Computer says..... MORE HEATWAVES!
-
fat_boy wrote:
to establish a plausible range of numbers
I wonder what their definition of plausible is?
It's time for a new signature.
-
Dangerous heat waves to worsen, even with strong climate action [^] 'climate action' I almost have the sense that should be capitolised... ...anyway: "Researchers Robin Clark, James Murphy and Simon Brown at the Hadley Centre, part of the United Kingdom’s Met Office and located in Devon, England, used a streamlined version of a very successful computer model of the climate, known as HadCM3, to develop the findings. They simplified the ocean, so that they could run scenarios more quickly, and surveyed climate scientists to establish a plausible range of numbers for other parameters that capture aspects of the world that they can’t simulate in detail, such as how deep plants’ roots go into the ground, or the ups and downs of craggy mountains" So, take a 'highly sucessfull computer' (lets hope its not the one the MET office used to predict barbecue summers and milder than average winters last year), then streamline it (taking big chunks of code out), then simplify it (take even more code out) and then guestimate data they cant 'simulate'. And my confidence in the output of this computer is?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
On a more serious note... The article basically says: If the global average temperature rises by 2 celsius, then some regions could warm by as much as 6 celsius (And, I assume, some would stay the same or cool slightly). They're not predicting what WILL happen. They're not saying that the globe is going to warm, on average, by two degrees celsius. They're saying that IF it does, their model shows which regions would be hit the hardest by increased temperature.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
On a more serious note... The article basically says: If the global average temperature rises by 2 celsius, then some regions could warm by as much as 6 celsius (And, I assume, some would stay the same or cool slightly). They're not predicting what WILL happen. They're not saying that the globe is going to warm, on average, by two degrees celsius. They're saying that IF it does, their model shows which regions would be hit the hardest by increased temperature.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
some regions could warm by as much as 6 celsius (And, I assume, some would stay the same or cool slightly).
Why slightly? If some rise by 6 then why not others falling by 4 (in order to maintain a 2 debgree average). Your wording is biassed.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
some regions could warm by as much as 6 celsius (And, I assume, some would stay the same or cool slightly).
Why slightly? If some rise by 6 then why not others falling by 4 (in order to maintain a 2 debgree average). Your wording is biassed.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
It's possible, but I'm trying to limit my assumptions. I have no evidence or models to support that regions could drop by that much.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
It's possible, but I'm trying to limit my assumptions. I have no evidence or models to support that regions could drop by that much.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)To maintain an average of a 2 degree rise with 'some areas' experiencing a 6 degree rise either: 1) An equal portion to 'some areas' experiences a 4 degree fall. 2) An area equal to twice 'some areas' expoeriences a 2 degree fall. 3) An area 4 times that of 'some areas' experiences no rise at all. 4) An area 8 times that of 'some areas' experiemnces a 1 degree rise. So if 'some areas' is NOT insignificantly small, and if it were, why the big hoo-ha, then significant parts of the globe will cool, or even more significant parts of the globe will not do much. So why the big hoo-ha? Fact is that this is just another of those: 'some parts may warm much faster than the average' examples when those parts are indivdually cited as being about half the globe. This is of course logicall impossible since the average will likewise be affected.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
To maintain an average of a 2 degree rise with 'some areas' experiencing a 6 degree rise either: 1) An equal portion to 'some areas' experiences a 4 degree fall. 2) An area equal to twice 'some areas' expoeriences a 2 degree fall. 3) An area 4 times that of 'some areas' experiences no rise at all. 4) An area 8 times that of 'some areas' experiemnces a 1 degree rise. So if 'some areas' is NOT insignificantly small, and if it were, why the big hoo-ha, then significant parts of the globe will cool, or even more significant parts of the globe will not do much. So why the big hoo-ha? Fact is that this is just another of those: 'some parts may warm much faster than the average' examples when those parts are indivdually cited as being about half the globe. This is of course logicall impossible since the average will likewise be affected.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Take a look at the picture in the article. The black areas, which I would guess are the "hottest" parts, look like less than 1/8th... Of course, I'm just eyeballing it.
fat_boy wrote:
So if 'some areas' is NOT insignificantly small, and if it were, why the big hoo-ha, then significant parts of the globe will cool, or even more significant parts of the globe will not do much. So why the big hoo-ha?
As I see it, this is just another scientific paper... One of many. There is no "big hoo-ha" other than the one you and the anti-AGWers are creating. It's not even due to be published in a big-name magazine... It's due to be published in "Geophysical Research Letters", with an intended audience of other geophysicists, who I would guess are in a good position to look at the research and make an educated assessment of its validity.
fat_boy wrote:
Fact is that this is just another of those: 'some parts may warm much faster than the average' examples when those parts are indivdually cited as being about half the globe. This is of course logicall impossible since the average will likewise be affected.
Where are those parts cited as being half the globe? I see it says "some parts", and the images in the article highlight a few areas in the US and Asia... Doesn't look like half the globe to me. You're trying to turn this into some sort of contradiction by exaggerating the study's claims, but you have no evidence to support that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Take a look at the picture in the article. The black areas, which I would guess are the "hottest" parts, look like less than 1/8th... Of course, I'm just eyeballing it.
fat_boy wrote:
So if 'some areas' is NOT insignificantly small, and if it were, why the big hoo-ha, then significant parts of the globe will cool, or even more significant parts of the globe will not do much. So why the big hoo-ha?
As I see it, this is just another scientific paper... One of many. There is no "big hoo-ha" other than the one you and the anti-AGWers are creating. It's not even due to be published in a big-name magazine... It's due to be published in "Geophysical Research Letters", with an intended audience of other geophysicists, who I would guess are in a good position to look at the research and make an educated assessment of its validity.
fat_boy wrote:
Fact is that this is just another of those: 'some parts may warm much faster than the average' examples when those parts are indivdually cited as being about half the globe. This is of course logicall impossible since the average will likewise be affected.
Where are those parts cited as being half the globe? I see it says "some parts", and the images in the article highlight a few areas in the US and Asia... Doesn't look like half the globe to me. You're trying to turn this into some sort of contradiction by exaggerating the study's claims, but you have no evidence to support that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Where are those parts cited as being half the globe?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
this is just another of those
Get it, 'another of those' [stories about impending doom].
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The study basically says, "If the global average increases by X degress, then people in areas A, B, and C are going to be hit the hardest." Hey, guess what! It's analogy time! Cars: "If the car experiences a front-end collision, these sections are going to take the most damage." Internet: "If network traffic increases by X amount globally, these switches over here are going to be overloaded first." Aircraft: "If we increase our speed beyond this level, these parts of the airframe will weaken first." None of these are "stories about impending doom." They look at a possible scenario, and analyze the consequences of that scenario. That's exactly what this article is about. But of course, since it's about temperature, you have to twist it and vilify it because of your fetish for global warming... Give it a rest.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The study basically says, "If the global average increases by X degress, then people in areas A, B, and C are going to be hit the hardest." Hey, guess what! It's analogy time! Cars: "If the car experiences a front-end collision, these sections are going to take the most damage." Internet: "If network traffic increases by X amount globally, these switches over here are going to be overloaded first." Aircraft: "If we increase our speed beyond this level, these parts of the airframe will weaken first." None of these are "stories about impending doom." They look at a possible scenario, and analyze the consequences of that scenario. That's exactly what this article is about. But of course, since it's about temperature, you have to twist it and vilify it because of your fetish for global warming... Give it a rest.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
some regions could warm by as much as 6 celsius (And, I assume, some would stay the same or cool slightly).
Why slightly? If some rise by 6 then why not others falling by 4 (in order to maintain a 2 debgree average). Your wording is biassed.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
His wording implies the potential for non-even distribution(what I've been harping about with that whole global temperature thing), we have a 6 degree rise in one region and a 1 degree drop in a region four times it's size, assuming that's the entire earth we still have an increase of 2 over all.
-
His wording implies the potential for non-even distribution(what I've been harping about with that whole global temperature thing), we have a 6 degree rise in one region and a 1 degree drop in a region four times it's size, assuming that's the entire earth we still have an increase of 2 over all.
Yes, exactly, which is odd, and to me shows that the computer model is up the creek, because seriously, how can one have a long term 6 degree rise in temperatures in one region, with a 1 degree drop in another region 4 times the size? That ISNT supposed to be the effect of CO2, in fact I cant think of any thing that might cause this short of somehting like the gulf stream suddenly starting up. But without major continental movement this isnt likely (as in the current gulf stream that warms north west europe being supposedly caused when the american continents met. )
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription