[Yossarian]

if told by their doctors to cut-out smoking, get some exercise and eat a better diet or you're at serious risk of a heartattack, counter with "Well, how severe will this said heartattack be and what will be the exact date and time that it will occur."

How can you 'play up' the uncertainty?

Referring to the current US Adminstration

No, I'm simply not going to believe anything blindly and want to know the truth.

Your (above) Doctor is giving you some advise, how do you respond? Do you choose to do nothing in the absence of an absolute answer? Or do you do this...Perhaps this will help you decide.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Good article and I agree with what he is saying. We do have a warming trend going and we do have rising CO2. Without the Greenland Ice core projects and what they reveal, we might be inclined to base our actions on an assumption that there is going to be a likely trend without certainty, just probability. All I'm saying is that now we have strong evidence that CO2 isn't neccessarily the big mover people thought it was. A greenhouse gas of course, but not the only player on the scene and not even the major one if we are to believe the record. Maybe Gary_Malcolm will deign to enlighten us since he fiddles around with mathematical models.

[gary_malcolm]

And how about the facts as revealed by the cores taken in Greenland regarding CO2 and its relation to climate change?.

IANACANAY (I am not a Climatologist and neither are you!).

However I do have a few points to hang on the side...

1. Chaotic events are highly predictable, just not without a proper point of reference to the key points in the causality tree. That's where the problem lies... at what point in the observation of a Chaotic event can we say that a given input into the larger unknowable equation will have a predictive effect. In other words, can I show that the butterfly's flapping wing was an additive event that enabled the monsoon? That's the point where critics have problems with some models. Another event might not be so troubling... as in does a huge warm front moving into the southern states cause a likelyhood of rain when it interacts with an existing cold air mass.

Both are chaotic events with mathematically unknowable inputs (out of sheer size) however the likely output of the latter is inarguable.

2. Some scientific models of global warming are trying to show that a delta of a given input can have knowable outcomes on the larger model. So given a base line variability as in the Greenland cores can we show a variation in the expected rate of change at a given data point... or better yet an UNEXPECTED change that can be related to limited causation. A less sophisticated audience might suggest that all variance is equivalent... but rate of change is the key factor especially when considered from the standpoint of cumulative effect.

3. When discussing complex systems we simply CAN NOT delink individual components. We can talk until we're all living in the Sahara about CO2 effect and it's measurability on one output (temperature) but we are highly unlikely to have anything approaching strict 1 to 1 causality (more like 89 to 78 causality <smirk>). Simple is for simpletons. What we can do is look for expected variation based on delta input.


G

[PenultimateManStanding]

OK Gary. SNOUACIWQTRM (so neither of us are climatologists, I was quoting the Real McCoys) The point wasn't that modeling complex system isn't ever successful, just that the current models aren't doing too well with regards to this recently discovered record. Just a few years ago, it was thought that nothing like what was revealed could have happened. Just a few years ago it was thought that cooling in the Northern Hemisphrere entailed warming in the Southern Hemisphere, etc. Climate Science is an exciting and newly revolutionized field.

In talking about the difficulties in getting the computer simulations to work right there is this (p.149):

Quote:
Summarizing their work in a 2003 review in Science, the NRC [National Research Council] team described a consistent 'mismatch' between the computer's idea of abrupt climate change and the real record of the last 100,000 years. Across the board, the real record shows changes that were greater and more widespread than the computers reproduce.
These computer simulations use every physical principle known, applied to the computer map of the real world, but they don't work.

Then there is this telling remark:
Quote:
The difficulties of simulating past abrupt climate changes lead some researchers to question whether predicting future climate is even a realistic goal

[gary_malcolm]

PenultimateManStanding,

No, you were quoting J. Cox, a scientific journalist. But that is beside the point.

I want to comment on a few points:

1. Reference to models must be specific. What are the inputs, what are we modelling, what is the correlation between model components and their real world correllaries? There is no point in discussing invalid and antiquated models as we know that new discoveries will often lead to new models. This is why science is good.

2. Modelling whole natural systems is an N-complete problem. You just can't do it. Period. So you pick and choose the inputs , because the computer big enough to run the whole equation is running already and we live on it. What you pick and choose is a limitation and will cause a loss of predictive ability. This is a problem depending on the granularity and aspect of the loss.

3. Some of your quote is more troubling:

"just a few years ago it was thought that cooling in the Northern Hemisphrere entailed warming in the Southern Hemisphere, etc. "

Straw Man! Reinterpreted : A previously discounted model was shown not to be true, therefore current models are false...

Another:

"Across the board, the real record shows changes that were greater and more widespread than the computers reproduce ... but they don't work. "

What?!? We don't know what the models were, what they were predicting and what they were intended to predict, how 'real events' (whatever those are) differed and it what magnitude? How didn't they work? This statement means NOTHING.

G

[rockdoc123]

When discussing complex systems we simply CAN NOT delink individual components.

Bang on Mr. Malcolm exactly what I was arguing on another thread here as to why the models are currently inadequate. First of all in any model whether it be deterministic, stochaistic or one which employs chaos theory or even fractal theory it requires that you first of all know all the variables in the equation, understand how they interact at least on a basic level and also understand the possible range in climate forcings related to each. None of these are properly addressed by the current models and the folks who do the modeling are the first to admit it....unfortunately they follow their disclaimers with the comment.....but it is obvious that CO2 causes global warming and it is due to human activity. The amazing thing about it all is that water vapor which accounts for about 90% weight volume of all greenhouse gases cannot be adequately handled in the models. There have been all sorts of attempts...some which give a resultant negative forcing, some which give a positive forcing.

The point that scientists on the other side of the arugment (me being one) make is that you cannot ignore hard evidence....the Vostok core information, this latest study etc. There is a wealth of "evidence" in our paleoclimatic history going all the way back to the Ordovician that suggest it is very unlikely that CO2, let alone CO2 from humans has that much influence on climate change. Unfortunately when I have brought this evidence to bear on other threads here I am usually attacked as being an "industry shill" or someone who just doesn't understand.....how can all those scientists be wrong they cry? You are obviously just one of those internet sceptics that Mann keeps talking about (of course his comments came only weeks prior to McKitrick and McIntyre illustrating how his research which started the whole global warming thing was not only based on inaccurate modeling but also cooked data).
Unfortunately the global warming moonies on this site hide behind the "if you believe in peak oil you must also believe in global warming" viewpoint without understanding the basic science underlying each concept.

Excuse my diatribe.....(quickly climbs down from the soapbox)

[PenultimateManStanding]

Excuse my diatribe.....(quickly climbs down from the soapbox)

No! No! Don't get down from your soapbox! Give 'em the biggest lecture they ever had, please! I'll stand back and be glad. Give a smile to my neighbors and say 'I agree with him!'

[gary_malcolm]

I was arguing on another thread here as to why the models are currently inadequate.

The question is not model adequacy as all models are necessarily inadequate by definition... it's how and where inadequacy lies. This is an important point.

First of all in any model whether it be deterministic, stochaistic or one which employs chaos theory or even fractal theory it requires that you first of all know all the variables in the equation, understand how they interact at least on a basic level and also understand the possible range in climate forcings related to each.

The problem is you can't know the inputs... there are too many. So models try to limit the inputs and then correlate output results to measured values as an attempt to validate the model. This is necessary. The presumption is that a good correlation of output shows that the input parameters were correctly chosen... good scatter graphs are the best we can hope for ;7)

None of these are properly addressed by the current models and the folks who do the modeling are the first to admit it....unfortunately they follow their disclaimers with the comment.....but it is obvious that CO2 causes global warming and it is due to human activity.

Their models (though limited by necessity) show that delta CO2 causes a degree of temperature variation. Provide a better model.

The amazing thing about it all is that water vapor which accounts for about 90% weight volume of all greenhouse gases cannot be adequately handled in the models.

BOOM... lost me here. Water vapor is baseline... unless the seas didn't exist in the past. There’s a huge difference between water vapor and other greenhouse gases. Human activities have not been shown to appreciably change the atmospheric concentration of water in any direct way. Water vapor does not accumulate in the atmosphere over the multi-year periods.

Read: Rain.

Other greenhouse gases linger for decades.

The delta in greenhouse gases mix is the key factor. Show that water vapor is increasing in significant quantities and that any change is not directly related to the change in other man-made gasses and I might take this point seriously.

And we won't even talk about radiation absorption spectrums

[PenultimateManStanding]

(just a little aside as the scientists duke it out - I was reading in Discover magazine about this big controversy in Peruvian Archeology. Some husband/wife team from the US was being attacked by a Peruvian Archeologist for stealing her work. Another older Archeologist was asked about his opinion of the controversy and he shrugged his shoulders and said it's too bad, but scientists often have huge egos )

[rockdoc123]

BOOM... lost me here. Water vapor is baseline... unless the seas didn't exist in the past. There’s a huge difference between water vapor and other greenhouse gases. Human activities have not been shown to appreciably change the atmospheric concentration of water in any direct way. Water vapor does not accumulate in the atmosphere over the multi-year periods.

water vapor is beyond a doubt the most important greenhouse gas...it does not matter that humans have little contribution to it, what matters is what the overall influence or forcing is. CO2 makes up 3% of the overall greenhouse gases and the human portion of that is only 3%...so what you are trying to tell me is that the models will be good predictors even though they cannot deal with what is likely to be the most important greenhouse forcing but they do a good job of something that could actually have very little overall magnitude of importance? It has nothing to do with how long the water vapor is in the system....it is continually replenished. Given that it's influence can theoretically have both positive and negative forcings any given modeler can drive the model to produce whatever result he wants.

Notwithstanding all of the above the models also do an ineffectual job of incorporating the effects of CO2 buffering or sequestration....simply because we do not understand how it works exactly. Almost every day you see a new article indicating something we did not previously know about CO2 buffering.......the models cannot encorporate these variables.

I'm not a mathmatician but given the fact so little is understood about the system, including how important solar effects really are and celestrial climate drivers as an added variable any sort of model at this point in our understanding is mental masturbation and nothing more. The fact that the IPCC model does not predict the Little Ice Age or the following warming event should cause concern considering these are well documented from various lines of research. More work needs to be done understanding climate variables and their interactions and less work modeling to create results that fit preconceived notions.

Show that water vapor is increasing in significant quantities and that any change is not directly related to the change in other man-made gasses and I might take this point seriously.

OK let's see, how about ablation of the ice sheets in the north....how about volcanism.....water vapor can be completely independant of any of the other gases which are miniscule in volumetric comparison. I would have thought that if you are actually modeling climate change you might have done some reading in this area....it is one of the main arguments against the current theories held onto by the global warming community.

[gary_malcolm]

water vapor is beyond a doubt the most important greenhouse gas...

Neat.

Now show that the atmospheric quantity of water is changing proportionally with other greenhouse gasses. (Hint: it's not)

In fact, just show a change in the QUANTITIY of atmospheric water at all. Please, go ahead...

Your base hypothesis that global warming is not directly attributable to human forces may or may not hold water ( ) but this is NOT the route to a coherent defense of that position.

G

[PenultimateManStanding]

So we've had our showdown of a couple posters who say they are scientists. I have no reason to doubt either of them. But which one actually addressed the issue (the trouble with the climate models which can't be made to match historical events - thus casting doubt on their utility for prognostication) and which one just posted a bunch of arcane jargon without any coherent message except: look at the crap I know! Which one made sense? and which one just quibbled with trivia instead of the main issue? Which one was the down-to-earth dude with a rock hammer and which one was the snobbish obfuscator? etc.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Well, having digested Climate Crash and offered it up for discussion here, I'm ready for the next one: The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins. Anybody read that one? Dawkins is supposed to be one of the very best writers in the field. I hope it's good because its about 700 pages. It's a very satisfying feeling to get started on a huge book and discover that it is very well written and interesting. That means many happy hours ahead. (BTW having had my cataracts removed, its easy to read again. )

[Keith_McClary]

CO2 makes up 3% of the overall greenhouse gases and the human portion of that is only 3%.

??? CO2 has quadrupled over 200 years - doesn't that mean the human portion is 75%?

Notwithstanding all of the above the models also do an ineffectual job of incorporating the effects of CO2 buffering or sequestration....simply because we do not understand how it works exactly. Almost every day you see a new article indicating something we did not previously know about CO2 buffering.......the models cannot encorporate these variables.

We don't know all the details of CO2 emissions or buffering but we know the atmospheric concentration keeps rising. Are you suggesting that buffering or sequestration will somehow get ahead of CO2 emissions? Many reports I have seen suggest warmer climate leading to more emissions and less sequestration, although I have not seen the numbers summed up.

The point is that water vapor is not cumulative (rain) but CO2 is.

[rockdoc123]

??? CO2 has quadrupled over 200 years - doesn't that mean the human portion is 75%?

Nope .....I posted a link to references on this on another thread but simply put currently water vapor makes up over 90% of greenhouse gas...Co2 is next important at 3%.....most of which comes from natural sources.......man's contribution is 3% of that. Note also that paleoclimatic history indicates the earth has seen much higher concentrations of CO2 during relatively cold climates.

As I said water vapor is continually replinished.

[PenultimateManStanding]

It's a lost cause, rockdoc. This quote says it all:

Human Carbon Output has upset the balance of life. Your attempts to distract because you wish to believe that humans can screw the world as hard as they want CAUSES DEATH.

from the Humans Cause Global Warming thread. And you are a shill for polluting industry. End Of Story. Nobody is going to let any pesky Greenland Ice Core hard data stand in the way of a tightly held ideological/religious stance. Humanity pollutes, period. GW is the peg they hang their hats on.

[aldente]

Now think of the next 80 years (a human lifespan for many) and i don't think you or I can even closely predict what will happen--i doubt it'll be boring. I really wish i had a time machine.

Why do you think I post the signature that I do? In reality you already had access to a glimpse of the future. Some sensory input keyed over that info and here you sit sending your input back on a page that is public - meaning reflective (or do you have a better definition for public)?

[Keith_McClary]

??? CO2 has quadrupled over 200 years - doesn't that mean the human portion is 75%?

Nope .....I posted a link to references on this on another thread but simply put currently water vapor makes up over 90% of greenhouse gas...Co2 is next important at 3%.....most of which comes from natural sources.......man's contribution is 3% of that. Note also that paleoclimatic history indicates the earth has seen much higher concentrations of CO2 during relatively cold climates.

As I said water vapor is continually replinished.

I'm perplexed. Are you saying you believe that the quadrupling of CO2 over the last 200 years is "from natural sources"?

[Antimatter]

CO2 is up from about 290ppm in pre-industrial times to 380ppm now...I don't know where both the claims of 3% and the claim of quadripling come from!

rather large image

The ice core data I posted on pg2 shows a pre-industrial CO2 level of about 280-290ppm

[Doly]

I don't know where both the claims of 3% and the claim of quadripling come from!

Exaggeration to defend one's interests, obviously.