Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:47 PM GMT on August 07, 2012

Share this Blog
11
+

Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings: Models, Water, and Temperature (4)

This is a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature (see Intro). I am starting with models. In this series, I am trying to develop a way to build a foundation for nonscientists to feel comfortable about models and their use in scientific investigation. I expect to get some feedback on how to do this better from the comments. In order to keep a solid climate theme, I am going to have two sections to the entries. One section will be on models, and the other will be on a research result, new or old, that I think is of particular interest.

Doing Science with Models 1.1: In the previous entry of this series I argued that if one considered the types of models used in design and engineering, then we use models all of the time. In fact, when we build or do just about anything, we use some sort of model to get us started. I ended the previous entry with the example of building a simple picnic bench that would hold three, two-hundred-pound men. Not only do the materials need to be of sufficient strength, but the legs of the bench need to be attached in a way that they form a solid and stable foundation. If the bench wobbles and the legs spread apart, then it will be unsafe. If we have experience of some sort, we construct a model from this experience. For example, if we have built or repaired tables and benches we have some ideas of good and bad construction. If we have no direct experience then we can find or ask about plans. These plans might be a schematic, a graphic model of the bench.

For those who do not build benches, but who, say, balance their checkbooks, there are models as well. The forms in a ledger represent models that have proven usable through practice or that have become standard approaches. Information is collected and organized: the check number, the date, the payee, the amount, the purpose and the category of expenditure.

These graphic, tabular, or touchable models are common enough that we develop intuition about their use. Introductory materials to climate models often use the words “mathematical,” “numerical,” and “computational.” These words take us not only away from our intuitive notions of models, but also into subjects that many of us find difficult and obscure. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen the tabular models of checkbook balancing coded as computational products such as Quicken. Design and architecture move to tools such as Computer-assisted Design. Recently, we have seen this combination of the world of digital models and touchable products come full circle with the advent of three-dimensional printing. In three-dimensional printing, solid objects made of plastic and metal are rendered from mathematical descriptions of the objects. I will return to this idea of mathematical descriptions of objects later. The point that I would like to make now is that using computers as tools to represent the real world has in the last two decades become routine. Therefore, in and of itself, the use of computers to make numerical calculations of the real world is common. It might not be as universally intuitive to people as a ledger or a wooden design of a boat, but there is large body of experience that affirms the value of computer-based modeling.

There are a number of steps that need to be taken from here to climate models. So far, I have been talking about models that are in the spirit of a work or a structure used in testing or perfecting a final product. In climate modeling, the final product of the construction is a model. It is the purpose of that model to provide a credible representation of the climate. That representation has a number of attributes. There is the attribute of representing what we have already observed. There is also the attribute of predicting what we will observe, that is, predicting the future. Therefore, the final product of the whole process is the simulation of and the prediction of the climate.

As with many words, there is more than one definition of model in the dictionary. Another relevant definition from my print edition (third) of the American Heritage Dictionary is “A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further studies of its characteristics.” (American Heritage Dictionary online) This definition is directly descriptive of a climate model. But like those introductions to climate models that I referred to above, it quickly goes to words like “system” and “theory” that are not quite as intuitive as I would like. This is where I will start next time.


Interesting Research: Attribution of 2011 Extreme Weather to Climate Change - Some might recall in 2011, I wandered into the contentious subject of the attribution of climate change to humans (collected here) and talking about communicating extreme weather events in the media (Shearer and Rood). The paper I highlight in today’s blog is a compilation of efforts to understand the role of planetary warming in some of the extreme events of 2011. The paper is Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective edited by Tom Peterson and others and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper looks at six of the extreme events of 2011 and tries to attribute, in a variety of ways, the role played by human-caused global warming. (nice summary in New Scientist)

I want to focus on the part of the paper that discusses the extreme heat and drought in Texas in the summer of 2011. Much of that discussion is based on evaluating the effect of sea surface temperature, and specifically, the role of El Nino and La Nina. El Nino and La Nina are the names given to recurring patterns of sea surface temperature distributions in the eastern, tropical Pacific Ocean. The approach to this problem is to use models to make many simulations with sea surface temperature distributions similar to the La Nina conditions of 2011. Simulations were made for times in the 1960s and for the year 2008. The simulations provide an ensemble of many plausible outcomes, and it is possible to investigate the odds of a drought of similar extreme attributes as the 2011 drought occurring in the 1960s. The authors conclude that the warming climate made the 2011 drought 20 times more likely to occur now than in the 1960s. The authors point out that they cannot make statements about absolute probability. That is, they cannot state that in the absence of carbon dioxide increases and associated warming, that the drought would not have occurred.

This approach of using probability to discuss the impact of warming is an active area of research as well as an emerging way to communicate the relation between extreme weather and global warming. In the Washington Post, Jim Hansen has an op-ed piece that describes a paper which was released on Monday, August 6 (reference at end). In this paper Hansen revisits his metaphor that compares extreme weather in a warming climate with playing a dice game with loaded dice. That is, the dice are loaded in a way such that what used to be “extreme” will more likely occur. Going back to the Texas drought, that result mentioned in the previous paragraph says that the dice are loaded so that the extreme attributes of the 2011 drought are 20 times more likely. The takeaway message from Hansen is that we have, so far, underestimated how much the dice are loaded and that we have underestimated the probability of extreme events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and yes perhaps, persistent cold snaps.

r


Hansen, Early Edition, PNAS, Perception of Climate Change

Hansen, Perception of Climate Change, Public Summary

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 163 - 113

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Quoting Neapolitan:
Well, the difference is, of course, that the number of AGW supporters from the AMS survey consisted of not just climate scientists, but also scientists from fields other than climate and/or meteorology, and even TV weather readers, while the oft-repeated 97% figure from the Doran survey was taken from a group comprised entirely of practicing climate scientists. The former is like seeking opinions on heart surgery from not just heart surgeons, but gynecologists, dentists, and holistic healers, while the latter is like seeking opinions on heart surgery from only heart surgeons. Most people can spot the difference...


You're throwing a red herring. The question that sirmaelstorm asked did not pertain to whether the atmospheric scientists/meteorologists were climate scientists, but whether the sample size was large enough for the Doran and Zimmerman 2009 study.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Thoughts on Achieving a 97% Consensus on Any Issue

First I must extend my welcome to Yulonn. I've been a bit busy the last few days, so haven't had much time to devote to participate in the discussions here.

Secondly, I am amazed at how tolerant and patient the "A-Team" members of the Wunder Climate Blog have been with the incessant Denialist nonsense posted by SunLover/SnowBlower or whoever he/she is. Once he/she informed me that his/her mind would not be changed until 2030 or 2040, I decided to ignore and not participate in the debate.

Now to the subject of consensus. There is a "rule-of-Thumb" among professional facilitators that once you get 80% agreement from a group, QUIT facilitating. From my experience facilitating large and small group workshops, the higher up the participants are in the food-chain the more difficult it is to achieve consensus. The higher profile individuals from across academia, industry and the military have very strong egos, which makes consensus building difficult.

I think it is phenomenal 97% of Climate Scientists concur that AGW is occurring and that the primary reason is human causation. To me, that signifies that the debate is over, c'est finis.

To my knowledge, the only subset of any scientific discipline that does not have an absolute majority that believes in AGW are Petroleum Geologists. Hmmmmm......I wonder why???

Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I omitted the first part of your post because it was not pertinent to answering this question.

"What will the climate in Panama be like in 20 years?" - That is a good a question and I will attempt to answer this based on my limited knowledge. The tropics, temperature wise, should be one of the last places affected by a warming climate. What The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us is that heat (thermal energy) will travel towards any place that is colder until it can establish an equilibrium between the temperature differences. What this tells is that any excess heat will first try to equalize the temperature differences between the hotter areas and the colder areas. Latent tropical heat moves towards the poles in an effort to neutralize the temperature differences between the warm regions and the cold regions. (Hurricanes are nature's best engine for doing this.) This is what we are seeing now with a warming climate. The poleward areas are warming quicker than the tropics are simply due to the heat transfer from the tropics to the poleward regions. The tropics will eventually heat up, but only after a certain degree of equilibrium can be reached between the tropics and the poles.

What I see as the greatest near term threat to the tropical climate is the rampant tropical deforestation. Both natural deforestation process and man's deforestation processes. Should the practice of tropical deforestation not come to an end, then there will be a tipping point to where enough moisture is not being retained and droughts will become the norm in the tropical regions. Or, at least, this is to the best of my understanding on this.

Hmmmmmm, answering this makes me ponder another question. What happens to tropical weather systems should the tropics themselves become more arid? A brief thought exercise on this conjures up many possibilities. Should tropical storm systems begin to collapse, due to a lack of moisture in its environment (how will this affect the MJO?), then what happens when the primary engine to transfer the heat from the tropics to the poles begins to run at a reduced efficiency? Heat transfer will continue, as it must, but what then becomes the best conduit that facilitates this process? ..... HELP!!!! .... Dr. Rood, will you offer us your insight on this?


Ah ... Thanks, kind fellow with the obviously inaccurate handle "Rookie" :-) Your answer is close to where I wanted to go ...

I did not want to insult or even challenge David (or Neopolitan), I just wanted to post a seemingly interesting question ... one in which I might insert a little humor.

Regarding Xulonn, I can only refer to comment 159. That is my feeling as well.

However, Rookie, I see that my simplistic statistical analysis is inappropriate for the tropics. Would it work in north america? Would it work for Chicago? Atlanta?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
We always embrace new members here with open arms.

Welcome to the CC entry.

Sounds like you have a nice Home in a Wunderful place.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Continuing my introduction at the WU Climate Change Blog:

I cherish my new life in this marvelous tropical highlands climate of Western Panama, where every day I can look across the Boquete valley at Jaramillo Mountain, watch the clouds form, move about and often switch directions.

However, I also feel very sad about the uncertain future my grandchildren face, and my inability to make the global environment better suited to facilitate long and happy lives for them like the life I have lived. They have much more to worry about than an increase in ambient temperatures.

As you regulars can tell from this post, I hope to add to the conversation here at Dr. Rood's blog by discussing the "human" side of climate change. My interests include the effects on, and possible changes to, the foundations of the economies of the world, and how we humans can adapt to the changes in the environment. The science of global warming is of interest to me, and I enjoy the discussions of climate change science here at Dr. Rood's blog. I will generally refrain from commenting in areas where my expertise and knowledge is limited, but may ask an occasional question about climate change science.

Although my handle is Xulonn, I don't feel a need to be anonymous here. I may change my WU handle to my real name since I am retired and always post on my own time and on my own computer.

I don't have a graduate degree, although my undergraduate degree has prepared me to study and understand many of the changes we are experiencing in the global physical and cultural environments. Like many others here, I relish the opportunity to express my thoughts and ideas, and to receive confirmation when I am on the right track, or be challenged when my knowledge and logic are flawed.

David van Harn, Retired American Expat
Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama
B.S., Conservation of Natural Resources
University of California, Berkeley, CA 1976
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1547
Pintada - I think you missed my post about living at 4,500 in the foothills of the 11,398" high dormant volcano, Volcan Baru, the highest peak in Panama. Bob Wallace was speaking about this same mountain climate. The humidity drops significantly at this location when it is not raining. I am able to keep the interior of my rental casa very comfortable by closing the windows and doors when it rains, and it is not hot and humid as in the tropical lowlands, or cool and always humid like the higher elevation cloud forest. If you have never experienced a climate like this, come on down to Boquete for a visit.

The only web-published Wunderground site in the Panama highlands seems to be Lloyd Cripe's Boquete Weather. (Lloyd's weather data stream has been down for over 24 hours, and I just sent him an e-mail to try to find out what's happening.)

Check out the "Boquete Annual Climate Data" page for Lloyd's 5 years of data just down the road from me at 4,200' elevation, and "Past Regional Climate Data" for some simple basic data from three other western Panama locations:

- David Climate Data for 30 years (95 feet above sea level)

- Bocas del Toro Climate Data for 30 years (7 feet above sea level)

- Los Naranjos Climate Data for 9 years (3937 feet above sea level, just up the road from Boquete.)

I agree that it will become pretty miserable in the tropical lowlands if the average temps go up, but there are many other environmental factors that could impact life in the tropics. Plus, there is much to worry about besides the climate, including the possibility of U.S. and/or global financial collapse triggered by energy prices and/or climate change-related crop failures around the world. There are many threats to "our way of life," and comfort level with respect to the outside temperature is just one of them.

Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1547
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting BobWallace:


Ever heard of mountains? Know that temps drop as one goes up?

102F along the coast, 60F at altitude...

eta: According to Wundermap it's currently 83F in Panama City, Panama. It's 91F in Panama City, FL. And it's 58F just south of Quito, Ecuador.

Two of those places, getting hotter is going to be a big problem. One of those, getting hotter is going to be tolerable. Might have to install AC....


No, man, I'm asking ... did i get the math right?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:


Ever heard of mountains? Know that temps drop as one goes up?

102F along the coast, 60F at altitude...

eta: According to Wundermap it's currently 83F in Panama City, Panama. It's 91F in Panama City, FL. And it's 58F just south of Quito, Ecuador.

Two of those places, getting hotter is going to be a big problem. One of those, getting hotter is going to be tolerable. Might have to install AC....


Try Costa Rica near Arenl. Bonus is a high altitude lake with good windsurfing, a volcanoe to watch at night and a reasonably number of internation travelers following the barefoot trail. A bit rural though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pintada:
during the recent silliness, with snowcone Neapolitan wrote:

%u201CFor what it's worth--and I know you weren't asking me--I've spent considerable time in both Panama and Costa Rica, and have visited Ecuador on a few occasions. In my mind, there's no place more friendly to American expats--and their often slender wallets--than Panama. Beautiful country, great food, wonderful people, and highly affordable. I don't know where life will take me, but if I don't end up in Panama in a decade or two, I'll be surprised.%u201D


To which I replied:

%u201CCognitive Dissonance, anyone? LOL

Either you are totally wrong about everything you have ever said in any of your posts that I've read, or you will not like Panama very much in a few years.

Sorry man, its just too funny.

120F and 90% humidity? 120 and 100%?? Maybe the tropics will behave differently than I suspect. If I have the science wrong ....%u201D


Which is total nonsense ... well nearly totally wrong. In my defense, it must have occurred to me as some level that i was wrong or i would have left off the last sentence. :-) I can only guess that the rest of you let me get away with it because you had all left the blog until snowblower had left.

Anyhoo -

What will the climate in Panama be like in 20 years?

Hanson put out a paper that helps (if i can do the math). He explained that we will see 3 sigma (3 standard deviations) of temperature abnormalities, and that the percentage of time that we should see such high temps is 0.13%.

Well ... the inverse of .0013 is 769 - which means what??

Easy! Since the mean temp in Panama City in August is 93F and Hanson tells us there is a chance that that temp might be 769 times the average value then the Average mean temperature in Panama City in 20 years will be 93 x 769 or 71,538 degrees F. Huh. That seems a tad high. I might need to re-read the paper. I'll do some independent research!!

OK, I%u2019m back.

The maximum recorded temp in Panama City Panama was 102. If I assume that it occurred only once in the last 100 years and that we can expect that 3 sigma thingie to come into play, then that temperature should occur 769 times per century or about 7 times per year.

True?

I%u2019ve never experienced 102F and 90% humidity ... is that really uncomfortable?


Ever heard of mountains? Know that temps drop as one goes up?

102F along the coast, 60F at altitude...

eta: According to Wundermap it's currently 83F in Panama City, Panama. It's 91F in Panama City, FL. And it's 58F just south of Quito, Ecuador.

Two of those places, getting hotter is going to be a big problem. One of those, getting hotter is going to be tolerable. Might have to install AC....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
during the recent silliness, with snowcone Neapolitan wrote:

“For what it's worth--and I know you weren't asking me--I've spent considerable time in both Panama and Costa Rica, and have visited Ecuador on a few occasions. In my mind, there's no place more friendly to American expats--and their often slender wallets--than Panama. Beautiful country, great food, wonderful people, and highly affordable. I don't know where life will take me, but if I don't end up in Panama in a decade or two, I'll be surprised.”


To which I replied:

“Cognitive Dissonance, anyone? LOL

Either you are totally wrong about everything you have ever said in any of your posts that I've read, or you will not like Panama very much in a few years.

Sorry man, its just too funny.

120F and 90% humidity? 120 and 100%?? Maybe the tropics will behave differently than I suspect. If I have the science wrong ....”


Which is total nonsense ... well nearly totally wrong. In my defense, it must have occurred to me as some level that i was wrong or i would have left off the last sentence. :-) I can only guess that the rest of you let me get away with it because you had all left the blog until snowblower had left.

Anyhoo -

What will the climate in Panama be like in 20 years?

Hanson put out a paper that helps (if i can do the math). He explained that we will see 3 sigma (3 standard deviations) of temperature abnormalities, and that the percentage of time that we should see such high temps is 0.13%.

Well ... the inverse of .0013 is 769 - which means what??

Easy! Since the mean temp in Panama City in August is 93F and Hanson tells us there is a chance that that temp might be 769 times the average value then the Average mean temperature in Panama City in 20 years will be 93 x 769 or 71,538 degrees F. Huh. That seems a tad high. I might need to re-read the paper. I'll do some independent research!!

OK, I’m back.

The maximum recorded temp in Panama City Panama was 102. If I assume that it occurred only once in the last 100 years and that we can expect that 3 sigma thingie to come into play, then that temperature should occur 769 times per century or about 7 times per year.

True?

I’ve never experienced 102F and 90% humidity ... is that really uncomfortable?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
151. vanwx
I don't think that Sno,s turning us into a beta testing ground is all that productive.

We have all learned great deal from Sno's particpation but we are all still at climate's failure.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


I have not denied that I, just like you, get some of my information from external sources (however unlike you, I do not copy and paste large content from blogs, your entire posts are usually just a cut and paste from a Skeptical Science blog post that involves no thought process whatsoever to complete).

However, I also have recently and extensively been doing my own research, and have come to conclusions about the Pro-AGW verses the Pro-solar papers that are circulating about in the scientific literature. I have also come to conclusions that CAGW is not as solid nor as certain as what people would like to believe it is.

Can you say the same?
History is rife with crackpots--generally goodhearted people, to be sure--who, though their own "extensive research", have debunked the theory of evolution, created sustained cold fusion reactions, invented true over-unity energy generators, discovered the secrets of eternal youth, and proven that the earth's interior is a hollowed-out sphere where our doppelgangers labor in direct opposition to us top-siders. The point being, wandering the world following one's own compass can occasionally lead to insights heretofore missed by everyone else who's gone before--but more often than not it ends up with the "independent thinker" aimlessly wandering around in the desert parched, shriveled, blind, and crazy with the heat. It's best to stick with the established science, and move on from there.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


No, it is not disingenuous at all. You made a claim that the vast majority of scientists accept that humans are the dominant cause of Climate Change, so I compared who answered yes to such an assertion to people who disagreed with such an assertion. 59% of 89% is 52%.

So with the atmospheric scientists surveyed in the AMS, there is absolutely no consensus at all. It is split roughly 50/50.
No, I made the claim--and reassert it now--that the vast majority of climate scientists ("vast" in this case being Doran's 97.4%) support the theory fact that humans are the primary cause of the observed warming of the past decades. If you and others of your ilk want to live in a fantasy world where there is "absolutely no consensus" on this issue, be my guest. But those of us who prefer reality know what's going on.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 89


Only 30.7% answered the Doran 2009 survey from which the "97%" figure is frequently cited. Do you consider that a "truly representative sample" in that case?
Well, the difference is, of course, that the number of AGW supporters from the AMS survey consisted of not just climate scientists, but also scientists from fields other than climate and/or meteorology, and even TV weather readers, while the oft-repeated 97% figure from the Doran survey was taken from a group comprised entirely of practicing climate scientists. The former is like seeking opinions on heart surgery from not just heart surgeons, but gynecologists, dentists, and holistic healers, while the latter is like seeking opinions on heart surgery from only heart surgeons. Most people can spot the difference...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Obama Administration is putting seven solar and wind energy projects on “fast-track” review for federal permitting and review, part of President Obama’s “We Can’t Wait” strategy for catalyzing further growth in US renewable energy.

Spread across four western states, the projects have been deemed “nationally and regionally significant,” and the Obama Administration has set expedited target dates for completion of the federal review and permitting process. If they pass through successfully, the seven solar and wind projects would add another 5 GW (max rated) of clean, renewable power capacity to the national supply.

The Office of Management and Budget has been put in charge of overseeing the fast-track renewable energy projects that qualify to be included in Obama’s “We Can’t Wait” renewable energy strategy. The motivation is to oversee “a government-wide effort to make the permitting and review process for infrastructure projects more efficient and effective, saving time while driving better outcomes for the environment and local communities,” according to the White House.



Link

I spend some time here, some time watching the Arctic melt, but I try to work in a lot of what is happening to keep things from getting as bad as they could if we did nothing.

I think we've seen the economy get back to a place where people, while not happy, are at least starting to let go of the fear of a total crash. And now people are paying more attention to climatic problems.

It's going to take a lot of work to cut our GHG emissions to an acceptable level, but I think we're now going to see work start happening in earnest. Come November it will be sink or swim for the US.

I'm voting for swim.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting BobWallace:


I doubt it has been that bad. When one of these guys shows up it, I think, causes some of us to review the basis for our beliefs. That can't be bad. Some skepticism and willingness to consider other ideas is germane to science.

Then some of these folks will post something that brings new facts from others and I, at least, learn something new.

I've decided that I'm not going to waste a bunch of time on deniers. I'll give them a chance to present their best and I'll try to give it an honest chance to win me over. But when they move to just tossing the same stuff up over and over, especially when their errors are pointed out, I'm just wishing them a nice day and moving on.

There's a small portion of the population who will continue to believe that the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits the Earth, or whatever bogus belief they've locked on to. It's pretty much impossible to move them off their position, anything fact that doesn't fit their version of reality is simply tossed.

If they bug you, just put them on your ignore list.



I second this post. I decided Snolover was full of baloney the last time he showed up. THis time I just ignored him/her. I think he/she is just spam and doesn't approach his/her research professionally or with intellectual integrity, regardless of whether he/she takes it seriously emotionally. But like Bob wrote, anyone has the right to show up and argue whatever position they want to defend and they deserve to be listened to initially. It is only, like with Snolover, that after they demonstrate they have an axe to grind, that they should be ignored.

For myself, I think the physical changes are going to be what changes public opinion. You can argue that the world is not getting hotter, but when crops are lying in fields, there is no arctic ice, etc. that is what will convince people to change their habits and support climate restoring technology. I think when people start considering throwing serious money at the problem then lightweight/wrongheaded science like Snolovers will be given short shrift at best. (Not that the rest of us by then might not have time for more than a short shrift anyway.)

If you want to write amelioration, I am all eyes. (Though i probably won't respond much). Maybe we should start a blog about saving the world rather than debating if global warming exists since we all agree it does.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting vanwx:


He/it/she has wasted thousands of hours of our critical thinking without ever intending or risking critical change of their own.


I doubt it has been that bad. When one of these guys shows up it, I think, causes some of us to review the basis for our beliefs. That can't be bad. Some skepticism and willingness to consider other ideas is germane to science.

Then some of these folks will post something that brings new facts from others and I, at least, learn something new.

I've decided that I'm not going to waste a bunch of time on deniers. I'll give them a chance to present their best and I'll try to give it an honest chance to win me over. But when they move to just tossing the same stuff up over and over, especially when their errors are pointed out, I'm just wishing them a nice day and moving on.

There's a small portion of the population who will continue to believe that the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits the Earth, or whatever bogus belief they've locked on to. It's pretty much impossible to move them off their position, anything fact that doesn't fit their version of reality is simply tossed.

If they bug you, just put them on your ignore list.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
144. vanwx
Quoting vanwx:


He/it/she has wasted thousands of hours of our critical thinking without ever intending or risking critical change of their own.


Dear Bob, I beg to disagree; we could be talking about amelioration and not whether there is a problem. Delay is a tactic and very effective.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
143. vanwx
Quoting BobWallace:


He's posted a lot. But he's made no impact.

If he continues just use the Ignore button. It's a great noise filter.


He/it/she has wasted thousands of hours of our critical thinking without ever intending or risking critical change of their own.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
142. vanwx
Dear Anonymous,
We have had our climate change web site taken over by entity 'Snowlover123' . plz help us conginue our discussions w/o said virus.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting vanwx:
Have no doubt about it. Snowlover has taken over the blog.


He's posted a lot. But he's made no impact.

If he continues just use the Ignore button. It's a great noise filter.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting vanwx:
Personally, I would like this bot-fly taken out of the tent so that we could talk about climate change and not his egotistical ass. As poisonous as Snolover is, it is nothing to the loss of my planet. I'm sure it/he/she will collect their bonus on the Kock teat. But, SnoLover must get their own blog and that is not the one here where we talk about the climate that saves farms, lives, flooded villages and a future for my kids.
Quoting vanwx:
Have no doubt about it. Snowlover has taken over the blog.
Be careful, vanwx. Snowlover123 hasn't taken over the blog, he's just commenting more often than everyone else. You have a right to be upset at his attitude, but remember: he also has a right to his own point-of-view, regardless of whether or not his facts are straight. If you're going to take him to task, point out the faults in his logic like others have done. You can criticize his conclusions, but you should leave it at that. Personal attacks serve no purpose.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 880
139. vanwx
Have no doubt about it. Snowlover has taken over the blog.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
138. vanwx
Personally, I would like this bot-fly taken out of the tent so that we could talk about climate change and not his egotistical ass. As poisonous as Snolover is, it is nothing to the loss of my planet. I'm sure it/he/she will collect their bonus on the Kock teat. But, SnoLover must get their own blog and that is not the one here where we talk about the climate that saves farms, lives, flooded villages and a future for my kids.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
137. vanwx
Personally, I would like this bot-fly taken out of the tent so that we could talk about climate change and not his egotistical ass. As poisonous as Snolover is, it is nothing to the loss of my planet. I'm sure it/he/she will collect their bonus on the Kock teat. But, SnoLover must get their own blog and that is not the one here where we talk about the climate that saves farms, lives, flooded villages and a future for my kids.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
136. vanwx
yellow sno,
You always answer a question with another question. Is that mere sophistry or are you a Turing Machine?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
135. vanwx
yellow sno,
You always answer a question with another question. Is that mere sophistry or are you a Turing Machine?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


What is my "IPCC conspiracy theory?"


It's your theory. You tell me the particulars.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:



Your IPCC conspiracy theory is nonsense based on nothing.

And I'm well aware of Christy's dissembling before the Senate Committee.


What is my "IPCC conspiracy theory?"

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


You are using a 2 sigma range just like Skeptical Science (maybe that is where you get your 2 sigma argument from) so that if we fall out of the 1 sigma range you will have a back up plan. Soon, the deniers at Skeptical Science will move on to the 3 sigma range and then the 4 sigma range once the temperatures fall out of the 2nd sigma range (they have already fallen out of the first sigma range of the IPCC predictions)(Scafetta 2011).

This graphic from Dr. John Christy's testimony also shows the Global Temperatures falling out of the CIMP5 one sigma error range.


I appreciate the time you took assigning a motive to me, but you needn't bother in the future. If you want to know my motive on any topic all you need do is ask.

Your IPCC conspiracy theory is nonsense based on nothing.

And I'm well aware of Christy's dissembling before the Senate Committee.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Snowlover123, you have now posted 45 of the last 130 comments in this blog entry, much of it visceral and argumentative, and based on that I can only come to one conclusion: You are not here for a friendly exchange of ideas about climate change; you're here for an argument. Plain and simple. Your successive comments reveal that you feed off the negativity and polemics garnered by a contrarian position, showing you have no interest in establishing common ground. Perhaps the diatribe you crave can be fulfilled through a session with John Cleese rather than trolling within the blog of an esteemed university professor?
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 880
Quoting Birthmark:
Yes, I'm well aware that you can cherry pick (especially among refuted papers like S&W). However, that illustrates my point rather than makes yours. The totality of the science says that you are wrong. No matter how hard you cherry pick data and papers that is the fact based on current understanding.


LOL
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Yes, I'm well aware that you can cherry pick (especially among refuted papers like S&W). However, that illustrates my point rather than makes yours. The totality of the science says that you are wrong. No matter how hard you cherry pick data and papers that is the fact based on current understanding.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

But that's not the case with climate. It is not part of your "usually".


You are using a 2 sigma range just like Skeptical Science (maybe that is where you get your 2 sigma argument from). Soon, the deniers at Skeptical Science will move on to the 3 sigma range and then the 4 sigma range once the temperatures fall out of the 2nd sigma range (they have already fallen out of the first sigma range of the IPCC predictions)(Scafetta 2011).

This graphic from Dr. John Christy's testimony also shows the Global Temperatures falling out of the CIMP5 one sigma error range.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Palus and Novotna 2011 did not link up correctly in my previous post:

Here is Palus and Novotna 2011.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

You mean the observational evidence that you don't throw out supports the solar hypothesis.

For instance, solar output is flat and has been for decades. Now, you discount that for some other than scientific reasons. That is why you are wrong and will remain wrong.


Satellites have measured increased solar radiation reaching Earth's surface, (Pinker et. al 2005)(Wild et. al 2005) Cosmic Rays have decreased, (Ogurtsov et. al 2003)(Carslaw et. al 2002)(Dorman 2012) Geomagnetic Activity has been on the rise (Mufti and Shah 2011)(Georgieva et. al 2005)(Cliver et. al 1998)(Palus and Novotna 2011)(Palamara and Bryant 2004)(Ponyavin 2004), and according to the ACRIM TSI dataset, TSI has also been on the rise(Scafetta and West 2007)(Willson and Mordvinov 2003).
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Diseased Trees New Source of Climate Gas

ScienceDaily.com

ScienceDaily (Aug. 7, 2012) — Diseased trees in forests may be a significant new source of methane that causes climate change, according to researchers at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies in Geophysical Research Letters.

Sixty trees sampled at Yale Myers Forest in northeastern Connecticut contained concentrations of methane that were as high as 80,000 times ambient levels. Normal air concentrations are less than 2 parts per million, but the Yale researchers found average levels of 15,000 parts per million inside trees.

"These are flammable concentrations," said Kristofer Covey, the study's lead author and a Ph.D. candidate at Yale. "Because the conditions thought to be driving this process are common throughout the world's forests, we believe we have found a globally significant new source of this potent greenhouse gas."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
New Atmospheric Compound Tied to Climate Change, Human Health

ScienceDaily.com

ScienceDaily (Aug. 8, 2012) — An international research team led by the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of Helsinki has discovered a surprising new chemical compound in Earth's atmosphere that reacts with sulfur dioxide to form sulfuric acid, which is known to have significant impacts on climate and health.

The new compound, a type of carbonyl oxide, is formed from the reaction of ozone with alkenes, which are a family of hydrocarbons with both natural and human-made sources, said Roy "Lee" Mauldin III, a research associate in CU-Boulder's atmospheric and oceanic sciences department and lead study author. The study charts a previously unknown chemical pathway for the formation of sulfuric acid, which can result both in increased acid rain and cloud formation as well as negative respiratory effects on humans.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Noise is important, but a 1 sigma range error margin can usually do the trick in removing much noise.

But that's not the case with climate. It is not part of your "usually".
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:



There is not an overwhelming amount of papers on the Pro-AGW side. Period. The observational evidence supports the solar hypothesis, not the other way around.

You mean the observational evidence that you don't throw out supports the solar hypothesis.

For instance, solar output is flat and has been for decades. Now, you discount that for some other than scientific reasons. That is why you are wrong and will remain wrong.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

No, iirc the two-sigma standard in climate science pre-dates the IPCC.

Try again. (Hint: It starts with "N" and rhymes with "boys.")


Noise is important, but a 1 sigma range error margin can usually do the trick in removing much noise.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Snowlover123:


So that when temperatures start to fall out of the IPCC confidence range they can claim that it is within the error margins? ;)

No, iirc the two-sigma standard in climate science pre-dates the IPCC.

Try again. (Hint: It starts with "N" and rhymes with "boys.")
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

Why? It was all thoroughly debunked the first time --to any reasonably objective observer. You cherry pick data and papers while simultaneously ignoring the overwhelming majority of papers. You do that on the basis of faulty reasoning.

I'm not intending to be mean here, but Xulonn correctly points out that your critical thinking skills need some work. I agree. I would add that some study of statistical methodology would also help you.

This stuff is hard. That's why we have climatologists do it. They seem to like it. Don't ask me why.



There is not an overwhelming amount of papers on the Pro-AGW side. Period. The observational evidence supports the solar hypothesis, not the other way around.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Birthmark:

That's nice. In climatology, a two-sigma range is generally used. Want to guess why?


So that when temperatures start to fall out of the IPCC confidence range they can claim that it is within the error margins? ;)
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting Xandra:

Via web sites.



I have not denied that I, just like you, get some of my information from external sources (however unlike you, I do not copy and paste large content from blogs, your entire posts are usually just a cut and paste from a Skeptical Science blog post that involves no thought process whatsoever to complete).

However, I also have recently and extensively been doing my own research, and have come to conclusions about the Pro-AGW verses the Pro-solar papers that are circulating about in the scientific literature. I have also come to conclusions that CAGW is not as solid nor as certain as what people would like to believe it is.

Can you say the same?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Carbon credits gone awry: Coolant companies raise output of harmful gas

Manufacturers cash in on system meant to slow climate change

NBCNews.com

RANJIT NAGAR, India - When the United Nations wanted to help slow climate change, it established what seemed a sensible system.

Greenhouse gases were rated based on their power to warm the atmosphere. The more dangerous the gas, the more that manufacturers in developing nations would be compensated as they reduced their emissions.

But where the United Nations envisioned environmental reform, some manufacturers of gases used in air-conditioning and refrigeration saw a lucrative business opportunity.

They quickly figured out that they could earn one carbon credit by eliminating one ton of carbon dioxide, but could earn more than 11,000 credits by simply destroying a ton of an obscure waste gas normally released in the manufacturing of a widely used coolant gas. That is because that byproduct has a huge global warming effect. The credits could be sold on international markets, earning tens of millions of dollars a year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


You are using a two sigma error range, in statistics, error is usually calculated in the one sigma range.

That's nice. In climatology, a two-sigma range is generally used. Want to guess why?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


I came back because I wanted to see if anyone could poke holes into my theories about climate change, and improve on those errors. So far, no one has been able to debunk anything I have posted.

Why? It was all thoroughly debunked the first time --to any reasonably objective observer. You cherry pick data and papers while simultaneously ignoring the overwhelming majority of papers. You do that on the basis of faulty reasoning.

I'm not intending to be mean here, but Xulonn correctly points out that your critical thinking skills need some work. I agree. I would add that some study of statistical methodology would also help you.

This stuff is hard. That's why we have climatologists do it. They seem to like it. Don't ask me why.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

No, you cannot for the simple...well, let me show you instead. Here is the HadCRUT3 for 2001 - 2012:



Take a good look at that ± and those curved lines to either side. You see, even in HADCRUT3 you don't know if it is warming or cooling.

Comparing two such non-statistically-significant periods merely compounds the difficulty. It is a pointless endeavor that tells you little to nothing whatsoever about the underlying trend.

Your statistical method is faulty and incapable of doing what you want it to do.


You are using a two sigma error range, in statistics, error is usually calculated in the one sigma range.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699

Viewing: 163 - 113

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.