Current Events > Study estimates the increased severity of Florence due to climate change

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://you.stonybrook.edu/kareed/2018/09/12/estimating-the-potential-impact-of-climate-change-on-hurricane-florence/

Essentially, rainfall is estimated to be around 50% heavier due to CC. This is a new kind of study (first of its kind they claim) where they run the forecasts on the model representing the actual weather, as well as on a model representing the world without the climate change signal in the atmosphere. Pretty interesting results, I'm glad they're making these kinds of studies.
---

For as obvious as it is that global warming is real, you can essentially show anything you want with models.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

For as obvious as it is that global warming is real, you can essentially show anything you want with models.

dunning kruger

Coffeebeanz posted...

For as obvious as it is that global warming is real, you can essentially show anything you want with models.

Feel free to offer substantial criticism of the model then. After all, we use models for a lot of things because they're the best available methodology.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

For as obvious as it is that global warming is real, you can essentially show anything you want with models.

This is a post by an MD.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

For as obvious as it is that global warming is real, you can essentially show anything you want with models.

Stick to what you know, doctor.

Coffeebeanz posted...

For as obvious as it is that global warming is real, you can essentially show anything you want with models.

Gonna have to side with this. Still, the point that global warming is real should be driven home as much as possible.
---

Kineth posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

For as obvious as it is that global warming is real, you can essentially show anything you want with models.

Gonna have to side with this. Still, the point that global warming is real should be driven home as much as possible.

scar the 1 posted...

Feel free to offer substantial criticism of the model then. After all, we use models for a lot of things because they're the best available methodology.

For example, weather forecasts are made using models, and they're quite crucial to a lot of businesses.
---

Essentially, doubting something because "they used models and you can make models say anything" is about as useful criticism as "they used words, and you can make words say anything". Fundamentally it's true, but it doesn't really add anything to the conversation. Using models is a methodology that has been shown to be effective time and time again - in fact, most sciences completely depend on models.
---

And if you're really skeptical of models, feel free to suggest a better methodology to conduct weather and climate research.
---

Does it matter? CC did occur so Florence had that level of rain. Its not like you could just flip the switch and get the lesser version.

I'm not doubting the model or the conclusion. Ease up.
---

Kineth posted...

I'm not doubting the model or the conclusion. Ease up.

No, you're siding with casting doubts on models as part of a methodology. A quite asinine observation that isn't really relevant here unless you're looking to criticize this particular study.

Again, imagine if you were to criticize people for using words any time they said something. Not even criticize, just mention that words can be used to lie as soon as someone says anything.
---

Kineth posted...

I'm not doubting the model or the conclusion. Ease up.

It's just a noncriticism criticism.
---

We do not currently have enough computing power to accurately model the climate, let alone to accurately run simulations like this in any meaningful sense.

scar the 1 posted...

Again, imagine if you were to criticize people for using words any time they said something. Not even criticize, just mention that words can be used to lie as soon as someone says anything.

This is not the same thing at all.

COVxy posted...

Kineth posted...

I'm not doubting the model or the conclusion. Ease up.

It's just a noncriticism criticism.

While I'm sure this is meant to be sarcastic, this is an accurate description.

scar the 1 posted...

<No, you're siding with casting doubts on models as part of a methodology. A quite asinine observation that isn't really relevant here unless you're looking to criticize this particular study.

I'll agree that it's an asinine observation. I mean, I even said after that that I think we should drive the point home that global warming is real anyway.
---

silentwing26x posted...

We do not currently have enough computing power to accurately model the climate, let alone to accurately run simulations like this in any meaningful sense.

My thoughts exactly. They can't even get rain or snowfall totals right around the world but we expect them to be sure and give scientific answers for made up situations now. I don't buy it.

(Not saying Global Warming is made up, just that the storm they are trying to predict the changes of are.)
---

silentwing26x posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Again, imagine if you were to criticize people for using words any time they said something. Not even criticize, just mention that words can be used to lie as soon as someone says anything.

This is not the same thing at all.

Again, meaningful criticism involves a description of what was wrong and what it would mean to fix it.

Analogy seems reasonable enough to me. Models can be used to say anything, doesn't mean that have been. Just as words can be used to lie, doesn't mean they currently are.
---

I guess stuff like Folding@Home should just stop what they're doing since they're using models

You did, which prompted me to actually call you on your opinion on models rather than even once try to convince you the these results are accurate. I encouraged you to both air your grievance (if any) with the models used in this particular study, and to offer insight on what alternative methodology should be employed in weather and climate science. Did you respond to that, or did you defensively tell me to calm down?
(Response was to Kineth, I was too slow)
---

Rexdragon125 posted...

I guess stuff like Folding@Home should just stop what they're doing since they're using models

Every field of science uses models, whether they be statistical or computational, whether used for direct analysis or simulation.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

For as obvious as it is that global warming is real, you can essentially show anything you want with models.

You so fuckin precious when you

reveal that you have flaws
---

scar the 1 posted...

You did, which prompted me to actually call you on your opinion on models rather than even once try to convince you the these results are accurate. I encouraged you to both air your grievance (if any) with the models used in this particular study, and to offer insight on what alternative methodology should be employed in weather and climate science. Did you respond to that, or did you defensively tell me to calm down?

I don't have problems with the model and never said I had a problem with the model. I suppose the closest implied criticism is of how statistics can make data and numbers sing for you and steer it toward a result. I don't know how much statistically significant the difference is in the model, and once again, I wasn't criticizing it. At best, the only thing I would have scrutiny over is the statistical significance of the data, but that isn't a criticism specific to this or any model.
---

COVxy posted...

Rexdragon125 posted...

I guess stuff like Folding@Home should just stop what they're doing since they're using models

Every field of science uses models, whether they be statistical or computational, whether used for direct analysis or simulation.

Another thing that's often overlooked in the public eye is that a lot of science is about assessing the accuracy of models, and seeking to improve them.
---

Kineth posted...

I don't have problems with the model and never said I had a problem with the model. I suppose the closest implied criticism is of how statistics can make data and numbers sing for you and steer it toward a result. I don't know how much statistically significant the difference is in the model, and once again, I wasn't criticizing it. At best, the only thing I would have scrutiny over is the statistical significance of the data, but that isn't a criticism specific to this or any model.

I take it your refusal to answer my second question (what better way than to use models?) means you sighing don't have a better way in mind. So why are you echoing the completely pointless doubt about using models in research then?
---

This study uses the CAM5 model. Looks like the national atmospheric research agency is evaluating a couple options for a CAM6 version where we'll finally be able to somewhat accurately simulate clouds.

Not confident that these models are anywhere close to mature enough to be able to make these types of predictions with enough confidence. Especially when changing a bunch of assumptions resulted in just a 50km difference in storm size anyway. Meh.

scar the 1 posted...

Kineth posted...

I don't have problems with the model and never said I had a problem with the model. I suppose the closest implied criticism is of how statistics can make data and numbers sing for you and steer it toward a result. I don't know how much statistically significant the difference is in the model, and once again, I wasn't criticizing it. At best, the only thing I would have scrutiny over is the statistical significance of the data, but that isn't a criticism specific to this or any model.

I take it your refusal to answer my second question (what better way than to use models?) means you sighing don't have a better way in mind. So why are you echoing the completely pointless doubt about using models in research then?

Have you considered that you've been mistaking my intent this whole fucking time and maybe that's why I don't have any reason to answer those questions, not out of refusal, but because I never was questioning the validity of this model? You're assuming way too much.

This would be a prime example of problems with models. If they don't analyze the significance of other possible factors.
---

Kineth posted...

Have you considered that you've been mistaking my intent this whole fucking time and maybe that's why I don't have any reason to answer those questions?

what do you mean you can't answer why hot dog buns come in packs of 24 but hot dogs come in packs of 8
---

Kineth posted...

Have you considered that you've been mistaking my intent this whole f***ing time and maybe that's why I don't have any reason to answer those questions? Not out of refusal, but because I never was questioning the validity of this model? You're assuming way too much.

I'm not saying you did that. I acknowledge that you're just doubting models because you can lie with them, and I'm noting that you're not willing to back up that point with anything substantial, which again makes me wonder why you expressed the opinion in the first place. I'll be happy to have an exchange on scientific methods, even if it's tangential to the topic. But you keep dodging. So what is it that you're actually trying to say? That everyone is naked underneath their clothes?
---

Nothing new...climates been changing for millions of years.

iClockwork posted...

Nothing new...climates been changing for millions of years.

OMG UR RIGHT
THE CLIMATE WAS WARM LAST MONTH
AND NOW ITS COLDER

CLIMATE CHANGE

hahahahaha you guys are hilarious
---

hot WET t shirt models oh florence is a BAD girl
---

silentwing26x posted...

This study uses the CAM5 model. Looks like the national atmospheric research agency is evaluating a couple options for a CAM6 version where we'll finally be able to somewhat accurately simulate clouds.

Not confident that these models are anywhere close to mature enough to be able to make these types of predictions with enough confidence. Especially when changing a bunch of assumptions resulted in just a 50km difference in storm size anyway. Meh.

What do you qualify as accurate? How poorly is this model doing in comparison?

It's important to note that accuracy isn't necessarily the goal of all models, in fact most modeling is less about accuracy than it is about understanding the interaction between various factors/parameters.
---

The climate's been changing magnitudes faster than it ever has since the industrial revolution. Hmm, maybe it's not natural.

Rexdragon125 posted...

The climate's been changing magnitudes faster than it ever has since the industrial revolution. Hmm, maybe it's not natural.

Yeah, I forgot to mention in the OP that the alternative forecast uses a model where specifically the man-made climate change signal was removed.
---

"What's that, an asteroid is going to crash into Earth? No big deal, asteroids have been causing extinction events for millions of years."
---

"There's not enough ROI to warrant diverting the asteroid, it would hurt shareholder value next quarter."

COVxy posted...

It's important to note that accuracy isn't necessarily the goal of all models

lmfao

#shitCOVxysays

silentwing26x posted...

COVxy posted...

It's important to note that accuracy isn't necessarily the goal of all models

lmfao

#shitCOVxysays

Alphamon posted...

dunning kruger

---

COVxy posted...

silentwing26x posted...

COVxy posted...

It's important to note that accuracy isn't necessarily the goal of all models

lmfao

#shitCOVxysays

Alphamon posted...

dunning kruger

ah that must explain your posting

COVxy posted...

silentwing26x posted...

COVxy posted...

It's important to note that accuracy isn't necessarily the goal of all models

lmfao

#shitCOVxysays

Alphamon posted...

dunning kruger

I really don't understand why you bother with that guy. He has no idea what he's talking about and he's not gonna change his mind.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Kineth posted...

Have you considered that you've been mistaking my intent this whole f***ing time and maybe that's why I don't have any reason to answer those questions? Not out of refusal, but because I never was questioning the validity of this model? You're assuming way too much.

I'm not saying you did that. I acknowledge that you're just doubting models because you can lie with them, and I'm noting that you're not willing to back up that point with anything substantial, which again makes me wonder why you expressed the opinion in the first place. I'll be happy to have an exchange on scientific methods, even if it's tangential to the topic. But you keep dodging. So what is it that you're actually trying to say? That everyone is naked underneath their clothes?

What I was trying to say was that regardless of whether people are doing that, if the goal is to highlight global warming's reality, it's a worthy/necessary trade off. So yes, I guess?
---

Kineth posted...

What I was trying to say was that regardless of whether people are doing that, if the goal is to highlight global warming's reality, it's a worthy/necessary trade off. So yes, I guess?

When you say trade off, I get the feeling that you think models are inherently bad.
---

How can we accurately model reality when we haven't even connected quantum mechanics and general relativity?

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00469.1

The modelobservation comparisons show that, despite having nearly identical cloud radiative forcing, CAM5 has a much more realistic representation of cloud properties than CAM4. In particular, CAM5 exhibits substantial improvement in three long-standing climate model cloud biases: 1) the underestimation of total cloud, 2) the overestimation of optically thick cloud, and 3) the underestimation of midlevel cloud. While the increased total cloud and decreased optically thick cloud in CAM5 result from improved physical process representation, the increased midlevel cloud in CAM5 results from the addition of radiatively active snow. Despite these improvements, both CAM versions have cloud deficiencies. Of particular concern, both models exhibit large but differing biases in the subtropical marine boundary layer cloud regimes that are known to explain intermodel differences in cloud feedbacks and climate sensitivity. More generally, this study demonstrates that simulator-facilitated evaluation of cloud properties, such as amount by vertical level and optical depth, can robustly expose large and at times radiatively compensating climate model cloud biases.@

hmmmm

So CAM5 is better than CAM4, but still in need of improvements hence why multiple contenders for CAM6 exist.

hmmmm

And yet some people are trying to run simulations about how the real world would otherwise be using this model.

HMMMMMM

scar the 1 posted...

When you say trade off, I get the feeling that you think models are inherently bad.

That's your hang up. I'm not anti-science or anti-global warming.

When I say trade-off, I'm specifically referring to studies and models with inadequate or questionable analytical methods, which is just a reality in the world, hence why there were so many anti-global warming scientific papers pushed out from lobby funding.
---

Who cares? We can't stop it and it's no where near profitable to anyone to try and stop it, they're just going to full tilt til it becomes a problem that can't be ignored and hopefully then we'll all be dead by then giving middle fingers to whoever comes after us.
---