tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post456227629407587690..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: "A jetliner is just aluminum wrapped around a theory."David Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-48347258096461153672016-08-23T10:49:35.125-07:002016-08-23T10:49:35.125-07:00This link includes some models predicting cooling....<i>This link includes some models predicting cooling. http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/29/scientists-and-studies-predict-imminent-global-cooling-ahead-drop-in-global-temps-almost-a-slam-dunk/ </i><br /><br />DavidInCal, do you vouch for these models? Meaning, you understand the methodology behind them and can vouch that the math and physics used therein are sound? <br /><br />If you want to pick just one, I'll be happy to go through it with you and examine its merits. <br /><br />On the other hand, if all you want to say is "here are 50 models, and I don't know if they're right or not", then meh. I can come up with 50 people saying vaccines cause autism, too. Doesn't mean they're right. Windchasershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11554275410734284781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-49395334363155138882016-08-22T14:47:07.238-07:002016-08-22T14:47:07.238-07:00I don't think you can claim to be waiting for ...I don't think you can claim to be waiting for the results of the projections. <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1981_prediction_obs.gif" rel="nofollow">Figure 7 in Hanson's 1981 paper </a>projected a rise of about 0.6C in 2016 relative to 1976 - for a model sensitivity of 5.6C.<br /><br />For a sensitivity of 2.8 he projects about 0.5C and just under 0.4 C if sensitivity is 1.4.<br /><br />If you fit a linear trend between 1976 and today you find <a href="http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1976/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1976/mean:12" rel="nofollow">a rise of 0.73C.</a><br /><br />35 years later we're worse off than that "alarmist" Hanson had anticipated in his worst case projection. <br /><br />So what are we waiting for?Layzejhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11346550512734519728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-91195983354416443282016-08-22T09:58:00.033-07:002016-08-22T09:58:00.033-07:00Excellent post. You hit the nail on the head in th...Excellent post. You hit the nail on the head in that the role of CO2 is probably the best understood part of the science. <br /><br />What "David in Cal" said <i>"Correctly predicting the future would be stronger evidence."</i> has got to be the non-sequitor fallacy of the ages. The trap they want to set is for you to make a prediction for 20 years down the line so they can then wait for it to pan out (or not) while they maintain the status quo. Not willing to take that bait.<br /><br />... But really, who cares about what DavidInCal has to say? What I think is important is to go after the credentialed contrarians such as Salby and Lindzen and rework <b>their</b> research findings. Their recent contrarian research is easy to debunk, but going back further, I think their early research is up for more scrutiny.@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-26768821516601989432016-08-21T18:18:12.334-07:002016-08-21T18:18:12.334-07:00David: I'm just fucking sick of dumb idiots li...David: I'm just fucking sick of dumb idiots like you who link to every denialist idiot on the planet as a way to try and disprove AGW.<br /><br />Nothing you have ever written here -- NOTHIHG here, David, EVER -- has ever been worth a damn. It's all just the usual dumb-as-fuck denialist shit. <br /><br />It's not science. <br /><br />Same goes for Richard.<br /><br />Frankly I wish you'd just take your rank stupidity and go somewhere stupid like WUWT where you belong. <br /><br />Your posts here have been nothing but a huge waste of time. Richard's too. <br /><br />If I was a denier I'd ban you from my blog as a way to enforce ideology. But I'm not afraid like that, so you can post whatever stupidity you want here. And I will keep pointing out what an idiot you and Ricard are. <br /><br />Get lost.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-21638662276605180952016-08-21T18:11:31.942-07:002016-08-21T18:11:31.942-07:00David, don't give me a fucking link to a stupi...David, don't give me a fucking link to a stupid-as-shit blog like no tricks zone.<br /><br />It's very telling that you can't quote science and have to link to assorted idiots like Joe Bastardi and dumb denier blogs like Pierre Gosselin. <br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-55989309300338025582016-08-21T17:33:07.040-07:002016-08-21T17:33:07.040-07:00You're right, David. The link I provided does...You're right, David. The link I provided doesn't list actual models (except maybe for the Russian space scientist). Here's a site that does link to actual climate models that predict very low sensitivity. http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/#sthash.gwG4UMaq.tZXYpC4y.dpbs <br /><br />Now, I'm not saying that these models are correct or how much credence they deserve. I'm criticizing Sellers' reasoning. One reason he has confidence in the models is that he thinks the various climate model all give fairly consistent results. But, that's not the case when one looks at the full gamut of climate models. It's just that he doesn't know about the models that differ greatly from the consensus view. <br /><br />Re: the tipping point. As you say, that's not a prediction, it's a possibility. Nevertheless, that possibility is a source of uncertainty in the models. And, this uncertainty cannot be calculated. <br /><br />As you point out, the models are based on the historical record. As I understood Sellers, he was impressed that the models did a good job of reproducing the historical record. I don't think that's strong evidence one way or the other. Correctly predicting the future would be stronger evidence.<br /><br />CheersDavid in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-47380872766750471502016-08-21T12:15:38.434-07:002016-08-21T12:15:38.434-07:00"I am not sure what's meant by evaluation..."I am not sure what's meant by evaluation by model spread."<br /><br />You take a bunch of models -- an emsemble -- and graph their results. That's the spread.<br /><br />Reminder: climate models do not start in a known initial state. <br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-2239459018038723292016-08-21T12:13:24.413-07:002016-08-21T12:13:24.413-07:00"E.g., in the case of global warming, some sc..."E.g., in the case of global warming, some scientists believe there's a "tipping point", beyond which warming will speed up and/or become irreversible. Other climatologists have not endorsed the idea of a tipping point. So the existance or non-existance of a tipping point as well as its exact nature are sources of uncertainty."<br /><br />And every such claim -- ALL OF THEM -- emphasize that those aren't prediction, they're possibilities. <br /><br />And they are.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-46029004146476325182016-08-21T12:11:53.846-07:002016-08-21T12:11:53.846-07:00"This link includes some models predicting co..."This link includes some models predicting cooling. http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/29/scientists-and-studies-predict-imminent-global-cooling-ahead-drop-in-global-temps-almost-a-slam-dunk/"<br /><br />Those aren't models.<br /><br />They're just people spouting off. <br /><br />Has even one of them published a real paper in a real journal? <br /><br /> David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-53275888326534278492016-08-20T22:28:45.312-07:002016-08-20T22:28:45.312-07:00This link includes some models predicting cooling....This link includes some models predicting cooling. http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/29/scientists-and-studies-predict-imminent-global-cooling-ahead-drop-in-global-temps-almost-a-slam-dunk/ <br /><br />A National Geographic report says, "If the warming were to go beyond 6-to-7 degrees Fahrenheit (about four degrees Celsius), she says, as predicted by some climate models..."<br /><br />Sellers said we can use the models as checks on one another. If I understood him correctly, he's saying that the models gain credence because they produce consistent results. However, the examples here show that model results vary.<br /><br />I think only some of the uncertainty in a model can be calculated from the uncertainty of the data. I am not sure what's meant by evaluation by model spread. But, my point is that a model is a simplified respresentation of reality. We cannot be sure how much uncertainty is due to the things not in the model. This is something like the unknown unknowns.<br /><br />E.g., in the case of global warming, some scientists believe there's a "tipping point", beyond which warming will speed up and/or become irreversible. Other climatologists have not endorsed the idea of a tipping point. So the existance or non-existance of a tipping point as well as its exact nature are sources of uncertainty.<br /><br />CheersDavid in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-44182335904090314362016-08-20T20:40:34.941-07:002016-08-20T20:40:34.941-07:00The "the true value of sensitivity" -- t...The "the true value of sensitivity" -- though such a thing doesn't really exist -- is not a "fact" that goes into climate models, it is an output. So are feedbacks -- they are emergent consequences of the laws of physics.<br /><br />The basic facts of climate change are straighforward: the Earth emits infrared radiation, and CO2 and other GHGs absorb it. <br /><br />Of course the models are base on the historical record! What else should they be base on -- the climate of the planet Tatooine in Star Wars? <br /><br />However, the models do also describe Venus and Mars.<br /><br />All calculations in physics have an associated uncertainty, based on the uncertainties of the data that go into the calculation. Those can be calculated, or evaluated by model spread.<br /><br />What models are ignored based on their results?David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-24054276573279678532016-08-20T15:56:49.661-07:002016-08-20T15:56:49.661-07:00There are some questionable comments in Sellers...There are some questionable comments in Sellers' article. Here are a few:<br /><br /><i>The facts of climate change are straightforward</i> <br />Some of the fact are straightforward, e.g., that the planet is warming and CO2 emissions are a cause of the warming. Other facts, such as the effect of various feedbacks and the true value of sensitivity, are not straightforward. <br /><br /><i>we can check on how well the models perform against the historical record, including the satellite data archive</i> <br />Agreement with the historical record is weak confirmation, since the models were based on the historical record.<br /><br /><i>we can calculate the uncertainty into the predictions</i><br />Variability in the historical record doesn't measure the uncertainty of model assumptions and the uncertainty due to factors not reflected in the models. <br /><br /><i>there are more than twenty of these models worldwide, so we can use them as checks on one another. </i><br />There are many models in addition to the ones used by the IPCC or by NASA. Sellers sees models confirming each other because models with unusually high or unusually low predictions are ignored.David in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.com