[Klaustrophobia]

we can't even model our own climate, how can we have anything the least bit reliable on planets 20 lightyears away?

[redsniper]

Because we actually can model our climate, even if the model isn't perfectly accurate. Therefore we can make some general guesses at how similar planets would behave too. But you knew that...

In other words, because we know SCIENCE.

[watsisname]

We can model our climate well enough to know what the typical temperatures and prevailing winds are like at any latitude, and that's pretty much exactly all we're doing with this extrasolar planet.

Just because we can't be sure if Moscow will receive rain next Thursday doesn't affect our ability to predict a global climatology.

BTW I'm blasted drunk so I'll find out how legible this post is tomorrow.

[Liberator]

We can model our climate well enough to know what the typical temperatures and prevailing winds are like at any latitude, and that's pretty much exactly all we're doing with this extrasolar planet.

Just because we can't be sure if Moscow will receive rain next Thursday doesn't affect our ability to predict a global climatology.

Then we can't model our climate can we?

[Ravenholme]

We can model our climate well enough to know what the typical temperatures and prevailing winds are like at any latitude, and that's pretty much exactly all we're doing with this extrasolar planet.

Just because we can't be sure if Moscow will receive rain next Thursday doesn't affect our ability to predict a global climatology.

Then we can't model our climate can we?

You can model general conditions and trends, which is what the climate is.

That's modelling the climate. You're talking about weather, which is a specific and capricious function of climate. Not the climate itself.

Speaking of which, I attended a fascinating seminar by my university's environmental modelling team.

[Klaustrophobia]

no, that's fitting a trend line over some data points.  which is rather horrendously inaccurate, since the global temperature is actually trending down during our supposed global warming.  climate modeling would suggest understanding the basic driving forces and physics behind the climate and using that to project.  the researchers at my university admit what a tremendous headache climatology really is, and that their best attempts at a simulation take 4 months to run on a supercomputer.

[watsisname]

...since the global temperature is actually trending down during our supposed global warming...

Lol, what?  Source, please.

[Ravenholme]

no, that's fitting a trend line over some data points.  which is rather horrendously inaccurate, since the global temperature is actually trending down during our supposed global warming.  climate modeling would suggest understanding the basic driving forces and physics behind the climate and using that to project.  the researchers at my university admit what a tremendous headache climatology really is, and that their best attempts at a simulation take 4 months to run on a supercomputer.

Oh dear

But more seriously, that's not what I've heard, and that's with a girlfriend who is an environmentalist (as in, degree wise) and myself being a Zoologist, so being somewhat concerned with the global climate.

It would, I reckon, depend very much on the modelling team and their agenda, if they have any. I know that my universities' one is very well respected in the field, being answerable to the EU parliament, the UK parliament, and the UN on occasion. (So much so that the project leader, a really nice guy - Professor Pete Smith - never gets to spend time at home with his kids) Climate modelling doesn't require a supercomputer if you're gathering data over the long term and identifying trends and extrapolating them into the long term. If you were intending to do absolute specific forecasts for the future, then you'd need a supercomputer, or possibly an AI.

[Bobboau]

googleing I found this thing


the site I found it on did not seem unbiased, but I doubt they would outright fabricate the raw data.

[Ravenholme]

the site I found it on did not seem unbiased, but I doubt they would outright fabricate the raw data.

Do not fall into the trap of believing that. It happens a lot more than we like.

And it usually depends on who's funding the study.

Edit:

Not that I'm saying this isn't true. It could be. But it contradicts what I've seen and researched myself. And, more importantly, am living with. Here in Scotland, we're having warmer and wetter summers (But conversely, colder winters) - at least in the North East.

[watsisname]

When responding to a specific line of text from the post above yours, could you please snip the image out of the quote so it's not needlessly posted twice in a row?  Thanks.

Edit:  I'm also going to post this for the sake of the climate-change debate.

[Ravenholme]

When responding to a specific line of text from the post above yours, could you please snip the image out of the quote so it's not needlessly posted twice in a row?  Thanks.

Edit:  I'm also going to post this for the sake of the climate-change debate.

Done, was in a rush when I made the post.

And, yeah, which rather proves my point about it really depends on who's reporting it and what their agenda (or the agenda of their sponsor) is

[Bobboau]

Do not fall into the trap of believing that. It happens a lot more than we like.

I doubt it because it would be trivial to disprove, it does not look like their data, they are siteing someone else in the data, and I'm not really into it, it was just the first graph I found with data from the last two years in it. you say this graph is false show me another one with data for the last two years, pics or GTFO.

[Ravenholme]

Do not fall into the trap of believing that. It happens a lot more than we like.

I doubt it because it would be trivial to disprove, it does not look like their data, they are siteing someone else in the data, and I'm not really into it, it was just the first graph I found with data from the last two years in it. you say this graph is false show me another one with data for the last two years, pics or GTFO.

Except I didn't say it was false. I just said "Do not fall into the trap of believing that data is never falsified."

Indeed, I even said it "could" be true. However, look at Watsisname's post, his link has a wee bit more credibility as it is a study done by a government agency. (But only a little bit more)


And, actually, it's not trivial to disprove anything like that - it's usually very hard to do without a.) asking them to redo their experiment and figures and show how they did it - because the method and location and sources of their data will influence their readings or b.) Like that climatology group that was caught falsifying data to fill gaps, get your hands on their internal communications.

If you really want Bobboau, I'm going to the library tomorrow with some friends, and I'll see if I can't use my uni's account to raid some scientific journal sites to present you with evidence that shows the opposite of your graph. And then I could probably find some that show the same as your graph.

You might want to look into the differences in models where only natural factors are considered, and where human factors are also considered, as well, as that's a huge issue and divisive factor in the CM community.


Also, importantly, all you've done is pull a graph off the internet from some site - which is hardly the most accurate of sources. Rule number one of science - don't trust the internet unless it's an accredited scientific journal site and you're looking at an actual paper and cited study.

Edit:

But we're getting massively offtopic.

Habitable exoplanet? Colony ship pls.

[Nuke]

yea, if i start seeing environmentalist mudslinging, im locking this thing.

[General Battuta]

omg someone said 'model climate'

global warming argument

[Mobius]

No, please, no more Antropocene-related arguments...

[Bobboau]

all you've done is pull a graph off the internet from some site - which is hardly the most accurate of sources. Rule number one of science - don't trust the internet unless it's an accredited scientific journal site and you're looking at an actual paper and cited study.

yeah, I've only said that like three times now.

If you really want Bobboau, I'm going to the library tomorrow with some friends, and I'll see if I can't use my uni's account to raid some scientific journal sites to present you with evidence that shows the opposite of your graph. And then I could probably find some that show the same as your graph.

You might want to look into the differences in models where only natural factors are considered, and where human factors are also considered, as well, as that's a huge issue and divisive factor in the CM community.

it's not a model, its measurements, yes find some measurements, without anything contradicting what I found, all I can do is assume the graph I found is right. by all means find me some other better sourced evidence.

[SpardaSon21]

Aren't most of the surface stations in the U.S. absolute crap when it comes to positioning, such as being right next to asphalt, A/C exhaust vents, and other heat sources?

[General Battuta]

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT BATTUTA'S WORLD, NOT THIS MISERABLE MUDBALL YOU'RE SO CONCERNED ABOUT OVERHEATING



battuta: not so much a 'moderator' as an 'excessinator'