Climate-gate

[Billy T]

So the IPCC model allows lambda, term for climate sensitivity, to remain fixed with respect to all 'feedback' over the course of the doubling of atmospheric CO2 (dT_surface) They choose this metering method by deriving the feedback component from one set of data points? What is the justification for the approximation? The prediction that variability is minuscule and will have no meaningful effect on the measurement results? Do you feel the 'unlikely less than' 1.5C prediction for the IPCC model is a result of the prediction based on one set of data points as compared to the 'unlikely <' 2.6C prediction of other models mentioned in the wiki climate sensitivity page? I could have been interested in this science if the present science wasn't so depressing. Thanks for trying to exercise intellectual honesty in the face of being the bearer of ill tidings. For me it's not interesting to have disagreements on data when it's all bad news. My greatest fear is the one rpenner wrote about. We will wait until it's to late and in the meantime let the oligarchs make all the calls.

Climate prediction is based on two basically different methods, both of which claim to be "empirical."

One has very detailed, highly specialized, investigations of the many known aspects (for example, rate of water vapor condensation on aerosols in the troposphere vs the stratospheric as function of relative humidity), by many experts followed by some model that integrates all this data it can to project what (with different probability given, of course) will happen. IPCC's reports issued at half decade intervals are most important of this group but are unable to predict correctly (as linerarized)* more than 5 years into the future. So the whole process is repeated about every 5 or 6 years to correct the prior errors. AFAIK not one of their predictions remained valid a decade after it was first made.

The other does not pretend to understand or even to know all the important aspects but looks at the ice core and other records relating to ancient climatic changes, especially the more rapid ones, and then fits the data with relatively simple math terms of its model and keeps adjusting the model's parameters until they give accurate representation of a sub set of the ancient records. Then they test their model on some other sub set (different period) of the ancient data. If it survives that test, they use it to predict what will happen in the future. The simple (two terms) model of graph at end claims to have only 12% error in its "prediction test" and did predict the turn down in temperature rise that seems to be starting now some years ago, in disagreement with the IPCC's prediction of continued rise.

I strongly recommend you take 5 minutes, to watch this "Climate Cheetah" video - it is informative and entertaining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbY9Oyi2VW0&list=PLIbt-C7z11l1ZZqsQYTxCtbrdawW9wGdQ&index=2
It answers your questions better than I can.

* And nations must sign off (and some even reword sections before doing so) all IPCC reports. IPCC reports are not scientific, but a political compromise agreeable to the oil industry and 195 nations who MUST approve release of the report.

By "eye ball" test, average |black - bars| may be only 12% error.

 

[iceaura]

I see there's been a 'record' amount of ice this year.

No, you don't.

The point about fresh water both floating near the surface and freezing more easily has been kind of set aside, though: it's seldom mentioned, and I've been unable to figure out how it's being handled by the pros. It would have at least two relevant bearings: it makes the loss of floating sea ice volume an even more dramatic event, in the context of a rising influx of more easily frozen fresh water runoff; it makes the total ice mass at a given temperature of the ice (temperature and mass integrated over land and drainage sea neighborhood together) the basic consideration for estimating accomplished warming.

The two biggest problems with the "climate-gate" are (1) reasonable scientists who cannot effectively communicate their findings and (2) an idiotic superstitious public that does not comprehend basic English

Neither of those are central. The central problem is the existence of a wealthy and self-interested body of (mostly) private industrialists employing the most sophisticated and effective marketing and influence operations the world has ever known, to confuse, mislead, deceive, politically cripple, and personally demoralize a public that would otherwise threaten their wealth and power.

That is why reasonable scientists in the US find themselves in the bizarre world of Fox dominated "communication", where reality itself is a matter of opinion, and communication (without the scare quotes) is not merely difficult but actively opposed, undermined, if possible prevented.

IPCC's reports issued at half decade intervals are most important of this group but are unable to predict correctly (as linerarized) more than 5 years into the future.

Linearization, in that sense, needn't prevent accurate longer term prediction - the matrices are of rates, after all, and the derivative is a linearization: something like a Taylor series approximation can be made as accurate as you want it to be, in theory, given a smooth function.

They just haven't been walking it long enough to know where the cllffs are, and it's sensitive, chaotic: there are discontinuities buried in there, catastrophes in the Catastrophe Theory sense (phase changes in water and methane, prominently here).

Climate prediction is based on two basically different methods

I sort of thought, naively perhaps, that these two approaches were aspects of one overall investigation, being used by somebody to correct each other. Am I wrong about that?

 

[Photizo]

That is why reasonable scientists in the US find themselves in the bizarre world of Fox dominated "communication"

Sorry, but "communication" is dominated by the bizarre world of leftist interests and agendas. From their earliest years, individuals are subjected to a continual bombardment of leftist propaganda/worldviews via school, media, and the corporate environment (corporations are essential arms of the state) channeling the hapless populace into the collectivist group think corral. Woe betide individuals who do not conform and adopt collectivist group think ideals. Individuals threaten the collective by disrupting control at any level/arena...be it academically, financially, or politically. At the very 'top', the line of demarcation establishing the respective sides of the manufactured 'left-right paradigm' vanishes into thin air. It is merely another facet of the artificially engineered/orchestrated collectivist environment serving the psychopathic control freaks known as 'the elite'. Collectivism dominates the warp and woof of "communication"...it is the vehicle providing maximum control of the many by the few.

p.s.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/16/obamas-lonely-climate-summit-world-leaders-are-staying-home/

 

[iceaura]

Sorry, but "communication" is dominated by the bizarre world of leftist interests and agendas.

Not on this planet. If it were, people in the US would have at least some kind of a clue what a leftist agenda or interest looked like. Instead, we have (for example) complete bs like "climate gate" actually advanced as legitimate issues, wasting the time of people on scientific forums, insisted upon by people who couldn't find their ass with a map and a compass if it had a fact or an argument tattooed on it.

You know, the kind of people who regard the "corporate environment" as featuring a "continual bombardment of leftist propaganda/worldviews".

 

[billvon]

It is merely another facet of the artificially engineered/orchestrated collectivist environment serving the psychopathic control freaks known as 'the elite'.

Or, to be specific, Exxon.

 

[brucep]

Post messed up. Deleted.

 

[brucep]

Climate prediction is based on two basically different methods, both of which claim to be "empirical."

One has very detailed, highly specialized, investigations of the many known aspects (for example, rate of water vapor condensation on aerosols in the troposphere vs the stratospheric as function of relative humidity), by many experts followed by some model that integrates all this data it can to project what (with different probability given, of course) will happen. IPCC's reports issued at half decade intervals are most important of this group but are unable to predict correctly (as linerarized)* more than 5 years into the future. So the whole process is repeated about every 5 or 6 years to correct the prior errors. AFAIK not one of their predictions remained valid a decade after it was first made.

The other does not pretend to understand or even to know all the important aspects but looks at the ice core and other records relating to ancient climatic changes, especially the more rapid ones, and then fits the data with relatively simple math terms of its model and keeps adjusting the model's parameters until they give accurate representation of a sub set of the ancient records. Then they test their model on some other sub set (different period) of the ancient data. If it survives that test, they use it to predict what will happen in the future. The simple (two terms) model of graph at end claims to have only 12% error in its "prediction test" and did predict the turn down in temperature rise that seems to be starting now some years ago, in disagreement with the IPCC's prediction of continued rise.

I strongly recommend you take 5 minutes, to watch this "Climate Cheetah" video - it is informative and entertaining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbY9Oyi2VW0&list=PLIbt-C7z11l1ZZqsQYTxCtbrdawW9wGdQ&index=2
It answers your questions better than I can.

* And nations must sign off (and some even reword sections before doing so) all IPCC reports. IPCC reports are not scientific, but a political compromise agreeable to the oil industry and 195 nations who MUST approve release of the report.

By "eye ball" test, average |black - bars| may be only 12% error.

Thanks Billy T. I'll watch the video.

 

[Billy T]

... Linearization, in that sense, needn't prevent accurate longer term prediction - the matrices are of rates, after all, and the derivative is a linearization: something like a Taylor series approximation can be made as accurate as you want it to be, in theory, given a smooth function. ...

Following is from my post 1310 (I think) where I could not get the texmath form correct and in 1322, trippy showed it. First equation line below is the accurate expansion, by Taylor series, for sin(x). Trippy gave series expansion for the tan & cos also.

You made the same comment as above in your post 1319. - It also indicated confusion as to what "Linerized" means. - I.e. must keep only the linear terms (no x^2 or X^n where n is any power BUT ONE.) You must have missed or not understood the well illustrated, for the sin(x), FACT of my post below. I. e. that the accuracy of a non-linear function (like the very non-linear GW) declines as your evaluation point moves farther from your known point:

sin(x) = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - x^7/7! + x^9/9! ....

Here are their "linearized" version, which like the IPCC's linearized analysis, are valid ONLY for very small increases from the present.
(x is how far from the known value, x or time t = zero you want to predict or calculate the value.)
sin x = x
cos x = 1
tan x = x

For example if x = 0.1 radians, then with these linearized version:
sin(0.1) = 0.1
tan(0.1) = 0.1 &
cos(0.1) = 1 still.

Here are the true values:
sin(0.1) = 0.09983341664
tan(0.1) = 0.10033467208 Note tan(x) is always greater (up to pi/2) than the sin(x). In fact, like global warming, a non-linearized version will increase without limit!
cos(0.1) = 0.99500416527

The above linearized expansions are good approxmtion as the do not predict far from current conditions (value at the expansion point used) but like the IPCC's predictions give crap for more distant points. For example if x = 1.0 you get:

sin(1.0) = 1
cos(1.0) = 1
tan(1.0) = 1
But here are the true values:
sin(1.0) = 0.8414709848
cos(1.0) = 0.54030230586
tan(1.0) = 1.55740772465
and if x = 2.0 the linearized accuracy goes to hell.

This is quite general result. Linear models DO predict well almost everything if the predicted point is not distant from the currently known point.
Or stating this generally: F(a+b) = F(a) + [F(a) -F(a-b)]b where F(a) is known and b is not far from a, but far enough that [F(a) -F(a-b)] is a "trend" not just statistical noise.

For example b can be a couple of days (or even only one) if you want to use today's peak temperature to predict the peak temperature tomorrow. Interestingly this simple linearized short term prediction is for any given location BETTER than the US weather's computers can do for next day at your house.

 

[brucep]

Trippy

Thanks for showing me the Arrhenius prediction. I forgot to go advanced before I submitted my post.

 

[Photizo]

Not on this planet. If it were, people in the US would have at least some kind of a clue what a leftist agenda or interest looked like.

Not necessarily. Check out videos whose sole purpose is to expose/underscore the abysmal ignorance of the average voter. More often than not, if they do vote, they haven't the foggiest notion as to why they are voting for their particular candidate, nor have they even a rudimentary understanding of the party platform. How much more then their ignorance of Marx, Alinsky, etc. and their methods. These people are the tools of the left...its useful idiots, its joe sixpacks, its great unwashed...sheep meant to be sheared...the lot of them indispensable to the left which shamelessly exploits them in its unceasing crusade to enmesh itself into the fabric of this nation. The collectivist status quo appears normal to those who've lived their whole lives in the midst of it. Not satisfied with its domestic supply of clueless u.s. citizens, it seeks to augment this ample bounty by opening the border and virtually swamping the country with the clueless, incompetent, and dependent of other countries. We're toast.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Not necessarily. Check out videos whose sole purpose is to expose/underscore the abysmal ignorance of the average voter. More often than not, if they do vote, they haven't the foggiest notion as to why they are voting for their particular candidate, nor have they even a rudimentary understanding of the party platform. How much more then their ignorance of Marx, Alinsky, etc. and their methods. These people are the tools of the left...its useful idiots, its joe sixpacks, its great unwashed...sheep meant to be sheared...the lot of them indispensable to the left which shamelessly exploits them in its unceasing crusade to enmesh itself into the fabric of this nation. The collectivist status quo appears normal to those who've lived their whole lives in the midst of it.

Well let's test that claim. Of the many members of the site which oppose liberal politics, how many have demonstrated a fluency in the many scholarly topics that appear here? None. How many have demonstrated a high school graduate level of competency? None. How many of those who post in the science threads follow the scientific method, by furnishing empirical data to support their claims? None.

Gee, you must be wrong. But, hey, don't let that stop you from showing us the data which proves that people who vote against Republican candidates are actually less intelligent than the rest.

If that's not too taxing a chore for your Right Wing level of intelligence.

 

[Photizo]

Or, to be specific, Exxon.

Corporations might try and influence government, but they do not possess its power. Corporations can be coerced into compliance by threats of litigation on the part of the government. They must woo government but cannot compel it. The elite are neither corporate nor government. They manipulate either with equal ease because the elite are the source of the mediums of exchange.

 

[Photizo]

.... don't let that stop you from showing us the data which proves that people who vote against Republican candidates are actually less intelligent than the rest.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. You are the one who is constantly questioning your own.

 

[Trippy]

Trippy

Thanks for showing me the Arrhenius prediction. I forgot to go advanced before I submitted my post.

No problem.

 

[billvon]

Corporations might try and influence government, but they do not possess its power.

They possess far more, since they control consumers and hence voters. They can get whatever they want by doing no more than threatening "pain at the pump." (And by blaming anyone but themselves for it, of coiurse.)
Follow the money. They make hundreds of billions - and are willing to spend massive amounts to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the more gullible. By denying climate science they protect their massive profits.

 

[Photizo]

We'll have to agree to disagree, billvon.

 

[brucep]

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. You are the one who is constantly questioning your own.

Intelligence, intellectual dishonesty, bullshit ideology. All works for you. Prime meat for the next Dunning & Kruger study.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Intelligence has nothing to do with it.

A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.

. . . the abysmal ignorance of the average voter . . .

:shrug:

You are the one who is constantly questioning your own.

Case in point. The Right Wing posters are incapable of posting empirical evidence. QED.

Contrast that with the Left-of-RightWing intellect which will nail you with the empirical evidence every time you come up empty handed:

Therefore your posts attacking the intellect of liberals are disproved. Just try posting some empirical evidence to back any of the reactionary claims you've posted here. You can't. There isn't any, and if there were you wouldn't have the chops to go find them. All you've posted is 10% Limbaugh-esque rant, 90% cartoons and links to propaganda. Gee, I wonder why no professional journals have anything good to say about the Right Wing.

Science is like that, it tends to correlate across all different dimensions . . . the way climate science correlates with geology, oceanography, physics, zoology, botany, chemistry, envirnmental science . . . and the list goes on until we get to the humanities, sociology and landing on psychology. And that's the zinger. But wow. Try explaining that to a Right Winger. Talk about learning deficit disorder. You guys are really sick. I mean ill.

 

[Billy T]

GW in action:

The Eastern Pacific basin’s 30-year average for the six-month tropical season is for 15 named storms, 8 of them hurricanes. There have been 16 storms so far in 2014 and all but five of them became hurricanes. The season has more than two months to go.

And don't forget the greater than ever flooding and associated deaths in Indian & Pakistan this year. Important cites completely flooded. Deaths > 1000 in last month.

Associated Press |
Evacuees fleeing rising floodwaters cling to treetops and wait to be plucked from the roofs of buildings in Srinagar, the main city on the Indian-administered side of Kashmir. Many won't have homes to return to, as days of flooding have washed away houses, bridges, communication equipment and crops in India and Pakistan.
The flooding began earlier this month in Kashmir, which is claimed by both countries. Hundreds have been killed and hundreds of thousands forced to evacuate in the region's worst flooding in years.

More photos at this link.

Average humidity increases 7% per degree C of temperature increase by theory. Is more than 5% higher by measurements than at start of accurate global measurements.

 

[Photizo]

Prime meat for the next Dunning & Kruger study.

I'm under no such illusions. On the contrary, many of you would do well to do some serious soul searching with respect to the study you cite--especially as it concerns your approach to those who, in recognition of a higher Authority/Ability, subordinate themselves along with any natural abilities to the Word of God Incarnate/Written...this only makes sense given that "He is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him (including all of you). He himself existed before anything did, and he holds all things together." Yes, He enables you to take "every breath you take"...He sustains every aspect of all you're aware* of. Consider your status with respect to the aforementioned study... If He chooses to enlighten you, let these be the first scriptures you memorize:

"Because of the privilege and authority God has given me, I give each of you this warning: Don't think you are better than you really are. Be honest in your evaluation of yourselves, measuring yourselves by the faith God has given us."

*that you are aware of things surrounding you to the extent you are is solely because of Him