Arnold Kling via Cafe Hayek on macro-economic modelling:
We badly want macroeconometrics to work. If it did, we could resolve bitter theoretical disputes with evidence. We could achieve better forecasting and control of the economy. Unfortunately, the world is not set up to enable macroeconometrics to work. Instead, all macroeconometric models are basically simulation models that use data for calibration purposes. People judge these models based on their priors for how the economy works. Imposing priors related to rational expectations does not change the fact that macroeconometrics provides no empirical information to anyone except those who happen to share all of the priors of the model-builder.
Jennifer,
Since when are ice ages ‘runaway climate’?
will-
nice try, but the map is not the terrain. your arguing that plugging data into models produces a meaningful result is ONLY accurate if the models are accurate. my argument is theta the alleged precision og your solar forcing argument is nonsense.
show me what model/equation you are using to produce your results.
then show me empirical data that your model/equation has predictive value.
then i will listen you you. until then, you are just playing around.
it is up to you to prove there is a model that works, not up to me to disprove every possible model.
that;s how science works.
if you want to talk about ice ages, you are aware that we are currently IN an ice age, yes? that for only 5-10% of the last 500 million years has it been cold enough for there to be ice at both poles? i think you are confusing glaciation and ice ages.
the increase in solar luminosity has been very minor relative to an 80% decline in CO2. you have to be joking if you think the two offset. (or you must think that CO2 has very little impact)
9ky constructions:
any of these will work: (note that they are from widely varying latitudes)
Sediment core ODP 658, interpreted sea surface temperature, Eastern Tropical Atlantic: M. Zhao, N.A.S. Beveridge, N.J. Shackleton, M. Sarnthein, and G. Eglinton (1995). , Paleoceanography, 10(3): 661-675. DOI:10.1029/94PA03354
Vostok ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Central Antarctica: Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I., Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999). , Nature, 399: 429-436. DOI:10.1038/20859
GISP2 ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Greenland: Alley, R.B. (2000). , Quaternary Science Reviews, 19: 213-226. DOI:10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00062-1
regarding outgassing, i presume you will agree that a warmer liquid can hold less CO2 than a cold one? (this is a well understood and validated physical process) so, if oceans warm, what will happen? surely you are not arguing that oceans have not warmed in the last 150 years? where would all that CO2 go?
does CO2 impact temperature? yes. but the effects are nothing like so pronounced as you seem to feel they are, especially as water vapor is of much greater influence and has an overlapping absorption band. water vapor also has a significant, built in, negative feedback mechanism. i notice you dropped the AQUA argument.
runaway response are the defining characteristic of venus, not earth. earth climate has been amazingly stable. temperatures for the last 500 million years have varied in a range of what 14 degrees C? lots of places vary by more that that night to day. to characterize such stability as “runaway” is simply ridiculous.
I can’t make sense of your garbled, misspelled first paragraph, but christ, you don’t even know how to calculate the forcing from a change in the solar constant? This is obviously why you don’t understand that over geological times, solar output rising has approximately offset CO2 declining.
“the increase in solar luminosity has been very minor relative to an 80% decline in CO2” – citations? numbers? calculations? Are you capable of any of these things?
As for models and their predictive capability, did you read the link I gave you? You have so far failed to say which models you consider to have failed, and what criteria you were judging them on.
Nice cherry-pick of reconstructions that give the answer you like. Try Sediment core PL07-39PC, interpreted sea surface temperature, North Atlantic: Lea, D.W., D.K. Pak, L.C. Peterson, and K.A. Hughen (2003). , Science, 301(5638): 1361-1364. DOI:10.1126/science.1088470; Pollen distributions, interpreted temperature, Europe: B.A.S. Davis, S. Brewer, A.C. Stevenson, J. Guiot (2003). , Quaternary Science Reviews, 22: 1701-1716. DOI:10.1016/S0277-3791(03)00173-2; EPICA ice core, δDeuterium, Central Antarctica: EPICA community members (2004). , Nature, 429(6992): 623-628. DOI:10.1038/nature02599 and Composite sediment cores, interpreted sea surface temperature, Western Tropical Pacific: L.D. Stott, K.G. Cannariato, R. Thunell, G.H. Haug, A. Koutavas, and S. Lund (2004). , Nature, 431: 56-59. DOI:10.1038/nature02903. They don’t support your claim.
You seem to have tacitly admitted that there is no “tendency of temperature to revert to a mean”. That gives me a tiny bit of hope that you’re not completely besotted with anti-science bullshit. Just a tiny bit, though, and I am sure you will say something very soon to extinguish that hope.
You’re hopelessly confused about oceans. It’s not clear what you are trying to say. Do you think they are the source of the recent rise in CO2? If so, where are the observations showing a declining concentration of CO2 in the oceans? If they are both warming and taking in CO2, then that tells us something. Do you know what?
No, you dropped the AQUA argument. It didn’t prove what you claimed it did, and you have not attempted to provide any further evidence that it did.
Clearly you don’t even know what you mean by ‘runaway’. How do you reconcile ‘amazingly stable’ with the sudden whipsawing between two different states that has characterised the last 500 million years of the terrestrial climate? What runaway response, exactly, do you believe is predicted today? Runaway to infinity? To +100°C? Your talk of runaways is just meaningless blather unless you define your terms, but you don’t even seem to understand the request to define your terms.
Jennifer,
Please define run away, and over what time frame.
will-
once more you fail to engage on any questions asked of you and descend instead into meaningless blather about spelling. i had been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but am now convinced that you are merely an obstructionist troll and clearly have little understanding of physics and less of manners.
i have no interest in feeding you any more.
happy trolling!
morganovich – as I expected, you can’t produce any numbers, calculations or citations to back your views.
Actually, Morganovich has backed his arguments up well. “Hunter” or “Will” or whoever he claims to be is the one who has not answered questions or provided data.
You are right Morganovich, he’s just a troll. No amount of evidence will make any difference to him.
I will bet you that he needs to respond to this post too, the poor predictable idiot.