What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
I think you are wrong here. The people who make those models and publish their results, don't make that much money.
Also, people who make models are aware of their limitations. There's no desperation there, just an ongoing effort to improve on the models and to see how well they do in practice.
The models didn't predict the pause in global warming. So they decided to find out what could be the cause. And they can explain it by factoring in a few other elements. I just think it's really cool.
It's a shame that you people cannot appreciate this kind of stuff...
The ones who make the really big money, are the preachers against GW, who are paid millions by industry.
Or maybe you're referring to all kinds of silly research that's being done ... well that has nothing to do with global warming, that's happening everywhere. Whenever there's money somewhere to be found (like for research grants), there are people who will want to make use of that money to further their own interest, whether it's useful to society or not. It's just the way it is.
The hockey stick is based on observations, not on models.
I think that we're on the brink of some major breakthroughs in modeling... although it'll take more computer power, so it may take 10 or 20 more years before we'll see models that can actually reproduce things like the "pause".
That said, it remains to be seen if such a pause can be predicted even if it can be modeled. Because if it turns out it's the result of some chance combination of feedback processes that create a stable (but short-lived) phenomenon, then it's in the realm of chaos and then it can be modeled but it cannot be predicted...
Gobsmack. Sadly, I think you actually believe that.
We'll not have the computational power in a hundred years, probably more, to even get close. This has nothing to do with Moore's Law. You obviously didn't listen to the presentation I linked to on the limits of modeling.
I did, that was the one with that mathematician right? While the principles that he uses were right, he exagerrated them to a tremendous degree.
Models are never perfect. They don't have to be, as long as you get useful results from them.
He just says, they're not perfect, therefore they're useless.
You know... if models were really as useless like that, we wouldn't know anything. Analysis of aerodynamics wouldn't be possible. Analysis of structural integrity of buildings wouldn't be possible. None of those are perfect, but despite their limitations, they are very useful, even in everyday applications.
It's not a matter of belief... there are several observation about it.
Instead it's you who believes: you ignore the observations and just make a statement out of thin air.
Those observations go as far to say that we were actually already slowly on our way into the next ice age...
Geo - the hockey stick was created by a model. A model that created a hockey stick out of any data you fed it. The model used observations and proxy data. What's gobsmacking is that you believe it was nothing but observations. I don't ignore observations - it's those very observations that make me skeptical of the models.
The articles I've read were based on observations, not models.
You ignore those.
(Those are digicons for migraine)
OK, that horse is well and truly dead.
I think the problem is that you mistrust other people that you don't know ... but if you don't know them, how can you be sure that they are not to be trusted ...
No, the price of turkey feathers in Uzbekistan is the key variable here.
No, they are done with mathematics...there's a whole 'industry' called 'Civil Engineering'.
If you ever see a 'model' it's to look pretty to investors and/or the public for Planning acceptance...
And you forget the dodo feathers of East-West Phlegmatikstan... as they too should count in the equation of all things great and small.
In fact, now that I think of it, why isn't more being done for the dodo as an endangered species?
Modeling == mathematics, a simplifiction of reality. Whether you calculate something by hand or by computer, it's always an estimate.
What people here are so upset about, are pretty much peanuts. They're upset that there's a 0.1 degree slowdown in global warming. However, if you're interested in changes of the order of 5 degrees, the 0.1 degree uncertainty is not significant for the bigger picture.
And that's exactly what people here think ... they think that a mistake of 0.1 degree due to a short-lived event in the Pacific, will invalidate predictions for a much larger and longer scale change in temperatures due to CO2, which is a completely different physical process.
Oh, crap. Please don't try to educate me about materials and structures....I've been doing this for 40 years.
Mathematics is the tool for measuring reality.
When I 'calculate something' it is exact and correct. In fact, I existed in a time before calculators [and PCs] so learned how to handle mathematics MANUALLY.
If you continue to troll BS you'll be removed.
The equations that you use have (small) error margins.
The strength of a beam of iron is only known with a (small) margin of error.
The strength of concrete, is also based on (lab)experiments and equations that are deduced (in labs).
My point is: equations and models are very useful in everyday practice.
What is so different about GW equations/ models ... so what if their error margins are higher. As long as you have a grip on the reliability of the models, then the results can still be useful.
You cannot simply say "there's is 0.1 degree celcius error therefore the results are crap"
That's like saying "there's a 1% (just a guess mind you) uncertainty in the calculation of strength of a wall... so let's not build a house"
And before you say that this comparison is BS too, then consider this: the warming by CO2 alone can reach about 2 degrees celcius for a doubling of CO2. The hiatus in warming we witness is about 0.1 degree celcius. The "error" that the El Nino mechanism introduces on top of the "insulation" mechanism, is about 5%. That's not much. If we're talking about a quadrupling and a temperature rise of about 5 degrees celcius, the El Nino mechanism will still be 0.1 degree celcius, for such a prediction the error is about 2%.
And the unpredictability also has an everyday equivalent: if you travel by train, or bus, you never know how long a trip will last. You only know how much it'll last "on average". It's a chaotic process, it depends on weather, traffic, breakdowns. Still, it's useful. And you can also make statements like the following:
"If there are no traffic lights, then the trip will last 2 hours at a steady pace of 30 mph"
That's similar to saying: "If there is no El Nino or El Nina", then the global warming will increase steadily by 0.1 degree/ decade. Or something like that.
Are you really going to ban me for this?
No they don't.
10x10=100 ....not 'about 100-ish'.... [and I'll need to 'model it first to be sure']
Please stick to your parrotted 'opinions' on Global Warming and leave Mathematics out of it. It is clearly NOT your sphere of education.
Physics and other mathematical sciences are NOT approximations of some arbitrary bullshit guesswork.
Statistics is the one that can be utter rubbish.... hence all the stupid to and fro arguments here about how to read a graph.
Another word for a statistician is bullshit artist. You can fudge any chosen selection of numbers/data to read any way your politics desires...or the way your employer wants it to be.
Statisticians make numbers lie...it's their job.
Mathematicians make them add up.
Ok... you're talking about Math as a stand-alone tool. Yes that's perfect by itself.
When you apply it to real-world problems, it's not perfect anymore because you've to work with uncertainties and approximations... while the mathetmatics itself is self-contained and "perfect", the results have a small margin of error when it comes to comparing the mathematical outcome with reality.
I'm not talking about statistics.
This thread has jumped the shark.
Whatever... let's just be friends.
Look, we get it. You are trying to answer every doubt re global warming by demonstrating methodology errors/uncertainties as excuses as to why others claim the models aren't working out.
Instead what you are doing is demonstrating the manic pre-occupation/obsession 'believers' are accused of having with regards to the topic.
I myself believe it's a man-made issue but I think I will have to distance myself from that just so I'm not pidgeon-holed along with obsessive fanaticists.
You are not helping your cause at all.
Why not do what you have said you would do so long ago and leave the topic alone?
I don't use it as an excuse... I'm just trying to show that the 0.1 degree celcius error that people are so hysterical about nowadays isn't very significant when you compare it to the 2 to 5 degree warming that's predicted for a doubling and quadrupling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It's like smashing a mosquito and tell everybody the problem is gone, while you're ignoring the big elephant that's hiding in plain sight in the corner of the room.
That's some good advice.
Heh, Heh.
This should be interesting to follow: Mammodeniers
Relates directly to the fundamental principle underlying this whole discussion.
This article investigated the way clouds are modeled, and states that the current models underestimate the global warming because they incorporate a negative feedback from upper clouds only, instead of a positive feedback from lower clouds...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131231094442.htm
They state that therefore, temperatures are likely to rise by 3 to 5 degrees celcius per doubling of CO2 ...
Yes... GW is very similar. Despite extensive research over many decades, involving thousands of researchers, from a varied field of disciplines (from modeling to biology to geology to space observations) there are still people who think that nothing is happening.
Daiwa...I hold you 100% responsible....for thread propagation beyond sharks-rampant....
What comes after the sharks?
Make that 110%.
Interesting & fun tidbit #1.
Interesting & fun tidbit #2.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
