bascule

If you feel the former is the case, doesn't that mean that computer models are reasonably reliable at reconstructing the recent historical climate? (i.e. past 100 years)

Species is important for painting broad strokes about the moral relevance of a particular animal, especially if you compare a "healthy adult X" to a "healthy adult Y". However, there are several cases where mere species membership alone doesn't cut it. For example, while I would generally consider humans as having greater intrinsic moral value than pigs, I would say a healthy adult pig has more moral value than an unborn human baby.

At least around here (which is certainly not the norm for the rest of America) people are electively changing their lifestyles to lower their carbon footprint

These sort of things are being added in the form of modules developed by other research groups which are incorporated into a larger overall model. To move past silly strawmen, do you think historical climate reconstructions are suspect, particularly those of the past 100 years?

Poor horse

Can you compare your calculations run against an input corpus which isn't the Bible and show how they are different? Perhaps try the End User License Agreement for Windows Vista...

C is a great language for teaching systems programming and the general theory of context free languages as they relate to the recursively enumerable set of languages (i.e. how C, a context-free third generation language, maps to assembly, a recursively enumerable second generation language). The latter is something I'd expect you'd be introduced to in a compilers course, which is the only other place C belongs besides a systems programming course, imo. C++ is a terrible language riddled with overcomplexity and the enormous legacy of C. While I think it's great your university is introducing you to more than one language, C and C++ are two very low level choices, and C++ is a terrible language to use as an introduction to object oriented programming. I'd like to take this opportunity to note that Java and C# are both relatively low-level, boilerplate-ridden static languages, especially compared to modern dynamic languages like Python and Ruby. That said, static languages don't need to be boilerplate-ridden. Languages which use static typing with type inference can eliminate much of the boilerplate. This includes functional languages such as O'Caml, Haskell, and Clean. Note that these languages also match or exceed Java's performance.

Comparing mesoscale atmospheric models to GCMs is comparing apples to oranges

Please view this URL, as it describes exactly what this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology ktkxbye

I think we should be looking at specific outmoded technologies and regulating them, particularly ones which have multiple deleterious environmental and climate effects. Incandescent bulbs and non-IGCC coal power plants are two outmoded technologies whose use should probably be coming to an end in the near future.

The model was for thermodynamic effects of clouds on the general circulation of air, based upon studies conducted via satellite measurement (being performed by another group at our University). I don't know the specifics as my job was largely about providing support for people integrating the two different codebases. Yes, why actually respond to the information being presented you when you can just whine about how no one listens to your ludicrous and patently false accusations against climate science. You've been provided ample information, and ignored it all. Do you wonder why we're calling you a denialist?

Yes, specific predictions as to the carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, global sea level, and global mean surface temperature are "so vague as to be useless" What? Did you even bother looking at the paper? No, of course not, deny deny deny! The sky is green, the sun is cold, gravity makes things fall up, and sand tastes absolutely delicious? Am I just wasting my time finding the information you request? You don't clearly even bother looking at it. This conversation is about as productive as defending evolution against creationists. Pangloss, I don't deny you've made a large degree of progress towards scientific understanding of the matter, but you still have a habit of busting out some O'Reillyesque talking points on the matter in conversations which otherwise are dealing strictly with the science...

Actually, I said the quotes were anti-scientific. Here's where the "d-word" entered into the conversation: "Attack!!!" Your continuing defense of anti-science is also noted. I might also note that Aardvark is engaging in some antiscientific trolling here with this "Global Warming Hypothesis" silliness, but chances are you don't care about that: Continuing multi-decadal increases in global mean surface temperature aren't good enough for you? Here's an example: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5825/709 This paper scrutinizes observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and compares them to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While the actual predictions undershot the observed outcomes, they are still within the stated range of uncertainties. This would indicate nonlinearities and feedback loops in the climate system which are not yet well-understood. With each installment of the IPCC's reports they are continually refining their predictions, which now better match observed trends:

Good science for what? Predicting the global mean surface temperature decades into the future? As you agree that anthropogenic forcings are dominating the present radiative imbalance, how do you expect them to do that without predicting human behavior? The present models do a good job at reconstructing the past. Models should be seen as a way of testing present theory through historical reconstructions, not as a reliable predictive tool.

It's not so much will you cause physical damage to your computer as will you damage your data. Many filesystems aren't always consistent on disk. This means your computer will be in the middle of doing something when it loses power, and only part of some data got written out. There's also the possibility that something you saved is actually in cache and not written out to disk. That said, most modern filesystems use a technique called journaling to ensure this isn't a problem.

Oh come now, what about this: He's claiming climate scientists are using data in a hugely oversimplified way to make assertions that aren't supported by the data. How is that not an attack on the science?

Read back, Pangloss. Those quotes are all horrible strawmen, and I've repeatedly deconstructed them. Since you apparently missed it, here it is again: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

For the record: one of the main duties of my previous job was to help integrate a model of the climactic effects of cloud cover into a GCM...

Note: sometimes they go down

Regrown finger is 'junk science'

I like the picture I don't know about that, but I certainly wouldn't say it's the picture's main undertone. She certainly looks very young still...

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/business/45-scientists-dump-global-warming-deniers-in-24-hours/1117 We've been over this list before. I can't find the thread This is the one that contained names like Dr. Hugh Jackass. Well anyway, 45 scientists from the list, when contacted, were all "WTF? No way." Here's some examples: Also, this list was happy to accept input from "scientists" whose fields of study are nowhere remotely close to climate scientists (e.g. computer science, food science, astronomy, etc.)

A quick Googling shows: http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs10bkvsman.htm ...a background radiation dosage (to the entire body, I assume) of 360 millirem. Also I don't think rads and rems are equivalent for alpha radiation. Argument from popularity? What's wrong with it? Again, that's an internal memo from Philip Morris. Not exactly the most credible thing to put up against a paper that got published in Nature. Can you point out what the problem is? That's what I'm really looking for. That special property is deposition of sticky "tar" directly on lung tissue which contains insoluble compounds of alpha-emitting polonium.

Oceanic solubility is a big part of it, but such observations must be juxtaposed with the fact that no known natural source of atmospheric carbon in recent (geological) history comes remotely close to man-made emissions. The other important thing to note from those graphs is that increases in both temperature and CO2 are relatively abrupt. What you should take from this is the idea that there are tipping points which, when crossed, begin to create feedback loops in the climate system. CO2 dissolved in ocean water is certainly one of these, but there are many other cases where carbon is trapped in some form due to the present temperature. Ice and frozen organic material are some examples (frozen organic material melts, decomposition begins/continues, CO2 is released as a result).

General circulation models use radiative forcings as input. When reconstructing the historical climate, forcing responses can be estimated from historical data and indirect evidence when specific measurements are unavailable (e.g. dendrochronology, ice core samples) When predicting the future, forcing responses can only be estimated. This is why projections generally deal with a best case, worst case, and happy medium estimates which span the range of uncertainties. All this says nothing about the ability of climate models to test the validity of estimated forcing responses against the historical record. This too becomes a problem when using a model to predict the future: you have no way of knowing the model outputs are valid, since there's no historical record to compare to.