IPCC nations are getting together next week to assess their incorrect climate predictions. One of those forecasts told that we would no longer have ice on the poles in the year 2013. We have much more ice now than we could've imagined even a few months ago.
For those of you who are into climate science, is there really an adequate scientific process there, or is climate modeling more of an art of expressing the effects of a set of synergizing factors? Why are we listening so closely to these models if they are fundamentally non-omniscient of all the factorsand only utilize a small set of flawed data. Data which is still limited by our instruments and by where we can physically take readings. The models I have been made aware of in the popular media focus on a certain, key set of factors (CO2 levels, ocean surface temperature, land surface temperature) but tends to ignore others (like the sun's cosmic weather, ocean heating and cooling, icing and thawing patterns, seasonal variations, and el nino/la nina-like influences).
What am I supposed to do with this new revelation made through the power of observation, rather than prediction?
No one claimed both poles would be ice-free. The claim was that by 2013 the Arctic Sea would be ice-free enough for one to completely circumnavigate it. Canada's the colder side of the Arctic due a lack of warm-water ocean currents.
Seen here:
The fundamental issue is that only a marginal increase in ocean temperature on the Asia side of the North Pole would accelerate ice loss, increase the thermal conductivity of the Arctic Ocean and the ice on the American side would rapidly disappear at a rate faster than it took for the Eastern portion of the polar ice cap.
While there's a huge environmental catastrophe present here, one of the things that potential frightens the world's economies the most is the ability of Canada, Japan, Russia, Scandanavian, UK and the US to have short and rapid transoceanic trade at literally one-third the distance. Arctic trading will decimate the emerging economies.
Miles, I thought you were more-smarter than that. Your graph looks like data from the past. I really, really do not question measurements. What about the projections? How are models really to be used if they are so far off? How can we base policy on such experimental Farmville simulations? It's megalomaniacal to believe that you can know and predict the patterns of the living earth when it remains so difficult to pin down even local weather for the next day. Screw consensus. Galileo had no consensus with him at the time. Aren't YOU the flat-earther here?
Science versus the art of modeling
IPCC nations are getting together next week to assess their incorrect climate predictions. One of those forecasts told that we would no longer have ice on the poles in the year 2013. We have much more ice now than we could've imagined even a few months ago.
For those of you who are into climate science, is there really an adequate scientific process there, or is climate modeling more of an art of expressing the effects of a set of synergizing factors? Why are we listening so closely to these models if they are fundamentally non-omniscient of all the factorsand only utilize a small set of flawed data. Data which is still limited by our instruments and by where we can physically take readings. The models I have been made aware of in the popular media focus on a certain, key set of factors (CO2 levels, ocean surface temperature, land surface temperature) but tends to ignore others (like the sun's cosmic weather, ocean heating and cooling, icing and thawing patterns, seasonal variations, and el nino/la nina-like influences).
What am I supposed to do with this new revelation made through the power of observation, rather than prediction?
No one claimed both poles would be ice-free. The claim was that by 2013 the Arctic Sea would be ice-free enough for one to completely circumnavigate it. Canada's the colder side of the Arctic due a lack of warm-water ocean currents.
Seen here:
The fundamental issue is that only a marginal increase in ocean temperature on the Asia side of the North Pole would accelerate ice loss, increase the thermal conductivity of the Arctic Ocean and the ice on the American side would rapidly disappear at a rate faster than it took for the Eastern portion of the polar ice cap.
While there's a huge environmental catastrophe present here, one of the things that potential frightens the world's economies the most is the ability of Canada, Japan, Russia, Scandanavian, UK and the US to have short and rapid transoceanic trade at literally one-third the distance. Arctic trading will decimate the emerging economies.
Osl8ing, have you been to the Creation Museum?
Miles, I thought you were more-smarter than that. Your graph looks like data from the past. I really, really do not question measurements. What about the projections? How are models really to be used if they are so far off? How can we base policy on such experimental Farmville simulations? It's megalomaniacal to believe that you can know and predict the patterns of the living earth when it remains so difficult to pin down even local weather for the next day. Screw consensus. Galileo had no consensus with him at the time. Aren't YOU the flat-earther here?
One post by Osl8ing, no data, no links - nothing but baseless conjecture.
Multiple posts challenging Osl8ing's conjecture, with supporting data and links,
One additional post by Osl8ing maintaining the baseless conjecture, still without supporting data or links.
Sounds like brain damage to me. Or you're on the Koch brother's payroll. Which of course would necessitate brain damage.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.