My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Fair enough, please excuse my use of the word "purely".

At your command.

Originally Posted by Freemeister

I made no assertion of their sufficiency. I was merely pointing out that they are constantly improving. I can't claim to understand the mathematics involved in these models, but I do understand math to a certain degree, so it would be great if you could point out the shortcomings of the models in accordance with complex systems.

I have studied enough of chaos theory, or whatever they call it this week, to know the specific shortcomings are predicated in the general shortcomings and the general shortcomings are, well...really short. To whit:

Originally Posted by Freezuixitor

How do you know that's not happening?

Because the market is still there. Were any supremely accurate model available, it would destroy speculation and so the market. I do know that the fellas who started the chaos theory proper at Stanford, oh no more than a score of years ago, are now working to crack the stock market; I can't find the link in my bookmarks but I have linked it here at Hypog before. I'll have a google later & find it.

Originally Posted by Freezorator

With Science, it is usually baby steps. We will probably never be able to perfectly model Chaos. Should we stop trying?
Or better yet, will our curiosity allow us to stop?

I never suggested such a thing, and you very well know my enthusiasm and ability to conduct research.

Originally Posted by Freezman

Moving from "very bad" to "moderately bad" *is* an improvement (objectively speaking).

So it is.

PS Here's the promised link: Cracking Wall Street

[InfiniteNow]

It's too bad, really. We were having a very substantive debate here, with real data and support, and not a bunch of hand-waving. Oh well. What changed?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I have studied enough of chaos theory, or whatever they call it this week, to know the specific shortcomings are predicated in the general shortcomings and the general shortcomings are, well...really short.

Ok, but I was asking for specific examples of shortcomings in climate models.

It's important to note that scientists openly admit the uncertainty in climate models.

It is important to be aware that predictions from climate models are always subject to uncertainty because of limitations on our knowledge of how the climate system works and on the computing resources available. Different climate models can give different predictions.

Met Office: Climate change projections

Out of curiousity, can you point to a model that shows opposite trends from models such as the Met Office Hadley Centre computer models. Out of all the models I've looked into, I'm unaware of any that show anything but a warming trend. If such a model exists, I'd sure like to see it. If it doesn't, then we have to wonder why that is.

I never suggested such a thing, and you very well know my enthusiasm and ability to conduct research.

Of course Turtle.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

...Out of curiousity, can you point to a model that shows opposite trends from models such as the Met Office Hadley Centre computer models. Out of all the models I've looked into, I'm unaware of any that show anything but a warming trend. If such a model exists, I'd sure like to see it. If it doesn't, then we have to wonder why that is.

No, I have no such specific models, which is not to say they don't exist. Several reasons come to mind as to why none seem handy: 1) Without the input data from the things still unknown/unrecognized as significant contributors, then all models with such ommissions may make similar predictions. 2) The models are tweaked so they accurately reflect current conditions, be that warming, CO2 rise, etcetera, and once that goal is accomplished then a run is made that goes into the future. This is not speculation, but rather the real process of model making. 3) No one is currently investing in contrarian models. 4) The current warming is not contested, rather the predictions of what follows is the bugga-boo.

Mind you I am relying on what I know, and my own reasoning, to evaluate this business, and not following some other person's agenda or lead. Any links I find are secondary to my own conclusions and reflect my best effort to find some source with some similar reasoning. If you have a different understanding of the mathematics than I, then it is not surprising you draw different conclusions on the application of that math, and no less true for the climatologists. The game is still afoot, and it is far too early to definitively say Miss Scarlet did it in the Conservatory with the wrench.

[REASON]

My concern is that it will be too late by the time we are able to agree on who done it.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by REASON

My concern is that it will be too late by the time we are able to agree on who done it.

Too late for what? Mother Earth kills and eats all her offspring sooner or later; don't fear the Reaper.

You know another couple thingys not in the models? The prediction for the next supervolcano eruption that plunges Earth into cooling or large space rock impacts to similar or worse effect. Chaos theory, aka complex systems theory, is if not in its infancy, its toddler-hood, and pardoning the sexist slant of this colloquial proverb, you don't send a boy to do a man's job.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Too late for what? Mother Earth kills and eats all her offspring sooner or later; don't fear the Reaper.

Don't be the reaper either.
(that's not meant to be directed at you Turtl)

You know another couple thingys not in the models? The prediction for the next supervolcano eruption that plunges Earth into cooling or large space rock impacts to similar or worse effect.

The reason they are not in the models is because they are not predictable. In this sense, the models do not account for divine intervention or alien encounters either.

Chaos theory, aka complex systems theory, is if not in its infancy, its toddler-hood, and pardoning the sexist slant of this colloquial proverb, you don't send a boy to do a man's job.

Then who do you send Turtle? What are other viable alternatives?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Don't be the reaper either.
(that's not meant to be directed at you Turtl)

Understood, but then each of us IS the reaper, save perhaps for the very rare true frutarian. The rule is reap responsibly.

Originally Posted by Freezme

The reason they are not in the models is because they are not predictable. In this sense, the models do not account for divine intervention or alien encounters either.

See the irony? The models' sole purpose is to make predictions, and they fulfill it. No one will make a model and then go out and say here is a false model.

Originally Posted by Freeman

Then who do you send Turtle? What are other viable alternatives?

Yes; you send Turtle. And voila! Here I have been. If this global warming prediction is truly a disaster, than prepare for disaster; if it's not, then prepare for disaster.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Understood, but then each of us IS the reaper, save perhaps for the very rare true frutarian. The rule is reap responsibly.

Agreed.

See the irony?

No. What is ironic about that?

The models' sole purpose is to make predictions, and they fulfill it.

Ok, we agree there.
I'd like to add that one way the models are tested is to run simulations from the past. If the data matches up pretty well with prehistoric climate data (eg ice core samples), then the model is viewed as pretty accurate. If not, it's back to the drawing board.

No one will make a model and then go out and say here is a false model.

Nope, they would say, "Here is our model, it predicts the following...". Then someone says, well what about X? And then they say, hold on we'll be right back.

Yes; you send Turtle.

Which one? Leonardo? Donatello?

If this global warming prediction is truly a disaster, than prepare for disaster; if it's not, then prepare for disaster.

I agree.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Which one? Leonardo? Donatello?

Low Shoe.

My latest entrance into this fray was prefaced on some remarks that Craig offered, and while he & I apparently differ in our conclusion of where lies the best value considering the probable risk, I can assure you, dear readers, that if I have mis-characterized the mathematics of complex systems analysis that a qualified correction is forthcoming.