I look forward to Monckton's reply, hopefully at a near future date.
Interestingly, I turned up references to a model that was used in, I think, economics. The proponents of this model had such a powerful grip on the field that one could not get academic tenure if one expressed any doubts about the model; at least one well-known academic suffered because of this.
Then, one day, the model stopped working.
The possible parallels here might prove interesting.
The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
I got a lot of bullshit from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)
Possibly LTCM?
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:59:23 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home" wrote this:-
"Objection: Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100 years from now?
"Answer: Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different.
"Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time -- generally around 30 years. This averaging smooths out the random and unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide. The former is a challenge -- to which your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness
-- but the latter is routine and reliable.
"This is not to say it's easy to predict climate changes. But seizing on meteorologists' failures to cast doubt on a climate model's 100-year projection is an argument of ignorance."
Quotes which nobody has yet produced a convincing argument against.
Don't give up the day job and take up mind reading. You are no good at it.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:49:03 +0100 someone who may be "dennis@home" wrote this:-
I see, so the IPCC, Royal Society and Meteorological Office are staffed by poorly educated people. Fascinating.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:57:49 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields wrote this:-
Check. Checking can be done in a variety of ways but one way is to see what others have said about the article being checked. In this and other ways one may form an opinion on the veracity of the article being checked.
But look at the glittering names in that report...that have just run into the buffers.
Modelling chaotic systems isn't quite as settled as some would have one believe.
I take it then that although none of the particular points that I quoted has been challenged, either on the group or by the baying mob, that means nothing. Character assassination is, apparently, everything.
Well done on the Ostrich Approach to the Uncomfortable.
That's like voting for Bar Abbas.
Another way is to check that the data is correct. Since it was published by major players in the field, I guess character assassination is the only response available to the GW disciples.
Yep. It was something I tried at college, with a very simple system containing two bacteria growing in a fermenter, one of which had a nutritional requirement excreted by the other. After a few thousand generations, my simulation went mad. I thought it was because I was a crap FORTRAN programmer, whereas it was in fact a chaotic system, before anybody had heard of chaotic systems.
The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
Would you care to point out where on the Met Office site the information is that 1) the maximum ice extent over the last Southern and Northern winters was a record high and 2) the latest year on year change in average temperature fluctuation is minus 0.8C. I can't find either.
The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
As I said before there are none so blind as those who will not see.
As is often the case on Usenet you are trying to discredit your opposition by ascribing to them the tactics you yourself are using.
I took issue with several of the more obviously suspect points. On that you have so far exercised your right to silence.
I was under the impression that models in economics had the major problem that people are aware of the models and what they predict. Therefore their behaviour and hence the modelled system, tend to change such that the model no longer works.
Unless we ascribe intelligence to the climatic systems, this probably does not apply in the same way to the climate. (Though *our* behaviour might be modified by knowledge of the models and their predictions.)
Quote from Monckton's paper:
"Since the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in
2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies; University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly lower-troposphere anomalies;"What makes you think it's on the internet? The Hadley Centre may have published it as a limited-circulation paper or electronic form, or made it available on subscription.
If you don't like that, contact them.
In the mean time, try this inconvenient truth, which is in the open literature:
Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas.
Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.
"It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday.
"That means that maybe the perennial ice would not go down as low as last year."
Canadian scientists are also noticing growing ice coverage in most areas of the Arctic, including the southern Davis Strait and the Beaufort Sea.
"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa. Winter sea ice could keep expanding
The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.
"The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said.
If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.
But he added that it's too soon to say what impact this winter will have on the Arctic summer sea ice, which reached its lowest coverage ever recorded in the summer of 2007.
That was because the thick multi-year ice pack that survives a summer melt has been decreasing in recent years, as well as moving further south. Langis said the ice pack is currently located about 130 kilometres from the Mackenzie Delta, about half the distance from where it was last year.
The polar regions are a concern to climate specialists studying global warming, since those regions are expected to feel the impact of climate change sooner and to a greater extent than other areas.
Sea ice in the Arctic helps keep those regions cool by reflecting sunlight that might otherwise be absorbed by darker ocean or land surfaces.
-----
And your failure to respond to questions I raise is what, exactly?
Apart from hypocrisy, that is.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:41:39 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields wrote this:-
Ah, so Mr Monckton is a "major player".
Deny away mate, Dynamo Hansen has this time trumped your two of clubs.
Economy and efficiency: no one responding here agrees with you - in fact all you have succeeded in doing is unearth yet more evidence that strengthens the case against your view..
Ero, you are no longer even interesting.
£cnomists are very poor scientists: in fact many would say they are not scientists at all.
er..we knew all about positive feedback , singularities and the like long before anyone called it chaos..
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.