models
rallain | September 2, 2008Here I am, at my parents house. There is no power at my house and Louisiana in September with no power is really a whole bunch of no-fun. But maybe I can use this time to talk about science.
**The Nature of Science**
Here is a review. What is science all about? (I am pretty sure I talked about this before) Science is about making observations and from those observations creating models. If the model predicts other things that are confirmed, then that is good. If not, the model must be changed. Really, it's that simple.
**Hurricane Models**
It is somewhat interesting that forecasting…
illconsidered | April 26, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
In 1988 Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?
Answer:
While it may well be simply ignorant repetition of misinformation in some instances, at its source, this story is a plain and simple lie.
In 1988, James Hansen testified before the US Senate on the danger of Anthropogenic Global Warming. As part of that testimony he presented…
illconsidered | April 25, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Clouds are a very large negative feedback that will stop any drastic warming. The climate models don't even take cloud effects into account.
Answer:
All of the Atmospheric Global Climate Models used for the kind of climate projections reported on by the IPCC take the effects of clouds into account. You can read a discussion about cloud processes and feedbacks in the IPCC TAR.
It is true however that clouds are one of the largest sources of…
illconsidered | March 26, 2006This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Why should we trust a bunch of contrived computer models that haven't ever had a prediction confirmed ? Talk to me in 100 years.
Answer:
Of course, given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some really large time machines, how can we hope to test a 100 year temperature projection today? Well, we can't, but does this mean that the models can not be validated without waiting 100 years? I don't thinks so.
The climate is a very complex…