Do you think CAGW is just a UN scheme to impose global governance...

[Cygnus X-1]

If you were to throw a ball of a known weight at a known angle and a known velocity, could you predict (with a certain amount of accuracy) where the ball would land? Is that a prediction of the future?

 

If you were to take a planet with an elliptical and variable orbit and axis around a fickle star you'd be on Earth.

 

Back on topic...where is the data from the future that fuels climate MODELS?

[sokolow]

What are are you expecting you're gonna get from this wowee zoweee mythbusters śh¡t

[FloridaJohn]

If you were to take a planet with an elliptical and variable orbit and axis around a fickle star you'd be on Earth.

 

Back on topic...where is the data from the future that fuels climate MODELS?

This is on topic, I thought you were interested in a discussion?

Once again, if you throw a ball can you predict where and when it will land? Is that "looking into the future?" Why or why not?

[Cygnus X-1]

This is on topic, I thought you were interested in a discussion?

Once again, if you throw a ball can you predict where and when it will land? Is that "looking into the future?" Why or why not?

 

I am disscussing, you don't like my opinion. Once again, where do you get data from the future for climate models????

[FloridaJohn]

I am disscussing, you don't like my opinion. Once again, where do you get data from the future for climate models????

Where do you get the data for the future location of a thrown ball? Hint: the answer to both questions is the same.

[Cygnus X-1]

Where do you get the data for the future location of a thrown ball? Hint: the answer to both questions is the same.

 

Your thrown ball is not subject to the time and variation of enviromental conditions in our solar sytem.

[Cygnus X-1]

We live on a thown ball, LOL!!!

[Cygnus X-1]

I will bow out tonight reafferming that I believe models are faulty. I'll be back if not banned.

[FloridaJohn]

Your thrown ball is not subject to the time and variation of enviromental conditions in our solar sytem.

Well, I guess you're missing my larger point. The reason we can predict the location of a thrown ball in the future is because we have a basic physics formula that accurately describes the path of the ball. Therefore, by knowing some initial conditions, we can plug those into the formula and figure out where the ball will be located "in the future". That formula can also be described as a "model," and no future data is needed, the physics equation provides everything that is needed. These same formulas are used to predict the future locations of spacecraft. Perhaps you have seen the news about the Rosetta Probe, a spacecraft that flew around the solar system for ten years using the gravity of various planets to eventually meet up with a small comet. Physics equations were used to predict where that probe would be two years in the future. No "data" needed.

Climate models are essentially the same thing. Most of them are designed on what is known as "first principles," or basic physics and chemistry formulas. The main unknown in climate models is what exactly the forcings will be in the future. How much CO2 will be released, how much aerosols will be released, what will ENSO be doing each year, those sort of things. So different initial conditions are put into the models and they are run again and again. The final result of these runs are averaged together to give a "best guess" on what future conditions will be like. Since those final runs are averages, it is unlikely the actual weather will be exactly like the average, but the year-to-year variations (aka "the weather") will eventually show the overall trend given enough time.

I would encourage you to read this excellent article on climate models. Also check out the links embedded in the article, they give a lot of additional information.

Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science

[Cygnus X-1]

Well, I guess you're missing my larger point. The reason we can predict the location of a thrown ball in the future is because we have a basic physics formula that accurately describes the path of the ball. Therefore, by knowing some initial conditions, we can plug those into the formula and figure out where the ball will be located "in the future". That formula can also be described as a "model," and no future data is needed, the physics equation provides everything that is needed. These same formulas are used to predict the future locations of spacecraft. Perhaps you have seen the news about the Rosetta Probe, a spacecraft that flew around the solar system for ten years using the gravity of various planets to eventually meet up with a small comet. Physics equations were used to predict where that probe would be two years in the future. No "data" needed.

Climate models are essentially the same thing. Most of them are designed on what is known as "first principles," or basic physics and chemistry formulas. The main unknown in climate models is what exactly the forcings will be in the future. How much CO2 will be released, how much aerosols will be released, what will ENSO be doing each year, those sort of things. So different initial conditions are put into the models and they are run again and again. The final result of these runs are averaged together to give a "best guess" on what future conditions will be like. Since those final runs are averages, it is unlikely the actual weather will be exactly like the average, but the year-to-year variations (aka "the weather") will eventually show the overall trend given enough time.

I would encourage you to read this excellent article on climate models. Also check out the links embedded in the article, they give a lot of additional information.

Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science

 

That's all well and good in the near vacuum of space, but here on Earth there are so many varibles, conditions that cannot be calculated in the future. You cite CO2 and aerosols being factored, but do we really know their effects today? Hell, water vapor is a more potent "greenhouse" gas than CO2.

 

I'll check out that link later as I'm not on line all day and gotta go to work. Thank you for responding. Good day. 

[chubbs]

 

 

Back on topic...where is the data from the future that fuels climate MODELS?

 

CO2 levels will be much higher - that's all you need to know

[JBG]

I live on Long Island, NY, USA. This island is a direct result of glacial reach into North America, and retreat.

 

The north shore cliffs of sand reflect the ice that created them; as well the glacial erratic boulders that litter the shoreline, all from far north mountians

 

Of course, it was 20,000 years ago, but what was the catalist to...

 

1. Cause ice ages?

 

2. MELT them?

 

http://people.hofstra.edu/j_b_bennington/121notes/pdfs/Glacial_features_LI.pdf

 

Is the rise in CO2 a cause of warming, or a resut?

 

There's too many variables, and the bias of time~scale, to narrow the causes of climate changes, and our opinions of it, imo.

WEird.All is shifting sands, and decay. As it was in the days of Noah,

Al Gore would likely say that the earth knew that man was going to f*** things up and started climate changing in anticipation.

[ORH_wxman]

That's all well and good in the near vacuum of space, but here on Earth there are so many varibles, conditions that cannot be calculated in the future. You cite CO2 and aerosols being factored, but do we really know their effects today? Hell, water vapor is a more potent "greenhouse" gas than CO2.

 

I'll check out that link later as I'm not on line all day and gotta go to work. Thank you for responding. Good day. 

 

 

Models use approximations on many of these variables...we may not know the exact impact on each and every single one of them, but we can constrain them. This is how it is done in the model world.

 

That doesn't mean the models are not flawed though...I've been plenty critical (as well as some literature that supports this idea) in how they have selected the parameters of GCMs. On the flip side, just because they are flawed, doesn't mean they are completely useless either. They can simulate some pretty complex processes. We know that more CO2 will warm the earth because with zero feedbacks, CO2 causes about a 1.1-1.2C warming per doubling. We are pretty sure the feedbacks are not negative based on robust paleo evidence and also empirical evidence in the instrumental observation period. So that leaves us with estimates of warming somewhere above 1.5C or so for the minimum bound on equilibrium climate sensitivity. Now, there are many paths to the end game of ECS...this is one reason TCR has become more popular in recent years.

 

I would suggest doing a comprehensive reading of many of the papers that have been posted in this thread. It's good to look at both ends of the literature...I try to read papers that disagree with eachother to get a feel on where the evidence is coming from and how robust it is. Most of the blogosphere is quite ignorant to the workings of GCMs...there's a select few that know what they are talking about, but it is not easy to find those posts amidst all the junk...so the published literature is where to start.

[WEATHER53]

I would say the internet article released today will start a death knell for this bunk.  Polar Vortex displacement casued by Global Warming.  Hot causes cold.  Anyone can craft a microcosim scenario if the want to. We are to the point that hot or cold, wet or dry, snowy or not snowy-It's all global warming. Even the Joe average American eventually reaches the point of recongnizing nonsense.

[AvantHiatus]

Everything exists in the background of AGW, there is no escape...

 

Time to raise the baseline and hope old patterns remain.

[WEATHER53]

I would say the internet article released today will start a death knell for this bunk.  Polar Vortex displacement casued by Global Warming.  Hot causes cold.  Anyone can craft a microcosim scenario if the want to. We are to the point that hot or cold, wet or dry, snowy or not snowy-It's all global warming. Even the Joe average American eventually reaches the point of recongnizing nonsense.

The planet has warmed and cooled for eons. Did we forget that?  The only thing that has changed about the climate is a bunch of people with an agenda have hijacked it.  Suspended particulates of moisture do and have uttlery overwhelm whatever else mankind has introduced, I think that ratio is something like 4 parts per 1,000 via man.

[JBG]

The planet has warmed and cooled for eons. Did we forget that?  The only thing that has changed about the climate is a bunch of people with an agenda have hijacked it.  Suspended particulates of moisture do and have uttlery overwhelm whatever else mankind has introduced, I think that ratio is something like 4 parts per 1,000 via man.

I could not have said it better.

[sokolow]

The planet has warmed and cooled for eons. Did we forget that? The only thing that has changed about the climate is a bunch of people with an agenda have hijacked it. Suspended particulates of moisture do and have uttlery overwhelm whatever else mankind has introduced, I think that ratio is something like 4 parts per 1,000 via man.

Not sure this is entirely correct, doesn't seem quite right, to me.

[AvantHiatus]

Do you think CAGW is just a denier scheme to save business as usual...

[WEATHER53]

I could not have said it better.

It's a fear based society bordering on cultism.  Really very few are high achievers and high producers so the underachieving miscreats want to blame those who are achieving by stating that their achievement is "ruining the planet"

[Cygnus X-1]

Garbage in...garbage out. I cannot accept computer outputs that are generated from imaginary inputs.

[sokolow]

It's a fear based society bordering on cultism. Really very few are high achievers and high producers so the underachieving miscreats want to blame those who are achieving by stating that their achievement is "ruining the planet"

Indeed. As laid out in the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Useless Mouths, Medocrities, and Takers.

Garbage in...garbage out. I cannot accept computer outputs that are generated from imaginary inputs.

Perhaps this is a shallow way of evaluating what is by this point a 60 year, multigenerational, transnational, interdisciplinary collaborative project involving many thousands of scientists & technicians spread across numerous research institutions & government agencies.

"I can predict the weather and get around the imaginary inputs problem with my magic eightball and a tank full of specially trained snakes" -- John von Neumann, noted idiot

[Cygnus X-1]

Indeed. As laid out in the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Useless Mouths, Medocrities, and Takers.

Perhaps this is a shallow way of evaluating what is by this point a 60 year, multigenerational, transnational, interdisciplinary collaborative project involving many thousands of scientists & technicians spread across numerous research institutions & government agencies.

"I can predict the weather and get around the imaginary inputs problem with my magic eightball and a tank full of specially trained snakes" -- John von Neumann, noted idiot

 

Go fujiwhara yourself.

[Msalgado]

This thread started off terrible and has gotten even worse.  There's no scientific discussion in here because the posts are now being dominated by people posting idiocy.  Troll away I guess.

[JBG]

It's a fear based society bordering on cultism.  Really very few are high achievers and high producers so the underachieving miscreats want to blame those who are achieving by stating that their achievement is "ruining the planet"

Another very trenchant analysis.

I have always considered AGW almost a Madoffian fraud.