Starship Asterisk*

Posted: **Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:51 pm**

bhrobards wrote:To which I again say the models were derived from the data of course they describe it well...

The models are most certainly not not derived from past data. Climatic models are solutions to mathematical equations which have a physical basis. The models get better as our understanding of the physics gets better, and more components can be included. It isn't like they are fitting the past data to some huge, empirical function and then using that to predict the future.

They did not predict the current solar cycle's behavior, they (NASA consensus) predicted exactly the opposite for cycle 24.

There is not much evidence that individual solar cycles have significant impact on climate. And the current cycle is just about as expected- there has been nothing unusual yet. We are still so near to solar minimum that no prediction of this cycle can be evaluated.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:50 am**

bhrobards wrote:From the Florida State University guest blog on the Climate Audit Website a graph showing than hurricanes and cyclones have not followed the predictions of the AGW folks over the last three years.

The article:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

The problem with saying that "Huricanes and Cyclones have not followed the predictions....over the last three years" is that, like Chris pointed out, any given three years is nsufficient to indicate a trend.
For example:
Given your chart covering from 1974 thru current,
From 1974 to 1976 the trend was down
From 1976 to 1977 the trend was up
From 1977 to 1987.5 the trend was down
From 1978.5 to 1980 the trend was up
From 1980 to 1982.5 the trend was mildly down
From 1982.5 to 1984 the trend was mildly up
From 1984 to 1985 the trend was down
From 1985 to 1987 the trend was up
From 1987 to 1989 the trend was down
From 1989 to 1994 the trend was sharply up
From 1994 to 1997 the trend was dowm
From 1997 to 1998 the trend was up
From 1998 to 2000 the trend was sharply down
From 2000 to 2002 the trend was mildly down
From 2003 to 2006 the trend was sharply up
From 2006 to current the trend has been sharply down

Point is, you could pick any given 2 or 3 year segment and honistly argue for or against an increase or decrease.
You could say the chart indicates that current storm activity is equal to the June 1975 low point on the graph. But the graph also shows that the trends follow a pattern of going either direction for not more than approx 3 years before reversing direction. The chart could also be interpreted to indicate that the current warming trend has led to a more unstable and thereby less predictable storm activity. Given that there has been a three year decline, the turn is likely on its way...but only time will tell.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:29 am**

Chris Peterson wrote:The models are most certainly not not derived from past data. Climatic models are solutions to mathematical equations which have a physical basis. The models get better as our understanding of the physics gets better, and more components can be included. It isn't like they are fitting the past data to some huge, empirical function and then using that to predict the future.

There is not much evidence that individual solar cycles have significant impact on climate. And the current cycle is just about as expected- there has been nothing unusual yet. We are still so near to solar minimum that no prediction of this cycle can be evaluated.

This is really too much. To say that climate models are not based on past data indicates that you couldn't possibly understand how they are created. They are algorithms, if their predictions didn't match past data they would be completely invalid. Is that true or not? But they are all what is called"curve fitting," the programmers are taking their best guess at how to weight variables and match the measured parameters of the past. Fudge factors are used, variables that match no physical reality to tweak the curves. And past data can be matched and has, by your own words. That is "the physical basis." It is none the less "curve fitting."
In the lab, scientists conducting experiments reduce variables to one. No such luxury exists for climate modelers. It is impossible to hold all other constants and vary only CO2, methane or water vapor. Climate modelers have too many variables to adjust accurately, but with enough variables any curve can be fitted. And there's the rub, the curves fit the past but do not accurately predict the future. There are many models they are all different, which is correct? Their predictions of future temps vary widely. Further there are unknowns as I've alluded. Factors that have unknown effects. If any of these factors have an effect unaccounted for, then logically no matter how well past data has been "predicted" by the model, it will be wrong in the future. There are currently two major areas that the models don't successfully predict, temperature at the poles and violent storm predictions. As you said there are all kinds of opinions, all kinds of data, many different models. Which one is correct? All of them, one of them, none of them? The only reason they are not "huge empiracal functions used to predict the future" is they are not completely empircal, they contain estimates. Tell me who is closer to the truth? I am paraphrasing Howard C. Hayden on models, whats your source?

There is excellent correlation between lack of sunspots and cold periods, the Maunder Minimum (and others) for example, maybe to this isn't much evidence but it falsifies you statement. As far as nothing unusual the sun is unusually quiet and cycle 24 is quite late in starting.

BMAONE23 look at the chart its not a three year trend its a 16 year trend. The number of storms peaked in 94 and the large scale trend is down.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:54 am**

bhrobards wrote:This is really too much. To say that climate models are not based on past data indicates that you couldn't possibly understand how they are created. They are algorithms, if their predictions didn't match past data they would be completely invalid. Is that true or not? But they are all what is called"curve fitting," the programmers are taking their best guess at how to weight variables and match the measured parameters of the past.

You don't understand climatic modeling at all. The process does not involve fitting data. Certainly parameters are adjusted- parameters of physical equations- and then the results are compared to past data. That is completely different than "curve fitting". The observational data is being used to better understand the physical equations.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:01 am**

bhrobards wrote:There is excellent correlation between lack of sunspots and cold periods, the Maunder Minimum (and others) for example, maybe to this isn't much evidence but it falsifies you statement. As far as nothing unusual the sun is unusually quiet and cycle 24 is quite late in starting.

The Maunder minimum was not a weak solar cycle, it was many years with low activity. And in fact, nobody knows how significant it was climatically, since the period also experienced significant volcanic activity, the effects of which can't yet be disentangled from a fractionally reduced solar output.

The "lateness" in the increase of activity in the present solar cycle is well within the normal range of many cycles. To predict that this will be a quiet cycle is premature. And if it is, there is no evidence at all that a single quiet cycle has a significant effect on climate. Some cycles are weak, some are strong, and that definitely does not correlate with any short term weather or climatic patterns.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:32 pm**

If I read "You don't understand (this or that or the other thing) one more time on APOD my opinion will be strongly affirmed that many posters here have little regard for polite conversation and people's sensibilities. What a bunch of Doraks! ('Dorak' being Canadian spelling for 'Dork'.)

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:35 pm**

Chris- I thought I would check with people who do modelling, this is what they say in their introduction to modeling:..."In the case of state of the art General Circulation Models/Global Climate Models (GCMs) such as the one used in the climateprediction.net experiment, it is more a case of trying to represent everything, even if things then get so complicated that we can't understand what's going on. The models are tweaked, within reasonable boundaries, so that the model does as well as possible trying to predict past and current climates (compared to archived observations). It can then be used to try to predict what the climate will do in the future". My emphasis.

In other words, exactly what I described in my post.

http://www.climateprediction.net/conten ... ng-climate

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2009 10:17 pm**

bhrobards wrote:Chris- I thought I would check with people who do modelling, this is what they say in their introduction to modeling:..."In the case of state of the art General Circulation Models/Global Climate Models (GCMs) such as the one used in the climateprediction.net experiment, it is more a case of trying to represent everything, even if things then get so complicated that we can't understand what's going on. The models are tweaked, within reasonable boundaries, so that the model does as well as possible trying to predict past and current climates (compared to archived observations). It can then be used to try to predict what the climate will do in the future". My emphasis.

In other words, exactly what I described in my post.

That is not what you described in your post. They are not curve fitting. They have physical models with various unknown coefficients, and by tweaking those to make the models match reality, they learn how the physical systems actually work. That is not the same thing- at all- as fitting the data to empirical functions. The former can be reasonably expected to have predictive power; the latter cannot.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2009 10:50 pm**

There is a deeper point about the nature of models. Every parameter is an estimate in the true sense of the word. If for instance, you were to examine albedo, you may write an equation that uses the earth's average albedo. Then you might get more sophisticated and vary the albedo by season or month or day or decade. You might include aerosols or a hundred other factors. Ultimately there are factors that we don't have the time or money to consider so they are left out and albedo is estimated. And there are catastrophic and other unknowns. If a large volcano erupts all of your estimates are shot. There is no way you can use models in a system this complex and chaotic to successfully predict anything 100 years in the future. You might get the trend, but even that is doubtful. The root is the West's psychological dependence on uniformitarianism, the belief that things change gradually. The belief that all observed changes in the earth can be explained by the forces that are acting now. This is a false belief but it lingers in ideas like climate models. We are great at estimating where a rocket will be or a population in the short term but bad in the long term. I would love to know of 100 year predictions that involve something like the climate that have been correct. I don't think I know of any. Before someone says nobody said any thing about 100 year predictions, significant predictions are the reason for such models or why do we do them?

Chris-what does it means to tweak the variables and compare them to archived observations. They are trying to write a program that matches past data in order to try and predict the future if you can't see this is curve fitting you need glasses. Again if these pure and sparkly algorithms didn't match the past the modelers wouldn't even consider their use. Check with Howard C. Hayden Professsor Emeritus of Physics, University of Conneticut for a full explanation. You should approve he is a true independent, hasn't worked for anybody but UConn.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:26 pm**

bhrobards wrote:There is a deeper point about the nature of models. Every parameter is an estimate in the true sense of the word. If for instance, you were to examine albedo, you may write an equation that uses the earth's average albedo. Then you might get more sophisticated and vary the albedo by season or month or day or decade. You might include aerosols or a hundred other factors. Ultimately there are factors that we don't have the time or money to consider so they are left out and albedo is estimated.

The general idea is to include the most significant factors. And for many parts of the model, they succeed in this. And the models evolve, and one of the key ways they do so is by including a greater number of terms.

And there are catastrophic and other unknowns. If a large volcano erupts all of your estimates are shot.

Not really. We know that volcanoes generally have very little impact on long term climate- more than a few years. And for most purposes, that can be ignored. Of course, something really catastrophic can happen, like a repeat of the Deccan Traps, or a dinosaur killer. But that's very unlikely, and there's really no reason to consider such things.

There is no way you can use models in a system this complex and chaotic to successfully predict anything 100 years in the future.

Weather is chaotic for periods longer than a few weeks, but climate is much less so. The models themselves demonstrate that you can predict (postdict) climate for thousands of years. Chaos isn't going to bite us for several hundred year trends.

The belief that all observed changes in the earth can be explained by the forces that are acting now.

Well, for periods of centuries, that's a generally reasonable assumption with respect to natural forces. The wildcard is man made effects, and that's why all the climate models allow for a wide range of assumptions in that respect- such as the wide possible range in future carbon emissions.

I would love to know of 100 year predictions that involve something like the climate that have been correct.

Well, that's exactly what the current models succeed in doing.

Chris-what does it means to tweak the variables and compare them to archived observations. They are trying to write a program that matches past data in order to try and predict the future if you can't see this is curve fitting you need glasses.

I'd consider classic curve fitting in the case of a very complex system to treat the system as a big polynomial. A model, on the other hand, has a solid physical basis. For instance, we use a model to figure out where Solar System bodies will be in the future. That's a complex, chaotic system, but the underlying mechanics are well understood. What can't be determined from first principles is the many coefficients of the equations, so these are derived from historical measurements. And this model proves very good at predicting where bodies will be in the future- accurate from months to millennia, depending on the body. The model also tells you where things were in the past, to the same accuracy. A polynomial fit based on historical data would do a good job looking backwards, but not looking forwards. Climate models are also good at looking forward because they are based on real, physical systems. And the models will just get better as those physical systems are better understood. For the most part, climate is well behaved and does change gradually; the challenge right now is that under human forces, it is changing so rapidly that unusual driving forces are getting involved, and those are much less well understood, since they haven't been significant components of most past change.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:58 pm**

Chris Peterson wrote:
bhrobards wrote:I would love to know of 100 year predictions that involve something like the climate that have been correct.
Well, that's exactly what the current models succeed in doing.

So there!

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:14 pm**

jlfonz wrote:Here is where the whole discussion gets side tracked. The vast majority of so called "deniers" will not argue the fact that there are global temperature variations--truly only a moron would argue that. What we "deniers" are against is the faithfulls doctrine that IT is caused by man. I have yet to get an explanation (a credible one) from any of the faithfull as to why we are finding villages UNDER receding glaciers or why we find written (in an non-extra terrestrial language) documents verifying a temperate climate in Greenland (with matching archaelogical evidence) or why the poles of other planets in our solar system are sharing the same percentages of polar melting at the same time we are.

Can any apod scientists verify the polar melting of planets besides earth?

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:30 pm**

jlfonz wrote:Here is where the whole discussion gets side tracked. The vast majority of so called "deniers" will not argue the fact that there are global temperature variations--truly only a moron would argue that. What we "deniers" are against is the faithfulls doctrine that IT is caused by man. I have yet to get an explanation (a credible one) from any of the faithfull as to why we are finding villages UNDER receding glaciers or why we find written (in an non-extra terrestrial language) documents verifying a temperate climate in Greenland (with matching archaelogical evidence) or why the poles of other planets in our solar system are sharing the same percentages of polar melting at the same time we are.

In answer to the bolded segments (qualifier...it will depend on your acceptance of the explanation or not) these Villages that are being uncovered by glacial recession were existing during the Meideval Warming Period (MWP) which allowed for a more temperate climate in Greenland and the ultimate attempted colonization by the Norse people. After the end of this temperate period, the Little Ice Age occured bringing with it the Ice Sheets that covered these villages (many within a matter of years reather than decades) and eliminated the colonies existance. Now that the Earth has been rewarmed, the Ice has melted revealing these villages. Those Villages didn't exist prior to the MWP.

Posted: **Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:11 pm**

BMAONE23 wrote:
jlfonz wrote:Here is where the whole discussion gets side tracked. The vast majority of so called "deniers" will not argue the fact that there are global temperature variations--truly only a moron would argue that. What we "deniers" are against is the faithfulls doctrine that IT is caused by man. I have yet to get an explanation (a credible one) from any of the faithfull as to why we are finding villages UNDER receding glaciers or why we find written (in an non-extra terrestrial language) documents verifying a temperate climate in Greenland (with matching archaelogical evidence) or why the poles of other planets in our solar system are sharing the same percentages of polar melting at the same time we are.
In answer to the bolded segments (qualifier...it will depend on your acceptance of the explanation or not) these Villages that are being uncovered by glacial recession were existing during the Meideval Warming Period (MWP) which allowed for a more temperate climate in Greenland and the ultimate attempted colonization by the Norse people. After the end of this temperate period, the Little Ice Age occured bringing with it the Ice Sheets that covered these villages (many within a matter of years reather than decades) and eliminated the colonies existance. Now that the Earth has been rewarmed, the Ice has melted revealing these villages. Those Villages didn't exist prior to the MWP.

The winter of 2007-2008 in Peterborough saw such heavy snow so often that it was very, very easy for me to picture a village unprotected by modern snow removal technology to be completely and deeply buried in one winter, especially at a latitude like Greenland. If summer was cooler than normal, the snow might only half melt before an even heavier winter of snow further buried the village.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:17 am**

aristarchusinexile wrote: The winter of 2007-2008 in Peterborough saw such heavy snow so often that it was very, very easy for me to picture a village unprotected by modern snow removal technology to be completely and deeply buried in one winter, especially at a latitude like Greenland. If summer was cooler than normal, the snow might only half melt before an even heavier winter of snow further buried the village.

Or the village was built very near the foot of what had been a receding glacier.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:51 pm**

Chris Peterson wrote:
bhrobards wrote:Chris- I thought I would check with people who do modelling, this is what they say in their introduction to modeling:..."In the case of state of the art General Circulation Models/Global Climate Models (GCMs) such as the one used in the climateprediction.net experiment, it is more a case of trying to represent everything, even if things then get so complicated that we can't understand what's going on. The models are tweaked, within reasonable boundaries, so that the model does as well as possible trying to predict past and current climates (compared to archived observations). It can then be used to try to predict what the climate will do in the future". My emphasis.

In other words, exactly what I described in my post.
That is not what you described in your post. They are not curve fitting. They have physical models with various unknown coefficients, and by tweaking those to make the models match reality, they learn how the physical systems actually work. That is not the same thing- at all- as fitting the data to empirical functions. The former can be reasonably expected to have predictive power; the latter cannot.

Why should they tweak anything to fit anything? If one person does the tweaking the answer will be one thing, if another person does the tweaking the anwswer will be different. Why can't they just display untweaked results?

Or, as the Puddy Tat said, "I tought I taw a Tweaky Bird".

Or, as Cheach and Chnong might say, "Man, that was one Tweaky Freaky, whatever it was."

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:54 pm**

here is an interesting read on solar cycles and atmospheric gas reflectance.

Posted: **Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:47 pm**

BMAONE23 wrote:here is an interesting read on solar cycles and atmospheric gas reflectance.

I read every word, and it 'sounds' absolutely legitimate, especially in its unadorned language. However, I would like to see a pure environmentalist's report because I think it possible, merely possible, that the author may have been influenced by his life's profession in economics. From the article: "Dr. D. Bruce Merrifield is a former Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs and Professor Emeritus of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. He holds Masters and Doctoral degrees in physical organic chemistry and currently is a member of the Visiting Committee for Physical Sciences at the University of Chicago."

Especially interesting is the author's statement that Mars is at the end of an ice age. If so, what will be seen to 'come to life' on that wonderful planet? And what channels (canals)might be carved by flowing of water over the surface,
channels which might in a few decades hence become filled in by sandstorms?

Posted: **Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:32 am**

But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about

Hilaire Belloc

BMAONE23-Great article

Posted: **Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:01 pm**

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090328/ap_on_re_as/earth_hour wrote:a time zone-by-time zone plan to dim nonessential lights between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.

Posted: **Sat Mar 28, 2009 4:26 pm**

apodman wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090328/ap_on_re_as/earth_hour wrote:a time zone-by-time zone plan to dim nonessential lights between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.

The earth doesn't deserve an hour .. it should have kicked the human race off a long time ago.

Posted: **Sat Mar 28, 2009 4:28 pm**

aristarchusinexile wrote:
apodman wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090328/ap_on_re_as/earth_hour wrote:a time zone-by-time zone plan to dim nonessential lights between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.
The earth doesn't deserve an hour .. it should have kicked the human race off a long time ago.

Don't worry....She'll fight back and thin us out again

Posted: **Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:54 pm**

BMAONE23 wrote:
aristarchusinexile wrote:The earth doesn't deserve an hour .. it should have kicked the human race off a long time ago.
Don't worry....She'll fight back and thin us out again

Earth hates it when you anthropomorphize her.

Posted: **Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:32 pm**

aristarchusinexile wrote:
apodman wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090328/ap_on_re_as/earth_hour wrote:a time zone-by-time zone plan to dim nonessential lights between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.
The earth doesn't deserve an hour .. it should have kicked the human race off a long time ago.

You first:

Posted: **Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:08 am**

bhrobards wrote:(snip)

BMAONE23 look at the chart its not a three year trend its a 16 year trend. The number of storms peaked in 94 and the large scale trend is down.

The trends indicate several years up followed by several years down. To claim that the trend way is down over the last 16 year period is severely misleading. The trend is down but you can't compare a peak point in 1993-94 with a valley point in 2009. The trends actually indicate a more violent swing in energies. The change in Peak Energies between 1994 @ 2000+ and the last peak in 2006 @ 1900+ only indicates a net decrease of 100 during peak periods. But the Swing from peak strength of 1925 in 2006 and current levels of approx 1075 is a difference of 850 in a 3 year period. This indicates a less than stable climate, and therefore harder to predict future trends. It isn't indicative of a 16 year decrease.

Starship Asterisk*

Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)

Earth Hour 2009 March 28

Re: Earth Hour 2009 March 28

Re: Earth Hour 2009 March 28

Re: Earth Hour 2009 March 28

Re: Earth Hour 2009 March 28

Re: Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista (2009 Feb 15)