6 ms·

Which constantly failing climate models? How do you define failing?

by sambe 12y ago

jqm 12y ago
If I have to define failing we are just playing silly games. You have google. You can find no shortage of climate change models that failed to mirror reality. For instance, many models have over-forcast surface warming and it hasn't happened. Probably because the deep oceans have acted as heat sinks. Not because the basic principal of the earth heating in response to CO2 is incorrect. That's what happens when you try to models complex systems with incomplete understanding... which was my original point.
- Daishiman 12y ago
  But your point is moot because the "failings" of models have been very quickly corrected, and they still show that the prevailing conclusions are true. Models have been "failing" for the past 20 years and they still provide useful information. No one in their right mind is questioning the conclusions. If anything the issue is whether we're facing an apocalypse by 2040 or if things are merely going be catastrophic by 2100. And just to note: even though the above conclusions show that models have very wide margins, what is indisputable is that no one is claiming that things will get better or that we are not in for major catastrophe. If that isn't a useful model, I don't now what is.
  - jqm 12y ago
    "whether we're facing an apocalypse by 2040 or if things are merely going be catastrophic by 2100" Right... like the hundreds of thousands of refuges fleeing rising sea levels that was to happen by 2010. Pardon my scepticism. We don't know what is going to happen by 2040 and retrofitting models then saying "oh, now it's all figured out!" doesn't take future things you haven't figured out into account.
    - Daishiman 12y ago
      Can you even cite one peer-reviewed model that said that, or are you just speculating? Because the only place I've read garbage of that sort is in conspiracy theory web sites, not an IPCC report.
      - jqm 12y ago
        I wouldn't call a major UN report un-reviewed or Der Spiegel a conspiracy site... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-h... So in answer to your question.. no, I'm not speculating.
        Daishiman 12y ago
        If this is the best that you can find, I'd like to make a few comments: * This is basically one quote by one dude with dubious methodologies in a very novel field of research. If you had taken the time to understand a little bit more about the field instead of, you know, basing yourself entirely on the position of one academic, you would find that it's still a very contentious topic (see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378011001403 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378011...) * The consensus is, however, that there are at least 25 million current displaced people from climate events. A lot of people consider that many of the current events of violence in the Middle East have been triggered by increases in prices of staple foods which have contributed towards destabilizing societies. While this is hard to quantify, there is a lot of research efforts towards underestanding that better. * Absolutely none of what you quoted has any relation whatsoever to the predicting powers of the climate models, which work in considerably longer cycles but, again, have thus far been very useful at explaining the current changes in climate. They explain the melting of the Antactic ice shelves, the Greenland glaciers, the drying of California and the destabilization of the Jet Stream, leading to the current freak weather events in the East Coast and Europe. Again, this was all predicted 15 years ago to a disturbingly high degree of accuracy. You're showing that you've really no understanding the depths of climate science. You can't say that the fact that there are a lot of unknowns in some parts of the models, or worse yet, the sociological responses to those known changes, invalidates the rest of our understanding. It sounds to me that your expectations of how models work is unrealistic or that it somehow discredits the established body of knowledge that we have. What's important is that we understand very well how ecosystems are degrading, what are the most likely things to happen to the climate, and how the impacts will be felt. The fact that we can't yet quantify some things such as specific plant responses, particular microclimate changes, or mass-scale social behaviors (which, might I remind you, is still not understood by anyone on the world) is to be expected, and there are thousands of people currently working on filling us in on that knowledge.

Which constantly failing climate models? How do you define failing?

by sambe 12y ago

Which constantly failing climate models? How do you define failing?

jqm 12y ago

If I have to define failing we are just playing silly games. You have google. You can find no shortage of climate change models that failed to mirror reality. For instance, many models have over-forcast surface warming and it hasn't happened. Probably because the deep oceans have acted as heat sinks. Not because the basic principal of the earth heating in response to CO2 is incorrect. That's what happens when you try to models complex systems with incomplete understanding... which was my original point.

Daishiman 12y ago
But your point is moot because the "failings" of models have been very quickly corrected, and they still show that the prevailing conclusions are true. Models have been "failing" for the past 20 years and they still provide useful information. No one in their right mind is questioning the conclusions. If anything the issue is whether we're facing an apocalypse by 2040 or if things are merely going be catastrophic by 2100. And just to note: even though the above conclusions show that models have very wide margins, what is indisputable is that no one is claiming that things will get better or that we are not in for major catastrophe. If that isn't a useful model, I don't now what is.
- jqm 12y ago
  "whether we're facing an apocalypse by 2040 or if things are merely going be catastrophic by 2100" Right... like the hundreds of thousands of refuges fleeing rising sea levels that was to happen by 2010. Pardon my scepticism. We don't know what is going to happen by 2040 and retrofitting models then saying "oh, now it's all figured out!" doesn't take future things you haven't figured out into account.
  - Daishiman 12y ago
    Can you even cite one peer-reviewed model that said that, or are you just speculating? Because the only place I've read garbage of that sort is in conspiracy theory web sites, not an IPCC report.
    - jqm 12y ago
      I wouldn't call a major UN report un-reviewed or Der Spiegel a conspiracy site... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-h... So in answer to your question.. no, I'm not speculating.
      - Daishiman 12y ago
        If this is the best that you can find, I'd like to make a few comments: * This is basically one quote by one dude with dubious methodologies in a very novel field of research. If you had taken the time to understand a little bit more about the field instead of, you know, basing yourself entirely on the position of one academic, you would find that it's still a very contentious topic (see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378011001403 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378011...) * The consensus is, however, that there are at least 25 million current displaced people from climate events. A lot of people consider that many of the current events of violence in the Middle East have been triggered by increases in prices of staple foods which have contributed towards destabilizing societies. While this is hard to quantify, there is a lot of research efforts towards underestanding that better. * Absolutely none of what you quoted has any relation whatsoever to the predicting powers of the climate models, which work in considerably longer cycles but, again, have thus far been very useful at explaining the current changes in climate. They explain the melting of the Antactic ice shelves, the Greenland glaciers, the drying of California and the destabilization of the Jet Stream, leading to the current freak weather events in the East Coast and Europe. Again, this was all predicted 15 years ago to a disturbingly high degree of accuracy. You're showing that you've really no understanding the depths of climate science. You can't say that the fact that there are a lot of unknowns in some parts of the models, or worse yet, the sociological responses to those known changes, invalidates the rest of our understanding. It sounds to me that your expectations of how models work is unrealistic or that it somehow discredits the established body of knowledge that we have. What's important is that we understand very well how ecosystems are degrading, what are the most likely things to happen to the climate, and how the impacts will be felt. The fact that we can't yet quantify some things such as specific plant responses, particular microclimate changes, or mass-scale social behaviors (which, might I remind you, is still not understood by anyone on the world) is to be expected, and there are thousands of people currently working on filling us in on that knowledge.