Global Warming

[IQS.RLOW]

Bill Nye the Science Guy has a few words for you deniers ... in other news, the Republicans are trying to DEFUND NASA climate research. Why would they want to do that?

Oh great..a TV non-scientist...
Defunding departments who tell lies should be a no brainer. Why would you want to keep funding something that is proven to be wrong?

[AiA in Atlanta]

NASA scientists are liars?

Many organizations rely on NASA climate data, from those that report the daily weather to insurance companies calculating future premiums. I suspect the Republican push to defund NASA's climate research has other motives.

[IQS.RLOW]

Yes, Hansen made the NASA climate dept a laughing stock.

[Rorschach]

Yet so far WE KNOW that the models are wrong and the THEORIES they are based on therefore must also be wrong.

Instead of addressing this statement you decided to ask me questions.
I'd like you to address this statement.

[Rorschach]

Yet so far WE KNOW that the models are wrong and the THEORIES they are based on therefore must also be wrong.

We can skip that if you like and just answer a question on the above facts.
We know the models are wrong...
therefore the assumptions they are based on that some call theories (not facts) are also wrong.
yes or no?

[Rorschach]

Yet so far WE KNOW that the models are wrong and the THEORIES they are based on therefore must also be wrong.

Ok... where to start. Let's do this step by step.

1. The theory begins on the premise that if you change the chemical composition of the atmosphere (change the ratio of elements and compounds) there will be a change in the previous balance between energy absorption and release for the planet Earth.

Do you have any issues with 1. ?

Happens naturally do you deny this?

Well a yes no answer is hardly adequate if you could relate this to the issue and why you think AGW is more of a problem than the naturally occurring emissions.

[Super Nova]

Yet so far WE KNOW that the models are wrong and the THEORIES they are based on therefore must also be wrong.

Instead of addressing this statement you decided to ask me questions.
I'd like you to address this statement.

Every theory we have defined in the history of humanity is wrong at the detail level so far.

So your point is mute.

Newton's theory of gravity is wrong... it appears to be right until you get close to light speed. It is a valid theory but in the detail it is wrong.
Einstein's theory of gravity and light is wrong. It appears to be right until you look at the very small.
Is Quantum mechanics correct.... no. It is a set of theories based on what is observed and they have to change it every time the theory doesn't match observation.
Are the laws of chemistry correct.... no... they do not take into account the small level of quantum events that may affect the perfect execution of a chemical reaction.
Until we have a unified theory of everything and how everything works at the micro and macro level... they will all remain wrong. Even when we have the perfect theory of everything we will still not be able to predict everything. The universe is not a billiard table.

Does that make these theory invalid. Of course not. They are totally valid at the appropriate scale.

Can we model in detail a chaotic system. NO. We can never do a full predictive and accurate model of a chaotic system. We can get a view at a summary level... but in detail... it can not. The universe has shown not to be deterministic at the very small but gives the illusion it is at the very large.

Now to you question/statement

Yet so far WE KNOW that the models are wrong and the THEORIES they are based on therefore must also be wrong

The models of the past did not take into account all the elements and parameters necessary for an accurate predictive model. They were high level based on our understanding of the earth and the limits of our algorithms, available input data, assumptions and limited processing power. Also some assumptions were wrong. (these are parameters of the models)

All of these things have improved. The current models due to the previous failure to predict accurately are continually reviewed, refined and with improved computing power more detailed simulations of elements of the chaos system that is the earth have emerged.

This will continue forever. (well until we wipe ourselves out anyway)

The broad thrust of the global warming is valid.

The long term effects of an ever increasing greenhouse gases is predictable to a degree.
I am not saying that we will end in a run away green house like Venus... the goldilocks zone we live in would probably allow it to auto correct over many years (may be 10s or 100s thousands) but the risk is real.

I do not believe we will let it get that far.

There is a real risk of hitting a threshold that has been hit before where methane and other higher impact GHGs will be released in a runaway scenario that once it starts we will not be able to stop. When it is all released.. .the planet will take a long time without humanity on the planet to recover.

Just because the current models proved to be wrong in it's short term predictions... doesn't mean the theory is to be thrown away. The details mechanics of the theory need to be refined. That is what is happening.

Just because there is no such thing as a straight line doesn't mean I cannot use straight lines in my explanation of things and use them in my models.

You guys really do not have an open minds.

Just because climate models can not predict the temperature and humidity outside my house at 11:00 am today does not mean the models are wrong. They cannot know the exact starting position and value of every atom, energy level, direction and quantum state (not that this matters because you cannot know it without affecting it) to feed the perfect model if there was one. If there was one it would need to be a computer the was a direct copy of the earth with the exact same starting state. Even then the model could then not predict the unpredictable that is the game of chance played at the very small scales.

Are weather models useful... yes. Do they help us take corrective or avoidance action...... yes. Are they wrong.... by your definition they are... so yes. Should we now disregard their predictions because they are not perfect and therefore wrong.... no fucking way. Do we state the theory of weather is wrong and therefore it should be discarded and ignored..... no. We improve on it... making it more accurate with each leap in computing power, improved algorithms, more data input, and corrections based on observation.

[Rorschach]

Yet so far WE KNOW that the models are wrong and the THEORIES they are based on therefore must also be wrong.

Instead of addressing this statement you decided to ask me questions.
I'd like you to address this statement.

Every theory we have defined in the history of humanity is wrong at the detail level so far.

So your point is mute. Actually you mean moot... and it is not. So you are doubly wrong there.

Newton's theory of gravity is wrong... it appears to be right until you get close to light speed. It is a valid theory but in the detail it is wrong.
Einstein's theory of gravity and light is wrong. It appears to be right until you look at the very small.
Is Quantum mechanics correct.... no. It is a set of theories based on what is observed and they have to change it every time the theory doesn't match observation.
Are the laws of chemistry correct.... no... they do not take into account the small level of quantum events that may affect the perfect execution of a chemical reaction.
Until we have a unified theory of everything and how everything works at the micro and macro level... they will all remain wrong. Even when we have the perfect theory of everything we will still not be able to predict everything. The universe is not a billiard table.

Does that make these theory invalid. Of course not. They are totally valid at the appropriate scale. And at any scale this theory is proving to be wrong... the models created to prove it have always been wrong, even the fudged attempts.

Can we model in detail a chaotic system. NO. We can never do a full predictive and accurate model of a chaotic system. We can get a view at a summary level... but in detail... it can not. The universe has shown not to be deterministic at the very small but gives the illusion it is at the very large.

Now to you question/statement

Yet so far WE KNOW that the models are wrong and the THEORIES they are based on therefore must also be wrong

The models of the past did not take into account all the elements and parameters necessary for an accurate predictive model. They were high level based on our understanding of the earth and the limits of our algorithms, available input data, assumptions and limited processing power. Also some assumptions were wrong. (these are parameters of the models)

All of these things have improved. The current models due to the previous failure to predict accurately are continually reviewed, refined and with improved computing power more detailed simulations of elements of the chaos system that is the earth have emerged.

This will continue forever. (well until we wipe ourselves out anyway)

The broad thrust of the global warming is valid. You mean the thrust that warming has occurred since the last ice age. yes that is correct.

The long term effects of an ever increasing greenhouse gases is predictable to a degree.
I am not saying that we will end in a run away green house like Venus... the goldilocks zone we live in would probably allow it to auto correct over many years (may be 10s or 100s thousands) but the risk is real. Venus, that's more guess than a theory right. I mean no one has been there and no one actually knows the natural history of the planet... it's just all guesswork.

I do not believe we will let it get that far.

There is a real risk of hitting a threshold that has been hit before where methane and other higher impact GHGs will be released in a runaway scenario that once it starts we will not be able to stop. When it is all released.. .the planet will take a long time without humanity on the planet to recover.

Just because the current models proved to be wrong in it's short term predictions... doesn't mean the theory is to be thrown away. The details mechanics of the theory need to be refined. That is what is happening. Actually all the models predictions and prognostications of so called experts have proven to be wrong.

Just because there is no such thing as a straight line doesn't mean I cannot use straight lines in my explanation of things and use them in my models.

You guys really do not have an open minds. Puhlease don't always resort to name-calling... it's a lie anyway, and I have no control over anyone or their thoughts, just mine.

Just because climate models can not predict the temperature and humidity outside my house at 11:00 am today does not mean the models are wrong. Oh dear so now are you saying they are right? They cannot know the exact starting position and value of every atom, energy level, direction and quantum state (not that this matters because you cannot know it without affecting it) to feed the perfect model if there was one. Strawman... If there was one it would need to be a computer the was a direct copy of the earth with the exact same starting state. Even then the model could then not predict the unpredictable that is the game of chance played at the very small scales.

Are weather models useful... yes. Do they help us take corrective or avoidance action...... yes. Are they wrong.... by your definition they are... so yes. You mean I stated the fact that climate modelling has failed to be accurate or prove the Theory correct... don't lie about what I've said or misquote me. Should we now disregard their predictions because they are not perfect and therefore wrong.... no fucking way. Well if they are fcuking wrong why would anyone seriously accept them and the assumptions and theory behind them? Do we state the theory of weather is wrong and therefore it should be discarded and ignored..... no. There is no Theory of Weather, weather is not climate. We improve on it... making it more accurate with each leap in computing power, improved algorithms, more data input, and corrections based on observation. So you choose to believe the Theory and models even though you know they are wrong... really? You keep telling me they are wrong and will keep improving but will never be 100% accurate, yet based on what they are now you believe in AGW alarmism. Really?

[Super Nova]

I was using weather as an example. I know it is not climate.

The simplest theory for global warming in my view is:

Total Energy in Climate = Existing Energy in Climate + Energy released from the Earth core + Energy from Outside Earth - Energy radiated or reflected back into space

By climate I mean the system above the earths crust that include seas and land.

Simple.

If Energy radiated or reflected back into space is reduced the energy in the climate goes up.

You argue that because the models were wrong the theory is wrong. At the simplest level the theory is sound.

Do you deny this?

[Neferti]

I have Jonquils flowering at the moment, in Canberra. It is AUTUMN in Oz, Not Spring. That is when Jonquils are supposed to flower. Spring.

In case you don't know what Jonquils are. Here is a picture.