New research on the credibility of climate predictions

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Hippikos, Jul 30, 2008.

  1. Hippikos Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Koutsoyiannis et al 2008.

    Conclusion: "The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.”
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,980
    My review:

    First clue that we're headed for trouble: this supposedly scientific paper paraphrases a philosopher, Karl Popper, on what is required for "science". Nothing wrong with Popper, he's one of my favorites anyway, but he doesn't belong in the introductory description of a technical publication - the discussion, an afterword, maybe, but not leading off.

    Second clue the following quote:
    Well no, it isn't. It's quite common in dealing with large scale hydrological phenomena to claim greater accuracy over the longer term - flood occurrences on the Mississippi are claimed to be almost completely unpredictable for a decade span, claimed to be markedly more predictable in century terms, for example. The claims may be wrong, but they aren't "inconceivable", they're routine.

    Third clue: Vancouver is not in the USA, and the characterization of its climate as "mild" is suspect, especiually contrasted with a location in Japan a bit further south as "marine", and in the light of the claim that a wide variety of climates are represented. Insignificant details are just that, of course, but the entire argument here appears to be based on a claimed superior focus on data, details, facts.

    Along about here we notice that hydological engineers are investigating a very complex and large scale issue outside their field, by crunching numbers and making assumptions. That's not nearly as bad as the financial institution mathematicians who decided to investigate Mann's Hockey Stick by crunching numbers and making assumptions about data outside their field, but a naive approach to climatological data does not build audience confidence - we've been down this road. They couldn't find a single climatologist to advise them ? There are all kinds of possible sources of trouble in the data handling - they appear to have built in some latitude correlations in their choices of specific locales, for instance, which could have serious effects on exactly what they are studying.

    But the paper itself is not so bad, when it leaves off snark and talks data. The central argument is that local climate - not just the weather, but the weather averages at thirty year scales in a specific place - is often much more variable than the variability built in to the older large-scale climate models used by the IPCC in the 90s. In fact, it is so much more variable that it varies in a different way, exhibits a different order of variability, and so the larger models from the 90s (and the newer ones if based on similar assumptions) are basically worthless for estimating changes in local climate (not just weather, climate; not just degree, direction) at specific localities on the planet in the future.

    This is IMHO a very good and necessary argument If you don't like stochastic statistical analysis, there's a popular book that introduces the general concept without equations: "The Black Swan". Take what he says about the stock market and apply it to precipitation at a specific locations.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    A large number of scientists and particularly economists, don't seem to be able to see past an equilibrium model.
    This model simply does not explain the nonlinear behaviour of real-life markets, it never will but they cling to a model that has yet to show much except a few good guesses.

    I think climatology has a much better shot at looking beyond the "it's all to do with equilibrium" paradigm; plenty of evidence that nonlinear events happen all the time climate-wise.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cofu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    13
    new research on the credibility ...

    before to try to predict the future of change of a climatic on continents ,it is necessary to restore the status DM which has presisely proved law of changes on continents which took place in reseant times
     
  8. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    Elaborate on this. Not sure what your trying to say.
     
  9. cofu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    13
    elaborate on this.Not sure what your trying tosay

    warming up began from the centre of planet, the fused zone was displaced and continues to be displaced to a surface where still there are components which maintain temperature of fusion,a nucleus of a planet gradually cool down-up to firm phase;on a background of changing parameters Ms there were 10 cycles of III natural phenomenon,the furthe change of parameters Ms have caused the discontinuance of this cycles;DM-this software which allows demonstration of change on continents during a full cycle III natural phenomenon ;this software was necessary has appeared with Window 95;
    On given time the science has the data to simulate this process in planetary scale and determine real time when warmings up began and how much will process still;whether but already the section nuclear hearting engineers and writing does not know is it such forum
     
  10. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    It's local warming - in shitholes like china, LA, mexico, etc.
     
  11. Hippikos Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    More on Modeling Climate Sensitivity to CO2


     
  12. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    You might wonder seeing how little we spend worldwide on climate research, there would be a bit less expectation of knowing all the answers, you think?
     
  13. Hippikos Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Say what?? The US government spends $ 1.8 Billion each year on climate change research alone...

    The usual suspects certainly claim they know it all and based on that kazillions of tax dollars have been and will be cashed in the meantime.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2008
  14. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    And it only spends 100bn on farming subsidies, and 3tn on the military.
    and 500bn on Haliburton contracts.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,980
    I'll call that one, actually. What is "climate change research", and how does it differ from the ordinary climate research that the government is supposed to be doing anyway ?
     
  16. cofu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    13
    more on Modeling a change on Continents

    shell of a planet) and divergence of continents –so there were conditions for the beginning processes of III natural phenomenon;
    - II—on the background of the further reduction of thickness Ms have processes 10 cycles of III natural phenomenon , when diameter of magma has achieved size over 12 thousand km that after processes (a-b) and (b-b’) Ms could not return to stationary position of period Zp’—and processes of III natural phenomenon have stopped;
    - III—for time (b’-c) mountain tops have again become covered by glaciers and the level of Ocean has down on ~20 m ,the further increase in diameter of magma has caused time stabilization of weight an ice dome of Antarctica and level of Ocean in a point –the further course of events on continents depends on amount of fragments which provide the increase in diameter of magma and here not examined
    - The brief resume of changes in three phases –
    - II—on a site ] are proved [changes] on continents with which processes of natural phenomenon were accompanied during a full cycle ,Dynamic model-the software allowing demonstration of these changes on continents during a full cycle; time parameters of processes allow to determined real time when was break Ms and divergence of continents (withing the limits of 400-500 thousand years)and consequently speed of change of diameter of magma for 10 cycles
    - I—in general to restore a geographical kind of a planet(to join continents) when mountains from Black sea up to Pacific ocean were absent, that is a consequences of various position Ms concerning an axis of rotation of nucleus the Earth and magma during 10 cycles
    - III—the civilization of period Z has an opportunity to simulate processes (thermal, mechanical)in system of mass: the firm nucleus of planet/magma/Ms-taking into account changes of a aggregate status of these components in time –restoration of a real events of the past during II phase will allow to predict the further events of the future taking into account changes of parameters Ms; site Dynamic model necessary for considering in context of the three phases-
    -
     
  17. cofu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    13
    more on Modeling a change on Continents

    -The chronology of [changes] on a planet which includes phases three phases
    - I –warming up began from the centre of a planet, in process of increase in diameter of magma up to size 10-11 thousands km the nucleus of a planet began to cool down ,
    - diameter of magma continued to increase and over 11 thousand km there was break Ms ( the firm shell of a planet) and divergence of continents –so there were conditions for the beginning processes of III natural phenomenon;
    - II—on the background of the further reduction of thickness Ms have processes 10 cycles of III natural phenomenon , when diameter of magma has achieved size over 12 thousand km that after processes (a-b) and (b-b’) Ms could not return to stationary position of period Zp’—and processes of III natural phenomenon have stopped;
    - III—for time (b’-c) mountain tops have again become covered by glaciers and the level of Ocean has down on ~20 m ,the further increase in diameter of magma has caused time stabilization of weight an ice dome of Antarctica and level of Ocean in a point –the further course of events on continents depends on amount of fragments which provide the increase in diameter of magma and here not examined
    - The brief resume of changes in three phases –
    - II—on a site Dynamic modelof the Earts- are proved [changes] on continents with which processes of natural phenomenon were accompanied during a full cycle ,Dynamic model-the software allowing demonstration of these changes on continents during a full cycle; time parameters of processes allow to determined real time when was break Ms and divergence of continents (withing the limits of 400-500 thousand years)and consequently speed of change of diameter of magma for 10 cycles
    - I—in general to restore a geographical kind of a planet(to join continents) when mountains from Black sea up to Pacific ocean were absent, that is a consequences of various position Ms concerning an axis of rotation of nucleus the Earth and magma during 10 cycles
    - III—the civilization of period Z has an opportunity to simulate processes (thermal, mechanical)in system of mass: the firm nucleus of planet/magma/Ms-taking into account changes of a aggregate status of these components in time –restoration of a real events of the past during II phase will allow to predict the further events of the future taking into account changes of parameters Ms; site Dynamic model necessary for considering in context of the three phases-
    -
     
  18. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    For some people who's concern over climate change is based on politics, there's no amount of money that the U.S. could spend on climate change research that would satisfy them. Unless it resulted in their real goal, a Socialist USA.
     
  19. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    nah not socialism.
    anihilation of the human species. except for a chosen few that have been approved as stewards of the world.

    don't get me wrong i am very much the conservationist. i truly believe in keeping things clean and beautiful. helping wildlife to coexist with us. i want to enjoy it. i don't want to go on a hike and see garbage everywhere. i like to fish and i want fish in the water to catch. its not just for me, its for everybody. get the point. its almost as if environmentalists want it for only themselves. as if only they know how, everyone else ruins it. its selfish. but, it fits in with the current world trend. selfishness rules. its a me me me world. and environmentalism fits in with that ideology. it matters not what you think, its only what I think and how dare you challenge my ideas. how dare you suggest that i use more energy, i buy carbon credits.

    the logic that environmentalists use would place all but an elite few into poverty. its actually very scary. what if they had carte blanche to do what they want? where would we be? i suggest to all of you environmentalists to give us an exact account of how you would change things. please, give us a play by play of what you would do right now if you had complete control of the world. then your true colors will show. your wrongs worn on your sleeve.

    i am so beyond politics. i cannot stand politicians. i absolutely hate government. i believe that what our forefathers feared, when they wrote the constitution, was government. quit telling us what we can and cannot do. quit writing legislation and taxing us. they just raised the taxes in my school district. i was told they have to because of rising costs. i said but the taxes are percentage based. using your logic eventually 100% of what i earn will go to school taxes. if every 20 years they raise it by x percentage eventually it would be 100%. the math teacher/next door neighbor, could not understand what i meant. government should do less. every year we should tear down a little more government. get rid of the man. i can never understand how all those liberal 60s hippies become creators of more government and more regulations. it defies everything they were preaching. did they become hypocrites? one said liberal suggested to me a robin hood analogy. take from the rich and give to the poor. i said whoa, robin hood took from the government and gave it back to the people from which it came.

    sorry for my rant.....
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2008
  20. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    You mean new research shows that climate predictions still aren't credible? Shock and awe...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Hippikos Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    The relevance is? €1,8 Billion is hardly "little" as you claim. Besides it's annually. If you see what scientific results have been achieved with all them billions; the temperature sensivity was estimated in th 1970's to 2.0-4.0 degrees, now it's 1.5-4.0. Not really a breakthrough with all these funds... or issit?
    That's what I mean, this budget is only for climate change. I'm sure there's more budget available for climate research in general. No wonder all alarmist are clinging to their dubious models.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,980
    I'm not sure of any such thing. How do you figure ? How does one research climate without researching climate change, or vice versa, and how does that break down in the US federal budget ?
     
  23. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Perhaps it's even worse than the models predicted.. there are signs to support that.
     

Share This Page