Daviy

Scientists are pedantic by nature and training. People not familiar with a particular field of science who make specious claims about what they have read somewhere sometime, who then either take it out of context or worse, deliberately distort the essence of the argument, lose credibility.

Graham uses a false dichotomy in his article to promote the fallacious proposition that somehow there is a link between the demise of Lehman Brothers and global warming. Astounding.

The problem with Young’s article is that with one bold stroke he tarnishes all modelling.
[Aside: This is not unusual for Graham; he has also done this with the so called hockey stick, labelling it a hoax/fraud when he knows there are many climate proxy reconstructions from various different sources showing similar trends to the MBH98 hockey stick, the substance of which has withstood critical review]

There are quite a few climate models and each provides a tool to further understanding the complexities of climate – and they are getting better all the time. As a previous commenter said, you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. People who criticise the models without understanding how and why they are used also lose credibility. It would help rational discussion if they at least did some preliminary homework, like found here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

But they don’t.

These same people often say the models can’t predict the weather next week. Point is, they are not used to predict weather (noise), they are used to show the expected trend. This is what the robust models are showing in hindcasts. To liken GCM’s to economic models shows a complete lack of understanding.

Having said that, I do think econometricians can give better input to the (dated) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) for the IPCC, but that is not at issue in Young’s article and would probably conflate the thrust of the article out of bounds.

Thanks for the links, however my work involves coupled ocean/atmosphere/land climate systems. I am well aware of what you are trying to say about the THC, but it is pedantically wrong.

Hi Q&A
My article 'Is Glaobal Warming the real problem?' http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8341&page=2 does cover 'noise' and treads and the way chaotic models tend around attractors and so long term trends do emerge. The problem (as I see it) with the 'Von Neumann' type modeling is it attempts to model noise. People want to know the weather for next Sunday's BBQ or the price of shares next Thursday, while scientists may be looking for trends.
In my article I say the real problem is the transitive nature of the climate system.
I tried in comments on this article (maybe unsuccessfully) to bring in notion of changing temperature differentials without going into transience. Transience seemed to be getting to far away from the article, although the economy could be a transitive system (accounting the abrupt switch?).
I would appreciate comments on the idea that the biggest danger is not that of the inconvenience of global warming but that weather pattern might switch to another set of rules, as expressed in my article.
What are you comments about the reports in the popular press that unexpected temperature differentials in the Indian Ocean are the cause of the droughts in Eastern Australia? I don't think it was put in those terms but that is what I understood. If this is a factor is it noise, or is it a trend?
Also elsewhere I expressed the view that that the position of scientists is that they are the detectives who (pedantically) uncover the evidence, but the lay population wants scientists to be judge and jury, as well as detective. This amounts to wanting scientists to play God and take responsibility for everything. You comments?
The problem of professional language. I know that things I say to another professional in my field (when I am being pedantic) could have a different meaning to what a lay person might think it means. Is there any chance of scientists working pedantically and explaining generally so lay people understand?

"I tried in comments on this article (maybe unsuccessfully) to bring in notion of changing temperature differentials without going into transience. Transience seemed to be getting to far away from the article, although the economy could be a transitive system (accounting the abrupt switch?).

I would appreciate comments on the idea that the biggest danger is not that of the inconvenience of global warming but that weather pattern might switch to another set of rules, as expressed in my article."

As a layperson in the debate, I think Daviy's is a very important point to consider when using climate modelling to make long-term predictions (which is exactly what politicians need when making the best decisions on how to craft their long-term policies).

It could well be that scientists are so deeply embedded in the minute details of their work that they are blind to the possibility that it could all get annulled tomorrow if a new dominant climatic paradigm suddenly emerges. In everyday parlance, they can't see the wood for the trees.

Daviy uses the word "transitive" to explain the phenomena, while I earlier used the word "episodic". However, they are referring to the same thing.

Hi again Q&A
Looking back through my article I found this response from yourself.

'We have only one test tube to experiment with and we are conducting an experiment that has never on Earth been tried before - it would be prudent to tread carefully.
This in itself explains why the smart and intelligent different "isms" of the world are working together in the lead-up to Copenhagen later this year. Unfortunately, economics muddy the waters.' Q&A

I don't see anything that indicates that you disagreed with the hypothesis in my article that the weather is transitive and could possibly flip to a 'dead sea' system. Am I misreading you post? Have you changed your opinion since then? Or was my way of attempting to explain my position to bigmal too clumsy and you did not relate it to my article?
I would be happy to find I am wrong on this (and other) issues surrounding GW, but I have yet to see anything to indicate it is not a possibility. I have consistantly used 'possibility' in my articles and posts because the only certainty I have with GW is that no one is certain.
I look forward to you response. It is unfortunate that I have now used my two posts so any ongoing comments on my part will have to wait until tomorrow.
Unfortunately economics do muddy the waters. All technological changes bring economic changes. Our response to GW will be no different.

Yes RobP. There are some very thorough studies of climatic cycles derived from solar activity and orbital patterns; since reading them I regard the galactic side of meteorology far more important and causal than most of the terrestrial part of it.

Ice Age cometh - odds on. That's quite apart from AGW being bunkum.

But the unexplored link between AGW and "GFC" (a silly term - I much prefer monetarist systemic disintegration) is the long-planned ETS. The actual functional and ideological link would be found in projections for carbon trading / credits / swap, and their tie-in to a system meant to sustain the toxic, useless derivatives scam that's kept Greenspan's various stinking bubbles going since '87.

That was the main drive behind ETS and, I would add as fair assessment of the main players' motives: the main drive behind the World Bank men's sponsorship of AGW, along with the now-standard media push in that direction from mainstream press "environment reporters", and editorials.

So, after having requested no "further dialogue" with me, then chucking a major wobbly and trying to shout down dissent in an online forum with polite comments like:

"for once in your FOLO life, fhut the suck up ... watch and learn." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8421#133950

Q&A returns to try to convince us he is by nature and training a pedantic, patient and humble man of science, superior to the rest of us mere mortals, something he seems to need to spend most of his space here pointing out, yet failing to demonstrate. Believe him, he is not, as could be suspected, a control freak with a doomsday computer. Apparently, "we" don't understand "the science" and have no credibility, and yet...

"The problems we (humanity) are having is not about science. There is more at stake."

Hmmm, the problems YOU seem to be having Q&A is with humanity. Damn those people muddying the waters. If only they'd all do as they were told by ME. Yet, even as far as fhutting up goes, it seems I haven't.