Hurricanes and tropical storms will become less frequent by the end of the century as a result of climate change, US researchers have suggested.
But the scientists added their data also showed that there would be a “modest increase” in the intensity of these extreme weather events.
The findings are at odds with some other studies, which forecast a greater number of hurricanes in a warmer world.
The researchers’ results appear in the journal Nature Geoscience.
BBC News website: ‘Fewer hurricanes’ as world warms
Nature Geoscience: Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-century warming conditions
Abstract:
Increasing sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean and measures of Atlantic hurricane activity have been reported to be strongly correlated since at least 1950 raising concerns that future greenhouse-gas-induced warming could lead to pronounced increases in hurricane activity. Models that explicitly simulate hurricanes are needed to study the influence of warming ocean temperatures on Atlantic hurricane activity, complementing empirical approaches. Our regional climate model of the Atlantic basin reproduces the observed rise in hurricane counts between 1980 and 2006, along with much of the interannual variability, when forced with observed sea surface temperatures and atmospheric conditions. Here we assess, in our model system, the changes in large-scale climate that are projected to occur by the end of the twenty-first century by an ensemble of global climate models, and find that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are reduced. At the same time, near-storm rainfall rates increase substantially. Our results do not support the notion of large increasing trends in either tropical storm or hurricane frequency driven by increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Did these models also predict the appearance of fairies? Giving any environmental model credibility does not help. I know it is interesting that these models contradict but it is the contradiction that is important. Who gains from these results?
The modellers – more budget required to work out these contradictions.
You’d reckon if there was a reduction in average temperature gradient between tropics and poles [we are being told that the poles will warm more than the tropics] that there would have to be a reduction in average storm activity.
Spangled,
yes, correct, so how do they then reckon that AGW increases activity?
Respect moderated my answer.
Originally …. by increases in sea surface temperatures, but obviously wind shear, outflow and the position of various circulation systems are all involved.
I thought AGW predicted more powerful future storms, not necessarily more.
However this is a most complex paper – the increased future hurricane speeds are still there. And furthermore more hurricanes is now consistent with AGW but this influence will change in the future as the models suggest circulation patterns will change. So non-linear effects abound. The lead thread here is far too simplistic.
And storms to get wetter … “At the same time, near-storm rainfall rates increase substantially”
I’m still digesting the full import of the paper.
Some relevant fragments:
Tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have increased
over the past century3,9,10, and anthropogenic forcing has probably
contributed to this warming9,10. There is little question that Atlantic
hurricane counts and the power dissipation index (PDI, a measure
of the destructive potential of storms) have increased markedly
since 1980, along with a recent increase in Atlantic SSTs (refs 4,5).
In agreement with previous studies18–21, the frequency and
intensity of the strongest hurricanes simulated by the model are
increased for both surface wind speed (Fig. 1b,c) and central
pressure (see Supplementary Information, Fig. S5). More than
twice as many hurricanes occur with wind speeds exceeding
45ms−1 in the warm-climate runs (twelve versus five). The
normalized frequency distributions (Fig. 1c) show, for the warm
climate, an increased relative occurrence rate for all storm
intensity categories above 35ms−1. The mean maximum wind
speed increases slightly, (+2.9%) for tropical storms and
hurricanes combined and by 1.7% for hurricanes alone. However,
simulated PDI decreases by about 25% (see Supplementary
Information, Fig. S3f), owing to the decrease in tropical storm and
hurricane frequency. As both the frequency of major hurricanes
(see Supplementary Information, Fig. S3g) and the maximum
intensities of the strongest hurricanes (Fig. 1b) are under-predicted
in the control model7, results related to the most intense simulated
storms should be regarded as only suggestive.
These results do not conflict with the hypothesis that
low-frequency variability of Atlantic hurricane activity is largely
controlled by SSTs, but they do disagree with the idea that these
variations are primarily determined by local tropical Atlantic
SSTs alone. When the North Atlantic warms more rapidly
than other ocean basins, as it has since 1980, the changing
SST gradients favour northward displacement of the Atlantic
Intertropical Convergence Zone, and—in the main development
region for Atlantic storms—reduced vertical shear25,26, reduced
stability of the tropospheric thermodynamic profile27,28 and
increased potential intensity29. Although the relative importance
of these factors is unclear, they all favour tropical storm genesis,
and probably produce the positive correlation between Atlantic
SST and hurricane frequency in both observations and our model
(Fig. 4a,b). The observed correlation between the Atlantic basin
PDI and the difference between local tropical Atlantic SSTs and
tropical mean SSTs30 also supports this interpretation. However,
during the twenty-first century, tropical North Atlantic SSTs are
not projected to warm more rapidly than other tropical regions
according to the ensemble of CMIP3 models29, implying conditions
that do not favour increased tropical storm genesis.
In summary, our model supports the hypothesis that the
primary driver of the recent increase in Atlantic hurricane numbers
was the warming of the tropical Atlantic relative to the other
tropical basins, rather than local increases in tropical Atlantic
SSTs alone. The decrease in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane
frequency simulated by our model—in response to a pronounced
twenty-first-century greenhouse warming—is markedly different
from the large increase in future hurricane activity that might
be projected using statistical analysis based only on the recent
covariability of hurricanes and local SSTs.
Creep
How about summarising this paper in your own words?
Atmospheric circulation is driven by the temperature differential between the equator and the poles. Global warming is supposed to decrease this differential, and if that happens the circulation will weaken. This includes a reduction in the power and frequency of both hurricanes and tornadoes, which are heat transfer devices.
Bob,
So ?
“We tried to simulate the fundamental fluid dynamics and thermodynamics that control hurricane genesis in the Atlantic in a numerical model to a very high resolution.”
He added that the team ran data from the past 25 years through the model, and it returned results closely correlated to what actually occurred.
“It is interesting and important to understand why it is that this model is capable of simulating an increase in hurricane activity that we have seen in recent decades, yet it predicts a decrease in the future.
“This implies that we cannot simply extrapolate the past 25 years into the future.”
Dr Knutson said that he did not expect the study’s findings to end the scientific debate surrounding the impact of human-induced climate change on tropical storms.
“We do not regard this study as the last word on this topic,” he told reporters.
“The main point that we want to emphasise is that there is no evidence in this study that we are seeing large greenhouse-gas-driven increases in Atlantic hurricane or tropical storm frequencies.”
In other words the model is wrong.
Yes, Louis. The model is wrong and not particularly useful. However, it is very expensive. So, it has that going for it, which is nice.
I should be a computer salesman already then,
Louis you’d like me to waste my time summarising for you, so you can make a stinky one liner. The only reason you have really asked is that those fragments are above you reading level. True?
What’s this utter crap about “the model is wrong” mean. Are you that much of a flat earther? So you would prefer no further explorations of these issues. You perhaps you’d prefer a bold claim that they’d solved it all. So let’s hear no more talk from you about abiotic oil or plasma universe until you’ve unambiguously solved it all. Failure to know everything totally or producing any reservation or qualification means you are now “wrong”. That should limit blog discussions nicely.
Creep,
Do these models give the right answers? –No and getting worse not better if you look at deviations from current measurements
Do these models give any useful information (except to publish press release and submit grant proposals)? –No
What do they do then? –Cost the taxpayers a bunch of money for something a 13 year-old could probably produce playing Sim City on his PlayStation.
Report on a speech given by Tim Flannery in Canberra yesterday.
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/national/national/general/climate-change-solution-may-change-skys-colour/772880.aspx
Evaluating science against your own moral standards again.
I love this – “the right answers”, “getting worse”. What – according to little Russy? How “right” do you think you need to be Russ. And what’s your criteria for right.
It’s a wonder we emerged from the stone age at all with dudes like you in the gene pool.
Whether hurricanes become stronger or weaker, more numerous or less numerous is a distraction. The elephant in the hurricane room is global sea level rise which will continue for at least the next 400 years and eventually add metres of sea level rise without drastic action to stop global warming.
We have 200 million people who live within 1m of sea level, and that number is rising fast. Many of these live in tropical locations which get hurricanes. Storm surges are the real killer and cause the most damage – it is the occurence of random extreme events that will drive home the human cost of global warming as events become more and more damaging (regardless of whether the hurricanes are stronger or not). This trend will accelerate rapidly as we have consumed much of our inbuilt adaptive capacity to sea level rise through the 20cm of sea level rise which has occurred in the last century.
No amount of spin hides the mathematical fact that sea level is rising at 3.4mm a year and since the early 1990s has added nearly 6cm to current sea level (eg http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg). This rise is driven by global warming and we will be dealing with it for centuries to come. This rise was accurately predicted by the massively complex climate models which trace their development back more than 50 years, and which are run by 1000s of climate and computer scientists on the world’s most expensive super computer (not plays stations as some confused individual seem to think).
But David how can this be.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
The denialists here have assured us that the sea level isn’t rising. Motty personally told me so. Surely Topex and Jason must be wrong. We all know that the oceans haven’t warmed so a sea level rise just isn’t possible.
Anyway the last dot on your cited graph is lower – so maybe on the denialist graph reading logic – that’s the start of a downward trend?
“It’s a wonder we emerged from the stone age at all with dudes like you in the gene pool.”
Now see, if you had said that at Deltoid you would have been an immediate hit. That will teach you to ask a reasonable question around a bunch of warmers.
“No amount of spin hides the mathematical fact that sea level is rising at 3.4mm a year and since the early 1990s has added nearly 6cm to current sea level”
Got a hold of a copy of the UC data and plotted the trend for the last 2 years. It showed 1mm per year. Even sea level rise is starting to abandon you warmers.
Tilo – “Now see, if you had said that at Deltoid you would have been an immediate hit. That will teach you to ask a reasonable question around a bunch of warmers.”
No Tilo it will teach you a lesson not to ask really dumb questions with people that actually know what they are talking about.
Creep,
might it be that you spend too much time on the playstation and now believe that computer simulations have replaced your reality?
Global sea rise – looking at all the sedimentary rocks on the continents, trying to stop sea level rise is a little trying to stop the forces of nature – how on earth is poor old Gaia going to make the next sedimentary succession?
Humanity has always found a way to deal with sea rise – relocate to the nearest high ground.
And if rising sea level were that a present and clear danager, why are ocean-front property values not plummetting. Why even Prime Minister Rudd purchased an expensive beach side property last year.
So rising sea levels seem not to be an issue, at least not for the publiclyn funded global warmers.
“The reason people like Al Gore and many others are in denial is explained by cognitive dissonance. This occurs when evidence increasingly contradicts a strongly held belief. Rather than accept the new evidence and change their minds, some people will become even more insistent on the “truth” of the discredited belief, and attack those who present the new evidence — again an “intelligence” failure.”
“No Tilo it will teach you a lesson not to ask really dumb questions with people that actually know what they are talking about.”
So you think that Alarmists question at Deltoid was dumb? He will be disappointed.
Climate models have been shown to be nothing more than academic excercises.
I am simply bored about models.There have been maybe 10,000 of them by now.
Probably 10 of them are reasonably on track and the rest of them are on GIGO track.
Well no there’s not 10,000 actually.
Alarmist Creep:
“The denialists here have assured us that the sea level isn’t rising. Motty personally told me so. Surely Topex and Jason must be wrong. We all know that the oceans haven’t warmed so a sea level rise just isn’t possible.
Anyway the last dot on your cited graph is lower – so maybe on the denialist graph reading logic – that’s the start of a downward trend?:
I certaintly have not “denied” the sea level rise.Most of it has been attributed to the warming waters.Causing the sea to swell up.
Meanwhile there are a lot of cities today.That were once right on the ocean shores over 4,000 years ago.They are now far inland.Ur,Eridu are two to consider.Rome of 3,000 years ago had a large harbor.Today it is underwater.The modern one is based on higher ground.
You seem to consider any sea level rise as something to be so worried about.They go up and down over the eons.That is a simple fact and that we adjust with it.
“Well no there’s not 10,000 actually.”
Actually this is a possibility.
There are at least 12,000 science papers published.Since modeling is a very popular tool.It should be found in many of the papers.
Boing!
Creep: “What’s this utter crap about “the model is wrong” mean. ”
All models are wrong, some are useful the ones we have projecting wilder m ore frequent storms are useless.
And those are Jan ?
Ah, sea level;
http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html
Ah, models;
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850
Ah, Deltoid; actually I’m still in therapy from the response I got for suggesting that that even if Ruddiman is right, it was good thing; but of course Ruddiman isn’t right, as Sage notes, and Brian Fagan’s new book takes a more balanced approach to the historical ‘connection’ between mankind and climate.
Tim Flannery and colours; who was that artist who painted cats during his long path towards ‘eccentricity’?
Tilo; how did you go with your bet?
David let us suppose the sea level is rising at that rate in general. At any point on the shore in the world it will be different. For instance at New Orleans the sea level is invading the shore much faster than that because it is sinking at about 25mm a year. Corals grow and will advance as the sea levels rise giving an opposite effect. Equally worthless computer models are used to predict shoreline erosion. These persuade investors to build too close to the sea. The wider issue is if I can use a computer model to gain control of your use of energy I own you. They are a remarkable political tool to convince us to do as we are told but what they indicate about future climate whether positive or negative means very little. No matter what we do CO2 will continue to rise, a country like Australia has no I repeat no leverage. The pitiful solutions offered will if taken up give environmental groups more and more control of our lives and do nothing else. In the future as in the past humans have a very effective strategy to cope with natural events like sea level rise, drought, flooding rains or any long term changes in the climate. It is called adaption all living things do this, it is a capacity that environmental manipulators pretend doesn’t exist. Finally I am disappointed the Earth seems to be getting colder it would give me comfort if you could show it will gain a few more degrees yet.
DHMO the current rate of sea level rise is so fast that it will override almost all natural factors in almost all locations. It will be only those places with catastrophic uplift (such as associated with recent earth quakes in the Solomons and Indonesia which will not see sea level rise this century). The resident geologists will be able to confirm this for you.
Your other comments are simply wrong or distractions. Unfortunately, this is all to common among the posts that are made on this blog.
DHMO – do you think there might be some difference between adapting say with 6.6 going to 9 billion humans compared to millions in the distant past. Something about “carrying capacity”. hmmmmmm – oh – didn’t think of that.
We could also discuss major extinction events during past climate shifts – something about “not adapting” if change is too quick
“seems to be getting colder” is it really? Keep wiggle watching.
god help us (australia) if this guy Flannery has anything more to do with climate (from a PhD scientist). Fortunately there are no scientist that think like him elsewhere (not even Hansen) LOL
We must adapt there is no other option you might think you can control the weather by controlling the what the world population is doing, it is a delusion you can’t. This sort of belief is megalomania but what can one expect from someone who calls oneself “Alarmist Creep par excellence”.
David you say the sea is rising at the rate of 340mm every 100 years no living organism has a problem with that. Humans in New Orleans have coped with 4.6 metres over the last 100 years. You are pursuing a pathetic line of scare tactics. This as are the pathetic solutions a distraction. Environmentalism is about control for the leaders and delusion for the followers.
Certainties are
CO2 will continue to rise.
Humans will adapt to whatever happens.
Environmentalism will make no difference.
and flat earthers will die out
Gavin are you one of the delusional?
DHMO: When last employed, I organised our thoughts about complex network restructures on a white board. Reckon that makes me a flat earther in modelling, not a delusional?
Sorry Gavin I just don’t understand what you are saying. Is a GCM a globe or flat? I would say they are useless to predict weather but unfortunately they are a political tool used increasingly to control us.
DHMO: Since I have no idea what a GMC actually looks like, I need to revert to simple mental structures and guess the rest.
Before any technical drawing training I tried to paint 3D landscapes in oil.
Boring a deep hole through a rotating shaft I watched both spiralling metal strips for differences, not the individual lengths of the drill flutes. In process control I needed some references to ground the essential measurements. Working above or below atmospheric pressure I had to have a ready made liquid column or two. With electrical currents at plasma speed we stand behind the transformer. Meshing various big companies on the same radio tower requires a good plumber and some serious imagination.
Knowing we can each be what we want to be in the science or policy we choose helps. I said that after watching a conference at ANU on the electrical nature of our cell structure and its effects on our brain chemistry and formation.
Each model of the physical be it held in living memory or on some scrap of paper is only as valid as its user. Tools like the IPCC should not frighten us, at least those on the leading edge of technical change.
At some point we have to trust fellow man too.
Thanks Gavin I think we are probably in agreement. I have worked with computers mainly in software development since the mid seventies. I understand the general principle of computer models and why ones that try to predict the distant future are a waste of time. My interest is that they underpin the alarmist call by acting as an unassailable bible. This is because most have no idea what they are or why we should not give credence to the predictions so generated.
“I understand the general principle of computer models” – which really means – I have no clue.
Alarmist Creep henceforth to be known as AC, I am pleased you have dropped the “par excellence” from your web name. It revealed your true character but I don’t think that has changed even so. Pleased me no end that you had to resort to personal insults to express your ire at not having a worthwhile comment. If that is not the case then please submit in your own words a detailed explanation of how GCMs work. A specification in terms of the equations to use and how they should be applied would be excellent. Code examples would be helpfull. Biased dogmatic views achieve nothing Luke. Sorry I meant AC your writing seems so much the same.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001434an_inconsistent_wit.html
Knutson et al. is notable because it clearly identifies observations “inconsistent with” what the models report which should give us greater confidence in research focused on generating climate predictions. We should have greater confidence because if practically everything observed is claimed to be “consistent with” model predictions, then climate models are pretty useless tools for decision making.
Thanks Paul for the link. Reading this sort of criticism often gives me the feeling of a biblical argument. This is where scholars argue about the fine points of translation etc., when the real issue is that it was written by someone who by our standard was very ignorant. There is no reason to believe any bible is anything but fictional yet believers and non believers get involved in argument about the detail.
With environmental computer models the response to inconsistency is to adjust the factors to make the model give a consistent answer. Then you say it is now correct and should be relied on.
My intention is to attack climate models directly. This will difficult and take a long time but I seek to demystify them. If I achieve this I will set up a website to show the internals and to try for transparency in what the modelers are doing.
As soon as you hear “I understand the general principle of computer models” you know they’re not practitioners. “My intention is to attack climate models directly.” – but that means you’d need to know something.
What therefore might your opinion be on the latest Conformal Cubic Atmospheric Model?
But here you go – how’s your Fortran – http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelEsrc/index.html tell us when you’re done attacking.
Or perhaps some Hadley codes are more your forte?
http://ncas-cms.nerc.ac.uk/code_browsers/UM4.5/UMbrowser/index.html
Thanks AC for the links I have saved them for later reference. Anymore you find are most welcome. I already knew the language used is Fortran. Historically an important language it is little used these days particularly since the advent of OO languages which produce more robust understandable code. It is imperative that the modellers use Fortran or something like it but since I have written a fair amount in Fortran I will have little trouble to translate important code I find and you may provide into an OO language. As for your other question perhaps you can give a detailed explanation of the necessary properties of such a model how it differs from a GCM and it importances. Of course any such model must in three dimensions and conform to observations of the real world.
Well it may be a shock for those that understand the basic principle of modelling that OOPS doesn’t run fast enough (OK I’m sorry). Modern Fortran variants have many more language features than Fortran IV and are highly optimised to take advantage of supercomputer and parallel architecture. But still not OO. Fortran 90 has evolved to Fortran 95 to 2003 with 2008 being worked on. Fortran 77 and Fortan 90 still being common codes.
Speed is everything with climate modelling. For example see projected developments here in Theme 3
http://www.ecmwf.int/newsevents/meetings/workshops/2008/ModellingSummit/presentations/index.html
This area of scientific computing is high level specialist stuff. Fortran is de rigeur.
http://www.sgi.com/products/software/irix/tools/fortran.html – a modern compiler spec.
As for what a GCM does – this is a good summary on coupled AO models : http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-coupled-ao-gcms-work.html
Conformal Cubic can adaptively change resolution over areas of interest – see slide 19 here. http://www.jamstec.go.jp/esc/research/AtmOcn/hires2005/slides/McGregor.pdf Great presentation. If you think you understand it – your probably don’t. Heavy stuff.
Anyway – still think you’re up for a critique? Will you still be attacking? 🙂
AC You really don’t read do you! If you had then you might have noted “It is imperative that the modellers use Fortran or something like it”. You do not have to use Fortran to show and understand a computer model. Thank you for the links I will have a look when I have the time. The links are fine but when will I recieve anything but a spray of irrelavant information from you. Quoting version numbers of Fortran is stupid of course I know that, I have been working with computers since 1975. There are lots of computer languages each specialising in a particular area. I will choose a language that shows the algorithms used rather than being cryptic due the necessities of processing speed. I take it you have no curiousity about this and feel threatened by someone who sees it as entirely feasible to understand and critique them. Keep the links coming I am enjoying your alarm.
DHMO – well you don’t even read what you’ve written.
Every computer programmer thinks they’re a modeller. Some modellers aren’t bad computer programmers, some should not be let near a computer.
1975 eh – oh we’re so impressed. I was only 1976.
You commented on Fortran and I got a little discursive – but your ego immediately responded with a “well shucks I knew that when I was as 2 years old”.
But gee I have now learnt something – I thought models could only ever be written in Fortran. I never knew there could be other options. 😉 Gee whiz. That’s amazing.
You asked about GCM function – you got a good summary.
You asked about CCAM and you got an explanation.
Now it’s irrelevant hey?
But why not use Stella http://www.iseesystems.com/ and write no code at all? Anyway I look forward to you going through 100,000s line of code and “clarifying” it all for us.
“My intention is to attack climate models directly” ROTFL ….
Those Fortran algorithms are so complex too.
Cryptic a=b+c probably means a=b+c – wow !
So now I’ve given you some GCM code sources now – when will be seeing the web site with the OO reimplementation.
I’ll expect the “I haven’t got time to waste” excuse real soon now. LOL.
Hell Luke you have descended into a rant. Who do you think is reading this? Your tactics obviously don’t impress me so why obfuscate? Your comments really do show your ignorance and how far you out of your area of expertise if you have one. Keep typing your disarray shows more and what you are. I will have a look at this again tomorrow have do some programming tonight.
yes yes yes Tell us when the reimplementation is completed tosser. How long to re-engineer your first GCM do you think. Mate you aren’t going to do diddly squat.
(I was right on the “too busy” account too – predictable !)
Luke you have lost the argument you think I should stay and wait for you to reply. I actually have a life and a full time job maybe you don’t. It seems you have this obsession and all you can do is spew forth links and cut and paste. They lack cohesion so so you connect with irrelevant nonsense and insults. I think you should see a shrink to find out why you wish to waste you time like this.
No – you got what you asked for – now you’re rolling out the “no time excuse”. You’ve been called mate ! You have not got the goods.
You can’t connect the points as you have ZERO idea what you’re on about. No knowledge or expertise in modelling. Anyone else I know would have immediately surfed up and made some comments of their own. As I said someone who write “I understand the general principles of modelling” inevitably doesn’t. You’re full of it.
Dropping ad homs like “see a shrink” vividly illustrates the point even further. Who’s done their nana !
The reason we get no links from yourself is that you don’t know what you’re talking about. As for my time to do that – about 5 minutes if you do know. You wouldn’t have a clue where to go even. And when showed retorts with “oh I’m too busy”. Pathetic.
So trolling the internet for 5 minutes and dumping links plus cut an paste makes an argument. Then connecting those with irrelevant information and insults does not make and argument. It also does not make an argument to constantly misquote me. I doubt we have an audience here who you trying to impress? What are you trying to achieve? You behave like someone that is disturbed most likely you have real problem please seek help you need it. I am not too busy to continue answering your ranting Luke. I will keep at this until you give up or this thread is archived. Maybe you might realize you have cast yourself in the lunatic fringe many other on the blog see it and ignore you. In other words what you are doing is ineffectual.
No it only took 5 minutes as I knew exactly what I was looking for. Perhaps if you were a modeller or understood duh princuples of modelling you would comprende. Anyway I think you dislike me. I can sense it. Do you really think I’m disturbed. Maybe I am. Everyone says I am. But I reckon they’re just jealous.
If you knew exactly where to look why never offer anything yourself? By saying this you imply that your profession is or was modelling is that so? I am very experienced in software development both in a formal and practical sense. The objections you give to my wanting study computer models and writing code to show to myself and others how they work is bizarre and does show a great deal about your ignorance of software engineering.
You have insulted, attacked, and misquoted me without having any idea what my capabilities are. If you address that sort ire at some one that you know nothing about then you are saying no one can?
The idea that I dislike you is again strange I would say indifferent. You are self-obsessed to an extreme and oblivious to other viewpoints. At least that’s what your persona here shows. That is someone who needs help if it is also in your private life. I know people like this and they are people one avoids like the plague. If they happen to be an employer get another job.
I have said a number of times to ask yourself what are you trying to achieve. I do not accept anything on face value and I see those who offer opposing explanations to GW to yours as being unlikely since I doubt there is an answer. I also see your view (if it is typical) also to be unlikely for AGW the how, proof and solution is an extreme stretch of the imagination. I am more interested in the realization that most live in a deeply superstitions world where uncertainty is never allowed. Your contributions to this blog for me have never shown anything but a know it all who does not actually communicate. What I am saying is your tactics give me no reason to change my opinion the are ineffectual, what are you trying to achieve?
“Never offer anything myself” – um you’re kidding – have a really good look over many diverse threads.
So – You’ve decided “to attack” the climate models and you have adequately demonstrated you don’t know jack. It’s simply outrageous. I don’t object AT ALL to you analysing GCMs and re-writing them but I don’t think we’ll be seeing anything actually. A big fat zero. Why am I bolshy about it – your lack of respect for the science contained in those codes.
As for other viewpoints – actually I spend heaps of time chasing down many links posted on here. I doubt you guys do the reverse. But that’s OK – it’s my education not yours.
Mate everything after “comprende” was a joke.
I’m not asking you to change your opinion on AGW – but do you really seriously think you’re going to reverse engineer an AOGCM – dare I suggest that this is a non-trivial exercise – mathematics, science computing wise, physics and modelling wise – just tell me you’re serious ! If you can I’m in awe !!
Your entire lack of any response to the considered links I provided indicate to me just a bit of ego biffo going on.
Anyway – sorry for bolshiness.
As I said “you self-obsessed to an extreme and oblivious to other viewpoints”. You are not engaging you are again spouting insults probably to prop up your feelings of inadequacy. I am not on the opposite side yet your tactics do not move me why not?
Hey – how actually have you engaged yourself – by an ongoing psychoanalysis of myself – There is no “other” viewpoint on AGW being defended here – except my incredulity that you are going to investigate and reimplement a number (plural) of GCM codes. It’s not a AGW is right/wrong discussion. Frankly I think AGW has got some issues. And sceptics have more !
Just level with me – do you feel confident to undertake this task. I would not be myself. It’s massive. I’m not an elite mathematician/physicist.
I have yet to hear one word from you on algorithms, land surface or grid schemas, different varieties of GCM – perhaps what modules to focus on?
I wonder why that is – so feel free to lead off with a sciencey type discussion … you can leave me languishing in my “mental decrepitude” with minimal concern.
You led the way with your language. I know people people who speak this way and what they are will colour my view of yourself. I don’t know if that is what you think is effective or if that is way you behave all the time but do know it will denigrate anyones opinion of you here. What is puzzling is that you last post sounds more reasonable but others are of a cretan yobo. Is this an act or are you in fact more than one person?
Yes creating a model is entirely possible and there are many environmental models you have made to many assumptions which blinker your view. It needs to be done these models are being used to rule us in many areas of life. They are opaque to most and to those who could understand the inner workings are hidden. If they are to be used to alter the way we live transparency is needed. If you look similar things have been done and James Hansen actually does not a degree in software engineering. The whole point of what I said was that I seek to learn how they are produced and used. Then I would show others among those I expect some would want and be capable of helping. Possibly the most complex software development efforts are computer operating systems and yes a number have been produced in similar way.
Asking for instance answers like you have is saying where is your specification? The fact that specifications are not available from anyone is why there is a need. Give me one and the development could start tomorrow but then maybe I would not feel the need.
Your request of a scientific discussion is not reasonable you should know that. I am at the beginning of this as I have always said.
Next time do we bad Luke or good Luke? I think bad Luke means I withdraw. I don’t think I have much else to say to you any way.