Village
-
Posts
1,106 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by 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.
-
Village - please may I borrow your time machine?
You sound like you dont trust the IPCC time machine. I thought you had fallen for that one hook line and sinker years ago! LOL
-
Village, climate models don't predict the weather they predict the climate. The two are very different, please don't confuse them.
Edit: or do you really expect climate models to predict the weather?
You missed the point again Dev.
The point is that BW was maintaining that climate modelling can predict the seasons! Thats the nonsense of it all because he shouldnt need a computer and climate model. it should be obvious.
-
ROFLMAO@youFrankly, this is nonsense.
You asked if I could, I said I could, I want £500. Thanks, PM when you have the payment method sorted. You haven't countered any science I have offered. Yes, people have managed to predict climate years in advance - look at the CET prediction - that's climate, that's a prediction. Do you want to owe me £1500? You are clearly not skilled in either mathematics (you didn't know what interpolated meant) nor mathematical modelling (you can't distinguish between different systems type) and certainly have only probably managed to write 'Hello World' on a Sinclair Spectrum some decades ago. It's obvious, by your language, you are neither a skilled programmer, nor a computer scientist, nor anyone who would ever know anything about these subjects. Indeed, I am still a student, some 20 years in!
Thanks for trolling, thanks for wasting my time. Hey, I fell for it. Therefore, I am an idiot.
Any idiot can say they can predict the climate hundreds of years forth. And saying white is white isnt a prediction. So far all the climate models have been wrong to date (thats why the IPCC downgraded their estimate of average global temps 100 years forth) and there is no hope for the future because the approach is wrong. Thats why they have to keep updating and fiddling because the new real data is always different from that previously input. Making out you can do it and nobody else can may wash with some but it doesnt wash with me.
You have come with no prediction of climate whatsoever, but you get a digestive biscuit for being a cheeky chump.
-
Yeah, because the chimps who were in power last bought the daft video and force fed it as scientific fact to our school kids!
Is it no wonder this generation leave school knowing nothing.
-
You get nothing for predicting its warmer in June than December, theres no skill in that and if you need to produce a computer programe to show that then you have digressed even further.
But if you really believe that computers can predict the future climate to any degree of accuracy you can create a model that will do precisely that. Problem is ....you wont be able to because nobody has managed it to date and I am sure it will never happen using a serial computer and current approach from outside inwards as I stated earlier.
Its no good pretending that computer synthetics can do this with any degree of accuracy. If computer models could have done I would be on a 50 million pound yacht in the Mediteranean with a bunch of beautiful women and all my mates partying each day away at your and everyone elses expence.
-
I think you are going off on a tangent with this. As you said earlier...you have digressed.I am not talking of interpolation.
Interpolation is, essentially, taking two timeseries coordinates and inferring a value that falls between them. That can be a part of mathematical modelling, but it isn't what I'm talking about. Interpolation is a very specific technique. I've kindly added the Wiki leak at the bottom of this post. And if you didn't know that, then maybe your programmers (two 'm's by the way) have been leading you up the garden path, claiming that they're great, taking a huge salary out of the pot, and when it doesn't work, claim that, hey, it's unpredictable, isn't it?
And since it's a waste of time for long term predictions, I will place a £100 bet with you that the December CET, 2014 will post a lower value than the July CET, 2014. You'd do well not to agree to the bet - but, morally, you must, since you claim that neither weather or climate is predictable. I can also tell you where the moon will be, the planets will be, and where the stars will be - with, maybe, the exception of Betelguise (that might not be there, by then) Perhaps, raise the stakes to £1000?
I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is ...
One doesnt need a computer program and in depth mathematics to show that it is on average much warmer on our lattitude in June than December.
However, a dumb computer program will never be able to predict in December the next day that snow will fall in June. If you want to believe that you can predict this with the aid of a computer model, then I will offer you 500 pounds to say that you havent a chance in hell of being right.
Further, drawing a comparisson with totally predictable heavenly bodies and an unpredictable climate I think is not a true representation of the the glaringly obvious differences. Do you really believe the climate models for 100 years forth are as accurate as the clockwork of the heavens? Are you sure that you have thought through your stance on this properly?
-
If climate is chaotic how come we have seasons?
I am sure we have seasons because we dont live at the equator, this has nothing to do with chaos theory. What is your point Dev?
-
As I said, as more information is gleaned it is fed into the models, the end result changes.
Would you rather they didn't add new information and simply stuck with old data? Hardly scientific.
You missunderstand my point.
My point was that they are completely wasting their time going about the process in that way they do. One cant create a synthetic mathematical model to predict future conditions in the real world from the inside out. Seeing as chaos does exist in the real world then they dont have a hope in hell.
-
It would take more effort than I can be bothered to waste to explain to you that there are clear, unambiguous laws that prevent the complexity of weather being vectored up to predict climate. It's rather like the difference between counting to ten in halves and calculating the mean of all of those halves. The point is that these are different things. One is predictable, one isn't.
But, I digress.
I am pleased you didnt try to explain in your own words how you think the mathematics of the models work. I understand why interpolating data renders the whole procedure useless. I have worked with programers for twenty years here in the city to produce mathematical models. These models use the same techniques and formula and we still cannot predict where the financial markets at a future date.
At least we agree on one thing....the models are a waste of time for long term predictions. No wonder the Met Office gave up trying.
-
The future cannot be created because you say so.Intelligent people? I don't know about that, but while I can't model every atom in a river I know water flows down hill and I know rain fills rivers or causes floods - you don't need to know what every molecule or atom or electron is doing to know that and you can model it. It is not the case the future is not predictable.
It is the case what you say can't be done can be done. Not with absolute accuracy but not with no accuracy at all. Either end of the spectrum, absolute accuracy or your it's absolutely impossible are manifestly wrong.
You may missunderstand how synthetic modelling works, but quite how you can arrive at the conclussion that we can recreate the real world in the future fails me. I think you are missunderstanding the way which models are created. Models simply make a poor copy from the outside inwards. In practice they dont reproduce reality so all we do is tweak the variables after the event to try to reproduce a copy of the past. Programers then use that same copy to pretend we can predict the future world.
And of course it is wrong and so they go away again and fiddle with the input over and over again. Its the wrong approach.
We dont have and cant demonstrate that we can produce the future in any way shape or form.
Are you nuts? can you show a mathematical statement to prove that the real world is reality?Can you please show the mathematical/logical proof of that statement, V?
This is the same IPCC which simply downgraded average global temperatures 100 years forth by 2C ? In a pen stroke! LOLClaiming that the models cannot predict because we don't know enough - as per your above, original post on this topic and claiming the range is too large to be meaningful, are two completely separate arguments.
I grabbed the 1 -5c range out of thin air, it wasn't a quote from an IPCC paper, I can't actually remember what their range is, it may well be smaller than that.
-
Pretty much depends upon whether you are looking for accuracy to the point of tenths of a degree in temperature rise or work within the parameters of a range of 1 - 5c. The former is impossible and not what is claimed by anyone, the latter is possible.
That is my point precisely. Since the difference in future climate terms between 1c and 5c is literally worlds appart. Its therefore meaningless.
-
I am interested in the way in which the process of climate prediction for the longer term is currently based purely with synthetics and how it is that people believe in a model a an accurate representation of the future when clearly it can never be. Unless one can artificially model the changes and interactions of each atom (which currently is absolutely beyond our reach) one hasnt a hope in hell of coming with any meaningful representation of the future of world climate.
Even if one could simulate the behaviour of each atom and its relative charge and electron count each time one runs the synthetics one would get a different result.
-
I am still very sceptical that we will see any change in the very poor level of long term climate predictions. The sheer time scale and the billions upon billions of permutations for the future which are thrown up with just the smallest alteration of even one variable makes it almost impossible to be even close.
-
Hey Jethro, yeah would love to see it.
I really think that this plays a tremendous role with rainfall. Got loads of ideas and thoughts.
To give you a flavour of where I am coming from on this. I learned from the Health service stats fifteen years ago that they get inundated with people with breathing problems during thundery weather. They used to blame a buildup of polution. But as you and I and meteorologists know only too well this will only really become a problem under intense atmospheric inversions. this of course is quite the opposite to what one looks for in thundery conditions where much of the depth of the atmosphere becomes unstable. This set me off thinking. I believe that the charge at the base of the cloud by inducing an opposite charge at the surface actually electrostatically charges dust, pollen and other airborn particles so that they are repelled by the Earth. These particles wont stick to the ground and are encouraged to become airborne. With so many particles airborne its this that causes the asthma and breathing problems.
I dont think it stops there....these particles get caught up in the updraughts and this again is another reason for the ease at which rain can condense out from seemingly harmless looking cumulus during thundery weather. It also provides a possible answer as to why some conditions of extremely unstable airmasses never produce lightning but on other days electrical discharges are flashing all over the place.
I really do believe that the magnetospheric variation give rise to more or less airborne charged particulates in any particular location which play their part as condensation nuclie. I am pretty certain that the intensity of cloud charge is primarily driven by the solar wind conditions and the Earth's variable magnetosphere at any one location and at any one particular time. Long term variability paterns can provide enhansed rainfall or the reverse at the surface. This alters climate.
Love to see what you can dig up.
Cheers, Vill.
-
Does anyone have any charts that show the historic levels of global volcanic activity right up to date?
is it true that we live in relatively peaceful volcanic times?
-
It would certainly be a lot colder right now, if all the CO2 suddenly disappeared!
It would be absolutely cold if the sun switched off. So which is the greatest driver of climate? whats your point?
-
There is something else that is happening to our planet which very little is known about and which could be having some effect on the climate in a subtle way.
It's a major change which started in earnest during the latter part of the last century and that is Pole reversal. The magnetosphere of our planet is already well into the process of change. During this change, where the north and south polarity reverse, all of life on this planet could become exposed by dangerous amounts of high energy gama radiation which will reach the Earth's surface. Its not clear yet where and when or what the exposure will be, but it is vitally important that science spends more time on this issue.
Billions of dollars in funding have been diverted to study our star purely because of the threat from the short wave energy of the spectrum. As we know, there does seem to be a link between cosmic radiation and clouds here on Earth and so much more needs to be done to study the effects of how our atmosphere may change when exposure to radiation alters. The aviation industry has moved fast in recent years to change to satelite navigation systems to avoid the problems which have been caused with the erratic movement of the Magnetic North Pole. During the last decade the Magnetic North Pole was darting around all over the place and causing a huge headache for navigation
I really hope that we do see much more funding in this area for research. I have held my own theory about climate change for a decade now, but cant get enough new reports to help me determine if I am right.
I beleive that climate change is driven by the long term variability of rainfall. The variability in any particular region is subtle, however, over many years this shows itself and will change the climate in a region. Rainfall patern follows general rules due to the Hadley cell synoptic set. However, further north I believe that the subtle changes of the distribution and positioning of High pressure cells determine where atmospheric moisture will be enhanced or rarified. I also believe that this affects the density or rarification of condensation nuclie which are important to the production and volume of precip in any particular locality.
High Pressure distribution in the mid and high latitudes is also governed by the temperature of the Stratosphere which changes due to Solar input variability.
So you see the Solar input I believe has been greatly underestimated until now because scientists have assumed for too long that the Infra-red part of the spectrum is the main driver of climate. My view is that the solar winds and the high energy Gamma end of the spectrum is an equally important driver for the reasons I have stated above.
Watch out for new developments in this area. I am sure there will be some surprises to come very soon which could very well turn current theory on its head and bury the theory that man's tiny contribution to the few parts per million variance in CO2 at the bottom of the can where I think it should be.
-
I don't see much point in continuing this discussion as I'm well aware of the research regarding clouds but just to comment on this.
Can you point out where myself, or anyone else, has said all changes are due to mankind. This would be absolute nonsense. Yours is a typical Bulverist stance. Which in case you don't know is a method of argument that avoids the need to prove that someone is wrong and then explaining why the person could hold such a fallacious view.
You say; there is not much point in continuing this discussion with you as you state above ; you know everything about the research on clouds already. I will wait to see what the research turns up before I make my mind up.
Its a shame that we cant continue to discuss subjects that are ongoing.
-
Beware of the ensemble runs. The synthetic charts maybe fun to look at but they dont represent the future beyond three days. The Met Office know this all too well which is why they have stopped their long range forecasts. After five days they are usually completely wrong. The computer is a great aid for mundane mathematics but it cannot represent the real world.
We have at least another two months of winter yet. The coldest period is to come.
-
This has been explained before and is due to mankinds intervention much the same as pumping carbon into the atmosphere changes the chemistry and heat of the oceans. Ergo I conclude your conclusion is based on a certain amount of thin air minus CO2.
No, it hasnt been explained before, there is wide ranging ongoing research taking place regarding the relationship of cosmic rays and average global cloud cover. This has nothing to do with mankind as you make out.
"Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere."
"'cosmic rays' from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth's atmosphere and changing the climate. An experiment at CERN, Europe's high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that."
Here is a link for you.
http://www.nature.co...s.2011.504.html
There is also ongoing research over the different types of cloud cover and the percentage fluctuation in variation of average types. How ice clouds and lower cumuliform clouds effect temperatures also has nowt to do with Mankind.
Not all clouds are the same; different types of clouds affect the Earth's climate differently. While some types of clouds help to warm the Earth, others help to cool it.
"Right now, "the scientific community is uncertain about how the effects of clouds will change in the future," says Hugh Morrison, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo."
Here is a link for you;
http://www.livescien...ge-nsf-ria.html
None of this has anything to do with my observations regarding the CET sets over the past few decades.
One will note that during the warming period that much of the warming was not due to extreme high daytime observations. The majority of the warming was due to fewer extreme minima recordings. This had the effect of demonstrating average overall mean increases. The blanket statement; 'increasing average temperatures' therefore disguised another truth and other possible alternative explanations other than the same old AGW theoretics. One of which is increased cloud cover.
Increased growth in Antarctic sea ice during the past 30 years is a result of changing weather patterns caused by the ozone hole according to new research published this week (Thurs 23 April 2009).
Yet again all changes are due to Mankind? I dont buy it. There are plenty of other reasons and drivers for change. If the AGW government grants dry up then we will get to see links to other causes in time. But scientists will find it harder to fund their time in a desolate freezing wilderness.
-
One is a progression over a long period of time, the other is a single event.
Is the assertion of long term sea level rises incorrect or is no data, other than that put forward already, available?
Its a good question. Sea level data on rates of change are extremely fragmented and generally pieced together or non existant. However there are pretty good records dating back a hundred years in many places and before then records can be obtained from other ways. In my region it is very well documented and it is understood that the rate of sea level rise is not increasing. The rates of rise seen this century are really unchanged to those of the last century. The North Sea is not a closed system and so the rate rise should be representative widely.
This being the case, it makes me wonder why it is that we are not seeing a rate rise? In particular whaen some are predicting that with Polar ice melt we can expect increases across the globe. So where is the data demonstrating that this is taking place? IIts not noted to be the case in this country and we should be the one place which feels it first being an island with the highest range of tides in the world.
It begs the question? What does this say about the Climate change theory that we are under threat from the melting ice?
It tells me that the theory is wrong. It tells me that either the rates of ice melt are not what they are reported to be, or that there is greater ice build up elsewhere, or that the atmosphere is more saturated or that it is a combination of factors.
I personally prescribe to the third scenario.
Thats why I dont buy it that we are going to be flooded out as sea levels rappidly rise. We would have seen it already...but its not happening.
We know that it is generally eversoslightly more cloudy now ( i can see this in the CET data) and we also have reports that the Antarctica ice sheet is gaining due to increased precip. Therefore I conclude that the claims that we will be inundated as the oceans rise are currently baseless and simply scaremongering.
-
And would you say that this is enough to gauge the entire world? IMO, that would be akin to saying 'look folks, December 2010 was the coldest December in a 100 years in Great Britain - clearly proof that AGW is baloney'.
Sea levels are rising at the same rate throughout the world. The sea level cant rise more than elsewhere unless it is a closed system, ie a landlocked sea. The only places where they are not rising is where geologically the techtonic movements are forcing the land higher than the sea level rate rise.
-
I dont know what it is that you are questioning?
Here is a link about Dunwich which backs up the fact that sea levels have been rising for hundreds of years.
http://www.smithsoni...o-the-Seas.html
The rate of change in recent times is not accelerating. I worked on a few projects regarding coastal flooding in the region and the Rivers Authority who used to be in charge of sea defences in the region...now its DEFRA were very clear with their surveys which showed a 3mm rise in sea level (unchanged in rise rate for past 100 years or since trusted records) a 3mm drop in land hight annually which was a combination of techtonic plate movement in the region and a small isostatic rebound rate still occuring since the last ice age. The sum total was an apparent sea level rise of +6mm yearly and therefore a sea coastal defence of six meters above AOD was imposed on the region befor any new development being granted. It was the same hight imposed after the floods of 1953. Again this demonstrtates at how confident the Authority is that the rise rate is the same. Otherwise they would have recomended an increased protection of above +6m AOD.
AOD at the time (seven years ago) awas and still is taken from the average high tide on the Continental shelf off the south west approaches of Britain.
Erosion is happening, but its not the reason why the ruins are under the sea surface now. 6mm annual rise of sea levels means .6metres every century which means that 800 years ago the sea surface was six metres lower. That is a real rise of 3 metres for the sea level taking out the geological changes.
So regardless of erosion, the whole region is six meters down beneath the waves today.
New Research
in Climate Change
Posted
By "real environment" I mean the natural world outside and not a synthetic model of the world.