hurricanes during the ice age?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
What were those like? More? Less? Bigger? Smaller?

We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.

jwoodward48 wrote:

We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.

source

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.

source

Why would anyone feel inclined to believe this article? There's no science, just a bunch of subjunctive presented as fact. Personally, I dismiss it out of hand.


.

spot wrote:Why believe anything?

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:Why believe anything?

You should believe falsifiable models that have survived a rigorous scientific method.

You should doubt, question and scrutinize anything that doesn't meet the above criteria.

You should dismiss anything that EVADES the above.


.

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:Why believe anything?

You should believe falsifiable models that have survived a rigorous scientific method.

You should doubt, question and scrutinize anything that doesn't meet the above criteria.

You should dismiss anything that EVADES the above.


.

Does that include things that you say?

jwoodward48 wrote:

We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.

source

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:Why believe anything?

You should believe anything that I say.

You should doubt, question and scrutinize anything that disagrees with what I say.

You should dismiss anything that isn't falling over itself to be nice to me.


.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:Why believe anything?

You should believe falsifiable models that have survived a rigorous scientific method.

You should doubt, question and scrutinize anything that doesn't meet the above criteria.

You should dismiss anything that EVADES the above.


.

Does that include things that you say?

Anything that anyone says that does not pertain to, or is not derived from, what I say should absolutely be questioned, doubted and scrutinized.


.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.

source

So...you are believer of data concocted out of a computer program.

"It's in a nice neat row of numbers! They've gotta be right!"

This isn't data. It's a computer simulation. Dismissed.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.

source

Why would anyone feel inclined to believe this article? There's no science, just a bunch of subjunctive presented as fact. Personally, I dismiss it out of hand.


.

jwoodward48 wrote:Of course you do. Anything that you disagree with is dismissed out of hand.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Of course you do. Anything that you disagree with is dismissed out of hand.

That would be you. You are projecting again.


.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

We compare Pleistocene tropical cyclones with present-day storms in this study through the use of a three-dimensional numerical model simulating hurricane development and processes1. The characteristics of Atlantic ice-age tropical storms are derived from reconstructions of the 18,000 BP climate (the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM) and the GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) General Circulation Model's LGM simulation2,3. The simulation results indicate that although the structure of the ice-age atmosphere was colder and more stable, it had the potential to support development of tropical cyclones. Such storms, however, would be substantially weaker than contemporary storms. This investigation demonstrates the value of integrating numerical models of varying spatial scales in climatic research.

source

So...you are believer of data concocted out of a computer program.

"It's in a nice neat row of numbers! They've gotta be right!"

This isn't data. It's a computer simulation. Dismissed.

Computer simulations = absolutely useless, we should go back to the 1500s, science was better back then.

The more you know!

jwoodward48 wrote:
By applying the same models that work today, but in a system with altered constants (temperature, etc.), scientists can make a decent estimate of how much stronger/weaker hurricanes would be at different times.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The computer itself isn't the important part - it's just a tool.

jwoodward48 wrote:
This could be done by hand, but it'd be very time-consuming.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The important part is the models.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
By applying the same models that work today, but in a system with altered constants (temperature, etc.), scientists can make a decent estimate of how much stronger/weaker hurricanes would be at different times.

Not really.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The computer itself isn't the important part - it's just a tool.

Then stop treating it like God.

jwoodward48 wrote:
This could be done by hand, but it'd be very time-consuming.

Really? What would they use 6 side dice or 20 sided dice?

jwoodward48 wrote:
The important part is the models.

Models are not a source of data.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
By applying the same models that work today, but in a system with altered constants (temperature, etc.), scientists can make a decent estimate of how much stronger/weaker hurricanes would be at different times.

Not really.

So the models only work when they're describing existing data that we already know? Sounds useless.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The power of models is that they apply where we don't have data.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
The computer itself isn't the important part - it's just a tool.

Then stop treating it like God.

I'm not. Stop strawmanning.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
This could be done by hand, but it'd be very time-consuming.

Really? What would they use 6 side dice or 20 sided dice?

Neither. They don't just pull some random numbers out of their silicon arses. That's not how models work.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
The important part is the models.

Models are not a source of data.

True. Models predict. If I can't go there and measure, a model is the next best thing - and it's pretty damn good, because if it's applied to everything we've seen, it'll probably be decent in another situation.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
By applying the same models that work today, but in a system with altered constants (temperature, etc.), scientists can make a decent estimate of how much stronger/weaker hurricanes would be at different times.

Not really.

So the models only work when they're describing existing data that we already know? Sounds useless.

In most cases, that is correct. They are quite useless.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The power of models is that they apply where we don't have data.

No.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
The computer itself isn't the important part - it's just a tool.

Then stop treating it like God.

I'm not. Stop strawmanning.

You are. Stop treating the computer like God. Stop treating simulations like data.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
This could be done by hand, but it'd be very time-consuming.

Really? What would they use 6 side dice or 20 sided dice?

Neither. They don't just pull some random numbers out of their silicon arses. That's not how models work.

That's exactly what they do. That IS how models work.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
The important part is the models.

Models are not a source of data.

True. Models predict. If I can't go there and measure, a model is the next best thing - and it's pretty damn good, because if it's applied to everything we've seen, it'll probably be decent in another situation.

Nope. Just as useless.

spot wrote:Never trust those infernal adding machines true scientists restrict themselves to sliderules , to be honest I always thought the abacus was the beginning of the end of true science.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:Never trust those infernal adding machines true scientists restrict themselves to sliderules , to be honest I always thought the abacus was the beginning of the end of true science.

As far as you know, does Planck's apply to gases? Again, as far as you know.


.

spot wrote:I recall having this discussion with you before I recall explaining how it was nonsensical.

Tell me why have the same damm conversion over and over again what do you expect to learn?

I am convinced that you have nothing useful to say on this subject and have made that clear so why try and instruct me?

jwoodward48 wrote: No, it doesn't. We have a thread for this, don't bring that here IB.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:I recall having this discussion with you before I recall explaining how it was nonsensical.

Tell me why have the same damm conversion over and over again what do you expect to learn?

I am convinced that you have nothing useful to say on this subject and have made that clear so why try and instruct me?

Excellent defensive posturing. Excellent projection.

My question accomplished everything I intended.

Too funny.


.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: No, it doesn't. We have a thread for this, don't bring that here IB.

Is that a direct order?

What's your main reason for making the WACKY claim that Planck's does not apply to gases? Just the main reason. Is it because you are gullible and desperate for Surface Detail's approval? I'm dying to know.


.

jwoodward48 wrote: Because it doesn't.

jwoodward48 wrote: Then demonstrate. Apply it to my scenario. I've given you a chance to demonstrate your claims, and you haven't.

jwoodward48 wrote: We are debating. You are saying that Planck's applies to gases. If that is true, then it should be possible to apply it.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: We are debating. You are saying that Planck's applies to gases. If that is true, then it should be possible to apply it.

Planck's has survived a rigorous scientific method. You are claiming that there exists some temperature T and wavelength W for some gas that radiates an E that differs from what Planck's specifies.

OK, what is it?

Let me know when you get that.

Surface Detail wrote: He's not claiming anything of the sort.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: He's not claiming anything of the sort.

Both he and you insist gases do not radiate per Planck's. It's not my fault that you cannot read a simple equation. You might want to talk to your UK educators.

Surface Detail wrote:Did you look up the definition of spectral radiance?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Did you look up the definition of spectral radiance?

Did you find one example of some gas, any gas, whose measured E at temperature T and wavelength W differs from what Planck's specifies? I didn't see any example in your last post so I figure you're going to be posting it soon, yes?

After all, you insist that no gas radiates per Planck's. You insist. I figure you must have examples for every gas, no?

Surface Detail wrote:A gas has no surface, therefore it cannot have a spectral radiance. How can you not understand this?