27 replies to this topic

[Hilander]

Quote

A NASA-funded climate study released Thursday said climate models that more accurately project relative humidity and cloud cover are more reliable in predicting the overall rate of change — a revelation that, disturbingly, means the planet’s changing climate is fulfilling scientists’ most dire predictions.

Study: Climate change fulfilling most dire predictions

I wish I could say this surprises me.

[Little Fish]

"NCAR scientists John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth, who co-authored the study, reached their conclusions by analyzing how well sophisticated climate models reproduce observed relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics. The climate models that most accurately captured these complex moisture processes and associated clouds, which have a major influence on global climate, were also the ones that showed the greatest amounts of warming as society emits more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere."

this is pseudoscience and circular reasoning, I wish I could say this surprises me.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 10 November 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

"NCAR scientists John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth, who co-authored the study, reached their conclusions by analyzing how well sophisticated climate models reproduce observed relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics. The climate models that most accurately captured these complex moisture processes and associated clouds, which have a major influence on global climate, were also the ones that showed the greatest amounts of warming as society emits more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere."

this is pseudoscience and circular reasoning, I wish I could say this surprises me.

So a model which is shown to work best is circular reasoning. Would you rather we used the models which failed to predict what is observed ?
Denialist reasoning at its best.

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 10 November 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

So a model which is shown to work best is circular reasoning. Would you rather we used the models which failed to predict what is observed ?
Denialist reasoning at its best.

Br Cornelius

false dichotomy fallacy.
cultist reasoning at its best.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 11 November 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

false dichotomy fallacy.
cultist reasoning at its best.

When you can show that you understand the function and purpose of a model, I will show your opinion some respect, until then its just more denial from the man who thinks its all a Eugenics plot to kill us all.

PS- and please, before you squeal like a stuck pig that I am misrepresenting your position - in plain words deny what I have just said about you. You wont because you can't. When you start accusing respected scientists of been Cultists, don't be surprised when you are called what you are - a paranoid CT freak.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 November 2012 - 04:15 PM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 11 November 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

When you start accusing respected scientists of been Cultists, don't be surprised when you are called what you are - a paranoid CT freak.

you are not a respected scientist. you are an anonymous and arrogant internet bully who spews antagonistic insults because you don't understand science.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 11 November 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

you are not a respected scientist. you are an anonymous and arrogant internet bully who spews antagonistic insults because you don't understand science.

I am a trained and qualified environmental scientist who understands how the scientific method works. What are your qualifications Little Fish.
However, your comments I assumed were directed at the authors of the report on which this thread is based. You have called Climate scientists and Environmental scientists cultists on numerous occasions before so my assessment of you position seems more than fair.

Just out of interest, are you prepared to deny my accusation - it really gets to the heart of your credibility on these matters and so is centrally relevant to understanding your denial of reality.

Since you have openly accused me of been a cultist, I think it only fair that you enlighten us as to your central motives. I suspect you wont though. I am proud to declare what I know to be true and what I believe to be the case and I think it is essential that when people come to a debate they are honest and upfront about their beliefs so that all witnesses can make a fair assessment of their whole position and personality. Anything less is dishonest to my mind.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 11 November 2012 - 11:09 PM.

[Little Fish]

you had an opportunity to discuss the science, instead you chose to focus on imagined motivations and personalities and provoke with abusive insults. these are the traits of a cultist not a scientist.
if being called a cultist upsets you then think before you start calling people "denialists".
you're like the abusive drunk who doesn't know why he was beaten up.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 12 November 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

you had an opportunity to discuss the science, instead you chose to focus on imagined motivations and personalities and provoke with abusive insults. these are the traits of a cultist not a scientist.
if being called a cultist upsets you then think before you start calling people "denialists".
you're like the abusive drunk who doesn't know why he was beaten up.

Your comments didn't address the science and failed to show an understanding of the reason for modelling.
However, what is important is that you have again refused to deny your real motivation. It would be quite simple for you to do so, yet you will not deny your core belief in public even though you cannot bring yourself to openly state it.

I am not upset at been called a Cultist as it helps highlight your delusional belief system

I am done debating the science with you because as you have shown before - you are a dishonest debater so I am wasting my time. You are incapable of assimilating real information so presenting it to you is a waste of both of our times. Frankly the only useful thing that can be achieved is to show you for what you really are, a delusional conspiracy theorist who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. If that hurts then learn to tell the difference and people will stop pointing it out to you.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 12 November 2012 - 07:11 AM.

[Br Cornelius]

Lets put this in perspective.

When I am debating Evolution its essential that I establish whether I am up against a fundamentalist Christian so that I can gauge how likely that person is to be able to assimilate the facts.
The same is true when debating the existence of God (though I gave up on that a long time ago)

The same is true of CT believers, and more particularly, what flavour of CT you are dealing with.

These are all gatekeeper beliefs which deform logical discussion and determine to what degree a person is capable of assimilating contradictory information.

Br Cornelius

[BFB]

Climate scientists would like to give the impression, that our climate models are getting better and better.  This is true. However what they don't tell the public, who doesn't have the means to actually understand these models, is that our models for short and medium-terms predictions are still not that good (****)  as they were 5-10 years ago. But long term predictions, they are getting better.

[Doug1o29]

Hilander, on 09 November 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

I wish I could say this surprises me.

All this study is really saying is that one model works better than another one.  It is not really about global warming - it's about models.  The study would be relevant to climate forecasting whether there was such a thing as global warming or not.

At this point in time, the "wild weather" phenomenon has not been around long enough for scientists to reach solid conclusions about it.  "Wild weather" is consistent with climate forecasts, but we have yet to establish a cause-and-effect relationship.

Heavy snowstorms in Canada, northeastern US and Europe are probably a function of the melt-off of Arctic ice, thus, only an indirect connection exists between them and warming.  It's hard to demonstrate cause-and-effect when there's another step between cause and effect.

As for the rest:  they're probably related to warming, but exactly how hasn't been clearly established.


See BFB's post above.  True, but with the proviso that there are about 300 climate models of varying degrees of accuarcy.  Some should probably go the way of the dinosaurs; others are accurate only in restricted areas or under restricted conditions - useful in the proper setting.

All climate models have trouble with summer precips and temps in continental interiors due to the convection problem - they can't predict exactly where the thunderstorm will go, so they can't precisely tell how much precip will occur in a point location.  That's what BFB means when he says they aren't that accurate.  For winter conditions, and yearly averages, they're a lot better.  And as snow fall and winter precip is what recharges reservoirs, that is the important part.

BTW:  A study soon to be published shows a decrease in the number of winter storms in the central US since 1980.  Another nail in the denialist coffin.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 12 November 2012 - 02:22 PM.

[Little Fish]

BFB, on 12 November 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Climate scientists would like to give the impression, that our climate models are getting better and better.  This is true. However what they don't tell the public, who doesn't have the means to actually understand these models, is that our models for short and medium-terms predictions are still not that good (****)  as they were 5-10 years ago. But long term predictions, they are getting better.

what do you mean by "long term" predictions? can you state what period you think "long term" represents.
if not enough time has passed to be able to verify a "long term" prediction, then how can they be judged to be getting better, worse or otherwise, we would have to wait before making a judgement wouldn't we?
there has been no global warming for the last 16 years during which time co2 has risen, this is contrary to the gcm model predictions, a zero temperature trend for 15 years or more is long enough to determine that there is a serious problem with the temperature predictions of the gcm models.

[Br Cornelius]

There has been global warming over the last 16 yrs. It has been observed in the surface record and in the OHC. Only by careful selection of one particular start date can that be concealed - which is called cherry picking.
Models are aids to understanding what is likely to happen on a macro level over the long time scale - they do rather well in that most have matched the temperature record within standard error. What they are not good at is predicting micro detail on the geographic or short time scales - but then again that was not their purpose - which is  what BFB said.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 13 November 2012 - 02:25 AM, said:

there has been no global warming for the last 16 years during which time co2 has risen, this is contrary to the gcm model predictions, a zero temperature trend for 15 years or more is long enough to determine that there is a serious problem with the temperature predictions of the gcm models.

There are only a half-dozen or so globally averaged temperature anomally data sets.  Which of those are you saying do not show warming since 1997?  I am not aware that ANY fail to show it.

As those are the only evidence there is, it's time to cite one (or more).  In other words, put up some evidence.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 13 November 2012 - 01:53 PM.