Jump to content


Photo

Global Warming Models


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Keepitsimple

Keepitsimple

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,246 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Markham, ON

Posted 20 August 2012 - 05:14 PM

Somewhat humerous article from the BBC weatherman.....but it DOES make one pause as to how accurate Global Warming models can be.......

After forecasting weather for the past 12 years, I have to say that sometimes a forecaster does have to go on his or her gut feeling. The computer models aren't perfect. One of the first things you learn when you get into working with computerized weather models is their limitations. Some handle specific kinds of weather better than others. Some over-do it with the rain, while others don't put enough. You learn to look at several models at the same time, comparing them, in order to put together the best forecast you can.


One of the biggest limitations forecasters can face is the lack of information. Forecasts along the west coast of the United States and Canada suffer because there aren't many weather stations out to sea, so there's not a lot of validated information to plug into the models. By the time a system has moved across the land for awhile, passing over weather stations so that we know what's actually happening, the computer forecast gets better and better, but its never perfect.

That's due to the limitations of a model's resolution. In order to compute the weather, the models essentially treat the atmosphere like blocks of information. The size of the blocks determines what kinds of weather it can pick up. If you want to run a computer model that takes the entire globe into account, or even just one hemisphere, those blocks have to be larger, or it will take days to run the model, instead of just hours.

A further complication is that weather models are typically run up to 4 times a day, so that you are putting in new information and getting updated forecasts, and sometimes different model runs can give you completely different forecasts. Other times, some weather feature can show up in one run, disappear for the next run, and then reappear for the run after that.

Sometimes, it really comes down to using your judgment.


Link: http://ca.news.yahoo...-164725095.html
Back to Basics

#2 waldo

waldo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,021 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 August 2012 - 09:20 PM

Somewhat humerous article from the BBC weatherman.....but it DOES make one pause as to how accurate Global Warming models can be.......

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo...-164725095.html

well... you've outdone yourself Simple! Weather Models are not Climate Models... they're as different as..... weather and climate!

#3 wyly

wyly

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,543 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 August 2012 - 12:20 AM

well... you've outdone yourself Simple! Weather Models are not Climate Models... they're as different as..... weather and climate!

something simple has never managed to comprehend...
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill

#4 The_Squid

The_Squid

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver Island

Posted 21 August 2012 - 08:39 AM

Weather is not the same as climate. If you are going to have an opinion on something, at least do everyone (and yourself) a favour and do a little bit of reading about the subject first. Even a browse through wiki would have informaed you as to what you are talking about enough to not bother posting this drivel....

#5 MiddleClassCentrist

MiddleClassCentrist

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,325 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario
  • Interests:Robotics, Gaming (RTS, TBS, RPG), Wood Working, Camping, Cycling

Posted 22 August 2012 - 11:58 AM

You don't even need a climate model to show that dry, hot days are more likely to occur.

Just some simple math skills and some data to do a statistical analysis on.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...-scientist.html


Deniers need to wake up and realize that they are just parroting bs funded by a corporate world that doesn't want to have to pay for any negative effects of their business.
Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies. Modern conservatives don't follow reason, they don't analyse the situation, they make up an ideological solution and then attempt cram that solution into a problem that doesn't exist.

#6 GostHacked

GostHacked

    Watching you watching me.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,337 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, ON Canada

Posted 24 August 2012 - 06:37 AM

You don't even need a climate model to show that dry, hot days are more likely to occur.

Just some simple math skills and some data to do a statistical analysis on.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html


Deniers need to wake up and realize that they are just parroting bs funded by a corporate world that doesn't want to have to pay for any negative effects of their business.


Supports need to understand that there is a huge carbon credit trading system that sees billions of dollars in trade per year. Charging them more does not resolve the problem, they simply pay more to pollute. They don't give a shit. The fines must be huge and the jail terms very long or permanent. But most of the time it's a slap on the wrist and they continue the process of pollution. The motive to keep polluting is money, they make a lot of it, and the fines and lawsuits are not a deterrent. Large companies have large numbers of high payed lawyers.
Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser
ohm on soundcloud.com

#7 Wild Bill

Wild Bill

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamilton, Ontario
  • Interests:building/repairing guitar amps (tube based)
    politics, sci-fi

Posted 24 August 2012 - 09:10 AM

Did I miss something here? The OP is about an article that mentions how flawed are computer models as to predicting the weather.

Instantly, the usual suspects jump in trumpeting at how weather is not climate and implying that makes the writer of the article an idiot.

Talk about moving the goal posts! I didn't see any claim that weather and climate were the same. What I saw was an admission that computer models for weather don't work very well.

Now, all you folks screaming about the difference with weather and climate. Is it your contention that computer models about climate DO work?

If so, please explain why we should trust one and not the other.
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

-- George Bernard Shaw


"There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."

#8 GostHacked

GostHacked

    Watching you watching me.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,337 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, ON Canada

Posted 24 August 2012 - 09:23 AM

Did I miss something here? The OP is about an article that mentions how flawed are computer models as to predicting the weather.

Instantly, the usual suspects jump in trumpeting at how weather is not climate and implying that makes the writer of the article an idiot.

Talk about moving the goal posts! I didn't see any claim that weather and climate were the same. What I saw was an admission that computer models for weather don't work very well.

Now, all you folks screaming about the difference with weather and climate. Is it your contention that computer models about climate DO work?

If so, please explain why we should trust one and not the other.


That's a very good question.
Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser
ohm on soundcloud.com

#9 wyly

wyly

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,543 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 August 2012 - 09:41 AM

Did I miss something here? The OP is about an article that mentions how flawed are computer models as to predicting the weather.

Instantly, the usual suspects jump in trumpeting at how weather is not climate and implying that makes the writer of the article an idiot.

Talk about moving the goal posts! I didn't see any claim that weather and climate were the same. What I saw was an admission that computer models for weather don't work very well.

Now, all you folks screaming about the difference with weather and climate. Is it your contention that computer models about climate DO work?

If so, please explain why we should trust one and not the other.

ya you did "miss" something...he made a stupid analogy that weather models are the same as climate models

Edited by wyly, 24 August 2012 - 10:54 AM.

“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill

#10 waldo

waldo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,021 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 August 2012 - 10:37 AM

Instantly, the usual suspects jump in trumpeting at how weather is not climate and implying that makes the writer of the article an idiot.

what MLW member, 'wyly' said!... and it was the writer of the OP who has been one of those 'usual suspects' quite ready to beak-off about climate models in assorted past MLW threads.

you appear quite emboldened - perhaps you should step up and take your own 'usual suspects' stab at climate models. Or at least spend some time using MLW search, hey?

#11 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 24 August 2012 - 10:43 AM


Talk about moving the goal posts! I didn't see any claim that weather and climate were the same. What I saw was an admission that computer models for weather don't work very well.

Now, all you folks screaming about the difference with weather and climate. Is it your contention that computer models about climate DO work?

If so, please explain why we should trust one and not the other.

Why are we talking about it ? See the thread title.

Not all models are the same, or even close necessarily - if weather models are off it doesn't mean climate models are.

#12 Wild Bill

Wild Bill

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamilton, Ontario
  • Interests:building/repairing guitar amps (tube based)
    politics, sci-fi

Posted 24 August 2012 - 12:33 PM

Why are we talking about it ? See the thread title.

Not all models are the same, or even close necessarily - if weather models are off it doesn't mean climate models are.


Well Michael, I grew up with software. I still remember writing a program in machine code to make a PDP-8 ring a bell.

I would think both kinds of programs would have to be very similar. True, in an academic sense one type does not have to be flawed merely because of flaws with the other but one would be a fool to bet against it. The flaw is because of the quality of the input data. Such data seems to come with much opinion, at times.

As for the OP poster having a history in other threads with other aspects of the climate argument, who cares? We are discussing the OP of THIS thread!

What's next? Blaming it all on Mike Harris?

Edited by Wild Bill, 24 August 2012 - 03:34 PM.

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

-- George Bernard Shaw


"There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."

#13 The_Squid

The_Squid

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver Island

Posted 24 August 2012 - 02:40 PM

Did I miss something here?


Yes, you certainly did!



Instantly, the usual suspects jump in trumpeting at how weather is not climate and implying that makes the writer of the article an idiot.


Not the article. The article is true, I am sure.

I was talking about the poster.

The poster insinuated that weather and climate models are one and the same.

but it DOES make one pause as to how accurate Global Warming models can be.......


Why would anyone think that the climate models are flawed because of the weather models? That's ignorant.

It's like saying that the caribou population must be dying off because the sea otter population is at an all time low! One does not have anything at all to do with the other.

Now, all you folks screaming about the difference with weather and climate. Is it your contention that computer models about climate DO work?


The contention is that you cannot draw a conclusion about climate models by looking at models for weather. Seems pretty common sense.

Edited by The_Squid, 24 August 2012 - 02:45 PM.


#14 wyly

wyly

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,543 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 August 2012 - 02:45 PM

Well Michael, I grew up with software. I still remember writing a program in machine code to make a PDP-8 ring a bell.

I would think both kinds of problems would have to be very similar. True, in an academic sense one type does not have to be flawed merely because of flaws with the other but one would be a fool to bet against it. The flaw is because of the quality of the input data. Such data seems to come with much opinion, at times.

As for the OP poster having a history in other threads with other aspects of the climate argument, who cares? We are discussing the OP of THIS thread!

What's next? Blaming it all on Mike Harris?

but we were addressing the OP you're the one who has shifted the goalposts...

weather is not climate, one is short term the other is long term, the models for each are relative...the models are not flawed for weather until someone starts trying to use short term weather models for long term projections , the longer range of the projections the more variables come into play and the same applies for CC models...it's intellectually dishonest to repeatedly compare the two...
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill

#15 wyly

wyly

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,543 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 August 2012 - 02:54 PM

Why would anyone think that the climate models are flawed because of the weather models? That's ignorant.

they're being subjective in regards to what is accurate in terms of time...if the weather projection isn't 100% accurate for two weeks from now they claim it's due to a flawed model...but I could make the opposite claim with 100% accuracy for weather 15 minutes from now...

what they don't/can't comprehend is time and scale...
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill