Arctic Greening - a negative feedback cycle?

Originally posted by wildgrass
Where did I say that?

I think you are distorting and/or not comprehending the explicit purpose of using climate models for research studies. They are not irrelevant for looking at past observations. [b] I will repeat myself: Think about the specific questions that researchers are asking. Climate models are a mathematical tool used to simulate the ef ...[text shortened]... er any questions here, only debunk legitimate science using stale and irrelevant talking points.[/b]

Only predictions can prove the validity of climate models because they have to be right the first time. Climate models that do not predict the future can be wrong countless times and adjusted to match the past by trial and error.

Using the past to improve climate model successes because they cannot predict the future is a pathetic tactic to mislead and you know it but pride is preventing you from being honest about it.

If you want to convince the science forum community that climate models are reliable you need to use REAL predictions. Past predictions are NOT predictions!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Only predictions can prove the validity of climate models because they have to be right the first time. Climate models that do not predict the future can be wrong countless times and adjusted to match the past by trial and error.

Using the past to improve climate model successes because they cannot predict the future is a pathetic tactic to mislead a ...[text shortened]... els are reliable you need to use REAL predictions. Past predictions are NOT predictions!!!!!!!!!

Based on the language you use, you are clearly passionate about the subject. But you are also entirely ignorant regarding the purpose of climate models in research, and the intellectual advances that have come from their use.

Think about the problem. If you were a climate scientist, how would you go about studying the variables that impact our climate?

You talk about the inability of a climate model to predict far future weather events, when the meteorologist can't even say for sure if it'll rain tomorrow. What degree of error would be reasonable to allow? How far in the future would be accurate enough to your satisfaction? I think it is entirely unreasonable to argue that the inability of a 30 year old climate model to predict current weather events negates the legitimacy of climate scientists.

To use yet another analogy, say I told you the bus would be here in 2 minutes. If it showed up 10 seconds later than I predicted, would you say I was WRONG (with 11 exclamations) or that my prediction was reasonably accurate? You're asking climate scientists to tell you when the bus will arrive 30 years from now. What degree of accuracy do you expect?

I've asked a lot of specific questions (which you probably will not answer) but I have yet another one: When is the last time you changed your mind about something? Are you too dogmatic to think deeply about a complex topic?

Originally posted by wildgrass
Based on the language you use, you are clearly passionate about the subject. But you are also entirely ignorant regarding the purpose of climate models in research, and the intellectual advances that have come from their use.

[b]Think about the problem. If you were a climate scientist, how would you go about studying the variables that impact our c ...[text shortened]... u changed your mind about something? Are you too dogmatic to think deeply about a complex topic?[/b]

"If you were a climate scientist, how would you go about studying the variables that impact our climate?"

Do you mean future climate? I do not understand why climate models are needed if all the data is available when examining only the PAST. If the data record is complete there should be no need for a climate model at all. Your past statement that all of the data was available cannot be true. If it were there would be no percentage of error in the double digits. You do not make any sense. I think you made it up.

What is your source of information? Notice the question mark.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"If you were a climate scientist, how would you go about studying the variables that impact our climate?"

Do you mean future climate? I do not understand why climate models are needed if all the data is available when examining only the PAST. If the data record is complete there should be no need for a climate model at all. Your past statement that al ...[text shortened]... sense. I think you made it up.

What is your source of information? Notice the question mark.

Well, if you have a way of studying future climate data we will be all ears. What other data could they study except present and past? Techniques change, such as the satellite imaging that includes several optical bands with a lot better resolution allowing ever finer and smaller areas to chart and now we are seeing the result of that so we can only use this more advanced data day by day to build up a data set. Since the technique is so new, we can't go back to 1960 and find data like that, we can only continue to build up a climate case from present and we have to wait for the future measurements so what you said didn't make any sense to me anyway.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, if you have a way of studying future climate data we will be all ears. What other data could they study except present and past? Techniques change, such as the satellite imaging that includes several optical bands with a lot better resolution allowing ever finer and smaller areas to chart and now we are seeing the result of that so we can only use thi ...[text shortened]... we have to wait for the future measurements so what you said didn't make any sense to me anyway.

"Well, if you have a way of studying future climate data we will be all ears."

I never said I did. The fact is nobody has a reliable way to do that. That is my whole point.

Here is a question for you:
If a climate modeler is using his/her climate model for the past and it takes that person 20 times of getting it wrong before it finally matches up to the data should that be considered a success?

My point is they are NOT equal and should not be considered as such. The past should have a separate success/failure rates than future predictions. Future predictions are clearly harder to get right since trial and error attempts cannot be hidden. Matching existing data does not improve future predictions either.

Unfortunately poor data from the past cannot be improved. Time is the only thing that will improve data so we need more time and research. I know the chicken little crowd will object and claim the science is settled but that is not true no matter how much they cry about it. 10 more years of data collecting is not going to kill anyone. It will help settle the science though. Be patient.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Do you mean future climate? I do not understand why climate models are needed if all the data is available when examining only the PAST. If the data record is complete there should be no need for a climate model at all.

No, I mean current climate.

Observational data, what some might call the "readout", is available; the forcing variables that impact climate change are under investigation. Mathematical models are the system that climate scientists use to make conclusions. Obviously we don't need a model to tell us how much glacial mass we lost last year, but they need the math to understand the underlying causes of that loss. Since we do not have a "control" climate the models are imperative to answer questions regarding the variables that are impacting our climate. By matching the climate to the climate model (which includes all known climate forcings) climate researchers can ask what would have happened if, for example, humans emitted less than 35 billion tons of CO2 per year [1]. Since we now know many of those variables, and several can be tweaked by changing human behavior, we can make predictions as to what those changes might do to our climate.

How would you answer the question without the model?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Originally posted by wildgrass
No, I mean current climate.

Observational data, what some might call the "readout", is available; the forcing variables that impact climate change are under investigation. Mathematical models are the system that climate scientists use to make conclusions. Obviously we don't need a model to tell us how much glacial mass we lost last year, but they need ...[text shortened]... ion without the model?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

"Obviously we don't need a model to tell us how much glacial mass we lost last year, but they need the math to understand the underlying causes of that loss."

Not really. If the data is complete all that is needed is comparing glacial loss with increased C02. If the increase is substantial in both at the same time it is clear by observation. If there is no convincing correlation with that data it should be discounted.

Show us the data. Forget the climate models for now. If we can't see it on an accurate graph we never will. Surely you can show a bump if it is there, right?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Obviously we don't need a model to tell us how much glacial mass we lost last year, but they need the math to understand the underlying causes of that loss."

Not really. If the data is complete all that is needed is comparing glacial loss with increased C02. If the increase is substantial in both at the same time it is clear by observation. If there ...[text shortened]... n't see it on an accurate graph we never will. Surely you can show a bump if it is there, right?

It would be a lot more complex than just including that one data point or points about CO2 increase and such. Also needed is heat coming up from underneath maybe from magma rising or some such and the increase in solar heating resulting from the increase in CO2. There might be other variables as well, like the smoothness of the underside of the glaciers, if say there were a lot of drops in ground level, that is to say deeply ground in places that could stop the bottom from flowing then the glacier would only be disappearing top down not sliding into a lake or whatever.

It's not a simple problem but CO2 is still a big part of it however you want to slice it. You can scream Plioscene all you want, that is just data taken that may or may not be correct. We have better data now, hundreds of thousands of years of ice core data showing ups and downs of CO2 under more or less modern conditions and that shows a definite correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It would be a lot more complex than just including that one data point or points about CO2 increase and such. Also needed is heat coming up from underneath maybe from magma rising or some such and the increase in solar heating resulting from the increase in CO2. There might be other variables as well, like the smoothness of the underside of the glaciers, if ...[text shortened]... ess modern conditions and that shows a definite correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels.

Great!

Show me the data.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Great!

Show me the data.

Here is a letter from climate scientists at MIT in response to a letter by Emertus prof. Richard Lindzen, a well known climate change denier.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Notice what they said, the MIT professors say their signitures were from actual climate scientists as opposed to Lindzen's bunch, aerospace engineers, and the like, very few actual climate scientists.

My guess is Trumpf will still believe Lindzen because it is the simplest route to follow, screw the future.

And this, big problems with the oceans only 15 odd years from now, forget 2100:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/07/by-2030-half-the-worlds-oceans-could-be-reeling-from-climate-change-scientists-say/?utm_term=.0573d5a98bc5

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is a letter from climate scientists at MIT in response to a letter by Emertus prof. Richard Lindzen, a well known climate change denier.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Notice what they said, the MIT professors say their signitures were from actual climate scientists as ...[text shortened]... lf-the-worlds-oceans-could-be-reeling-from-climate-change-scientists-say/?utm_term=.0573d5a98bc5

Your article says this:
The MIT staff addressed specific inaccuracies in Lindzen's letter, including his assertion that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."

It is very accurate, not a pollutant.

The last link says this:
The study, published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications uses computer models to examine how oceans would fare over the next century

More computer model quackery. We have been over that.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Great!

Show me the data.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

This is a powerful study showing the effects of CO2 and changes in Earth's orbit causing temperature flucuations.

Originally posted by sonhouse
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

This is a powerful study showing the effects of CO2 and changes in Earth's orbit causing temperature flucuations.

the link says;

"
the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming.
"

I knew this already and long ago. Pity so many people who think they know better about science than the scientists will be unwilling to read this and learn something new just for once.

Originally posted by sonhouse
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

This is a powerful study showing the effects of CO2 and changes in Earth's orbit causing temperature flucuations.

Same bunk website I have exposed for lying many times before. No wonder you keep going back to it, you can't find a truthful website to back up your alarmist nonsense.

The Pliocene Epoch had about the same amount of co2. You keep forgetting this. Stop ignoring this IMPORTANT FACT!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Same bunk website I have exposed for lying many times before. No wonder you keep going back to it, you can't find a truthful website to back up your alarmist nonsense.

The Pliocene Epoch had about the same amount of co2. You keep forgetting this. Stop ignoring this IMPORTANT FACT!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-free-arctic-in-pliocene-last-time-co2-levels-above-400ppm/

I guess Scientific American is another one of your fake journals.