climate facts anyone?

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:39:58 -0800 (PST), Jax wrote:

Can you put some numbers to quantify "substantial", "significant", and
"superb"?

No. The IPCC metastudies and the multitude of individual research papers
place confidence values on their estimates. These cover a wide range;
personally, I'd use the above adjectives for confidence values over
about 80%. But I don't have time to dig up the individual reports, nor
do I generally consider it the responsibility of those defending a
consensus opinion to do so.

At what numerical metric would you reject the IPCC multi-
model mean as a representation of actual temperatures?

I'd only reject the model data if it failed to track the general trend
of observations. In fact, all the models do this, and don't deviate from
the actual observations by more than a fraction of a degree.


My climate model reproduces past temperatures to within 0.1 degrees for
every year since 1860.



Also, the
article lists the first possibility of why climate sensitivity
estimates are 170% higher than actual is "Earth's climate may be less
sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than currently assumed".

Climate sensitivity to any forcing agent isn't the same as the forcing
agent itself. This doesn't mean that there is much doubt about the
additional energy retained because of a given increase in greenhouse
gases, it means that the relationship between energy balance and actual
temperature may be incompletely understood (I think that's the least
likely of the three explanations provided, and is given simply to cover
all possibilities).
_________________________________________________


Similarly, current astrological models are incomplete because they don't
track asteroids.

Also, astrology scientists disagree about the relative impact of Mars (the
God of War) versus Venus (often associated with peace) on the likelyhood of
wars breaking out.

That is why some astrological models of the last 150 years have WW2 starting
as late as 1941 and in others it is as early as 1937. The consensus is
somewhere in 1939, and the actual start date is well within the error bars
of the various astrological models.





Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:59:14 -0800 (PST), Jax wrote:

Have you seen confidence limits on the IPCC multi-model mean? 80%
confidence is not statistically robust. I have seen a study that
rejects the IPCC multi-model mean as a representation of actual
temperature at at the more typically used 95%.

"Statistically robust" is open to interpretation. 95% is great, and a
lot of data is reported to that uncertainty. But given the uncertainties
involved, I think better than 80% means that the results warrant serious
merit.

Since the temperature trend is only a fraction of a degree, your
criteria is not very strict. A straight line with no trend would meet
your definition of "superb."

No, it wouldn't. The value you place on the trend depends on the
timebase you choose. The simple fact is that the actual temperature
trend over the last 150 years shows a steady increase that is
statistically very different from flat or declining. This trend is seen
over a range of boxcar sizes from as short as a few years to
multidecadal. The model outputs correlate with the actual data both in
trend and in actual value.
_________________________________________________


Astrology science shows a steady increase in deaths over the last 150 years
from civil wars. Their models correlate with actual data both in trend and
in actual value.



Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:10:29 -0800 (PST), Jax wrote:

A straight line
model of long term temperatures with a start value of 0.4 and zero
trend meets your criteria.

I don't see how, unless you make a specific assumption about what a
"fraction of a degree" means.

The actual trend and the models correlate with a statistical
significance of 2-3 sigma, which is very good by any reasonable
assessment.


Show me a single climate model that has predicted future temperatures more
accurately than linear interpolation.




While the actual uncertainties are above 90%, I'd personally consider
even a 10% uncertainty (that is, a 90% chance the conclusion is wrong)

Huh!

So they could be wrong?



to be sufficient to demand strong action, such as cap and trade, carbon
taxation, and investment in low-carbon technologies. That's because the
consequences of the warming are so severe (possible collapse of modern
civilizations), and the economic benefits of making the suggested
changes are so great, even in the absence of climate change.

The economic benefits of dropping fossil fuels are positive, even in the
absence of climate change?

If that was the case, a cap and trade system would not be required.
Businesses and individuals would make the changes anyway.

Of course, they are not. Making electricity by processes which are 5 times
as expensive as burning coal is not a positive economic benefit.

That's why power companies have to be forced to use green power.

Perhaps you could justify this statement that "the economic benefits of
making the suggested changes are so great, even in the absence of climate
change.".

Like much of what you write, it looks like crap.




_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:53:45 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

But you said you believed in AGW becuae it was the "scientific consensus".

I didn't say that. Are you brain damaged?

I have given you numerous examples of scientific theories which had
consensus support but which were wrong...

So here's what I conclude: You don't understand science. You don't know
what a scientific theory is. You don't understand the difference between
simple theories and theories synthesized from multiple simple theories.

This being your own unpublished theory of science built around what you call
meta-theories.

Of course I don't understand it. You apparently only invented it 2 days ago
as a means of justifying why AGW does not need experimental verification
(because apparently its not a theory, its a "metatheory"!). And nor have you
explained it other than in a couple of very confusing paragraphs in a
newsgroup post.

So don't blame me if I don't understand your new philosophy of science.

And nor do I think we need a new philosophy of science to explain why AGW
has no predictive ability. I think the old philosophy of science handled
theories like AGW and astrology which lack predictive ability quite
appropriately.



You don't understand statistics. You don't read primary research. You
consider popular mainstream publications to be a good source for
scientific data. You don't know much about history. You can't understand
other people's arguments, or respond to them intelligently.


Hmmm, more ad-hominem attacks.

And all I wanted was a graph of predictions made by AGW versus actual
recorded temperatures, to see if AGW had predictive ability exceeding
chance.


You need to get together with Kelleher. You both "think" alike.
_________________________________________________


Dunno who he is.

Does he believe in the scientific method as well? Does he believe that
scientific theories pass or fail on their predictive ability? This is what I
"think", anyway.

Clearly you don't.


Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris L Peterson wrote:
You need to get together with Kelleher. You both "think" alike.


Wow, thats got to be one of the meaner things you've said to someone, I
mean come on, putting him there with Gherald is not nice lol



--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

http://www.novac.com

On Jan 22, 6:00*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in messagenews:e3ail59r2jgh7dmfeou7377glt6mco5ugk@4ax .com...

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:53:45 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

But you said you believed in AGW becuae it was the "scientific consensus".

I didn't say that. Are you brain damaged?

I have given you numerous examples of scientific theories which had
consensus support but which were wrong...

So here's what I conclude: You don't understand science. You don't know
what a scientific theory is. You don't understand the difference between
simple theories and theories synthesized from multiple simple theories.

This being your own unpublished theory of science built around what you call
meta-theories.

Of course I don't understand it. You apparently only invented it 2 days ago
as a means of justifying why AGW does not need experimental verification
(because apparently its not a theory, its a "metatheory"!). And nor have you
explained it other than in a couple of very confusing paragraphs in a
newsgroup post.

So don't blame me if I don't understand your new philosophy of science.

And nor do I think we need a new philosophy of science to explain why AGW
has no predictive ability. I think the old philosophy of science handled
theories like AGW and astrology which lack predictive ability quite
appropriately.

You don't understand statistics. You don't read primary research. You
consider popular mainstream publications to be a good source for
scientific data. You don't know much about history. You can't understand
other people's arguments, or respond to them intelligently.

Hmmm, more ad-hominem attacks.

And all I wanted was a graph of predictions made by AGW versus actual
recorded temperatures, to see if AGW had predictive ability exceeding
chance.

You need to get together with Kelleher. You both "think" alike.
_________________________________________________

Dunno who he is.

Does he believe in the scientific method as well? Does he believe that
scientific theories pass or fail on their predictive ability? This is what I
"think", anyway.

Clearly you don't.


I know this one,you probably think this is about the Earth warming/
cooling or is/isn't it carbon dioxide but you and the rest are all the
same side of the 'scientific method' coin and you are being told to be
a nice boy and play by the rules,nothing more or nothing less.

If anyone were good enough here,they would already have figured out
the old ' no tilt/no seasons' is due for a serious modification,one
which definitely distinguishes global climate from hemispherical
weather (spring/summer/fall/winter) by using an additional orbital
component and assigning a proper role for rotational inclination
(tilt).This insight cost billions to arrive at for it is due mainly to
Hubble imaging power in the ability to make planetary comparisons,all
it needs is a few lively minds to get into the swing of things in
turning global climate into something that is enjoyable to study -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

Who,for goodness sake,wants to remain 'scientific method' mantra
chanting which all this boils down to an empirical mindset which has
a fondness for speculation and 'modelling' and none for interpretation
of 'contemplation' as Kepler called it ?.The reason there is a huge
mess with climate and basically anything to do with planetary dynamics
and terrestrial effects is due to the absence of a specific type of an
astronomer and the dominance of the 'inferior tribunal' as Kepler
called them -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets and the record
of their motions is especially the task of the practical and
mechanical part of astronomy;to discover their true and genuine path
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler

It was Newton who first tried to bypass interpretative astronomy by
going straight from observations into modelling but the real crisis is
the 'mechanical' end of astronomy when Flamsteed attempted to turn
timekeeping astronomy on its head by explaining the mechanical
calendar/average day time system using planetary dynamics,something
that surfaces with the incorrect reasoning which leads to the
'sidereal time' value instead of the moist fundamental fact of all,the
earth turns 15 degrees every hour.

There is so much to do but not when you are all railroaded into
defending the scientific method or trying to squeeze global
temperatures into a minor atmospheric gas.








Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Jan 21, 6:45*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I'd personally consider
even a 10% uncertainty (that is, a 90% chance the conclusion is wrong)
to be sufficient to demand strong action, such as cap and trade, carbon
taxation, and investment in low-carbon technologies. That's because the
consequences of the warming are so severe (possible collapse of modern
civilizations), and the economic benefits of making the suggested
changes are so great, even in the absence of climate change.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

If we took strong actions suggested, what would be the expected
reduction in greenhouse gasses and in what time periods could they
occur?

What reduction in greenhouse gasses in what time period is necessary
to have the desired impact on global warming?

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:09:36 -0800 (PST), Jax wrote:

If we took strong actions suggested, what would be the expected
reduction in greenhouse gasses and in what time periods could they
occur?

What reduction in greenhouse gasses in what time period is necessary
to have the desired impact on global warming?

These things are estimated by numerous studies, which are summarized in
the IPCC reports. The amount of greenhouse gas reduction depends on how
aggressively these measures are adopted, and how widely.

Most scenarios suggest that we need to cut back our global CO2 output
over the next ten years to at least where it was 20 years ago to keep
the economic impact of warming over the next 100 years at a manageable
level.

I think the main hope lies with China, which is currently the largest
investor in its own non-fossil fuel technology, and is likely to end up
controlling much of this technology (to its further economic gain) over
the next decades.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Jan 22, 11:29*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:09:36 -0800 (PST), Jax wrote:
If we took strong actions suggested, what would be the expected
reduction in greenhouse gasses and in what time periods could they
occur?

What reduction in greenhouse gasses in what time period is necessary
to have the desired impact on global warming?

These things are estimated by numerous studies, which are summarized in
the IPCC reports. The amount of greenhouse gas reduction depends on how
aggressively these measures are adopted, and how widely.

Most scenarios suggest that we need to cut back our global CO2 output
over the next ten years to at least where it was 20 years ago to keep
the economic impact of warming over the next 100 years at a manageable
level.


The IPCC addresses allocation and restriction policies, and assumes
they will bring the desired results.

CO2 reduction to levels 20 yrs ago would be Kyoto levels which has no
impact on climate, nor was it ever meant to. Kyoto is a first step to
establish polices and procedures allocating and monitoring further
reductions in ghg's. The IPCC gives much stricter reductions.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:09:36 -0800 (PST), Jax wrote:

If we took strong actions suggested, what would be the expected
reduction in greenhouse gasses and in what time periods could they
occur?

What reduction in greenhouse gasses in what time period is necessary
to have the desired impact on global warming?

These things are estimated by numerous studies, which are summarized in
the IPCC reports. The amount of greenhouse gas reduction depends on how
aggressively these measures are adopted, and how widely.

Most scenarios suggest that we need to cut back our global CO2 output
over the next ten years to at least where it was 20 years ago to keep
the economic impact of warming over the next 100 years at a manageable
level.



What predictions does the IPCC make of temperatures in 50 years time if we
follow their scientific advice and (as you say) reduce our CO2 emissions to
the levels of 1990 by 2020 and keep them there?



I think the main hope lies with China, which is currently the largest
investor in its own non-fossil fuel technology, and is likely to end up
controlling much of this technology (to its further economic gain) over
the next decades.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com