My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Grains]

This tone of yours was not necessary with me. I'm attempting to find clarity with you. I have not accused you of anything, and I have read each of your posts.

 

 

 

 

I'm not choosing to ignore it. What makes you think I have? I told you it has already been discussed thoroughly on this and other threads on this subject. I will go back and find the information for you if you are unable, but does it seem fair that those of us who have been participating in this thread from the very beginning should have to keep reiterating information for everyone who happens to decide to jump in without reviewing the information that has already been discussed? Particularly those with an attitude. :phones: This isn't very good forum etiquette.

 

 

Here is post #290. INow provided some good infromation here about solar activity. There is more. I recommend that you conduct some of your own research.

 

You are correct my tone was inappropriate and I apologize...please understand what I have been through..

 

I didn't say you choose to ignore it sorry if their was miscommunication...what I meant to say was

 

I am going to review the rest of the thread because I have not seen the solar activity thing you talked about.

 

AND

 

Please post any additional information that could help me understand this...

 

I am sorry I didn't mean for it to come out that way. :cheer:

[Grains]

Excel - Add a Trendline to an Excel Chart to Forecast Results

 

This is the method I used as confirmed by the document I posted. Please provide support that this is an average. Before replying please consider it is a site rule to back up your claims. If you are unwilling or unable to do this you may receive infractions leading to the suspension of your posting privileges. I strongly suggest you look at the site rules before replying. If you continue to make this claim you will need to back it up [stern look]

 

~modest

 

you really are going to make me drag this out for you aren't you....

 

I have included an excel sheet that uses you logarthimc trend....i had to increase the size of the chart and i added arrows to show the decrease in the trend....we could have avoided all of this my simply drawing spot trendlines...o wait i did that....do you see what I am saying now about how drawing spot trendlines like mine still show a decrease like your logarithmic line.....the logarithmic line is more accurate but it is still decreasing...

 

take your petty threats with you...i have seen many others post and i have never seen you jump on them like you did with me...thats bs man...and i have the proof to call you out....ive posted a chart as well for others who dont want to download the excel sheet....

 

You will probably infract me for proving it true but that would be more beautiful and justifying...remember you took it here....I really cant even believe you pulled up rules and infractions...wow...moderator

 

ONE VS. THE MOB...BRING IT ON

[modest]

I have included an excel sheet that uses you logarthimc trend....i had to increase the size of the chart and i added arrows to show the decrease in the trend....we could have avoided all of this my simply drawing spot trendlines...o wait i did that....do you see what I am saying now about how drawing spot trendlines like mine still show a decrease like your logarithmic line.....the logarithmic line is more accurate but it is still decreasing...

 

Thank you.

 

i have seen many others post and i have never seen you jump on them like you did with me...thats bs man...and i have the proof to call you out...

 

I understand your perspective - I really do. But, I assure you the mods do their absolute best to give stern looks evenly and fairly. I felt it was necessary to stress the importance of backing up claims. This is a rule we hold in high regard and I would have done the same involving any other member on any other subject.

 

You will probably infract me for proving it true but that would be more beautiful and justifying...remember you took it here....I really cant even believe you pulled up rules and infractions...wow...moderator

 

ONE VS. THE MOB...BRING IT ON

 

On the contrary, I think this has been a very productive discussion on trendlines. It is obviously important to the subject of this thread and hopefully we've both done something toward offering knowledge on the subject. As I've said, I don't think there is anything wrong with either method. Your way is perfectly normal and certainly does show a downward trend.

 

Hopefully we can all continue the discussion in a pleasant manner.

 

If you are unsatisfied with this in any way please PM me or any other moderator or administrator.

 

~modest

[Grains]

Thank you.

 

 

 

I understand your perspective - I really do. But, I assure you the mods do their absolute best to give stern looks evenly and fairly. I felt it was necessary to stress the importance of backing up claims. This is a rule we hold in high regard and I would have done the same involving any other member on any other subject.

 

 

 

On the contrary, I think this has been a very productive discussion on trendlines. It is obviously important to the subject of this thread and hopefully we've both done something toward offering knowledge on the subject. As I've said, I don't think there is anything wrong with either method. Your way is perfectly normal and certainly does show a downward trend.

 

Hopefully we can all continue the discussion in a pleasant manner.

 

If you are unsatisfied with this in any way please PM me or any other moderator or administrator.

 

~modest

 

 

NO!!! I am not dissatisfied at all. It just you come out of left field swinging infraction and you cant tell me that if you were me...new to the forum....and some mod comes in threatening to infraction you out of nowhere when you believe you have made your case (ON CHARTHING) you would feel a little lonely as well...

 

I thank you for withdrawing your infraction (i assume) and I appreciate you adding it is in a downward trend on my method but don't distract the point that I have posted proof from "YOUR" excel and your variables as well showing a downward trend. Your excel chart and trend shows a downtrend as well it would be impossible otherwise....o wait ive said that before...Somewhere I think I will find peace in this place:)

 

If I have offended anyone I sincerely apologize....I am a competitive person which in some cases comes across wrong over email/forums....and I don't feel like I have much to offer (isnt that sad)...but I do know charting and I feel like I have explained it the best way I know possible and have conceded to many others points (longevity, etc)

 

All of you have so much to offer and I have my mouth wide open to accept and I never meant to emphasize otherwise...I recently read an article regarding solar effects and Reason posted some worthwhile information on going back and revieweing the thread and that helped alot...infinatenow posted some great information on vapor when I was having a hard time with that.......somehow I feel like I am working with the majority of you and you are not working with me.....my thesis....look at the past 3 days and what I have had to do....

 

I hope this comes across sincere as I mean it to and cheers to tonight, tomorrow, wherever you are!:phones:

[modest]

NO!!! I am not dissatisfied at all. It just you come out of left field swinging infraction and you cant tell me that if you were me...new to the forum....and some mod comes in threatening to infraction you out of nowhere when you believe you have made your case (ON CHARTHING) you would feel a little lonely as well...

 

I do absolutely see your perspective, yes.

 

I thank you for withdrawing your infraction (i assume)

 

You received no warning nor infraction. I probably should have left the word infraction out of my post and just stressed that it was a site rule. Nevertheless, the infraction system is explained here:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/tutorials-how-s/9780-user-infraction-system-faq.html

 

It's in fact far less scary than it sounds. Just keep an eye on the rules and try to have fun - you'll never know it's there :phones:

 

~modest

[Grains]

I do absolutely see your perspective, yes.

 

 

 

You received no warning nor infraction. I probably should have left the word infraction out of my post and just stressed that it was a site rule. Nevertheless, the infraction system is explained here:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/tutorials-how-s/9780-user-infraction-system-faq.html

 

It's in fact far less scary than it sounds. Just keep an eye on the rules and try to have fun - you'll never know it's there :)

 

~modest

 

Gotcha!!! :):):)

 

Well its a good thing I posted proof because it could have gotten alot scarier from what I have read and what you posted!!! :eek::cheer::phones::lol:

[modest]

I think we're all in agreement now. Actually we've probably beaten the trendline horse slightly past death here, but to recap:

 

The logarithmic trend excel generates (the original one I posted and the most recent one Grains' posted) is nearly flat but does indeed slope down. It is not an average, but is rather a true and quite accurate trendline.

 

There is nothing wrong with this method and there is nothing wrong with Grains' method of drawing a trend by hand which slopes down more but is a bit less accurate.

 

:cheer: / :phones:

 

~modest

[Grains]

I think we're all in agreement now. Actually we've probably beaten the trendline horse slightly past death here, but to recap:

 

The logarithmic trend excel generates (the original one I posted and the most recent one Grains' posted) is nearly flat but does indeed slope down. It is not an average, but is rather a true and quite accurate trendline.

 

There is nothing wrong with this method and there is nothing wrong with Grains' method of drawing a trend by hand which slopes down more but is a bit less accurate.

 

:cheer: / :phones:

 

~modest

 

agreed! they both trend downward. as indicated...

[Overdog]

Name a specific model which has problems and then we can discuss this like mature human beings.

 

We can discuss the margins of error and where that error resides. We can discuss problems in the models inputs, and to what extent those problems cause issues in the results (the outputs). We can even discuss ways to improve the models.

 

Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of my general critisism of of climate models. Let me post the following, which I agree with, to see if we can determine where our points of view differ.

 

Comments on Accuracy of Coupled Models

Models of the coupled, land-air-ice-ocean climate system must simulate hundreds to thousands of years. Yet,

 

It will be very hard to establish an integration framework, particularly on a global scale, as present capabilities for modeling the Earth system are rather limited. A dual approach is planned. On the one hand, the relatively conventional approach of improving coupled atmosphere-ocean-land-ice models will be pursued. Ingenuity aside, the computational demands are extreme, as is borne out by the Earth System Simulator - 640 linked supercomputers providing 40 teraflops [1012 floating-point operations per second] and a cooling system from hell under one roof - to be built in Japan by 2003.

From Newton (1999).

 

Because models must be simplified to run on existing computers, the models must be simpler than models that simulate flow for a few years (WCRP, 1995).

 

In addition, the coupled model must be integrated for many years for the ocean and atmosphere to approach equilibrium. As the integration proceeds, the coupled system tends to drift away from reality due to errors in calculating fluxes of heat and momentum between the ocean and atmosphere. For example, very small errors in precipitation over the Antarctic Circumpolar Current leads to small changes the salinity of the current, which leads to large changes in deep convection in the Weddell Sea, which greatly influences the volume of deep water masses.

 

Some modelers allow the system to drift, others adjust sea-surface temperature and the calculated fluxes between the ocean and atmosphere. Returning to the example, the flux of fresh water in the circumpolar current could be adjusted to keep salinity close to the observed value in the current. There is no good scientific basis for the adjustments except the desire to produce a "good" coupled model. Hence, the adjustments are ad hoc and controversial. Such adjustments are called flux adjustments or flux corrections.

 

Fortunately, as models have improved, the need for adjustment or the magnitude of the adjustment has been reduced. For example, using the Gent-McWilliams scheme for mixing along constant-density surfaces in a coupled ocean-atmosphere model greatly reduced climate drift in a coupled ocean-atmosphere model because the mixing scheme reduced deep convection in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and elsewhere (Hirst, O'Farrell, and Gordon, 2000).

 

Grassl (2000) lists four capabilities of a credible coupled general circulation model:

 

"Adequate representation of the present climate.

"Reproduction (within typical interannual and decades time-scale climate variability) of the changes since the start of the instrumental record for a given history of external forcing;

"Reproduction of a different climate episode in the past as derived from paleoclimate records for given estimates of the history of external forcing; and

"Successful simulation of the gross features of an abrupt climate change event from the past."

 

McAvaney et al. (2001) compared the oceanic component of twenty-four coupled models, including models with and without flux adjustments. They found substantial differences among the models. For example, only five models calculated a meridional overturning circulation within 10% the observed value of 20 Sv. Some had values as low as 3 Sv, others had values as large as 36 Sv. Most models could not calculate a realistic transport for the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.

 

Grassl (2000) found four years later that many models, including models with and without flux adjustment, meet the first criterion. Some models meet the second criterion, but external solar forcing is still not well known and more work is needed. And a few models are starting to reproduce some aspects of the warm event of 6,000 years ago.

 

But how useful are these models in making projections of future climate? Opinion is polarized. At one extreme are those who take the model results as gospel. At the other are those who denigrate results simply because they distrust models, or on the grounds that the model performance is obviously wrong in some respects or that a process is not adequately included. The truth lies in between. All models are of course wrong because, by design, they depict a simplified view of the system being modeled. Nevertheless, many - but not all - models are very useful.

From Trenberth (1997).

 

From:

Introduction to Physical Oceanography : Chapter 15 - Numerical Models - Assimilation Models

 

Now consider the nature of chaotic systems. Can we agree that Climate is a chaotic system?

 

Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Everyday examples of chaotic systems include weather and climate.[1]

AND

For a dynamical system to be classified as chaotic, it must have the following properties:[30]

 

it must be sensitive to initial conditions,

it must be topologically mixing, and

its periodic orbits must be dense.

 

Sensitivity to initial conditions means that each point in such a system is arbitrarily closely approximated by other points with significantly different future trajectories. Thus, an arbitrarily small perturbation of the current trajectory may lead to significantly different future behaviour.

Also from the same link:

An early pioneer of the theory was Edward Lorenz whose interest in chaos came about accidentally through his work on weather prediction in 1961.[14] Lorenz was using a simple digital computer, a Royal McBee LGP-30, to run his weather simulation. He wanted to see a sequence of data again and to save time he started the simulation in the middle of its course. He was able to do this by entering a printout of the data corresponding to conditions in the middle of his simulation which he had calculated last time.

 

To his surprise the weather that the machine began to predict was completely different from the weather calculated before. Lorenz tracked this down to the computer printout. The computer worked with 6-digit precision, but the printout rounded variables off to a 3-digit number, so a value like 0.506127 was printed as 0.506. This difference is tiny and the consensus at the time would have been that it should have had practically no effect. However Lorenz had discovered that small changes in initial conditions produced large changes in the long-term outcome.[15] Lorenz's discovery, which gave its name to Lorenz attractors, proved that meteorology could not reasonably predict weather beyond a weekly period (at most).

 

Now, I ask, how well do we know the initial conditions for Climate? Do we even know all of them?

 

I believe that Climate is a chaotic system, and as such, extremely sensitive to initial conditions.

 

I also note that new factors seem to be popping up regularly as we learn more, and that some factors (such as the effects of cloud cover) are simply not well understood.

 

Now all of this is not to say that efforts to model climate are not useful, but until those models can demonstrate Grassl's four capabilities, like Grassl, I see little justification for considering future climate predictions based opon them as particulary credible. Their accuracy at modeling past and present climate alone is not sufficient.

 

Please do not interpret this post as an argument against Global Warming.

[Overdog]

I think we're all in agreement now....

 

The logarithmic trend excel generates (the original one I posted and the most recent one Grains' posted) is nearly flat but does indeed slope down. It is not an average, but is rather a true and quite accurate trendline....

 

~modest

 

Now in light of my previous posts, the reason I asked earlier which Climate Models predicted the current downward trend is because it is my understanding that none of them did.

 

Please correct me if I am mistaken about this. There is so much crap on the internet related to Global Warming...

 

This is mainly why, when faced with evidence such as this, I have been compelled to re-evaluate the degree of faith which I had previously placed in computer climate models and try to better understand the problems involved with modeling chaotic systems.

[modest]

Now in light of my previous posts, the reason I asked earlier which Climate Models predicted the current downward trend is because it is my understanding that none of them did.

 

I know next to nothing about climate models. If there is one that has accurately modeled the last few years of data hopefully a more informed member can post it. It does seem unlikely, however, that any climate model could have predicted the last 10 years considering the best models are younger than 10 years old. But, I honestly wouldn't know.

 

~modest

[Overdog]

It does seem unlikely, however, that any climate model could have predicted the last 10 years considering the best models are younger than 10 years old. But, I honestly wouldn't know.

 

Well Climate modelling is in it's infancy, for sure. The CSSM has been around since 1996, with updates every couple of years....

 

About CCSM: Research Tools

 

Here is an article about CCSM's latest incarnation...

 

Climate Cloudy Days In Climate Modeling

 

The article discusses some of the concerns I have raised.

[InfiniteNow]

Here is Post #290. INow provided some good infromation here about solar activity. There is more. I recommend that you conduct some of your own research.

 

I am going to review the rest of the thread because I have not seen the solar activity thing you talked about.

 

AND

 

Please post any additional information that could help me understand this...

 

Thanks, Reason. :phones:

 

I personally preferred the job I did with this back in post #313. Here is the link for anyone (wink, wink, nudge, nudge... Grains :cheer: ) who might be interested:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/13705-my-belief-global-warming-getting-shaky-32.html#post213998

[InfiniteNow]

Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of my general critisism of of climate models. Let me post the following, which I agree with, to see if we can determine where our points of view differ.

I can see how the tone of my previous posts may have led you to this conclusion, but I do not think I have misunderstood you. However, to be sure, I will summarize below my understanding of your points so we can see if I am accurate in my understanding.

 

 

• Climate systems are enormously complex, and have hundreds of variables to consider
  
  
• Models use different programs to achieve their results (the maths are not consistent from model to model)
  
  
• Models are often adjusted manually, hence introducing another source of potential error
  
  
• The across-model outputs are not always aligned
  
  
• Climate is a chaotic system
  
  

 

 

Is this a fair assessment? If not, please let me know if I've misrepresented or misunderstood you and we can correct that relatively simply.

 

 

 

Now consider the nature of chaotic systems. Can we agree that Climate is a chaotic system?

 

Well, almost. Climate and weather are, in fact, the two most common examples of chaotic systems since they evolve with time and are highly dependent on initial conditions. I think we both agree that it's fair to suggest that these models have many parallels and characteristics of a mathematically defined dynamic/chaotic system.

 

The bigger point, in my view anyway, is the distinction between modelling weather versus modelling climate.

 

As my analogy about the waves on the beach in a former post alluded to, it's much simpler to predict trends accurately over long expanses of time than specific and individual moments or weather events. I may not be able to tell you exactly where on the wall the next incoming wave will hit, but I can tell you the average on that wall that the waves will hit throughout the coming year with enormous validity.

 

This is how we model climate. We are talking about global yearly averages, not what the weather will be like on Thursday, November 27 at 3:42PM Central time in Waupeton, Iowa.

 

This is why a little bit of error in those initial conditions is less worrisome. Is there noise? Yes, absolutely. I concede that, and I'd either be a liar or really stupid if I tried to suggest that models are perfect (and, I don't classify myself as either of those things). However, that noise is reduced rather significantly by modelling the data over years instead of exact moments and locations, especially since the accuracy of our inputs gets better all of the time.

 

 

 

 

Now, I ask, how well do we know the initial conditions for Climate? Do we even know all of them?

No, but we also don't have to. First, I want you to remember that the data we have is being improved and of increasing accuracy every single day (partially due to the vast denialist web presence, and that I admit is one of the benefits of these groups). Second, we DO know the conditions which have the greatest impact, and we DO know how to accurately project the change in the inputs.

 

 

 

I also note that new factors seem to be popping up regularly as we learn more, and that some factors (such as the effects of cloud cover) are simply not well understood.

New factors popping up is EXACTLY what we want, as they only make the models better. This is NOT a bad thing. Also, there are scores of people working on those subjects which you have classified "not well understood," so we'll have that information available very soon.

 

But here's the rub. The more we learn, and the more we add new information to our models, and the better we understand all of the various factors and variables, the more our predictions are confirmed!

 

That's the key point in my book.

 

 

The more we learn and the better we get, the more we confirm the past predictions. The past predictions have been amazingly accurate (especially considering the mathematical issues with modelling chaotic/complex systems to which you've been alluding). Our predictions are only getting better, and we have without fail confirmed with all of this new information that the future is getting warmer.

 

 

 

Now all of this is not to say that efforts to model climate are not useful, but until those models can demonstrate Grassl's four capabilities, like Grassl, I see little justification for considering future climate predictions based opon them as particulary credible. Their accuracy at modeling past and present climate alone is not sufficient.

I get the sense then that no model will ever be good enough for you. You are approaching this with your mind made up that climate is too complex to model. I have shown how accurately they represent past climate as a way to show their validity, and you reject that. Well, they have also accurately predicted the degree of warming over the past decade. Way back when the models were still "in their infancy," they STILL got it really damn close.

 

I accept your challenges to the difficulty of modelling complex systems, but this is why you need to point out specific models.

 

It's not that the process of modelling is difficult that should cause us to reject them. It's the margin of error, and we cannot calculate margin of error until we look at something specific.

 

 

 

Please do not interpret this post as an argument against Global Warming.

I never did, but you must concede that we hear this attack on the models much more frequently from those people who do deny climate change. So, if I've suggested that I have lumped you into that ideological bucket, then this was inadvertent and I apologize.

 

 

 

Back to the models though, NOAA has a great site discussing some of the same points I've tried to summarize above (which includes links to other information).

 

NOAA Overview - Modeling Climate

 

 

 

And here is a summary for a wider audience done in 2007 as part of a "responding to the denialists" toolkit:

 

Climate is too complex for accurate predictions - earth - 25 October 2007 - New Scientist Environment

 

 

 

And below is a whole swath of information specific to models and the challenges to them:

 

RealClimate - Articles on Climate Modelling

 

 

(the one below is probably the most recent one which comes closest to addressing your specific concerns, but there are many others):

 

RealClimate - Butterflies, tornadoes and climate modelling

 

 

 

In sum, I understand the points you are making, but I disagree with the conclusions you have drawn from them. You seem convinced that since climate is a complex system it's not possible for us to make models which work. I say, we'll never be perfect, but we're really close, and we get closer each day.

 

I hope I've done a fair job addressing your points. I still think we'd all be better served to take this from the abstract level of models in general to a more specific work though, since when you distill it down to the barest essence it's the specific work you are ultimately challenging with your posts in this thread.

[goku]

just a thought i had,

 

when calculating the global temp was there any consideration for the amount of air trapped in buildings that is being cooled?

[REASON]

just a thought i had,

 

when calculating the global temp was there any consideration for the amount of air trapped in buildings that is being cooled?

 

:cheer::phones::lol:

 

goku, you should take this show on the road, dude.

[modest]

just a thought i had,

 

when calculating the global temp was there any consideration for the amount of air trapped in buildings that is being cooled?

 

goku, please consider thinking these thoughts through or perhaps googleing them before posting them.

 

As I assume your air is running right now... you could (if you were so inclined) go outside and feel the air coming off the AC unit. It's hot yes? The cold air inside exactly cancels the hot air outside give or take the heat the two fans and the compressor are making. So this is not a factor and a quick wikipedia or google search of air conditioning would verify this.

 

~modest