RE: Model of Global Warming (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

farglebargle -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 9:07:46 PM)

I'd rather have good data then any model. Without good data you *might* get a model which accurate reflects reality, but how would you know?

The *FIRST* thing we should be doing is asking ourselves what is the relevant data, and if we don't even know that, how to learn what the relevant data is.

Then we collect it. Then we analyze it.

At the same time, we should put a bit of money into the basic research regarding things such as, "If we need to sequester CO2, ( or any other selected gas)" what is the most effective way? What's the most economical? What's the fastest?"

So that when the data comes in, and is properly analyzed, IF we need to do something, we'll have the capability.

It wasn't Global Warming that flooded NOLA. It was the US Government selling NOLA broken levees.




SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 9:16:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Comparing historical Love and/or Meacham data to current DFW data is just silly, isn't it?


No, but your post kind of is. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You are trying to pick nits off the back of a single ground-truthing node in an enormous universe of data that has been carefully processed and appropriately adjusted by a huge field of trained scientists. Scientists who enjoy nothing better than catching one of their peers in a slip-up of an actual unaccounted-for confound.

Oh! But here you come along, casually and with one cerebral hemisphere tied neatly behind your back, discovering something that those silly geophysicists, atmospheric chemists and experts in assorted other specialties never even thought of! This is what I love about the average Joes who listen to rightwing radio and think they suddenly know something that the climatology community doesn't. Pure, unadulterated, delusional arrogance. Sociopathic too, given the consequences.

Come again?



farglebargle -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 9:23:50 PM)

You seem to consider yourself knowledgeable, so please answer this question:

How do you measure the current state of regional and global climates? Please list the most important variables to record , the methods used to record them, and the relevance of these variables to short and long term changes in the climate.

With all the discussion everyone's had about it, it *should* be a snap to answer, shouldn't it?




pollux -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 9:24:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Comparing historical Love and/or Meacham data to current DFW data is just silly, isn't it?


No, but your post kind of is. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You are trying to pick nits off the back of a single ground-truthing node in an enormous universe of data that has been carefully processed and appropriately adjusted by a huge field of trained scientists. Scientists who enjoy nothing better than catching one of their peers in a slip-up of an actual unaccounted-for confound.


Really?  You mean, like the Y2K bug in Hansen's GISS data?



SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 9:27:54 PM)

Fargle, you're just blowing vague smoke with this "we don't have the data" business, hoping to cast doubt on a body of work that really has come into consensus. We do have the data, it's darn good data, and it has been analyzed. And the answers all point in the same direction: the earth is getting hotter, and we are supplying roughly 90% of the driving force behind that.

Of course we will always be improving the accuracy and precision of our data, as well as identifying better the complex (often nonlinear) relationships amongst all the relevant variables. And the models will get better and better, which will be useful. Especially as we start entering parametric regimes where some of the feared but as yet unidentified chaotic behaviors start creeping in. We'll need better models to predict what kind of additional havoc is going to be wrought next, and where. But at present, we have intricate and stable enough models to determine that the gross pattern is clear: we're heating the place up, and it is having consequences (already, I hope you understand).

I totally agree with you about carbon sequestration. Understanding how to do that is going to be a huge part of the solution. I gather however that the bigger demand is on new technologies to accomplish it, rather than models to measure the relative success of the process via various proposed means.



farglebargle -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 9:30:35 PM)


How do you measure the current state of regional and global climates? Please list the most important variables to record , the methods used to record them, and the relevance of these variables to short and long term changes in the climate.



SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 9:38:05 PM)

I tried to load that page and got a big blank for the article part, with only the aftercomments showing up.

But from the title of the page I see that I'm being asked to believe that some blogger sitting in his living room has obtained access to some of NASA's raw data, and then discovered a "Y2K bug" (conveniently chosen, I'm sure, as a problem every yahoo listening to Rush Limbaugh can get their tiny minds around).

In the absence of anything to read, I think I'll pass on that highly unlikely premise. The primary data for scientific studies rarely are published. Though non-classified government data is supposed to be public domain, I'd like it explained how and where he read it and found some "Y2K bug" in it.



SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 9:56:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
How do you measure the current state of regional and global climates? Please list the most important variables to record , the methods used to record them, and the relevance of these variables to short and long term changes in the climate.


Is this a pop quiz essay question? Should I point you to some Science or Nature articles to get you started, assuming the unlikely possibility that this is a sincere curiosity and not another Hail Mary attempt to impugn climate science because one informed but non-climatologist individual on a forum declines to give you a comprehensive treatise on the topic at the drop of a hat?

That said, I'm pretty sure I could give a more complete answer on this than you, judging from some of the superficial "yeah but" posts you are putting up. I won't bite, but if you really want to learn about this you can begin to google: "ice core isotope measurement", "temperature record from tree rings", "historical European growing season records" as well as "modern temperature record". Climatologists have collected temperature profiles from a disparate array of methods, and they are highly corroborative Fargle. I'm not going to give you a lecture just to keep you entertained. You'll have to wait for book-reading hour to lay down your little mat for that.



mnottertail -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 10:02:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


How do you measure the current state of regional and global climates? Please list the most important variables to record , the methods used to record them, and the relevance of these variables to short and long term changes in the climate.


why?  you wouldn't do the contrapositive so; no------------

now, strange shit, my cows got now water running, and I gotta tell you, that spring always runs...............

I am from minnesota, we give water, not take it, and we hurt here as much  as can be said-----------------we have had cyclic droughts before but, for a lot of years we havent had winter like we should, and it may be cyclic, but the overall long term is pretty fuckin dry---------and you got coupons?






farglebargle -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 10:03:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
How do you measure the current state of regional and global climates? Please list the most important variables to record , the methods used to record them, and the relevance of these variables to short and long term changes in the climate.


Is this a pop quiz essay question?


I think anyone unable to at least partially answer the question is unqualified to participate meaningfully in the discussion.

quote:


Should I point you to some Science or Nature articles to get you started.


You should, if possible, answer the simple, direct question to the best of your own ability.

quote:


if you really want to learn about this...


No, I want you to demonstrate your understanding of the material. I *thought* the phrasing of the question would *also* illustrate the major thrust of my argument, and help you understand that it's not a Global Warming Denial that I advocate, but really, a holistic understanding of the geological, oceanic, and atmospheric processes which are truly relevant.

For example, what's the role of atmospheric aerosols?



pollux -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 10:06:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

I tried to load that page and got a big blank for the article part, with only the aftercomments showing up.

But from the title of the page I see that I'm being asked to believe that some blogger sitting in his living room has obtained access to some of NASA's raw data, and then discovered a "Y2K bug" (conveniently chosen, I'm sure, as a problem every yahoo listening to Rush Limbaugh can get their tiny minds around).

In the absence of anything to read, I think I'll pass on that highly unlikely premise. The primary data for scientific studies rarely are published. Though non-classified government data is supposed to be public domain, I'd like it explained how and where he read it and found some "Y2K bug" in it.


Glad to know your scientific mind is uncorrupted by politics or ideology.

Btw, McIntyre was only asking to see the algorithms, not the primary data, which were paid for with taxpayer funds.  These algorithms are responsible for producing a fairly substantial fraction of the climatological data upon which all these super-duper models used by fancy scientists depend.  That seemed like a pretty reasonable request to me.  Especially given the enthusiasm among scientists for catching errors in each others' work!

As for the site being unreachable, it's unfortunate you couldn't be bothered to read the comments.  

quote:

Yes, McIntyre has put a great deal of time and skill into his auditing project. And he's been so successful that someone has now paid him the great compliment of DDOSing his website into silence. (Isn't that special?) His webmaster hopes to have it back on the innertubes within a few days, behind a much better firewall.



SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 10:20:42 PM)

Sigh. You're trolling, of course (in between the insecure attempts at patriarchial pedantry to appear that you've got some ground left to stand on). Again, I won't give you a treatise on climatic temperature measurement. I gave you some skeletal leads above to go on, if you're sincere you will look into them.

In answer to your more specific inquiry on the role of aerosols, they generally contribute to cooling. The two most notable ways they have come into play during our history is (1) volcanic eruptions that have led to short-term cooling periods superimposed upon the longer term cycles active at the time and (2) the industrial pollution surge that accompanied the post-WWII manufacturing boom. It is the latter that caused the several-decade cooling trend superimposed on the larger Industrial Age warming trend from greenhouse gases. Which resulted in some sensational stories in the non-peer reviewed press about a "coming ice age", and providing endless fodder for Global Warming Denial devotees during this decade to try to dismiss the entire field today.

(I have indulged you this much not to reward your diversionary tactics but for the benefit of anyone reading who actually cares to know something about the subject. )

Your posts have indeed included elements of global warming denial Fargle. Backpedalling from them at this point is rather pathetic.



SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 10:34:10 PM)

I actually did skim through and read some of the comments, trying to reverse-engineer what your urgent breaking story was, Pollux. It wasn't much help unfortunately. Forgive me though if I don't get exercised about some uncredentialled blogger saying he's pulled the curtain out from in front of the Great Climatology Oz. There are literally hundreds of them on the web, and they are nearly all either making mountains out of molehills or flat-out misrepresenting the science. That's why we have a little thing called "peer review". If you want to read something worthwhile on the subject, go to your public library and thumb throuhg some issues of Nature, Science or even Scientific American (the latter not peer-reviewed but pretty faithful to the current mainstream).

I did click on some links someone supplied there to some strings of temperature offset (atmosphere vs ground) data. I don't know what his point was, whether he was defending or rebuting the blogger, or what the data was supposed to say. Remember that when you are shown a column of numbers out of the blue, without a context, generally it is a poor bet to try to discern much from it. You don't know where it's from, what needed corrections have or haven't been applied yet, or even if it's just one set of data among a larger sample. It is meaningless to try to make something of a blog post like that. Again, read real scientific publications if you desire real information.

As for the Rush Limbaugh comment, it's hard not to feel dismay at someone who has on many specific occasions misled his listeners on scientific issues. I don't care for misleaders, of any political bent.



mnottertail -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 10:38:35 PM)

Ok , your peeress, piss+boot =pour.

or alternatively, you can explain  what we the great unwashed dont get, with accompanying cites, not a tour de force mind you but a little better than you don't get what the meat wallet is hep to.

give it a shot.

Ron

rush is out of hand, a given for a fuckwad, you have my complete agreement



SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 10:47:34 PM)

I'm sorry - I would respond if I had just the vaguest idea of what you were trying to say.

(Unfortunately it's quite late here, and I am off to bed.)



mnottertail -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 10:48:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

I'd rather have good data then any model. Without good data you *might* get a model which accurate reflects reality, but how would you know?

The *FIRST* thing we should be doing is asking ourselves what is the relevant data, and if we don't even know that, how to learn what the relevant data is.

Then we collect it. Then we analyze it.

At the same time, we should put a bit of money into the basic research regarding things such as, "If we need to sequester CO2, ( or any other selected gas)" what is the most effective way? What's the most economical? What's the fastest?"

So that when the data comes in, and is properly analyzed, IF we need to do something, we'll have the capability.

It wasn't Global Warming that flooded NOLA. It was the US Government selling NOLA broken levees.




while I whacked neeling, this is so wrong on so many levels, she is reasonably correct not that anyone would listen, but research?  what research must be done to understand you dont suck co2

OK, it raises and it lowers over the centuries?  What are your grandkids sucking in their lungs?

don't worry I am doing fine?

no fucking way, you study, what you dont get you can phone in



pollux -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 10:56:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

I actually did skim through and read some of the comments, trying to reverse-engineer what your urgent breaking story was, Pollux. It wasn't much help unfortunately. Forgive me though if I don't get exercised about some uncredentialled blogger saying he's pulled the curtain out from in front of the Great Climatology Oz. There are literally hundreds of them on the web, and they are nearly all either making mountains out of molehills or flat-out misrepresenting the science. That's why we have a little thing called "peer review". If you want to read something worthwhile on the subject, go to your public library and thumb throuhg some issues of Nature, Science or even Scientific American (the latter not peer-reviewed but pretty faithful to the current mainstream).

I did click on some links someone supplied there to some strings of temperature offset (atmosphere vs ground) data. I don't know what his point was, whether he was defending or rebuting the blogger, or what the data was supposed to say. Remember that when you are shown a column of numbers out of the blue, without a context, generally it is a poor bet to try to discern much from it. You don't know where it's from, what needed corrections have or haven't been applied yet, or even if it's just one set of data among a larger sample. It is meaningless to try to make something of a blog post like that. Again, read real scientific publications if you desire real information.


When McIntyre's website comes back online I'll be sure & bump the thread [:)]

I think the fact that a few climatologists quietly replaced the GISS data with corrections apparently in alignment with McIntyre's revised algorithm is significant, no?

quote:

As for the Rush Limbaugh comment, it's hard not to feel dismay at someone who has on many specific occasions misled his listeners on scientific issues. I don't care for misleaders, of any political bent.


And yet something tells me Al Gore's distortions on this subject will get a free pass from you.



CuriousLord -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 11:08:46 PM)

Thanks for the advice.  I'm afraid my university seems to lock everyone out of using its account on the off semesters.  Since the summer session just finished up, I have to wait until the fall session begins in a week or two.  I'm hoping it's productive- the university is rather proud of their subscription list.

Come to think of it, I haven't tried Google Scholar yet, either.



LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 11:12:18 PM)

I need to look this up in the farmers almanac



CuriousLord -> RE: Model of Global Warming (8/11/2007 11:16:01 PM)

I feel it may be prudent to mention that the purpose of locating such a model is for examination and study.  Forecasting is not a primary interest in this case.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.109375