Global Warming

bonkey, I don't know where you get your patience; perhaps you could bottle some and sell it on eBay?

cp251 wrote: »

That is in fact what you continue to do with your defence of climate models. You say for example 'Did you honestly think that all research into these models had stopped, and that no more research was being done on the whole area?' Clearly I do not think that. Why would I think that?

Well, you evidence some sort of cynicism to do with the fact that the models are being updated in line with further evidence and that such updates were not considered surprising.

You say that they neglected to tell the public, and imply that their lack of telling you suggests that maybe they were surprised. My argument is that as long as intensive research is being continued, on models that are admittedly incomplete, there is the implicit signalling that further change should be expected, as factors not preeviously handled were added.

I'm a pilot, science explains why I leave the ground and stay there until I decide to return.

As a pilot, then, you'll be fully aware that modern plane designs are first tested in computer simulations in order to minimise the risk of killing test-pilots when the first real-nuts-and-bolts plane takes off with someone behind the stick.

Indeed, some modern planes (Eurofighter being one) can only be flown via a computer system which uses a model to figure out what it needs to do to keep the plane in the air from moment to moment.

I would go so far as to say that I would not have expected a pilot to be knocking something as "merely a simulation" and "not reality" when aircraft are some of the best examples around how how mere simulations can mimic reality accurately enough to be trusted to keep people alive.

The model is good, although arguments still occur as to details.

Indeed...as with climate change. THe model is good, and arguments still occur as to the details....which is aditionally a reason why no-one (public or scientist) should be surprised when the models are refined in light of new information which clarifies some of the details.

Climate models on the other hand a bit like studying form for horse racing and feeding all the results into a computer. The computer picks a winner, sometimes it's right sometimes it's wrong. The computer cannot allow for all the random factors because they are unpredictable. The chaos theory. So the 'wrong' horse wins. Thus it is with climate models. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

You seem to be saying that the climatological predictions are sometimes-winning, sometimes losing, and yet the overall set of models which the IPCC has used to base its range of predictions on remains winning all the time. Sure, the pattern has diverged from what was predicted as the most likely course , but it has remained firmly within the predicted range.Because it has diverged from the most likely course, a reason has been sought, and the model referred to in the OP believes they have found out why it happened. They may be right...they may be wrong....but either which way, their model also predicts that things will remain inside the current IPCC forecast range....just that its exact path within that range will be slightly different from what was previously favoured.

Like you said yourself...its an argument over details, not over the overall model nor its validity

As for trotting out lines like, 'They can't predict the weather next week never mind in the future.'. Based on practical experience as a pilot. I find that they can't even predict the weather on the day. I can't tell you how many times I have stood there with a forecast in hands which bore only the most cursory resemblence to the reality outside the window or featured on the satellite photos. I've flown into weather several times that no met station predicted. I've seen Met Eireann forecasts change completely in the afternoon from the one they were touting in the morning.

Now who's attacking straw men? I was making the point that such comments are not challenges to climate theory. Agreeing that such comments are accurate in and of themselves has still nothing to do with climate theory.

Its as if I said that the inability to accurately figure out what number will come up next on a roulette wheel has nothing to do with our ability to predict long-term trends of number-frequency on the wheel.....and you then respond that we can't figure out what the next number will be, let alone the number 5 spins from now. It still has nothing to do with the long-term predictions of the number frequencies.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure what you were trying to tell us with that graph.

As a matter of interest, I've (unscientifically) eyeballed a trend line onto that graph - see the attached. I think the result is informative.

Your trend goes from -0.1 to +.20. If you make a trend from month 300 to month 350 last peak the trend is downward which I thought would be obvious.

you can't look at this graph and get any trends at all, it is too short, the Earth works in periods of at least millenia, not 30 years.....

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you make a trend from month 220 to month 233 or so, the trend is dramatically upward. What's your point?

Edit: you've also misread the end of my trend line; it's greater than +0.2.

My mistake sorry about that. The trend for the last two years is downward except for a high in jan 2007.

What I find a joke is this OP's dismissal of new evidence.

To Robtri: Climate as the word was defined the last time I studied geography was calculated over a minimum period of 35 years, If anyone can find a graph of the 35 before that, then maybe by comparing the 2 you can get a meaningful increase in average temperature, as well as the peaks that are so obvious in 1998 there. But to be honest the myriad factors that can affect the temperature in any given year still make it ridiculously difficult to pick one factor that caused any given increase. But then again, Atmospheric CO2 is one of the major factors, so it is pretty obvious that our climate is changing, but its not really evident what any of us can do about it.
I'm not suggesting that CO2 isn't the cause, I'm just saying its only one of many. Yes the Climate is changing, what changes will occur...who knows. What can we do to stop or reverse the change .....who knows.
General Motors going wallop can only help though:)

robtri wrote: »

Read and quote my full response, I am saying that you cannot get a trand about the earths tempreture by looking at such a short, actually miniscule amount of time...

Why not?

robtri wrote: »

The earth is approx 4.5billion years old, and you are trying to tell me by looking at a 30 year graph you can see a trend for the earth...

I'm not sure what your point is? The Earth is really, really old so we should just ignore this obvious trend? That makes little sense to me. Surely if the average global temperature is increasing, there must be an underlying physical explanation?