Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[keithlucky]

Some people say that due CO2 induced crop failure that  there would be a world shotage of grain infact there will be  growth of 6.9 percent http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/wheat-bear-market-worsens-as-u-s-farms-lose-share-commodities.html

 

[Methuselah]

Some people say that due CO2 induced crop failure that  there would be a world shotage of grain infact there will be  growth of 6.9 percent http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/wheat-bear-market-worsens-as-u-s-farms-lose-share-commodities.html

Indeed there would, keith. But only in places where rainfall remains plentiful...

[keithlucky]

Indeed there would, keith. But only in places where rainfall remains plentiful...

Doesen"t really matter when certain countries crop fails when  we in this global market place,I remember one year the USA exported a third of there grain to then USSR ,only to buy the grain back at 3 times the price,when crop failed to due a drought.

[Methuselah]

Doesen"t really matter when certain countries crop fails when  we in this global market place,I remember one year the USA exported a third of there grain to then USSR ,only to buy the grain back at 3 times the price,when crop failed to due a drought.

Well, mate...This is certainly another facet of man-made climate-change of which I'm very sceptical.

[Gray-Wolf]

We've just had 5 years of this, or that, major grtain producer not b eing able to export due to 'weather generated shortfalls' impacting 'aid' supplies.

 

How can reality appear at such odds with 'promises'?

 

Russia, already looks to again ban grain exports due to 'drought/wildfire/flood' across it's grain producing areas?

[SomeLikeItHot]

We've just had 5 years of this, or that, major grtain producer not b eing able to export due to 'weather generated shortfalls' impacting 'aid' supplies.

 

How can reality appear at such odds with 'promises'?

 

Russia, already looks to again ban grain exports due to 'drought/wildfire/flood' across it's grain producing areas?

 

These are anecdotes, while it does flutuate year to year, the trend growth in total cereals is pretty strongly up. 2011 being the record, 2013 likely to be second highest.

[keithlucky]

Well as the famous GWarmist said the Antarctic is melting down and the results in the  end of civiliation,sorry as most GW predictions are wrong then wrong again.Antarctic ice is above normal .

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008

[Methuselah]

Well as the famous GWarmist said the Antarctic is melting down and the results in the  end of civiliation,sorry as most GW predictions are wrong then wrong again.Antarctic ice is above normal .

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.south.anom.1979-2008

Oddly enough, keith, the prediction (by 'warmists') that Antarctic ice would increase, in the short term, is going entirely as expected...

Edited June 10, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue

[keithlucky]

Piomas told us that 90 percent Arctic ice has melted that all was left was thin brittle ice the ice as a different opinion

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

Meanwhile Greenland corn crops are maturing 

Edited June 10, 2013 by keithlucky

[Methuselah]

Piomas told us that 90 percaent Arctic ice has melted that all was left was thin brittle ice the ice as a different opinion

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

Meanwhile Greenland corn crops are maturing 

Keith? What the devil are you on about?

[songster]

He's parroting posts from Steve Goddard's blog.  Steve regularly posts sarcastic photos of the Greenland ice cap and witters about crops, in the mistaken belief that it makes some kind of point.

[Jimmy0127]

The key to this argument is something that weather enthusiasts will understand much better than most - the fact that mathematical models are of limited use in prediction of chaotic systems.

 

Science is about accepting a theory that can reliably predict future trials. I would argue that there's no evidence that climate modelling can do this. Global temperature data has shown that the climate models have failed in recent years, even though their predictions have had a huge political impact.

 

The scientific method requires analysis of the verification of such a model before its efficacy can be fairly gauged. Depending on your parameters, with meteorology the period of reliability is less than a week; this period is not rising relative to the increase in processing power and the quantity of data that forms the model's initialisation. Due to this process it is generally accepted that a 28 day forecast is not possible.

 

So meteorology is a science. It's predictions are constantly tested, scrutinised and improved. There is no such scientific process in climatology. Whilst the formulas and principles behind the top climate models are sound, there is no way to tell how well it models their interaction.

 

I find it very hard to accept that a scientific approach is applied in this science, and as such there is little difference between it and soothsaying.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Jimmy0127

[Gray-Wolf]

This is why I always say i can only cope with the 'larger picture'? If you understand the 'Basics' then you can predict the 'basic' direction of change ( the devil is in the detail?)

 

We know there is an imbalance in the energy the Earth receives, the data shows us all this, but the 'pedant deniers' will try and pin folk down on individual 'model predictions' to prove things are awry?

 

Any fool knows that if you put more energy into a system that the system will respond but 'the devil' is predicting how, when and where. It does not undermine the fact that change must occur by showing some blokes model has failed to predict it???

 

Sadly I too have little faith in current modelling but I cannot deny that 'Change' is both occurring and on it's way?

 

Data confirms ( it would seem) that some of the modelling is spot on but sadly it is in it's 'extremes' that it appears to be correct? Does the fact that we cannot model our planets workings accurately enough mean that we dismiss the current energy imbalance?

Edited June 10, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Polar Maritime]

[john pike]

[VillagePlank]

There is mathematical evidence that climate models can do a better job than weather models.

 

The easiest way to understand this, without resorting to mathturbation, is to consider an analogy. If you are a golfer (and I'm not) and you drive the ball down the fairway using exactly the same swing, exactly the same force (etc) then do you expect the ball to land in exactly the same place? Of course you don't, but if you hit quite a number of balls in exactly the same way, then what you'll notice is that where the balls land converge around a point. You might not have actually been aiming for that point, and you may never have hit that point, but nevertheless, they will converge around a point.

 

This is the same as climate models (and numerical weather ensemble modelling) This is a relatively new(ish) approach (see Taylor 2001, Delle Monache et al 2006a, Palmer et al 2005, Wilks 2006) for weather leading to a concept called a superensemble.

 

The question is are the climate models that we have so far actually doing this? And are they having success at doing this? It's the classic validation, verfication problem: ie are we building the models right? are we building the right models?

Edited June 11, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Gray-Wolf]

There is mathematical evidence that climate models can do a better job than weather models.

 

The easiest way, without resorting to mathturbation, is to consider an analogy. If you are a golfer (and I'm not) and you drive the ball down the fairway using exactly the same swing, exactly the same force (etc) then do you expect the ball to land in exactly the same place? Of course you don't, but if you hit quite a number of balls in exactly the same way, then what you'll notice is that where the balls land converge around a point. You might not have actually been aiming for that point, and you may never have hit that point, but nevertheless, they will converge around a point.

 

This is the same as climate models (and numerical weather ensemble modelling) This is relatively new(ish) approach (see Taylor 2001, Delle Monache et al 2006a, Palmer et al 2005, Wilks 2006) for weather leading to a concept called a superensemble, but, critically, has been going on with climate modelling for quite some time.

 

The result is that climate models are capable of forecasting, at least in the ballpark, scenarios years ahead even though NWP can barely get a good result a week hence. The question is are the models that we have so far actually doing this? And are they having success at doing this? It's the classic validation, verfication problem: ie are we building the models right? are we building the right models?

 

So , now let me get this right, folk who 'know/have education' in such things have known this all along ( the clustering?) and have understood that short range weather forecasting cannot be used as an analogy to 'climate modelling' over the century scale?

 

Why is it then that we hear so many folk (having issues with our ability to alter our climate) claiming that we cannot forecast next tues weather so how can 'they' predict long term? 

 

Are these folk deliberately trying to obfuscate or are they just unaware of what you have shown us?

[VillagePlank]

The best way of thinking about this is to consider a pendulum; it's motion is chaotic, and non linear, just like the weather; but over the bigger picture it is entirely predictable which is why we can use a pendulum to tell the time. I hope I am not just about to regret posting these last comments, GW?

Edited June 11, 2013 by Sparkicle

[john pike]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

[SomeLikeItHot]

The best way of thinking about this is to consider a pendulum; it's motion is chaotic, and non linear, just like the weather; but over the bigger picture it is entirely predictable which is why we can use a pendulum to tell the time. I hope I am not just about to regret posting these last comments, GW?

 

What? A simple pendulum (which are used as timekeepers) are not chaotic. You can tell the time because you know its position basically exactly forward in time, and more importantly the equations governing it are not non-linear so inaccuracies don't grow exponentially over time.

 

A double pendulum is chaotic, but has a sense of predctability in that it has dynamical attractors and you can develop a probabilistic view to its future position eventhough you cant determine it deterministically with any accuracy past a certain time forward due to sensitivity in initial conditions growing exponentially.

 

As for weather models it certainly true that the ability to determine the specifics of weather 1 week hence is by no means a limitation on being able to model climate - which is the average or distribution of possible out comes. At the same time ensemble modelling is no gaurrentee your climate model correctly models everything. To use the pendulumn analogy if you don't have the right dynamical equations you can't make a probabilstic forcast correctly either.  Neither does calibrating to historical data prove anything. Only testing going forward can determine that.

Edited June 11, 2013 by SomeLikeItHot

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi sparks! I hope you do not have a whirlwind to inherit either!!!

 

I've always maintained that i can only 'deal' with the chaotic nature of climate by 'pulling back' from the picture so as to lose the finer detail but see the larger picture?

 

Not the most scientific way I know but it has served me in my understandings of things?

[Jimmy0127]

 

Quite a long video John!

 

Well worth the viewing though; thanks for linking it. An incredibly well given talk - he has very logical approach. His style actually reminds me of Feynman a little!

[VillagePlank]

What? A simple pendulum (which are used as timekeepers) are not chaotic. You can tell the time because you know its position basically exactly forward in time, and more importantly the equations governing it are not non-linear so inaccuracies don't grow exponentially over time.

 

Sorry, quite true, yes: brain-fart at the time.

[keithlucky]

Arctic ice continues to grow even in the melt season!up 40.000 sq km in the last 2 days

Edited June 17, 2013 by keithlucky

[keithlucky]

Coldest start to Arctic summer since DMI records began in 1958  http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Edited June 18, 2013 by keithlucky