Climate Scientists Have Discovered Cause of Syrian War - Guess what it is

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh no, it did contribute! Lol.

The California drought cost $2.2 billion this year. That is a blip, a minor inconvenience, it is less than Bill Gates makes in a single year. Technology has made this true for most climate events. Events that were once catastrophes in the past are now merely obstacles that we easily overcome, rarely involve large human death tolls and effect the nation barely at all.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/weath...ought-climate-change-global-warming/24262559/

Well NOAA says it didn't...so what am I supposed to think now?

 

[Paratus]

Well NOAA says it didn't...so what am I supposed to think now?

Just for you Doc S I'll go through both reports to help you figure out what's going on:

From NOAA they mention studies done in the September 2014 edition of the Bulletin of The American Meterological Society that looked at the drought and found the following:

U.S. drought:

Three independent studies, which examined Pacific sea surface temperatures and atmospheric anomalies, did not find conclusive evidence for the impact of human-caused climate change on the ongoing rainfall deficit in California. One paper found evidence that atmospheric pressure patterns increased due to human causes, but the influence on the California drought remains uncertain.

The new study referenced in the USA Today article is about a study also in the Bulletin of The American Meterological Society from Spetember 2014 but as an addendum had this to say:

The interdisciplinary research team found that the extreme geopotential heights associated with the Triple R in 2013 were at least three times as likely to occur in the present climate as in the preindustrial climate. They also found that such extreme values are consistently tied to unusually low precipitation in California and the formation of atmospheric ridges over the northeastern Pacific.

"We've demonstrated with high statistical confidence that the large-scale atmospheric conditions, similar to those associated with the Triple R, are far more likely to occur now than in the climate before we emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases," Rajaratnam said.

"In using these advanced statistical techniques to combine climate observations with model simulations, we've been able to better understand the ongoing drought in California," Diffenbaugh added. "This isn't a projection of 100 years in the future. This is an event that is more extreme than any in the observed record, and our research suggests that global warming is playing a role right now."

So the NOAA summary actually says the issue was inconclusive and not that the drought is natural.

This other study from the same journal sets the likelihood of a man-made component to the drought as very likely.

Hope this helps you out.

 

[Subyman]

Since you appear to know a little bit about science...is the current California drought caused by AGW or not?

There is a difference between acknowledging logically presented evidence and understanding the conclusion drawn by that research compared to performing original research yourself. Are you asking zin to personally run a climate model and present a peer reviewed paper to you?

 

[bshole]

There is a difference between acknowledging logically presented evidence and understanding the conclusion drawn by that research compared to performing original research yourself. Are you asking zin to personally run a climate model and present a peer reviewed paper to you?

Because running a model PROVES it....... like the people who created the model have no idea whatsoever apriori what the model is going to spit out.....

 

[Subyman]

Because running a model PROVES it....... like the people who created the model have no idea whatsoever apriori what the model is going to spit out.....

I don't believe you know how models work. They speak to probabilities based on scenarios. They give us an idea of trends and possible outcomes, they were never meant to have god-like precision (they can't "prove" which leaf each individual rain drop will fall on, etc). They are based in chemistry, thermodynamic principles, and bedrock physics. They are calibrated on the historic record. They give us the best look that we can possibly have at this time.

Without models the best we could do is use our eyes to look at the sky to see if it is raining. Models changed our understanding and predictive capabilities, but they were never, ever considered to be 100% predictive of the future. The problem is with you expecting them to be, which completely shows me you are far removed from how science works.

Next up you will probably come back and say, "Well, if it can't prove anything 100%, then its all a bunch of made up garbage." Let's throw out the entire field of statistics, nothing but a genie in a bottle that can tell you the future is good enough. Back to the dark ages of superstition I guess.

 

[bshole]

I don't believe you know how models work. They speak to probabilities based on scenarios. They give us an idea of trends and possible outcomes, they were never meant to have god-like precision (they can't "prove" which leaf each individual rain drop will fall on, etc). .

I have created transmission models for my company which run in matlab. I know how those models work and they are extremely PRECISE and do exactly what they are programmed to do BY ME. Having a transmission model saves us from dragging an actual transmission into the lab to test the transmission control software. It is actually very useful and perhaps almost essential.

In our case, it is extremely easy to see how good the model is, we can find out in a matter of days or weeks by tests on the actual transmission. That is the entire weakness of AGW models. To find out good the models are will take centuries, they are predicting climate not weather. But that is NOT how it is portrayed to the general public. It is ASSUMED that the models are settled and proven fact and then everything negative that happens in the world is interpreted to occur because of it. Surely you can see this. A new story crops up every week. We have to be told about how bad it is because if we weren't told, nobody would notice.... I certainly haven't....

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

Evaluating a model

A model is evaluated first and foremost by its consistency to empirical data; any model inconsistent with reproducible observations must be modified or rejected. One way to modify the model is by restricting the domain over which it is credited with having high validity. A case in point is Newtonian physics, which is highly useful except for the very small, the very fast, and the very massive phenomena of the universe. However, a fit to empirical data alone is not sufficient for a model to be accepted as valid. Other factors important in evaluating a model include:[citation needed]

• Ability to explain past observations
• Ability to predict future observations
• Cost of use, especially in combination with other models
• Refutability, enabling estimation of the degree of confidence in the model
• Simplicity, or even aesthetic appeal

People may attempt to quantify the evaluation of a model using a utility function.

Model Predictions vs. Reality

 

[Moonbeam]

It will take probably billions of years before we can confidently predict the million year on splat pattern the solar system will exhibit, given various possible collisions with planetoid sized asteroids. The math alone will be considerable, but testing the models against actual events could complicate the accuracy of the measuring equipment. You can bet, however, that as a member of the "Do Nothing That Jacks My Amygdala Society", you can bet I'll be quoting this info to prevent any of my tax dollars from being spent scanning the sky for threats. We hardworking people who understand the meaning of personal responsibility are always the target of those scum astrophysics types looking for government research grants THEY WANT ME TO FUCKING PAY FOR.

Something must be done about this, like when we outlawed shouting global warming on a crowded planet.

 

[Subyman]

I have created transmission models for my company which run in matlab. I know how those models work and they are extremely PRECISE and do exactly what they are programmed to do BY ME. Having a transmission model saves us from dragging an actual transmission into the lab to test the transmission control software. It is actually very useful and perhaps almost essential.

In our case, it is extremely easy to see how good the model is, we can find out in a matter of days or weeks by tests on the actual transmission. That is the entire weakness of AGW models. To find out good the models are will take centuries, they are predicting climate not weather. But that is NOT how it is portrayed to the general public. It is ASSUMED that the models are settled and proven fact and then everything negative that happens in the world is interpreted to occur because of it. Surely you can see this. A new story crops up every week. We have to be told about how bad it is because if we weren't told, nobody would notice.... I certainly haven't....

Wait, transmissions? Like gears? Pure mechanics, nothing chaotic there. Very, very, very easy to model precisely.

We are talking about different types of modeling. Your model represents a physical object that can be completely represented by fundamental physics using mechanics and possibly some material properties if you simulate stresses. Climate modeling is a much more diverse problem pulling from many more fields of study, some of which use empirical equations whose parameters are not known constants or fundamental properties, they must be solved for or adjusted.

Yours is textbook physics, the other is highly data-based.

However, you do make a good point about confirming results, but you miss an important difference. The models are historically calibrated. We have hard data from the past that calibrate the model. You can't predict exact temperatures, but you can certainly predict a general gradient or trend. Nearly all models show increases, not decreases.

Since you work in engineering, certainly you have taken a chemistry class before. At the very basic level, do you believe in green house gases? Or gases that cause the earth to retain more heat? In very easy terms, do you believe that if we put more of those into the atmosphere that the Earth will warm over time?

 

[Subyman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling



Model Predictions vs. Reality

Source for image? I did a google image search and only found denial websites showing it. My question was which scenerios did they use here? The IPCC has different models for "high carbon use", "business as usual", "high temperature path", etc. Each model can be run under many different scenarios. If that chart is only showing high temperature projections then it is very misleading.

 

[norseamd]

We are talking about different types of modeling. Your model represents a physical object that can be completely represented by fundamental physics using mechanics and possibly some material properties if you simulate stresses. Climate modeling is a much more diverse problem pulling from many more fields of study, some of which use empirical equations whose parameters are not known constants or fundamental properties, they must be solved for or adjusted.

The massive difference in scale alone is huge.

 

[Jaskalas]

Source for image? I did a google image search and only found denial websites showing it. My question was which scenerios did they use here? The IPCC has different models for "high carbon use", "business as usual", "high temperature path", etc. Each model can be run under many different scenarios. If that chart is only showing high temperature projections then it is very misleading.

Global emissions are soaring, and you think they overestimated CO2 levels?

 

[Subyman]

Global emissions are soaring, and you think they overestimated CO2 levels?

I see you entertained yourself. You show nothing in your post except qualitative conjecture and then a gif....

There are high scenarios, so yes, they run scenarios for extremely high carbon output.

There are some of the various scenarios. Here is a break down of some of them:

A1

The A1 scenarios are of a more integrated world. The A1 family of scenarios is characterized by:

Rapid economic growth.
A global population that reaches 9 billion in 2050 and then gradually declines.
The quick spread of new and efficient technologies.
A convergent world - income and way of life converge between regions. Extensive social and cultural interactions worldwide.

There are subsets to the A1 family based on their technological emphasis:

A1FI - An emphasis on fossil-fuels (Fossil Intensive).
A1B - A balanced emphasis on all energy sources.
A1T - Emphasis on non-fossil energy sources.

A2

The A2 scenarios are of a more divided world. The A2 family of scenarios is characterized by:

A world of independently operating, self-reliant nations.
Continuously increasing population.
Regionally oriented economic development.

B1

The B1 scenarios are of a world more integrated, and more ecologically friendly. The B1 scenarios are characterized by:

Rapid economic growth as in A1, but with rapid changes towards a service and information economy.
Population rising to 9 billion in 2050 and then declining as in A1.
Reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource efficient technologies.
An emphasis on global solutions to economic, social and environmental stability.

B2

The B2 scenarios are of a world more divided, but more ecologically friendly. The B2 scenarios are characterized by:

Continuously increasing population, but at a slower rate than in A2.
Emphasis on local rather than global solutions to economic, social and environmental stability.
Intermediate levels of economic development.
Less rapid and more fragmented technological change than in A1 and B1.

Its pretty interesting to see how the scenario affects the model. Notice the yellow line, if we stayed at constant emission output from 2000 emissions. Slightly rising temperature, but the Earth can mitigate its effects.

EDIT: To add to the conversation, the highest concentration the IPCC scenarios deal with is ~1000ppm by 2100. The lowest is ~450ppm.

 

[Moonbeam]

I tried to follow the yellow brick line but I fell asleep.

 

[Jaskalas]

Its pretty interesting to see how the scenario affects the model. Notice the yellow line, if we stayed at constant emission output from 2000 emissions. Slightly rising temperature, but the Earth can mitigate its effects.

I am well versed in the scenarios.

Hansen tried that game once, and got destroyed when even GISS shows temperatures following "scenario C".

 

[norseamd]

How many of you guys have seen The Day After Tomorrow?

http://www.eurasiareview.com/25032015-atlantic-ocean-overturning-found-to-already-be-slowing-down/

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

How many of you guys have seen The Day After Tomorrow?

http://www.eurasiareview.com/25032015-atlantic-ocean-overturning-found-to-already-be-slowing-down/

Extremely bad "science" for the stupid and gullible....but I'm sure that the alarmists among us eat this crap up.

http://climatesight.org/2012/04/26/the-day-after-tomorrow-a-scientific-critique/