Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Computer Simulations

  1. #1 Computer Simulations 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Given that more people have been killed by earthquakes and tsunamis over the ages than by "global warming", why is it that "global warming" grabs more headlines?

    Why is it so difficult to predict seismic events and so seemingly easy and definite to predict alleged warming trends?

    Both these predictions must rely on computer simulation, using information from past, and given that past is greater for seismic data, thousands of years vs a few hundred for industrial society and alleged AGW, such simulations would be expected to be more accurate in former instance than latter.


    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,794
    depends on the time scale - i can confidently predict that there will be a major earthquake in California in the next century
    however, it might be rather hard to say that, say, San Francisco will be hit by a for 8.4 earthquake next wednesday at 9.05am local time

    likewise, predicting the localised effects of global warming for the coming years is more prone to variation than more generalised statements about statistical probability of certain events around the globe in the next century


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,892
    Global warming has barely got going. So far, the world has experienced less than 1 C increase on average, and a sea level rise of only 2 to 3 mm per year. How much more we get in the future is problematic, and projections change all the time. There is a new projection which suggests a doubling of CO2 will lead to about a 2.4 C average rise, rather than the more extreme suggestions we have seen so far.
    Climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide more limited than extreme projections, research shows
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    There is a new projection which suggests a doubling of CO2 will lead to about a 2.4 C average rise, rather than the more extreme suggestions we have seen so far.
    The IPCC 2007 range was 2 to 4.5C, so this new estimate is within the IPCC range. I am only mentioning this lest your mention of extremes might be construed as referring to mainstream climate science consensus, which would be incorrect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Given that more people have been killed by earthquakes and tsunamis over the ages than by "global warming", why is it that "global warming" grabs more headlines?
    It's really hard to compare the direct effects of an earthquake or Tsunami to the indirect effects of climate change which precipitate droughts, massive storms, heat waves and warfare of displaced peoples etc. A UN study puts their estimate about about 150,000 a year so far, but its at best an educated guess because many killing events aren't analyzed in detail for attribution. Attribution is a description of if those killing event would have happened at all in a cooler&more humid world, or how much more intense they were as a result compared to a cooler world. Sometimes, those comparisons aren't graduated either. A levy that's over topped by a few inches and drowned a thousand, might not have happened at all if it wouldn't have rained as much for example.

    Doubling is a useful benchmark for comparison but no longer a realistic maximum--as the rest of the world is dramatically increasing in industrial production and modern living, we'll be lucky to keep Co2 below triple the per-industrial levels.

    Also Finger, temperature (and other variables) are not just modern and future climate simulation based, but also on our increasing knowledge of paleoclimate data which is helping figure out the sensitivities.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Given that more people have been killed by earthquakes and tsunamis over the ages than by "global warming", why is it that "global warming" grabs more headlines?
    It's really hard to compare the direct effects of an earthquake or Tsunami to the indirect effects of climate change which precipitate droughts, massive storms, heat waves and warfare of displaced peoples etc. A UN study puts their estimate about about 150,000 a year so far, but its at best an educated guess because many killing events aren't analyzed in detail for attribution. Attribution is a description of if those killing event would have happened at all in a cooler&more humid world, or how much more intense they were as a result compared to a cooler world. Sometimes, those comparisons aren't graduated either. A levy that's over topped by a few inches and drowned a thousand, might not have happened at all if it wouldn't have rained as much for example.

    Doubling is a useful benchmark for comparison but no longer a realistic maximum--as the rest of the world is dramatically increasing in industrial production and modern living, we'll be lucky to keep Co2 below triple the per-industrial levels.

    Also Finger, temperature (and other variables) are not just modern and future climate simulation based, but also on our increasing knowledge of paleoclimate data which is helping figure out the sensitivities.
    Is hard to compare actual dead bodies and destroyed buildings to things nebulous which may have other causes and probably in fact do? GET OUT! You know, in old days there was droughts, massive storms, heat waves, wars, and famines- even in the ancient Greece, no joke! What was causing them then, "climate change", weather, what? Good thing whatever it was is still not around or we would be REALLY screwed!

    Paleoclimate data is all PREINDUSTRIAL so what relevance has it to AGWankers? Is NATURAL, baby, all organic, granola groovy, peace and love and put THAT in your bong and smoke it, esteemed moderator. And Prince thinks you mean "levee", not so? He struggles SO with your English, must take break now...

    levee - definition of levee by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Do you wish to have a serious conversation....or don't you? If you don't we can fix that :-)

    I've provide one example how you might conduct an attribution study. Take a current drought that effects food production. Run a set of models of nearly similar conditions except for it starts at some cooler level. By comparing soil moisture and what we know about the crop you can compare it to losses from average conditions as well as the amount of attribution, that is additional crop losses, in the warmer world. You than run this against food availability and resultant deaths. Similar studies have been done on not only droughts, but floods, heat waves etc.

    Paleoclimate data is all PREINDUSTRIAL so what relevance has it to AGWankers?
    Because, it can provide a sensitivity range based on the climate fluctuation during the period which we than further used to approximate sensitivity into the future. By doing so it be compared to other types of simulations confirm or deny their outputs. Thus far comparisons have been in the ballpark within a factor of two or so. (we've been in that same ballpark for nearly 60 years).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,221
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    depends on the time scale - i can confidently predict that there will be a major earthquake in California in the next century
    however, it might be rather hard to say that, say, San Francisco will be hit by a for 8.4 earthquake next wednesday at 9.05am local time
    Good analogy. Similarly, it is far easier to make climate predictions for decades or centuries ahead than weather forecasts for even a few days ahead.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    depends on the time scale - i can confidently predict that there will be a major earthquake in California in the next century
    however, it might be rather hard to say that, say, San Francisco will be hit by a for 8.4 earthquake next wednesday at 9.05am local time
    Good analogy. Similarly, it is far easier to make climate predictions for decades or centuries ahead than weather forecasts for even a few days ahead.
    Is easy to make predictions of any timescale. What is difficult is making ACCURATE predictions or forecasts:

    21st century global cooling trend debunks United Nations computer climate models -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    So we cannot with certainty predict either earthquakes or climate. Thus computer models at this stage of the art (not science) want considerable improvement. Such is the position of Prince.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Go read this thread which includes an actual study of temperature by people who actually study such things. Or you can provide a credible study that perhaps your article didn't bother to reference. Given that its facts about temperature trend over the past ten years....I kinda doubt it there is an actual study. But give it a shot.

    global temperature change with ENSO, solar cycles and volcanic eruptions removed?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Do you wish to have a serious conversation....or don't you? If you don't we can fix that :-)

    I've provide one example how you might conduct an attribution study. Take a current drought that effects food production. Run a set of models of nearly similar conditions except for it starts at some cooler level. By comparing soil moisture and what we know about the crop you can compare it to losses from average conditions as well as the amount of attribution, that is additional crop losses, in the warmer world. You than run this against food availability and resultant deaths. Similar studies have been done on not only droughts, but floods, heat waves etc.

    Paleoclimate data is all PREINDUSTRIAL so what relevance has it to AGWankers?
    Because, it can provide a sensitivity range based on the climate fluctuation during the period which we than further used to approximate sensitivity into the future. By doing so it be compared to other types of simulations confirm or deny their outputs. Thus far comparisons have been in the ballpark within a factor of two or so. (we've been in that same ballpark for nearly 60 years).

    Rubbish. As you yourself have stated elsewhere, multiple factors affect climate, and has Prince has stated repeatedly, climate variation is a trivial contributor to mortality today as compared to other causes, and to mortality from the same source in the past. Data show that as CO2 level rises, so far the picture is getting better, not worse. If this changes in future, will increase of CO2 from human activity be responsible?

    No.

    Paleoclimate did not affect and was not affected by modern industrial civilization. What is so hard about this obvious fact for you to acknowledge?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,228
    Is easy to make predictions of any timescale. What is difficult is making ACCURATE predictions or forecasts:
    21st century trend? I don't care if it's said to be cooling or warming, the 21st century is not quite 11 years old. (And it already has the hottest decade ever recorded.) If you want to know about climate trends , the latest research tells us that the absolute minimum period required is 17 years. Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale The 30 year standard for climate averaging still looks pretty good for determing trends.

    The most accurate projection that I admire, mainly because it was done with computing power that a modern phone now uses, was the 1988 set of projections from Jim Hansen. He got one thing a bit wrong and another spectacularly right. (The right one was really a bit of serendipity. He had to put in a major volcanic eruption - because we expected one in the relevant period. He just happened to use the exact time that Pinatubo did its thing.)

    The one thing he got wrong was to use a climate sensitivity of 4.2 for doubling. If he'd used what we now take as the standard, he'd have been right on the money. A tour de force. See Skeptical Science's debunking of the myth that he got it wrong. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Go read this thread which includes an actual study of temperature by people who actually study such things. Or you can provide a credible study that perhaps your article didn't bother to reference. Given that its facts about temperature trend over the past ten years....I kinda doubt it there is an actual study. But give it a shot.

    global temperature change with ENSO, solar cycles and volcanic eruptions removed?
    Prince has seen this thread and commented on it. For some reason, comment is no longer present. Computer guys have a saying, "garbage in, garbage out". Ultimately computer models, no matter how accurate, must have adequate data in order to produce useful product. If program is skewed this compounds error, but DOES tend to produce results preferred by skewers. Whether results conform to reality is of secondary importance, or none at all, so long as desired outcome is assured.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    And you good sir continue to ignore the relative magnitude of effects, despite it being explained multiple times, often with actual studies showing the comparative values. Right now, as best science can tell there's nothing going on in nature to explain the late 20th century warming, yet we have a hypothesis now more than a half century old that not only explains the average lower atmospheric warming....it also explains where the warming is happening (high latitude) as well as the huge smoking gun of stratospheric cooling. It is now the dominant forcing and probably will be for the next century unless nature throws a huge and unpredictable event (e.g. large comet impact, super volcano etc).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Is easy to make predictions of any timescale. What is difficult is making ACCURATE predictions or forecasts:
    21st century trend? I don't care if it's said to be cooling or warming, the 21st century is not quite 11 years old. (And it already has the hottest decade ever recorded.) If you want to know about climate trends , the latest research tells us that the absolute minimum period required is 17 years. Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale The 30 year standard for climate averaging still looks pretty good for determing trends.

    The most accurate projection that I admire, mainly because it was done with computing power that a modern phone now uses, was the 1988 set of projections from Jim Hansen. He got one thing a bit wrong and another spectacularly right. (The right one was really a bit of serendipity. He had to put in a major volcanic eruption - because we expected one in the relevant period. He just happened to use the exact time that Pinatubo did its thing.)

    The one thing he got wrong was to use a climate sensitivity of 4.2 for doubling. If he'd used what we now take as the standard, he'd have been right on the money. A tour de force. See Skeptical Science's debunking of the myth that he got it wrong. Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
    "Hottest decade ever recorded"? Dear lady, can you refer Prince to source?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,228
    Ultimately computer models, no matter how accurate, must have adequate data in order to produce useful product. If program is skewed this compounds error, but DOES tend to produce results preferred by skewers. Whether results conform to reality is of secondary importance, or none at all, so long as desired outcome is assured.
    I don't know whether it's just the way you express it, but data is not the basis for climate modelling. Data for initial conditions is vital for weather forecasting models, but not at all for climate models. Physics is the basis. Radiative transfer equations and a whole lot of mathematisation turning circulation features (Hadley cells etc) into useful inputs.

    Or did I misread your comment.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And you good sir continue to ignore the relative magnitude of effects, despite it being explained multiple times, often with actual studies showing the comparative values. Right now, as best science can tell there's nothing going on in nature to explain the late 20th century warming, yet we have a hypothesis now more than a half century old that not only explains the average lower atmospheric warming....it also explains where the warming is happening (high latitude) as well as the huge smoking gun of stratospheric cooling. It is now the dominant forcing and probably will be for the next century unless nature throws a huge and unpredictable event (e.g. large comet impact, super volcano etc).
    Oh, yeah. Nature will kill millions as it has for all of recorded human history and prehistory, you can take that much to the bank. Why AGW cultists only get upset over HYPOTHETICAL prospect of human activity doing same sort of thing is beyond understanding of Prince. Late 20th century warming? What about the recent "hottest decade ever recorded"? Relative magnitude of effects? Okay, which is bigger, Sun or terrestrial atmosphere?

    Magnitude of this atmosphere compared to effects of human activity on said atmosphere?

    Said atmosphere and relation of same to climate, poorly understood. Ergo, models suck, GIGO. Q.E.D.

    Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming : Abstract : Nature Geoscience
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Ultimately computer models, no matter how accurate, must have adequate data in order to produce useful product. If program is skewed this compounds error, but DOES tend to produce results preferred by skewers. Whether results conform to reality is of secondary importance, or none at all, so long as desired outcome is assured.
    I don't know whether it's just the way you express it, but data is not the basis for climate modelling. Data for initial conditions is vital for weather forecasting models, but not at all for climate models. Physics is the basis. Radiative transfer equations and a whole lot of mathematisation turning circulation features (Hadley cells etc) into useful inputs.

    Or did I misread your comment.
    Of course, if desired outcome is preordained, actual measurements are irrelevant. Thank you for clarification, dear lady, and good night to all. Prince goes now to the mattress to cool off overheated brain, smoke and the DEADLY DREADED CO2 must be issuing from the royal ears soon!
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    "Hottest decade ever recorded"? Dear lady, can you refer Prince to source?
    Pretty much all of them as we already discussed last week.
    Several Satellites
    Land temperatures
    Ocean Temperatures
    Most of these are compiled including the raw data in this article.
    Global temperature evolution 1979
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,228
    Hottest decade?

    The 13 warmest years have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. See 2011: World

    And this is worth a look. The Big Picture Just because I really, really like the animated displays.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,240
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Hottest decade?

    The 13 warmest years have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. See 2011: World

    And this is worth a look. The Big Picture Just because I really, really like the animated displays.
    And this despite having the deepest solar minimum for nearly a century in between. Prince, your ignorance is very obvious.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Computer Science or Computer Engineering?
    By masta in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 26th, 2011, 10:01 AM
  2. Computer Science or Computer Communication ?
    By Jad Ayash in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 5th, 2010, 07:40 PM
  3. Computer Engineering or Computer Science?
    By nick1760 in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 6th, 2009, 10:23 PM
  4. Computer science
    By Sujith in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 4th, 2008, 02:18 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •