Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: smart on 09/12/2015 11:47:38
-
Is the narrative of climate change could be generated from computer-assisted algorithms which predicts climatic data? Is artificial intelligence able to understand the narratives of global warming ?
-
One thing about manmade global warming and climate change is, if true, this would be a unique event in the history of the earth. It would be the first time, ever, that humans have had a global impact on global temperature and climate change. The climate warmed during the age of the Vikings but this was not due to humans. In a broad sense, this is a unique climate trigger analogous to a single data point. This is not like natural causes of climate change, which have more than one occurrence.
The potential problem this unique event can create is, how do you know which curve to draw through the single data point, since a straight line or a curved line with any angle can still be made to touch one point? All we know from math is if the angle is not correct, extrapolation and predictions will not pan out.
The current angle for the curve touching one point, depends heavily on fear, since the models always stresses doom and gloom. Since fear is subjective and computers are logical and don't have feelings, I would guess the fear is not computer generated. It appears to be part of the angle used for the curve; programmed into the computer model. Common sense about global climate change would assume there will also be pockets of good weather and better climate, here and there, but the computers are not being told to make this happen. This past fall in New England was very mild with most people in the areas not minding if this was the future. This could have been a prediction if the computer was not told to grimace and find doom.
If the models had used the good side angle, the computers may have also said the north polar ice cap would not be melted by today. This would have been a better angle for extrapolation.
The fear appears needed, not by the computer, but to keep the resources flowing. The constant hammer, set to fall, gets the system in motion; high resource war mode. Each time the hammer misses, it is reset with fear. The fear also seems to work like amnesia that continues to loosen tight pockets.
If the computers had predicted the polar cpas will still be here, today, this is not as scary, but would have hit the nail on the head. There would mean less need to keep on investing, since the model would have the proper angle to do the job. The fear appears to be part of the sales pitch needed to get resources, with the new 50 year predictions one way to make the hammer miss less often.
-
The post above is total nonsense.
Numerical prediction models have no fear, they have physics and parametrisations of physics they cannot resolve.
The models predict areas of the world undergoing changes that many would locally consider a good thing, but globally serious changes. Models are far from flawless, no scientist would deny otherwise, they do however predict the global averages fairly well.
They also have rather more than 1 point to measure, they have all of paleoclimate to test on, and a few centuries of directly measured data.
-
Climate change is autogenerated: the climate is inherently unstable, as historic records show.
Climate change "narrative" suggests a human interpretation of a natural phenomenon. All politics and religions depend on fear, so whatever the perceived trend may be, the narrative is always one of impending doom. The trick is to avoid any blame for actual doom falling on those who were in charge at the time. Priests do it by asserting that all bad outcomes are the result of the sins of others, or are tests of faith sent by the Almighty. Politicians have to say "I told you so", so they tend to congregate (at your expense) around the worst case consensus, and use it to raise taxes.
Alas, no climate model based on carbon dioxide as the primary forcing function can explain the detail of the Mauna Loa data, which clearly shows maximum CO2 concentrations in summer, when anthropogenic emission of CO2 is at its minimum.
-
In a broad sense, this is a unique climate trigger analogous to a single data point. This is not like natural causes of climate change, which have more than one occurrence.
The potential problem this unique event can create is, how do you know which curve to draw through the single data point, since a straight line or a curved line with any angle can still be made to touch one point? All we know from math is if the angle is not correct, extrapolation and predictions will not pan out.
The current angle for the curve touching one point, depends heavily on fear, since the models always stresses doom and gloom. Since fear is subjective and computers are logical and don't have feelings, I would guess the fear is not computer generated.
Thank you for demonstrating your lack of understanding of the situation.
The idea that the whole climate model is just a line drawn through a point is absurd.
Either you know that, and you are straw manning the argument to an incredible degree, or you really believe that all those scientists, programmers and mathematicians drew a line through a point, in which case you are delusional- and we don't need to consider your ideas any further.
So, which one is it?
Are you deliberately misrepresenting the science or are you so far out of contact with reality that you actually believe what you posted?
There are, of course a whole lot of problems with your idea. but here's something to consider.
Imagine that the world is a blackened lump of iron with the sun shining on it, and it's also losing heat by radiation.
If you tell me what it's temperature is today, and how much sunshine it receives, then I can draw the line (actually a curve) through the single point.
I need to know about black body radiation, and I need to know the heat capacity of iron, but I can measure those in the lab.
So, you are wrong in imagining that the model is just a line through a point, and you are wrong about how the real model is created.
That's a whole lot of wrong.
-
Let me go back to basic logic and ask the question, have humans ever caused global warming/global climate change before, in the 5 plus billion year history of the earth? The answer is no. This is a unique time in earth climate history, if this is true. One hundred years is a grain of sand in the timeline of the earth; point in the earth's history. Point in history is not how climate has changed before making this 100 year sprint using only CO2 and green house gases, very unique.
Being a unique time in earth history we need to find ways to correlate this to what we know, such as what nature has done and what we can contrive in the lab. This means extrapolating from natural knowns, to the unique manmade unknown. How we built this bridge has an impact on the ability of the models to make accurate predictions. We need the proper angle to get it right.
The analogy is say I build a car that gets 200 mpg. I demonstrate this car at a science and technology fair. But since my design is unique and has economic value, I don't allow anyone to look under the hood, to know exactly how I did it. Everyone sees the demonstration to know this just happened. Each goes home and tries and figure out how it works, based on what we know about past and future car engines, as reported in science books and journals. This approach is reasonable, but still may not give the correct angle, even if all the experts form a consensus from the known journals. There is thing called ingenuity and invention that may not be in the books but was extrapolated from it. The proof of design is not in all the political talk and/or science prestige play, but is in the accuracy of tests and predictions.
Didn't recent data show that the CO2 levels flattened in 2014. Was this predicted by the consensus models? CO2 is one of the driving forces in model assumptions, so shouldn't a good angle have planned of this in advance? There has been a lot of political pressure on industry and people to cut CO2 emissions. Why was this not seen before it happened?
The doom and gloom angle does not want anything good to get in the way. This to me is good news since it turns one variable from dynamic to static. Also if the worse has already happened, but did not happen, then if this continues the future will get better if this key variable flattens.
-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png) is worth a look. It shows the predictions of 73 published climate models for the years 1979 - 2025, and the actual data to date. The best of the models has overestmated the actual temperature rise by 100% and the worst by 1200%. None of them has understimated the actual data.
Now when I make an expert estimate of the likely outcome of an experiment, or of the probable effect of a forensic cause, I expect there to be an even chance of being a bit over or under the actual figure. Indeed I'm supposed to give a further estimate of the uncertainty of my prediction, and to explain any small bias in that figure. If 73 groups of supposed experts all overestimate the outcome, I think the court might suspect a bit of collective misunderstanding of the underlying physics, or possibly deliberate fraud.
-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png) is worth a look. It shows the predictions of 73 published climate models for the years 1979 - 2025, and the actual data to date. The best of the models has overestmated the actual temperature rise by 100% and the worst by 1200%. None of them has understimated the actual data.
Now when I make an expert estimate of the likely outcome of an experiment, or of the probable effect of a forensic cause, I expect there to be an even chance of being a bit over or under the actual figure. Indeed I'm supposed to give a further estimate of the uncertainty of my prediction, and to explain any small bias in that figure. If 73 groups of supposed experts all overestimate the outcome, I think the court might suspect a bit of collective misunderstanding of the underlying physics, or possibly deliberate fraud.
This idea came to me yesterday. If CO2 acts like a warm fuzzy greenhouse blanket that traps heat making the earth warmer, does the same CO2 blanket also keep out the IR heat that is coming from the sun? It turns out 50% of the sun's energy output is in the IR, which is where CO2 does its thing.
Do the climate models use solar IR exclusion due to CO2? This should add a cooling affect. This cooling could lower the collective over estimates, so they are closer to the real data.
-
Radiative forcing through chemtrails (climate engineering) may increase ozone depletion and global temperature levels. Thus the climate change data may be faked to drastically affect global temperature levels by doing solar radiation management (SRM).
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5880/1201
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111467
-
One thing about manmade global warming and climate change is, if true, this would be a unique event in the history of the earth. It would be the first time, ever, that humans have had a global impact on global temperature and climate change. The climate warmed during the age of the Vikings but this was not due to humans. In a broad sense, this is a unique climate trigger analogous to a single data point. This is not like natural causes of climate change, which have more than one occurrence.
The potential problem this unique event can create is, how do you know which curve to draw through the single data point, since a straight line or a curved line with any angle can still be made to touch one point? All we know from math is if the angle is not correct, extrapolation and predictions will not pan out.
The current angle for the curve touching one point, depends heavily on fear, since the models always stresses doom and gloom. Since fear is subjective and computers are logical and don't have feelings, I would guess the fear is not computer generated. It appears to be part of the angle used for the curve; programmed into the computer model. Common sense about global climate change would assume there will also be pockets of good weather and better climate, here and there, but the computers are not being told to make this happen. This past fall in New England was very mild with most people in the areas not minding if this was the future. This could have been a prediction if the computer was not told to grimace and find doom.
If the models had used the good side angle, the computers may have also said the north polar ice cap would not be melted by today. This would have been a better angle for extrapolation.
The fear appears needed, not by the computer, but to keep the resources flowing. The constant hammer, set to fall, gets the system in motion; high resource war mode. Each time the hammer misses, it is reset with fear. The fear also seems to work like amnesia that continues to loosen tight pockets.
If the computers had predicted the polar cpas will still be here, today, this is not as scary, but would have hit the nail on the head. There would mean less need to keep on investing, since the model would have the proper angle to do the job. The fear appears to be part of the sales pitch needed to get resources, with the new 50 year predictions one way to make the hammer miss less often.
Now that math I can understand very well, this speculation of yours also inflicts fear on them, and by them I don't mean a cult or religion, the "them" is related to any group that in their period in time, finds ways to sell more fridges and also find meanings to slowly convert the oil burn into clean energy, they wnat this much more than we do, but must be slowly and ruled by fear so we would thank them for provide us "free clean energy". at the same cost... Oherwise common people would be independantly producing their own right now, tax free...
-
This is a cyclic trend that the earth has gone through during its existence. We are however exacerbating it. We have been breaking temperature records year on year. How hot is extinction hot?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/kuwait-swelters-record-breaking-54c-heatwave-weather-7152911.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/kuwait-swelters-record-breaking-54c-heatwave-weather-7152911.html)
-
Just one more thing to note. In desert conditions the dryness of the air means that sweating and evaporation are effective means of cooling down. The problem for temperate climes is the humidity that comes with the heat. Effectively counteracting this cooling mechanism. Climate scientists are worried. I don't mean the trendy jump on the bandwagon for funding types either. The real scientists.
-
This is a cyclic trend that the earth has gone through during its existence. We are however exacerbating it. We have been breaking temperature records year on year. How hot is extinction hot?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/kuwait-swelters-record-breaking-54c-heatwave-weather-7152911.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/kuwait-swelters-record-breaking-54c-heatwave-weather-7152911.html)
Well we survived the Holocene optimal during the bronze age when temperature were warmer than now by a degree c or two.
Given that panic predictions are based on the warming between 1979 and 1998 with added exponential growth of exponential growth and very odd additional feedback mechanisms that have never kicked in in any of the other much warmer periods of earth's history, why would we now not say that the climate has reached a level of stability that means it will never ever change again?
Both equally silly ideas.
-
Let's take the example of something concrete. The 100 year flood estimate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-year_flood (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-year_flood)
By using extreme events analysed over time we can calculate the probability of a 1% flood occuring in any one year. We have a very short period of recorded data with which to calculate the probability so that it is a continuous process of recording, analysing and refining the data. This is what I did for ten years with the data from logging equipment. You see trends developing when you see the data evolve when corpared the other types of data from ice cores etc. That was about 8 years ago now and the scientists I worked with were concerned back then. They weren't building predictive models. They were looking at real data. Most people will never get anywhere near this data. It is owned and controlled by the companies that use the logging equipment. So Tim argue away if that makes you happy.
-
Well, if I can't see the data I can't exactly comment upon it can I?
-
Let's take the example of something concrete. The 100 year flood estimate.
By using extreme events analysed over time we can calculate the probability of a 1% flood occuring in any one year. We have a very short period of recorded data with which to calculate the probability so that it is a continuous process of recording, analysing and refining the data. This is what I did for ten years with the data from logging equipment. You see trends developing when you see the data evolve when corpared the other types of data from ice cores etc. That was about 8 years ago now and the scientists I worked with were concerned back then. They weren't building predictive models. They were looking at real data. Most people will never get anywhere near this data. It is owned and controlled by the companies that use the logging equipment. So Tim argue away if that makes you happy.
The fiddling of climatic data is controversial. Data can be manipulated by artificially modifying the weather using geoengineering. Thus it appears likely the global warming conspiracy theory is a quackery by tampering with climatic data.
-
Let's take the example of something concrete. The 100 year flood estimate.
By using extreme events analysed over time we can calculate the probability of a 1% flood occuring in any one year. We have a very short period of recorded data with which to calculate the probability so that it is a continuous process of recording, analysing and refining the data. This is what I did for ten years with the data from logging equipment. You see trends developing when you see the data evolve when corpared the other types of data from ice cores etc. That was about 8 years ago now and the scientists I worked with were concerned back then. They weren't building predictive models. They were looking at real data. Most people will never get anywhere near this data. It is owned and controlled by the companies that use the logging equipment. So Tim argue away if that makes you happy.
The fiddling of climatic data is controversial. Data can be manipulated by artificially modifying the weather using geoengineering. Thus it appears likely the global warming conspiracy theory is a quackery by tampering with climatic data.
Who is it that you assume is fiddling the data? These are not computer models. This is analysis of actual weather events. A piece of equipment can be incorrectly calibrated but this is obvious when plotting the data points. People like to see conspiracy. Those in charge also like people to see conspiracy since it distracts the foolish from what is really going on in plain sight. These days politicians rarely have to resign anymore from gross errors of judgement. Since no one seems to care how they act. So they get away with sneaking horrendous legislation into law in plain sight. Don't start complaining later on. You were too busy looking for conspiracies.
-
Who is it that you assume is fiddling the data? These are not computer models. This is analysis of actual weather events. A piece of equipment can be incorrectly calibrated but this is obvious when plotting the data points. People like to see conspiracy. Those in charge also like people to see conspiracy since it distracts the foolish from what is really going on in plain sight. These days politicians rarely have to resign anymore from gross errors of judgement. Since no one seems to care how they act. So they get away with sneaking horrendous legislation into law in plain sight. Don't start complaining later on. You were too busy looking for conspiracies.
Well, as the US and Canada governments are actively engaged in clandestine geoengineering activity, we can assert that the climatic data is being fiddled for geopolitical reasons. The real conspiracy is to ignore geoengineering activity influencing the climatic data modeling. Hence to validate real climate change a climatologist must include the effects of stratospheric aerosol injections in their computer data analysis.
-
It was proven a while ago that there exists organisations governmental and independent that have actively taken steps to produce and publish inaccurate forecasts and trending data, through means of bullying, data set omission and in basic terms cooking the books.
Someone mentioned that we have centuries of data measurements, where this is untrue, we have only been recording and trending data from the past 60 or so years. We have been using methods of estimating past temperatures that have been shown to be inaccurate and only taken into account by those whose argument it agrees with and ignored or questioned by the other.
Man made climate change remains a strong argument and there definitely appears to be strong evidence even if just localized. The IPPC have changed their tune from 'global warming' to man made climate change due to these false assertions and the fact that we have dropped from having the fact of global warming which has been proven, including the hockey stick diagram, to be a wholly biased report that was generated to prove a group of scientist belief in a dramatically unscientific manner.
Whether or not our beliefs lead us to whatever opinion on the fact is inconsequential. But yes, all future predicitions for climate change are and must be done via statisical analysis of the best information we have available, and although this could be done by an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters (which is sometimes how I feel the public face of 'science' appears) it is invariably done with computers and auto generation. (But I suppose thats' like saying Cars are auto generated by robots)
-
Manmade global warming is based on a technicality of science. Let me explain with an analogous example.
In this example, what we will do is have a group of scientists record and photograph all the birds in a city park for one month. We will invest enough funding for sufficient scientists and equipment to cover the park, 24/7 over that one month period. When all the data is compiled, we will claim there are more birds in that park, than any time in recorded history.
Intuitively, this claim seems like a sales pitch. However, the large team can show you reams of data, with more pictures of birds from that park, compared to any other data set in recorded history. The claim is sort of justified, by a data volume technicality.
We can also claim there are more birds in that park, than any time in the history of the earth. We will attribute this to man made bird change, since the park was built by humans. Again, intuitively this claim may not seem kosher. However, nobody will be able to show you more hard data from the past to disprove this premise. All those who cite the past will need to use inference data and antedotal evidence, which is easy to discredit. While the preponderance of the hard data, allows one to form a consensus.
Based on this data technicality, we can get the masses to accept there being more birds in the park than in all of history, since this is based on the hard data, which is hard to refute. Now we can extrapolate and say too many birds can cause unsanitary conditions that can lead to diseases. Logically, this is due to manmade made bird change. Now we can use this to create fear to justify more funding for another study. We may even use the fear to tax people who throw out bread to feed the birds.
If we stopped collecting data for one year, the problem would solve itself.