"Jim McGinn" wrote in message
oups.com...

Coby Beck wrote:
"Jim McGinn" wrote in message
oups.com...

That's funny, I've been unable to find even one instance where the
results of a GCM have been reported/presented and the
certainty/confidence/accuracy also was reported/presented. I wonder
why it is I'm having such a hard time finding even one such instance?

Why don't you post a link to a paper that you have looked at but does not
report this?

Let's start at the top. How about Hansen's paper.

Sorry, google scholar returns 410 papers about "climate" authored by J
Hansen. Can you be more specific?

Besides, I have posted the following info to you several times already:

A recent paper by James Annan et al. has attempted to clarify the
question
of the range of possible climate sensitivity by statistically combining
the
certainties of a wide variety of models in a variety of situations.

You really have problems with the vagueness of your thinking/writing.
Let me ask you some questions. Above you wrote the phrase, " . . . the
range of possible climate sensitivity . . .". What, "range of
possible climate sensitivity," are you speaking of?

The sensitivity of the global average temperature to a doubling of
atmospheric CO2. The range is an expression of statistical certainty, that
quantity you pretend to be so interested in, the one you think is called
monkey's toenails.

Are you talking
about, "the range of possible climate sensitivity," of a model or are
you speaking of, "the range of possible climate sensitivity," of
reality itself?

Reality of course. Didn't you know that's what science is about?

Or could it be that you don't quite know what you are
saying? I'm not a mind reader.

Not much of a reader, period.

Focusing
on climate sensitivity, they conclude that in terms of the climate's
response to a doubling of CO2, the model's say:
"The resulting distribution can be represented by (1.7,2.9,4.9) in the
format used throughout this paper. That is to say, it has a maximum
likelihood value of 2.9oC, and, using the IPCC terminology for confidence
levels, we find a likely range of 2.2-3.9oC (70% confidence)

This is why I hate communicating with whackos. This has to do with
sensitivity, not statistical certainty.

It is the confidence interval of the predicted climate sensitivity. Why do
you think there is some mutual exclusion here?

and a very
likely range of 1.7-4.9oC (95%). We can also state that climate
sensitivity
is very likely to lie below 4.5oC(95%). These results represent a
substantial decrease in uncertainty over those originally presented in
NAS
[1979] and in subsequent research. They also imply that the sensitivity
range

Sensitivity range?

Yes.

of modern GCMs (2.1-4.4oC) is likely to include the correct value
(with greater than 80% confidence)"

Correct value of what?

The climate's sensitivity to doubled CO2.

Nobody cares about the sensitivity of the
computer model. This is useless information. We care about the
statistical certainty of the model results.

The statistical certainty that climate models have about the climate's
response to a doubling of CO2 is 95% that it will be between 1.7oC and
4.9oC.

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/resea...ensitivity.pdf
So, most likely value is 2.9oC with a 95% probability of falling between
1.7oC and 4.9oC.

There is a summary and discussion of this paper at Real Climate.

Realclimate is propaganda. Avoid it.

For sincerely interested people, that link was:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...plus-a-change/

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

William Asher wrote:

And that's funny, because with modern technology, they don't have to
give up their cushy lifestyles, if anything, their lifestyles are
going to get better. They are just too ignorant of physics,
engineering and technology to realize it. They've been dumbed down to
uselessness.

Yeah, I keep forgetting that soon all the laws of physics will be
repealed and there will be bountiful environmentally friendly energy
for all.

No laws of physics need be repealed :

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/I...NCE/irrad.html

I feel so warm and fuzzy now I am going to go sing "What a
Wonderful World" while sitting in my Insight.

Still stuck in traffic? My suggestion : Get a real life.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org


When you understand why it still takes the same amount of time to fly
across the country today that it did almost 50 years ago, what that implies
about the progress of technology when it is up against a physical property
over which you have no control, and how that relates to what you are
talking about, then you will be ready to discuss this topic coherently.

I'm now going to go off and install solar cells on my yurt and live a life
off the grid except for the food I have to buy at the local organic whole
foods market and the allergy medication I need because living in all the
goddamned trees gives me hayfever like you wouldn't believe.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:


William Asher wrote:


And that's funny, because with modern technology, they don't have to
give up their cushy lifestyles, if anything, their lifestyles are
going to get better. They are just too ignorant of physics,
engineering and technology to realize it. They've been dumbed down to
uselessness.

Yeah, I keep forgetting that soon all the laws of physics will be
repealed and there will be bountiful environmentally friendly energy
for all.

No laws of physics need be repealed :

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/I...NCE/irrad.html


I feel so warm and fuzzy now I am going to go sing "What a
Wonderful World" while sitting in my Insight.

Still stuck in traffic? My suggestion : Get a real life.

When you understand why it still takes the same amount of time to fly
across the country today that it did almost 50 years ago, what that implies
about the progress of technology when it is up against a physical property
over which you have no control, and how that relates to what you are
talking about, then you will be ready to discuss this topic coherently.

I was thinking more in terms of things like hydrogen dirigibles,
superconducting monorails, and hydrogen powered space planes,
thinking more in terms of energy and pollution instead of time.

But you will be flying kerosene powered subsonic aircraft for the rest
of eternity, or at least until the oil runs out, and then you will be
thinking about how you can turn all that coal into oil, as if airlines
can fly on coal.

I'm now going to go off and install solar cells on my yurt and live a life
off the grid except for the food I have to buy at the local organic whole
foods market and the allergy medication I need because living in all the
goddamned trees gives me hayfever like you wouldn't believe.

You do that, and the the physicists solve your self inflicted
hydrocarbon combustion problems.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Coby Beck wrote:

I have posted the following info to you several times already:

A recent paper by James Annan et al. has attempted to clarify the question
of the range of possible climate sensitivity of the atmosphere
by statistically combining the
certainties of a wide variety of models in a variety of situations. Focusing
on climate sensitivity, they conclude that in terms of the climate's
response to a doubling of CO2, the model's say:

This is pure idiocy. Computer model's aren't going to tell you
anything useful about the, "range of possible climate sensitivity of
the atmosphere."

Jim

Coby Beck wrote:

Are you talking
about, "the range of possible climate sensitivity," of a model or are
you speaking of, "the range of possible climate sensitivity," of
reality itself?


Reality of course. Didn't you know that's what science is about?


Okay then, now I can answer your question.

coby wrote:
I have posted the following info to you several times already:

A recent paper by James Annan et al. has attempted to clarify the question
of the range of possible climate sensitivity of the atmosphere
by statistically combining the
certainties of a wide variety of models in a variety of situations. Focusing
on climate sensitivity, they conclude that in terms of the climate's
response to a doubling of CO2, the model's say:

This is pure idiocy. Computer model's aren't going to tell you
anything useful about the, "range of possible climate sensitivity of
the atmosphere."

Jim

Coby Beck wrote:
"Jim McGinn" wrote in message
oups.com...

Coby Beck wrote:
"Jim McGinn" wrote in message
oups.com...

That's funny, I've been unable to find even one instance where the
results of a GCM have been reported/presented and the
certainty/confidence/accuracy also was reported/presented. I wonder
why it is I'm having such a hard time finding even one such instance?

Why don't you post a link to a paper that you have looked at but does not
report this?

Let's start at the top. How about Hansen's paper.

Sorry, google scholar returns 410 papers about "climate" authored by J
Hansen. Can you be more specific?

Any one of them will be just fine.


Besides, I have posted the following info to you several times already:

A recent paper by James Annan et al. has attempted to clarify the
question
of the range of possible climate sensitivity by statistically combining
the
certainties of a wide variety of models in a variety of situations.

You really have problems with the vagueness of your thinking/writing.
Let me ask you some questions. Above you wrote the phrase, " . . . the
range of possible climate sensitivity . . .". What, "range of
possible climate sensitivity," are you speaking of?

The sensitivity of the global average temperature to a doubling of
atmospheric CO2. The range is an expression of statistical certainty,

Is it? What makes you so sure? References? Why don't you send an
email to Hansen?

that
quantity you pretend to be so interested in, the one you think is called
monkey's toenails.

Are you talking
about, "the range of possible climate sensitivity," of a model or are
you speaking of, "the range of possible climate sensitivity," of
reality itself?

Reality of course. Didn't you know that's what science is about?

See my other reponse to this same post.

snip

Nobody cares about the sensitivity of the
computer model. This is useless information. We care about the
statistical certainty of the model results.

The statistical certainty that climate models have about the climate's
response to a doubling of CO2 is 95% that it will be between 1.7oC and
4.9oC.

Pure nonsense. Show us references--real references you whacko--that
demonstrate this. Good luck, because what you are saying is plainly
impossible.

Jim

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in
:


I was thinking more in terms of things like hydrogen dirigibles,
superconducting monorails, and hydrogen powered space planes,
thinking more in terms of energy and pollution instead of time.

But you will be flying kerosene powered subsonic aircraft for the rest
of eternity, or at least until the oil runs out, and then you will be
thinking about how you can turn all that coal into oil, as if airlines
can fly on coal.


Captain Pruss:

Your vision of the future is totally groovy. Wave to me as I putt along
in my coal-fired aeroplane. I'll be the dirty sweaty guy, shirtless,
taking a breather on the top rail before I go back below to shovel more
coal into the boilers. As you pass I may flip my cigarette away from the
aeroplane in an ironic way.

Has anyone ever suggested that we could get all that hydrogen you'll want
from the gas giant Uranus?

--
Bill Asher