Quote:A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/...0e809c6cb8

(10-09-2015 12:20 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

Quote:A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/...0e809c6cb8

You dont say?

Are the polar ice caps still projected to be completely gone in 2012?

Perhaps it is possible that non-human factors may be largely responsible for global warming and cooling. This hypothetical non-human factor would have to be very large, though -- on the order of magnitude of our own sun.

What could it be?

What I like about his theory is that with the change to the model we will know in 2-3 years if he is correct or not based on his projected cooling between 2017-2020.

(10-09-2015 12:42 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Perhaps it is possible that non-human factors may be largely responsible for global warming and cooling. This hypothetical non-human factor would have to be very large, though -- on the order of magnitude of our own sun.

What could it be?

So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.

Wow imagine that

Looks like this guy may not have a great track record:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/David_Evans_arg.htm

The link in the OP in an opinion piece. I looked online and I don't see the report of the specifics of this alleged math error posted anywhere, or the full context of the quotes from Evans. Does anyone have that to post?

Fix it all they want but until there are 30 years of accurate projections, you can't rely on any model.

(10-09-2015 12:54 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Fix it all they want but until there are 30 years of accurate projections, you can't rely on any model.

I'm waiting for them to get up to 70% chance of predicting tomorrow correctly.

(10-09-2015 12:54 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Fix it all they want but until there are 30 years of accurate projections, you can't rely on any model.

Is 30 years enough data? The earth is estimated at 4.5 billion years old.

As an example, take the idea of a "100 year storm." It's supposed to mean that a storm of that magnitude should happen once every 100 years. But, a 100 year storm can happen once each year for 100 years in a row, or never happen for 200 years. In both instances, it is still correct to say a "100 year storm."

The point being even if you have the data from X number of years, the next x years have a high possibility of being completely unpredictable, which is still completely normal.

This might be the actual piece here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-sci...rivatives/

And this guy seems to have issue with much of it:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2015/que...rivatives/

Regardless, this is WAY above my pay grade and most likely everyone else's on this forum.

Kudos to anyone who can understand this level of mathematics!

(10-09-2015 12:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-09-2015 12:54 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Fix it all they want but until there are 30 years of accurate projections, you can't rely on any model.

I'm waiting for them to get up to 70% chance of predicting tomorrow correctly.

Pretty sure they're way above that percentage if you give them a modest margin of error. I think the only thing they REALLY struggle with it seems is hitting the predicted levels of rainfall or snowfall. But I just blame their message here. Never understood why they predict snowfall of 3-6 inches. Why don't they just say 0-6 inches, or up to 6 inches.

(10-09-2015 01:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This might be the actual piece here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-sci...rivatives/

And this guy seems to have issue with much of it:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2015/que...rivatives/

Regardless, this is WAY above my pay grade and most likely everyone else's on this forum.

Kudos to anyone who can understand this level of mathematics!

Partial derivatives...yeah I'm interested in reading that before the weekend.

(10-09-2015 01:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This might be the actual piece here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-sci...rivatives/

And this guy seems to have issue with much of it:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2015/que...rivatives/

Regardless, this is WAY above my pay grade and most likely everyone else's on this forum.

Kudos to anyone who can understand this level of mathematics!

It's well above mine as well, but if this guy has stayed within the original physics of the climate change models and can account for the recent pause in warming by adjusting two equations, I don't think it can be discounted. Given that with his adjustments there is a predicted cooling in the next few years it should be easy enough to verify.

ALso be interesting to see how it holds up to peer review. I didn't see any dates for such a review, just that it was going to be reviewed by two other groups.

(10-09-2015 01:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-09-2015 01:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This might be the actual piece here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-sci...rivatives/

And this guy seems to have issue with much of it:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2015/que...rivatives/

Regardless, this is WAY above my pay grade and most likely everyone else's on this forum.

Kudos to anyone who can understand this level of mathematics!

It's well above mine as well, but if this guy has stayed within the original physics of the climate change models and can account for the recent pause in warming by adjusting two equations, I don't think it can be discounted. Given that with his adjustments there is a predicted cooling in the next few years it should be easy enough to verify.

ALso be interesting to see how it holds up to peer review. I didn't see any dates for such a review, just that it was going to be reviewed by two other groups.

Yeah...we'll see. As I posted earlier. Many have taken issue with his conclusions on other things in the past. Although that's natural I guess with what he's alleging when it goes against a huge percentage who are firmly in the other camp.

(10-09-2015 01:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This might be the actual piece here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-sci...rivatives/

And this guy seems to have issue with much of it:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2015/que...rivatives/

Regardless, this is WAY above my pay grade and most likely everyone else's on this forum.

Kudos to anyone who can understand this level of mathematics!

There's actually not enough detail here. The article said that he's submitted a paper, I'll wait for that to read what he has to say. He's pointed out some possible simplifications in models, but he hasn't been specific about a particular model or really quantified anything (except in the first two posts which is a derivation straight from any atmospheric sciences textbook).

(10-09-2015 12:46 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  What I like about his theory is that with the change to the model we will know in 2-3 years if he is correct or not based on his projected cooling between 2017-2020.

When the meteorologists can accurately project if a hurricane is going to hit the USA 3 days out, I might pay attention when someone tells me what the temperature is going to be in 3 years.

(10-09-2015 03:29 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-09-2015 12:46 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  What I like about his theory is that with the change to the model we will know in 2-3 years if he is correct or not based on his projected cooling between 2017-2020.

When the meteorologists can accurately project if a hurricane is going to hit the USA 3 days out, I might pay attention when someone tells me what the temperature is going to be in 3 years.

Actually two different things, but yes, one would think we have enough hurricane tracking history for the preiction models to work a little better

(10-09-2015 03:43 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(10-09-2015 03:29 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-09-2015 12:46 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  What I like about his theory is that with the change to the model we will know in 2-3 years if he is correct or not based on his projected cooling between 2017-2020.

When the meteorologists can accurately project if a hurricane is going to hit the USA 3 days out, I might pay attention when someone tells me what the temperature is going to be in 3 years.

Actually two different things, but yes, one would think we have enough hurricane tracking history for the preiction models to work a little better

Why would anyone think that? How can this ever be an exact enough science when you're talking about things like this that we still don't fully understand?

And I don't think this at all related to the science of temperature trends either.

(10-09-2015 01:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-09-2015 01:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This might be the actual piece here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-sci...rivatives/

And this guy seems to have issue with much of it:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2015/que...rivatives/

Regardless, this is WAY above my pay grade and most likely everyone else's on this forum.

Kudos to anyone who can understand this level of mathematics!

Partial derivatives...yeah I'm interested in reading that before the weekend.

Partial derivatives is part of sophomore level calculus. Guarantee any STEM student has taken this subject.