have no other theory that better accounts for what we've been seeing, even during the "plateau."

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Oct 22, 2014 10:57 am 
The post glacial also is a predictor of warming. Getting a many thousand year trend correctly isn't exactly the height of predictive power.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Will this be the warmest summer in Northwest history?
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
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