New Research

[Village]

The fact that the climate models are continually having to be fiddled with to compensate for the wrong data predictions is all the evidence one needs to understand that the approach is wrong. Everytime the models get altered it changes the predictions for the future. Because we know this is the case; one can never expect the models to be a correct representation of the future. By the time we get to 100 years forth, the climate will be quite different than we predicted today. We already know and expect this.

Therefore, if we really want a meaningful representation of the future climate we need a new approach other than working from the outside inwards.

But this will never happen because chaos is a reallity in the real environment and nobody can predict when and where the next real systemic shock will take place. Therefore one certainly wont be able to predict how the environment will react to a shock which we cant and didnt predict in the first place.

My advise is to leave the synthetic cloud cuckoo land to the no hopers because thats not the future of the science.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Village

[Polar Maritime]

Hi Village.

What do you mean by "Real Enviroment" ?

Thanks.

[jethro]

The fact that the climate models are continually having to be fiddled with to compensate for the wrong data predictions is all the evidence one needs to understand that the approach is wrong. Everytime the models get altered it changes the predictions for the future. Because we know this is the case; one can never expect the models to be a correct representation of the future. By the time we get to 100 years forth, the climate will be quite different than we predicted today. We already know and expect this.

Therefore, if we really want a meaningful representation of the future climate we need a new approach other than working from the outside inwards.

But this will never happen because chaos is a reallity in the real environment and nobody can predict when and where the next real systemic shock will take place. Therefore one certainly wont be able to predict how the environment will react to a shock which we cant and didnt predict in the first place.

My advise is to leave the synthetic cloud cuckoo land to the no hopers because thats not the future of the science.

One man's 'fiddled with' is another mans 'improved'.

If we apply your logic then we'd still have the original internal combustion engine, bi-wing planes and be cooking on open fires.

Things improve, technology moves on and more is learnt about various climate drivers. As more is learned, the additional information is added - that's progress in climate science and should be applauded, not knocked. You seem to have missed the large and very important bit of the IPCC reports which states "with the information currently to hand". Their projections for future temperature rise gives a broad range of outcomes, it is to be expected that these figures will change, anyone familiar with how science progresses will understand and accept that. No one, least of all the IPCC, expects to be able to paint a picture of the future with pin-point accuracy; in fact the only person I can think of who does expect that, or seems to think that this is what the climate models are supposed to do is you. Your expectations are simply wrong. Using your ill-founded expectations is neither a sensible nor valid argument against climate models.

What do you mean by 'systemic shock'?

How do you see the future of science? How would you go about trying to project future climate?

[Village]

The fact that the climate models are continually having to be fiddled with to compensate for the wrong data predictions is all the evidence one needs to understand that the approach is wrong. Everytime the models get altered it changes the predictions for the future. Because we know this is the case; one can never expect the models to be a correct representation of the future. By the time we get to 100 years forth, the climate will be quite different than we predicted today. We already know and expect this.

Therefore, if we really want a meaningful representation of the future climate we need a new approach other than working from the outside inwards.

But this will never happen because chaos is a reallity in the real environment and nobody can predict when and where the next real systemic shock will take place. Therefore one certainly wont be able to predict how the environment will react to a shock which we cant and didnt predict in the first place.

My advise is to leave the synthetic cloud cuckoo land to the no hopers because thats not the future of the science.

Hello PM,

By "real environment" I mean the natural world outside and not a synthetic model of the world.

[Village]

One man's 'fiddled with' is another mans 'improved'.

If we apply your logic then we'd still have the original internal combustion engine, bi-wing planes and be cooking on open fires.

Things improve, technology moves on and more is learnt about various climate drivers. As more is learned, the additional information is added - that's progress in climate science and should be applauded, not knocked. You seem to have missed the large and very important bit of the IPCC reports which states "with the information currently to hand". Their projections for future temperature rise gives a broad range of outcomes, it is to be expected that these figures will change, anyone familiar with how science progresses will understand and accept that. No one, least of all the IPCC, expects to be able to paint a picture of the future with pin-point accuracy; in fact the only person I can think of who does expect that, or seems to think that this is what the climate models are supposed to do is you. Your expectations are simply wrong. Using your ill-founded expectations is neither a sensible nor valid argument against climate models.

What do you mean by 'systemic shock'?

How do you see the future of science? How would you go about trying to project future climate?

Hi Jethro,

I am glad about your comments above in relation to the fact that synthetic modelling is not accurate and can not be.

Thats a good start. We are on common ground.

People who have come to know me well over the decades will know that I have mentioned 'systemic shock' before. By this I need to state how I have understood the workings of the natural environment.

Through my own observations I have learned to no longer view the world with the same 'text book' eyes that I did four decades ago when I first became deeply interested in the subject as a boy at school. During my studies in those years I was taught in the way in which mankind has quantified his surroundings using a format in which he can make sense of. Man has primarily learned to do this for reasons of security. The format is based around a few deep rooted ideas which can be summed up in these words which we have all come to understand and accept. These are; average, norm, mean and balance. Nothing has changed to this day.

The only thing that has changed to this day, as you quite eloquently point out above is that we have become more efficient at the process of colating and asymilating data along these terms.

I now understand that nature has no understanding and no truck with any of these terms. Nature doesnt 'balance', there is no 'normal' and there are no 'averages'.

The natural environment will never reach a balance. The natural environment simply moves from one real systemic shock to the next without rest or pause. Therefore. the real trick is not to monitor the manmade averages, norms, balances etc etc. In my opinion we are studying the wrong thing. We are studying our own data sets because we wont let go of the idea that there is a comfort zone or balance out there. There is not, never will be. But because we crave security we need to search for this for peace of mind.

To really understand nature one must put aside all the text book stuff based along these lines. Thats pretty much all of it.

I dont look for a symptom wich is outside of a theoretical manmade average. I dont look for so called 'tipping points' (again another manmade concept revolving around the idea of a balance). I look at the reaction to systemic shocks. How nature moves immediately afterwards and preceeding these points in time.

I think that the serial computer synthetic model is totally wrong because it doesnt react as nature does, nature moves in parallel. In many dimentions all at once. Computers are two dimentional and dumb. they have no inteligence.

I believe that we need to develop computers that use biology to process data. A biological computer that works in parallel. Thats the first step. However, the most important aspect to overcome is that of predicting the real systemic shock events. We know that chaos exists. However, if that is the case, then how can one possibly model the decision that the butterfly makes when it flaps its wings in that rain forrest which sets the whole process of a Huricane birth into motion? Can we get inside that butterfli'e brain? If we could, who makes the decission to start flapping and when?

This is why I am very certain that mankind will never be able to predict the long term future in a way in which he can plan to eliminate risk. He may be able to make predictions of +2C to +5C increases in average temperatures 100 years forth. However the margin of error within the three degrees spread in upper and lower temps absolutely renders the predictions useless. The future can be a very radically different place at any point forward because averages dont exist in the real world, only as a concept within Man's mind. All we can say is that we are more certain that it will continue to slowly warm rather than cool. However, because we can never predict the systemic shocks we are just as likely to find that it is colder than today at a point 100 years forth. It was only a few decades ago when all of climate science believed that this would be the case.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Village

[VillagePlank]

As I said: therefore I am an idiot. I am happy to be a student of all the sciences. Indeed, I have put my viewpoint across in the language of science, mathematics. A waste of my time. Again, as I said, I am a complete idiot.

If you don't believe in long term average prediction, how can you say we may be able to predict +2 .. +5c? Surely, in your thinking, that's impossible. Yet, I've demonstrated that its entirely realistic with the logistic map.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[VillagePlank]

And Village, you still owe me £500. How do I collect?

What gets me (really) is that I am probably the biggest sceptic on here.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[jethro]

Village - I now see where the confusion comes from, thank you.

Modern science, including climate science works on the principle of scientific method. Your post above explains that you view this debate, climate science and in particular climate models from a Natural Philosophy/Metaphysical standpoint.

The trouble with that approach in these discussions is that you can not validate your views with empirical facts or data, the two most vital things in any modern science. Science moved away from the whimsy of philosophy to mathematical principles way back at the end of the 17th century in the time of Newton.

As for the idea of comfort zone, craving security and searching for peace of mind - utter hogwash.

[Polar Maritime]

"However, if that is the case, then how can one possibly model the decision that the butterfly makes when it flaps its wings in that rain forrest which sets the whole process of a Huricane birth into motion? Can we get inside that butterfli'e brain? If we could, who makes the decission to start flapping and when?"

I realy do think that your argument lies in the question of consciousness. Which is still a mystery to this day.

Patterns are found throughout nature. We follow patterns as a race in all aspects of society in an attempt to predict how our future will turn out. Religion ties into this in many ways. As does economics.

We are OF Nature. Nature goes through cycles so inevitably so must we.

1.) "Mathematics is the language of nature,...everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers,...if you graph the numbers of any system patterns emerge,...therefore there are patterns everywhere in nature."

2.) "If you want to find the number 216 in the world you will be able to find it everywhere, 216 steps from your street corner to your front door, 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator.

When your mind becomes obsessed with anything you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere."

[Gray-Wolf]

So the 'drift' of Village's post is that this period is not understood in the proper context and we are witnessing nought more than an expression of the 'natural'.?

Many of us ( including Science ) see an 'extra' on top of the 'Natural' which could lead to poor outcomes for Humanity and 'nature' generally due to the relative speed of 'changes' and the very thin tightrope humanity exist upon.

Neither side would appear to share any common ground upon which to forge agreement and ,in the meanwhile, it is merely serving as a platform for folk to step onto to draw up 'battle lines'. I'm wondering if this is going to prove productive for the board or merely serve to drive folk off from a session where both sides are entrenched and passions are high?

[Methuselah]

Unfortunately Village, many (perhaps most?) of the finer points of science cannot be brushed off with words and rhetoric alone. Whilst you try to denegrate modelling (How come you're so sure of Right Wing economics - itself an entirely synthetic construct?) the rest of us try to comprehend what's really going on in the world...

That CO2 is a GHG is a given; it's not even up for debate. So, if you want to legitimately criticise the models, then do so; but, please, provide some evidence in support of your claim?

Words alone will not do...

[Devonian]

Village - I now see where the confusion comes from, thank you.

Modern science, including climate science works on the principle of scientific method. Your post above explains that you view this debate, climate science and in particular climate models from a Natural Philosophy/Metaphysical standpoint.

The trouble with that approach in these discussions is that you can not validate your views with empirical facts or data, the two most vital things in any modern science. Science moved away from the whimsy of philosophy to mathematical principles way back at the end of the 17th century in the time of Newton.

As for the idea of comfort zone, craving security and searching for peace of mind - utter hogwash.

Jethro, I would like to PM you but it seems you can't receive them?

[jethro]

Jethro, I would like to PM you but it seems you can't receive them?

Ok Dev, no idea why you can't, perhaps my inbox is full??? Will look.

[Village]

And Village, you still owe me £500. How do I collect?

What gets me (really) is that I am probably the biggest sceptic on here.

BW, You need a chill pill, theres no need to be so mad about everything. I am sure we have much that we can agree on. But as for £500 ....how you think you have won that amount, I really cant imagine.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Village

[Village]

Village - I now see where the confusion comes from, thank you.

Modern science, including climate science works on the principle of scientific method. Your post above explains that you view this debate, climate science and in particular climate models from a Natural Philosophy/Metaphysical standpoint.

The trouble with that approach in these discussions is that you can not validate your views with empirical facts or data, the two most vital things in any modern science. Science moved away from the whimsy of philosophy to mathematical principles way back at the end of the 17th century in the time of Newton.

As for the idea of comfort zone, craving security and searching for peace of mind - utter hogwash.

One must remember that every so often in science somebody comes along with new thinking which is siesmic enough to completely alter previously established concepts. The long term models dont work, every climate scientist knows that one can flip a coin and be no less accurate.

There will have to be a change in thinking. I have outlined where I see the problem. One cant alter climate models to make them reproduce the past and then superimpose the same reconstructed model on a future date. It will never work and proof of this is that it doesnt work. Praying that by continually making the same mistake makes this process more accurate is rubbish. It doesnt.

The few billion spent to date on this issue is peanuts compared to what the financial service industry has spent on predicting the future and we too cannot predict even a decade forward. The mathematic models are the same, the problems are the same. But it cant be done.

The reason that they dont work is because financial markets move in the same way as the natural world. We simply go from one systemic real shock to the next. However, the systemic shock cant be predicted. If it was predictable then it wouldnt be a shock. In the same way that a major volcanic event can completely screw up all the models, we have events like war and politics to deal with. These events are what drive the whole process and to produce a meaningful representation of the future which is even slightly close one must know about them beforehand and factor them in. thats what cannot be done. Nobody has a crystal ball.

[Village]

"However, if that is the case, then how can one possibly model the decision that the butterfly makes when it flaps its wings in that rain forrest which sets the whole process of a Huricane birth into motion? Can we get inside that butterfli'e brain? If we could, who makes the decission to start flapping and when?"

I realy do think that your argument lies in the question of consciousness. Which is still a mystery to this day.

Patterns are found throughout nature. We follow patterns as a race in all aspects of society in an attempt to predict how our future will turn out. Religion ties into this in many ways. As does economics.

We are OF Nature. Nature goes through cycles so inevitably so must we.

1.) "Mathematics is the language of nature,...everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers,...if you graph the numbers of any system patterns emerge,...therefore there are patterns everywhere in nature."

2.) "If you want to find the number 216 in the world you will be able to find it everywhere, 216 steps from your street corner to your front door, 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator.

When your mind becomes obsessed with anything you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere."

Yes PM, you make a very important observation.

To the same degree this is what has been happening in climate science for many years. Everybody is looking for the link to CO2 and Man. Its even funded by the taxpayer and if one isnt looking for it one finds it much harder to get funding. Go looking for the link between CO2, Mankind and climate, even if its washing powder and you will get your funding and you are more likely to find a link.

But this isnt science. Its finance speaking.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Village

[jethro]

One must remember that every so often in science somebody comes along with new thinking which is siesmic enough to completely alter previously established concepts. The long term models dont work, every climate scientist knows that one can flip a coin and be no less accurate.

There will have to be a change in thinking. I have outlined where I see the problem. One cant alter climate models to make them reproduce the past and then superimpose the same reconstructed model on a future date. It will never work and proof of this is that it doesnt work. Praying that by continually making the same mistake makes this process more accurate is rubbish. It doesnt.

The few billion spent to date on this issue is peanuts compared to what the financial service industry has spent on predicting the future and we too cannot predict even a decade forward. The mathematic models are the same, the problems are the same. But it cant be done.

The reason that they dont work is because financial markets move in the same way as the natural world. We simply go from one systemic real shock to the next. However, the systemic shock cant be predicted. If it was predictable then it wouldnt be a shock. In the same way that a major volcanic event can completely screw up all the models, we have events like war and politics to deal with. These events are what drive the whole process and to produce a meaningful representation of the future which is even slightly close one must know about them beforehand and factor them in. thats what cannot be done. Nobody has a crystal ball.

But your crystal ball tells you that the climate models have got the climate in 100 years time completely wrong.

From what you've said on this subject so far it is clear to me that you either don't understand how climate models work, or don't want to understand in order to adhere to your own personal theory of climate and nature. Your thinking and understanding of science and climate science in particular is stuck back in pre Newton times; you can't apply that thinking to modern day science and expect to learn or agree or indeed disagree with current or future climate studies.

[Guest]

I am not a scientist, or a computer whizz kid etc - I just had a basic scientific education at school coupled with the basic training for a scientific assistant in the met office and whatever else I have managed to pick up along the way.

I do recall years ago when talking of the difficulty in getting accurate weather forecasts and it was likened to put on a saucepan of water to boil and the predict exactly where the first bubble will form.

Weather forecasting is a bit like that, though some become good at it through experience and intelligent guess work.

There is a lot more to aid the forecaster these days which has been gathered from such things as La Nina and El Nino, North Atlantic oscillations, the temperature of the stratosphere at the poles and many others into which a lot of research continues to be made. However at this moment in time all these different things are just indications.

Models are made from a current synopsis and projected forwards but there are so many things which can happen to affect this as time evolves and so often weather events can spring up out of the blue, admittedly much less now than in the days of yesteryear but even today to make an accurate forecast for more than 5 days in advance is still very difficult especially in a maritime climate like ours.

As for seasonal or long range forecasts, think that the best which can be achieved is to get a general indication of what there is to come and very often there are surprises in store.

Nevertheless people have to still keep trying and researching because it is through this that gradual progress will be made.

[jethro]

Climate models are not weather models run forward into the future.

[Village]

But your crystal ball tells you that the climate models have got the climate in 100 years time completely wrong.

From what you've said on this subject so far it is clear to me that you either don't understand how climate models work, or don't want to understand in order to adhere to your own personal theory of climate and nature. Your thinking and understanding of science and climate science in particular is stuck back in pre Newton times; you can't apply that thinking to modern day science and expect to learn or agree or indeed disagree with current or future climate studies.

You keep saying that I am maintaining this Jethro, but I havent said that.

I do understand how climate models work and if you read back you will find where I have outlined where the problem is with these models. We know that the climate models are most likely to be wrong because as each decade passes, the predictions change.

The changes are not small changes either, they are wild changes. As you know, a change of 2centigrade in global climate is huge. But thats how much the IPCC has downgraded their assesment based on models.

I have explained where it is that they are going wrong and unfortunately there is no solution to this problem

If you think I am so wrong, then perhaps you would like to predict when and where the next systemic shock to global climate will come from? And where you find it in the current models for 100 years forth?

[Methuselah]

Yes PM, you make a very important observation.

To the same degree this is what has been happening in climate science for many years. Everybody is looking for the link to CO2 and Man. Its even funded by the taxpayer and if one isnt looking for it one finds it much harder to get funding. Go looking for the link between CO2, Mankind and climate, even if its washing powder and you will get your funding and you are more likely to find a link.

But this isnt science. Its finance speaking.

Or, to be more precise - everybody is looking to understand the scales of the manifestations of the link beteen CO2 and man. That there is a link is beyond anyone with a modicum of atmospheric-science training.

By all means, go ahead and demonstrate why and how the IPPC's models are incorrect. But, just saying so is not enough?

[jethro]

Systemic shock? You explain in mathematical terms what you mean by this and I'll have a go at answering your question. From what you've said so far 'systemic shock' is simply your own way of describing climate, IMO it's a whimsical idea with no foundation in modern science. And simply answering that chaos reigns isn't answering - merely deflecting.

And you have repeatedly said that the models are wrong and cannot predict the future.

[Village]

Or, to be more precise - everybody is looking to understand the scales of the manifestations of the link beteen CO2 and man. That there is a link is beyond anyone with a modicum of atmospheric-science training.

By all means, go ahead and demonstrate why and how the IPPC's models are incorrect. But, just saying so is not enough?

Did you miss the IPCC change in prediction or something?

[jethro]

Did you miss the IPCC change in prediction or something?

For the umpteenth time.....

As more information is gleaned it is fed into the models - more information means more accuracy. That's progress. Changes are to be expected (unless you don't understand how they work) changes do not mean the models don't work, they mean they are being refined.

Stop using this as a get out clause to support your views, it doesn't and it is an utterly meaningless stance to take.

[Village]

Systemic shock? You explain in mathematical terms what you mean by this and I'll have a go at answering your question. From what you've said so far 'systemic shock' is simply your own way of describing climate, IMO it's a whimsical idea with no foundation in modern science. And simply answering that chaos reigns isn't answering - merely deflecting.

And you have repeatedly said that the models are wrong and cannot predict the future.

Jethro, I have explained. You do understand what these shocks are and you understand that these cannot be mathematically modelled because we cannot predict them. Can you predict when the next large scale volcanic erruption will take place and it's magnitude? Do you think that the IPCC has modelled this into there theoretics?

For the umpteenth time.....

As more information is gleaned it is fed into the models - more information means more accuracy. That's progress. Changes are to be expected (unless you don't understand how they work) changes do not mean the models don't work, they mean they are being refined.

Stop using this as a get out clause to support your views, it doesn't and it is an utterly meaningless stance to take.

But you had faith in the models before they made the change didnt you? And yet you are maintaining that you know that the predictions will change as they get updated? You cant have it both ways...either the model predictions are a useful representation of the future or they are not because they will be changed. Whats it to be? Edited January 23, 2012 by Village