Global warming - Page 7

AlpineZone

Page 7 of 22 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 214

Thread: Global warming

  1. #61
    fbrissette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Montreal/Jay Peak
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by BenedictGomez View Post
    Because even though computer models are "wrong often", as you point out, the weather models tend to be okay inside of 5 days.



    That doesn't mean that I trust computer climate models outside of 5 or 50 years (or 500 years).
    You're lacking the basic understanding of what a climate model is and what it does. It is NOT a forecasting model and cannot be evaluated as such. Weather forecasting is in fact significantly more complicated than predicting the climate.

  2. #62
    LasersInTheTaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Jamaica Plain, MA and Warren, VT
    Posts
    129
    I was totally hoping this would be a discussion about the Global Warming Glade at Cannon. I appear to be wrong.

  3. #63
    Russians causing trouble again...............

  4. #64
    fbrissette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Montreal/Jay Peak
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Siliconebobsquarepants View Post
    Russians causing trouble again...............

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by fbrissette View Post
    You're lacking the basic understanding of what a climate model is and what it does. It is NOT a forecasting model and cannot be evaluated as such.
    Says the guy who (for some odd reason) brought up climate models and weather models in the same post, and then stated a belief that it's unusual (which it's not) to have some trust in one, but not the other.
    President - Bicknell's Thrush Extermination Solutions (BTES), LLC



  6. #66
    fbrissette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Montreal/Jay Peak
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by BenedictGomez View Post
    Says the guy who (for some odd reason) brought up climate models and weather models in the same post, and then stated a belief that it's unusual (which it's not) to have some trust in one, but not the other.
    There is nothing wrong in discussing climate and weather models together, just as there is nothing wrong to discuss weather and climate side by side.

    Your expectation that climate models should have been able to represent the last 20 years of atmospheric temperature (or any 20-year period for that matter) testifies to your ignorance of climate models and what they can and cannot do, hence the idea to discuss both of them together. You simply seem to believe that the former is an extrapolation of the latter which is simply not the case.

    Until you're willing to explore, understand and acknowledge the non-sense of your previous statement about 'how almost statistically improbably wrong the climate scientists models and predictions have been over the past 20'ish years' you'll remain an opinionated hack on a ski forum. That might win you some sympathy, but that won't change the fact that you are an uneducated fool in this field.

    Signing off.. We'll go at it in a couple of years I guess. It's been that long since the last debate. Feel free to flame me on my arrogance if it makes you feel better.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by fbrissette View Post

    Until you're willing to explore, understand and acknowledge the non-sense of your previous statement about 'how almost statistically improbably wrong the climate scientists models and predictions have been over the past 20'ish years' you'll remain an opinionated hack on a ski forum. That might win you some sympathy, but that won't change the fact that you are an uneducated fool in this field.

    Signing off.. We'll go at it in a couple of years I guess. It's been that long since the last debate. Feel free to flame me on my arrogance if it makes you feel better.
    Just like old times.... same ad hominem attacks. Attached is a recent AMS paper on "The art and science of climate model tuning". IMO, an interesting read on why climate models have failed in several ways to predict the pause.

    http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~hourdin/P...Tuning2016.pdf
    I rather be @ss noodling

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by jack97 View Post
    Just like old times.... same ad hominem attacks.
    ad hominem attacks??? Really? As if BenedictGomez's posts are all that civil and and polite I'd call them more like mocking and right down belligerent. But given the amount of nonsense that he posted over the years pushing climate change denial, I do have to give BenedictGomez some credit for saying that he now believes that earth is getting warmer. That's almost progressive of him
    Let's give it another few years, perhaps the anthropogenic reasons will start making sense to him too. Not like I really give a rat's behind...
    Live for today

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Bumpsis View Post
    That's almost progressive of him
    Sounds like fightin' words to me!
    2017/2018: Baby Julia born 12/3/2017!
    [Killington: 12/15] [Mount Snow: 11/27]

    2016/2017: * = powder day
    [Berkshire East: 1/16, 2/10] [Bolton Valley: 1/1, 2/5*, 2/19] [Burke: 12/17*, 1/28*] [Heavenly: 3/5*, 3/11] [Jay Peak: 1/29*, 4/9] [Jiminy Peak: 11/26] [Killington: 12/4, 12/10, 4/8*, 4/15] [Kirkwood: 3/8] [Mad River Glen: 2/25] [Magic: 2/13*] [Mt Rose: 3/7*] [Mount Snow: 4/3] [Northstar: 4/10] [Okemo: 11/23] [Pico: 1/7*, 2/18, 3/19] [Smuggler’s Notch: 1/22] [Stratton: 2/4] [Stowe: 1/21] [Sugarbush: 1/2] [Telluride: 3/27, 3/28*] [Whiteface: 2/12]

  10. #70
    It is pretty easy to convince people that global warming/climate change isn’t a real threat. We are not wired to process the kind of danger it poses: long term and slow acting. It is the type of issue we can easily put off until “tomorrow”. However, the bill will come due.

    At core, the problem is simple: the amount of heat absorbed from the sun (as well as the latent heat of the earth), exceeds that which is radiated out. The net result is that the earth’s temperature rises. This, in and of itself does not pose a threat. The earth has heated and cooled for millions of years. There have been times in the distant past when the earth was much warmer, and when it was much cooler as well. What makes this different?

    The answer is two fold: One, we live here now, and have to deal with the effects. That by itself wouldn’t present a problem: historically humans are nomadic, we could simply move further north to where the climate was more temperate, and abandon those areas that have become inhospitably warm. The second problem is the rate of change. Half the population of the earth lives in coastal zones, and many commercial centers are likely to be inundated by the end of the century. Currently arable farmland will become unworkable. We are talking about a radical shift in both our areas of commerce and our areas of food production.

    If this were to occur over a thousand years or so, the economic disruption would be manageable. Cities have risen and fallen through history, and will continue to do so. It is already inevitable that New York City will be underwater. The question, is no longer whether, but when. We have been reduced to arguing over whether it is 50 years, 200, or 500 years. That the sea level will rise 20 feet or more if the current conditions persist is a given. Unfortunately, we are at 400 ppm in C02, and rising. Conditions won’t persist, they will get worse.

    The great fear is that there are tipping points, events that will cause run away warming. Arctic methane release is one such example: as the arctic warms, frozen methane hydrates “melt” and add to the greenhouse effect, triggering additional releases. There is a lot of it in arctic and seafloor areas. It was a methane hydrates that ultimately caused the BP blowout in the Gulf.

    Glaciers, as they melt lubricate themselves and slide quicker thus accelerating their melting. When an iceberg calves it does not raise the sea level, however, it may be assisting in holding back the ice behind it. There is one in Antarctica the size of Delaware that is happening right now. From the glaciers of Greenland, so much fresh water surface water is running off and accumulating on the ocean surface, it may be having an effect on the Atlantic Meridional overturning current; the Gulf Stream is part of that. There is a long term concern that the Gulf Stream will slow down. While a “Day After Tomorrow” scenario is unlikely, the potential effects are gaining a lot of press: colder winters in Europe, and sea level rise along the eastern seaboard as the Gulf Stream “backs up”.

    Right now, much of the excess C02 and warmth is winding up in the oceans. Two problems result. Adding C02 increases the acidification of the water (it is already having an adverse impact on shellfish). Also, warmer water expands, thus even though some of the excess heat is being “stored” at depth, it expands the water, raising sea levels.

    It is routinely stated that the models are widely inaccurate and have completely missed the mark on predicting what will happen. Obviously, no model is precise, and they can’t give an exact prediction what will happen. Chaos theory ensures that. What is typically done is over many runs, a range of initial conditions are used, and estimates of future conditions (e.g. how much C02 will actually be added to the atmosphere) this yields a range of results; some apocalyptic, others more benign. The actual results have been somewhere in the middle. How do we know the models are accurate? How do we “validate” these models? It is fairly simple to take past data, say, up to and including 20 years ago, and see where it puts us now. Is what is predicted in the “future” (i.e. now) match what we are actually seeing? According to the IPCC, the answer is yes, and the prediction range has, if anything, been conservative.

    When you hear about the “pause”, you are being misled. There was no pause. A quick glance at a global temperature graph including current data reveals that. Any reference to "the pause", always begins with 1997. When you hear about how there are “other” causes of warming, whether it is sunspots, natural cycles, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Nino, whatever, you are being misled. The effects of other forces have been repeatedly been shown to be negligible relative to green house emissions. When you are told the models are “no good”, and have failed to predict current conditions, you are being misled. It is easy to cherry pick data and use it as proof that there is no warming, or that we are not the cause. When you are told that “climate gate” proves that scientists are deliberately trying to deceive the public, you are being misled. It was investigated many times, the email authors were vindicated every time. It was over tree rings, for God’s sake. When you are told that scientists have hopped on the climate change money train to ensure funding, you are being misled. There is far more money in denialism, and every scientist would love to be at the center of proving that climate change is a global fraud. That isn’t going to happen. No conspiracy, just many scientific threads all leading in the same direction.

    Scientists have historically not been involved in advocacy: they do their research, and publish their results, and let others figure out the public policy implications. Until early in this century there was a fairly broad based consensus that agreed that climate change was an issue that needed to be addressed. However, money got involved. The Exxon/Mobil’s of the world were well aware of the threat that this posed to their business model: much of their assets are in existing oil and gas reserves. If it became recognized that these assets had to remain in the ground in order to minimize the increase in C02, their share values would tank. So they have deliberately engaged in an effective campaign of disinformation, while at the same time publicly making comments at odds with their own private policies.

    It is essential to know who is funding your information sources. Much of what is out there is wrong. I write this knowing full well it will convince no one. I figure I owe it to my grandchildren.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:41 PM.