Climate Change Model - take part!

[Ruggerbugger]

I'm just flabbergasted, I seriously hope this guy is just trolling. I can't believe an educated person isn't able to take the evidence of his own eyes that we're experiencing human-induced climate change. I'm hoping to find a way of introducing this model to my students, it's a great way of demonstrating the way science is done today.

[DaBeeeenster]

Here we go again. All kind of accusations for going against the status quo. Like like Galileo and Copernicus got when they challenged it.

PS people just because the papers keep telling you something doesn't make it true.

P.S. The accusation of being a luddute is so far off the mark its just funny.
I work in an IT department and have introdiced more new technology to it in the first 6 months I was here than the rest had in the past 2 years and we are seeing real benefits from it.
Untill any of you gullible Pro Global warming caused by man people actually provide real evidence, yopu will simply be showing how gullible you are.

What "the papers" say is true? I think most people have been listening to the entire scientific community.

Did someone take a years supply of ignorant pills before posting?

[poindextermatic]

Come on guys, group hug.

[Applecrusher]

ive been doing this for a few weeks now

Pitty sometimes it appears not to do anything :S

[kalniel]

ive been doing this for a few weeks now

Pitty sometimes it appears not to do anything :S

It is very lacking on the feedback side of things I know. It only reports after certain milestones are reached (approximantly each year of study), only after said report will work unit's be credited.

[Mike Fishcake]

How long is it taking for everyone else? I've had it running on my p4 2.8 Northwood at work for 461 hours and it's only done 9.76%!

[shiato storm]

well, I've uploaded it to the computer at work so when I'm being a lazy bugger at least something worthwhile is going on!

[yamangman]

Modelling does not work by taking a mean average.. what a strange idea!

There are tons of variable factors when trying to predict climate change and weather systems, and many different mathematical models that simulate various aspects that are just one part of the total system. Climate change simply runs lots of different models, with different factors and aims to find the models which most closely match the observed data. That's how modelling works.

No it was just a suggestion. As I said, the range of results the test provides are really quite astounding, and as there is no method so far that produces a consistant enough result for it to be considered a likely future-possible candidate, taking a mean average of the results is about as useful as the test is in it's current state.

I think most people have been listening to the entire scientific community.

Righty ho. Ignorant pills indeed...

[Konan555]

I was going to run it, but it's just a bit too much of a resource hog. Won't bugger off out of memory when it's suspended (I assume they added that 'feature' as it only saves its results every 140 calcs.

[badass]

Right, but everyone else is supposed to take your word for it that the climate change project is worthless after you launch a bizarre ad-hominem attack on a complete stranger?

Coherent argument there.

Says the man with a history of doing exactily the same

[badass]

What "the papers" say is true? I think most people have been listening to the entire scientific community.

Did someone take a years supply of ignorant pills before posting?

Show me real evidence and i'll lose some skepticism. Have you actually ever seen any real objective evidence collested in an un biased way?

I'm just flabbergasted, I seriously hope this guy is just trolling. I can't believe an educated person isn't able to take the evidence of his own eyes that we're experiencing human-induced climate change. I'm hoping to find a way of introducing this model to my students, it's a great way of demonstrating the way science is done today.

I see no evidence with my own eyes that the global climate is changing through the actions of man.
Every time I have said this I get people suggesting ignorance, yet the have done bugger all research of their own on it.

I have a lot of data on this and checked it out for myself and the further I dig, the more obvious it becomes that its a load of sh1t.
I still cant believe people still believe in a theory that predicted a global temperature rise more than 3 times what actually happened.
One question - how do you know what the entire scientific community thinks? You only think you know because thats what the papers tell you.
The person that came up with the whole global warming theory has a history of attention seeking.
I can also point out that David Bellamy thinks its a load of crap.

[badass]

Here is some info that puts a sizable question mark over the whole thing.
I'd like to see one of the Pro Global warming people now provide linkage to proper evidence that man made climate change is happening.

Researchers question key global-warming study
By Nick Schulz
An important new paper in the journal Energy & Environment upsets a key scientific claim about climate change. If it withstands scrutiny, the collective scientific understanding of recent global warming might need an overhaul.

A little background is needed to understand the importance of the new research behind this paper by Stephen McIntyre, a statistics expert who works in the mining industry, and Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario. As scientists and governments have tried to understand mankind's influence on the environment, global warming has become a primary concern. Do mankind's activities — especially burning fossil fuels to create energy — affect climate? If so, how? What should be done?

These questions were so important that in 1988 the United Nations, along with the World Meteorological Organization, formed the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to study "human-induced climate change."

Ten years after IPCC's founding, a paper from Michael Mann, now an assistant professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and his colleagues in the journal Nature shook scientific and political circles. It reconstructed temperatures dating back to the year 1400 by looking at tree rings, ice cores and other so-called proxy records to derive a temperature signature. This was before the sophisticated climate-measuring equipment we use today.

What Mann claimed to find was startling: The late-20th century was unusually warm — warmer than at any time in the previous six centuries. (Later research by Mann extended the climate history back 1,000 years.) The reason? "It really looks like (the recent warming) can only be explained by greenhouse gases," Mann said then. His clear implication: The Earth's climate was changing dramatically, and mankind was responsible.

Earth heats up?

The U.N. used Mann's research to declare the 1990s "the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium." Countless news stories picked up on this idea that the past few years have been unusually warm.

Efforts to limit the emission of the greenhouse gases blamed for this warming were bolstered by Mann's research. In fact, this week the Senate plans to consider legislation co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. McCain's Web site says, "Global warming is a growing problem. ... The 10 warmest years (on record) have all occurred since 1987." The statement is based on Mann's research.

But what if it's not true?

When McIntyre and McKitrick audited Mann's data to see whether its conclusions could be replicated, they discovered significant problems. Once they corrected the errors, the two researchers made a remarkable conclusion: The late 20th century was not unusually warm by historical standards.

Not alone in his conclusion

When asked about the paper, which had undergone review by other scientists before being published, Mann said he had heard about it but had not seen it. He called it a "political stunt" and said "dozens of independent studies published by leading journals" had come to conclusions similar to his.

What's to guarantee McKitrick and McIntyre's research will withstand the kind of scrutiny they gave Mann's research?

In an interview, McKitrick said, "If a study is going to be the basis for a major policy decision, then the original data must be disseminated and the results have to be reproducible. That's why in our case we have posted everything online and invite outside scrutiny."

Mann never made his data available online — nor did many of the earlier researchers whose data Mann relied upon for his research. That by itself raises questions about the U.N. climate-change panel's scientific process.

It remains to be seen whether the McKitrick and McIntyre study will withstand the "outside scrutiny" they have asked for and will no doubt receive. But given the implications of the errors and problems they apparently have unearthed within the Mann study, the two researchers have done a tremendous service to science and the public, which should rely on facts to make informed public policy decisions.

[poindextermatic]

...and your point is?
The climate model isn't out to prove that man is to blame for possible global warming, it may prove otherwise, thats the whole point, isn't it?

[Stoo]

Indeed, the whole point of it is to be able to predict how much climate change is going to affect us, and at least give us some warning about any particular problems that we're going to face.

[badass]

...and your point is?
The climate model isn't out to prove that man is to blame for possible global warming, it may prove otherwise, thats the whole point, isn't it?

Some people seem to have it fixed in their heads that man is responsible, resorting to insults when the status quo is challenged. My point is that we do not know that is the case. All we know is that there has been a blip in Global average temperature on Venus, Earth and Mars over the past 100 or so years. We blame our species for Earths problems and have lots of people searching for evidence to prove this. We also have a few that are searching for evidence that we are not. Both groups are going about it the wrong way. They should be looking for any evidence to find out more about whats going on.

[Kumagoro]

The problem with that is, by that time we will be fooked.