Nature #470
-
Hey Fat Boy, did you buy "Nature" of this month? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/[^] "On the cover, the southern Bavarian village of Eschenlohe in August 2005, partially evacuated after the river Loisach flooded following heavy rain. A significant effect of anthropogenic activities has already been detected in observed trends in temperature and mean precipitation. But to date, no study has formally identified a human fingerprint on extreme precipitation, and it has proved difficult to assess the human impact on specific types of weather events. Two groups now present evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have significantly increased the probability of heavy precipitation and local flood risk. Min et al. compare observations and simulations of rainfall between 1951 and 1999 in North America, Europe and northern Asia. They find a statistically significant effect of increased greenhouse gases on the incidence of extreme precipitation events over much of the Northern Hemisphere land area. Pall et al. use publicly contributed climate simulations to show that increased greenhouse-gas emissions substantially increased the risk of flood occurrence during the extensive flooding in England and Wales in autumn 2000. In News & Views, Richard Allan discusses the technical challenges associated with predicting regional changes in the water cycle" Good reading!
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
As fat_boy asked recently, do these authors ever proof read their material before it is published. I find it so odd that these articles include statements such as "There is no doubt that humans are altering the climate, ..." without providing any sort of citation or proof for it. Too me what flaws most these arguments is that in trying to proof X, they seem to start with assuming Y and then provide all this proof of how to get from Y to X. That's great. But in the absense of any proof of the starting point, it's all just pointless drivel. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
As fat_boy asked recently, do these authors ever proof read their material before it is published. I find it so odd that these articles include statements such as "There is no doubt that humans are altering the climate, ..." without providing any sort of citation or proof for it. Too me what flaws most these arguments is that in trying to proof X, they seem to start with assuming Y and then provide all this proof of how to get from Y to X. That's great. But in the absense of any proof of the starting point, it's all just pointless drivel. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
The thing that both amuses me, and also makes me deeply suspicious, is that all these reports and papers concerning GW causing flooding and other weather anomalies have appeared after the fact. Had the earlier models made a prediction that it would happen, I would somewhat more amenable towards believing them. A 'modified' model, after the fact, has very little credibility - I can write software that does that too! The scientific method requires testable predictions, and so far we have seen very little of that.
-
The thing that both amuses me, and also makes me deeply suspicious, is that all these reports and papers concerning GW causing flooding and other weather anomalies have appeared after the fact. Had the earlier models made a prediction that it would happen, I would somewhat more amenable towards believing them. A 'modified' model, after the fact, has very little credibility - I can write software that does that too! The scientific method requires testable predictions, and so far we have seen very little of that.
Chris C-B wrote:
Had the earlier models made a prediction that it would happen
Earlier models did predict an increase in extreme/heavy precipitation events. But the authors are using current models: should they predict trends for, say, the next 10-20 years and sit around waiting to see if the current (by then obsolete) models are right? Of course not.
Chris C-B wrote:
A 'modified' model, after the fact
"We had the rainfall data and we had the climate models. We used climate simulations in which greenhouse gas levels were increased over time to replicate what was happening in the real world to see if the models would anticipate the kinds of extreme precipitation changes that have been observed. The models increased extreme precipitation as observed, only not as strongly." ... there is still a possibility that the widespread increase in heavy precipitation could be due to an unusual event of natural variability. ... it is never possible to completely separate a signal of external forcing from climate variability – the separation will always be statistical in nature. ... there are data and model uncertainties, which we believe to be important but not large enough to overthrow our conclusions. The main finding is that on large scales, precipitation changes seem to follow the intensification expected from greenhouse warming. Francis Zwiers - co-author Human contribution to more intense precipitation extremes. No model 'modification' to fit the known data, then? How foolish of them! So, there are many other factors in play, natural and anthropogenic that have not yet been modelled, or have not been correctly modelled. Science plods on in its tedious, painstaking, way, much to the irritation of headline writers.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
As fat_boy asked recently, do these authors ever proof read their material before it is published. I find it so odd that these articles include statements such as "There is no doubt that humans are altering the climate, ..." without providing any sort of citation or proof for it. Too me what flaws most these arguments is that in trying to proof X, they seem to start with assuming Y and then provide all this proof of how to get from Y to X. That's great. But in the absense of any proof of the starting point, it's all just pointless drivel. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
"Here we show" statements are required by Nature and Science to clearly lay out the point of the paper. If you don’t include it, they will write it in. The caveats/uncertainties/issues all come later. I think the confusion is more cultural than anything. No one at Nature or Science or any of the authors in any subject think that uncertainties are zero, but they require a clear statement of the point of the paper within their house style. Gavin Schmidt - yes, I know, he's a climatologist and, thus, the truth cannot pass his lips. :) Some caveats/uncertainties/issues from the co-author: ... there is still a possibility that the widespread increase in heavy precipitation could be due to an unusual event of natural variability. ... it is never possible to completely separate a signal of external forcing from climate variability – the separation will always be statistical in nature. ... there are data and model uncertainties, which we believe to be important but not large enough to overthrow our conclusions. The main finding is that on large scales, precipitation changes seem to follow the intensification expected from greenhouse warming. Francis Zwiers - co-author Human contribution to more intense precipitation extremes.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Hey Fat Boy, did you buy "Nature" of this month? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/[^] "On the cover, the southern Bavarian village of Eschenlohe in August 2005, partially evacuated after the river Loisach flooded following heavy rain. A significant effect of anthropogenic activities has already been detected in observed trends in temperature and mean precipitation. But to date, no study has formally identified a human fingerprint on extreme precipitation, and it has proved difficult to assess the human impact on specific types of weather events. Two groups now present evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have significantly increased the probability of heavy precipitation and local flood risk. Min et al. compare observations and simulations of rainfall between 1951 and 1999 in North America, Europe and northern Asia. They find a statistically significant effect of increased greenhouse gases on the incidence of extreme precipitation events over much of the Northern Hemisphere land area. Pall et al. use publicly contributed climate simulations to show that increased greenhouse-gas emissions substantially increased the risk of flood occurrence during the extensive flooding in England and Wales in autumn 2000. In News & Views, Richard Allan discusses the technical challenges associated with predicting regional changes in the water cycle" Good reading!
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
This is a recent study that hit the webosphere about a week ago. Basicallym, they used computer models and not the real world to get their data. Hence the words 'simulation'. In fact these climate models wre run on the publics machines; there was some kind of thing you could register with and some calculations would get run on your box and the results uploaded, hence the phrase 'publicly contributed climate simulations'. Of course this dosent make the data any more accurate, its just a marketing ploy (especially since the AGW proponents already have under theoir control some of the worlds most powerful computers (UKs MET office)). So, anyway, the data showing increased rainfall comes form a computer model, not the real world. Now I dont know whats wrong with the world today, how gullible it has become, or how used to living in virtual environments it has become, but clearly a computer simulation is not the same as the real world. And in fact real world data shows no oncrease in severe weather events. So realy, more junk science.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
This is a recent study that hit the webosphere about a week ago. Basicallym, they used computer models and not the real world to get their data. Hence the words 'simulation'. In fact these climate models wre run on the publics machines; there was some kind of thing you could register with and some calculations would get run on your box and the results uploaded, hence the phrase 'publicly contributed climate simulations'. Of course this dosent make the data any more accurate, its just a marketing ploy (especially since the AGW proponents already have under theoir control some of the worlds most powerful computers (UKs MET office)). So, anyway, the data showing increased rainfall comes form a computer model, not the real world. Now I dont know whats wrong with the world today, how gullible it has become, or how used to living in virtual environments it has become, but clearly a computer simulation is not the same as the real world. And in fact real world data shows no oncrease in severe weather events. So realy, more junk science.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Basicallym, they used computer models and not the real world to get their data.
They are creating a probability distribution of precipitation for the 'Industrial 2000' climate and a 'Non-Industrial 2000' climate. The second can, obviously, be obtained only through modelling; in order to compare like with like, the first is also modelled.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course this dosent make the data any more accurate,
I see no claims that it did.
fat_boy wrote:
its just a marketing ploy
Twaddle. They had originally intended to use the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, but decided to use distributed computing instead.
fat_boy wrote:
the AGW proponents already have under theoir control some of the worlds most powerful computers
They have to pay for those resources, and join the queue, hence their use of BOINC on their partners' - Risk Management Solutions - workstations (and other volunteers, no doubt.)
fat_boy wrote:
So, anyway, the data showing increased rainfall comes form a computer model, not the real world.
There was increased rainfall in 2000: in the UK, in the real world. They are trying to determine the probability of it being anthropogenic. (BTW, there was also > 1200mm rainfall in 1768, 1852, and 1872, with Great Fludes)
fat_boy wrote:
So realy, more junk science.
I concur, but not for the somewhat flippant reasons given by you and the two Chrisses. Take Sea Surface Temperatures: The 'Industrial 2000' climate uses NOAA's Weekly Means; The 'Non-Industrial 2000' climate uses Weekly Means from which those temperature changes attributable to greenhouse gasses have been removed. However, these changes are available only at a Seasonal resolution, and thus have to be interpolated to a Weekly resolution! At that point, I would dismiss it as junk. Iteration after iteration of the models to "span the range of uncertainty", and if we find the 'Scandanavian Pattern' and a flood, we're home and wet. As for the other paper: "Nature Unleashes a Flood ... of Bad Science"[
-
fat_boy wrote:
Basicallym, they used computer models and not the real world to get their data.
They are creating a probability distribution of precipitation for the 'Industrial 2000' climate and a 'Non-Industrial 2000' climate. The second can, obviously, be obtained only through modelling; in order to compare like with like, the first is also modelled.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course this dosent make the data any more accurate,
I see no claims that it did.
fat_boy wrote:
its just a marketing ploy
Twaddle. They had originally intended to use the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, but decided to use distributed computing instead.
fat_boy wrote:
the AGW proponents already have under theoir control some of the worlds most powerful computers
They have to pay for those resources, and join the queue, hence their use of BOINC on their partners' - Risk Management Solutions - workstations (and other volunteers, no doubt.)
fat_boy wrote:
So, anyway, the data showing increased rainfall comes form a computer model, not the real world.
There was increased rainfall in 2000: in the UK, in the real world. They are trying to determine the probability of it being anthropogenic. (BTW, there was also > 1200mm rainfall in 1768, 1852, and 1872, with Great Fludes)
fat_boy wrote:
So realy, more junk science.
I concur, but not for the somewhat flippant reasons given by you and the two Chrisses. Take Sea Surface Temperatures: The 'Industrial 2000' climate uses NOAA's Weekly Means; The 'Non-Industrial 2000' climate uses Weekly Means from which those temperature changes attributable to greenhouse gasses have been removed. However, these changes are available only at a Seasonal resolution, and thus have to be interpolated to a Weekly resolution! At that point, I would dismiss it as junk. Iteration after iteration of the models to "span the range of uncertainty", and if we find the 'Scandanavian Pattern' and a flood, we're home and wet. As for the other paper: "Nature Unleashes a Flood ... of Bad Science"[
I didnt have access to the full article to look at it in detail, I only read the precis, but yeah, what you found is also questionable.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
I didnt have access to the full article to look at it in detail, I only read the precis, but yeah, what you found is also questionable.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
I didnt have access to the full article to look at it in detail
Nor did I. I was referencing some preliminary papers. But Willis Eschenbach has turned his attention to Nature Magazine’s Folie à Deux, Part Deux[^]. The problem is not computer models. The problem is Nature Magazine trying to pass off the end results of a long computer model daisy-chain of specifically selected, untested, unverified, un-investigated computer models as valid, falsifiable, peer-reviewed science.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
fat_boy wrote:
I didnt have access to the full article to look at it in detail
Nor did I. I was referencing some preliminary papers. But Willis Eschenbach has turned his attention to Nature Magazine’s Folie à Deux, Part Deux[^]. The problem is not computer models. The problem is Nature Magazine trying to pass off the end results of a long computer model daisy-chain of specifically selected, untested, unverified, un-investigated computer models as valid, falsifiable, peer-reviewed science.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
"• The authors have conclusively shown that in a computer model of SW England and Wales, synthetic climate A is statistically more prone to synthetic floods than is synthetic climate B." :laugh: Good old WUWT!
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Here it is raining today. Usually, at this time of years, it should freezing.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
"Le Gauchiste" - Formerly know as "Le Centriste"
Why this sudden radicalization? :)
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
Le Gauchiste wrote:
"Le Gauchiste" - Formerly know as "Le Centriste"
Why this sudden radicalization? :)
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
Because everybody was calling me a leftist all the time, so I slowly transformed to a leftist :cool:
-
Because everybody was calling me a leftist all the time, so I slowly transformed to a leftist :cool:
:-D
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
:-D
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
lol
-
:-D
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
My french is a bit rusty... "Comrade! The Revolution is about finished. Just give yourself a bayonette enema!" Is that close?
There is water at the bottom of the ocean. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
I would rather translate like: "Comrade! The Revolution is at gunpoint, [it is] just between your bayonet and the heart of the Enemy"
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?