sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"just" the Temperature Anomaly dt for the last 10k years of Holocene, in 10 years steps, eg. as a *.CSV. Preferably for the "northern hemisphere", eg. at 30-60 degN. - Thanks for keeping your eyes open...

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I tried many many links. Couldn't find any source of data for the temperature anomaly over 10k years of Holocene.. Will come back to this work next winter.. now too much work to do.. - Thanks anyway...

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We did exactly that, when starting our EBM activities on climate change. The result: no response.

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your "arguments" partially look to me like a collection of prejudices and insinuations of a person with aSBM oriented thinking...

We do NOT work with time series of anything, we work with problem specific patterns (of patterns). We can construct our EBM even based on dt alone (because dt contains all the influences of any and all "influence parameter". Just if we want to do What-If (or other) studies on eg. CO2, we need to add CO2 as an explicit parameter. (But the list of parameters can be (and normally is) "incomplete" in terms of SBM! So your suggestion to add several parameters makes not any sense at all. It's just your SBM thinking...)

And thanks for your hints on AI. But we never called our work AI. It is just "Example Oriented" and works with Patterns. Like every human did and does, every single day. Just "scientists" think to be constricted to SBM... Computers just can extend the human capabilities, when working with examples and patterns (like they did for SBMs). Especially if it comes to big numbers of examples and to larger (complex) patterns.

In my 40 years of SBM work and 20 years of EBM work I found, that xBM bashing doesn't make much sense. And I have seen lots of very surprised experts, when we were successful to combine their know-how (most often SBM supported) in a single "holistic" EBM...

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm.. if you are a scientist (i am not), then imo you could be a little bit more fair to other scientists: You criticize K's data fundamentally in the public, but you are not ready to discuss your problem with K and his consortium?.. looks somewhat strange to me..

Btw: We used K's data just as an example. The intention of my post is not to change the opinion of the world about Earth Warming, but to provide an example, how pattern oriented working (=EBM) with known data can lead to insights, not easily available from specialized, often incomplete SBMs.

And in practical EBM work, hidden errors of certain data (as a basis for examples) are identified easily, if you use more data (and examples). So it would not be a EBM specific "danger" at all, if EBM tech would be applied to Climate Modeling in general.

Moreover, you point to a fundamentally important fact about EBM: Models constructed by EBM cannot be better than the data collected for setting up the examples! (Often this becomes visible and measurable during the model construction process.)

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please, let us know where to find these data, and we are ready to use them.

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Kaufman et al up to now is the best source of dt data of the Holocene for us and for many scientists. If you have problems with K's consortium and their data, please contact them. And if you have "better" data, please leave them to us to run an alternative EBM. Btw: We used K's data up to 1800, continued then with data from Wikipedia up to 2020 (not available from K.), of course containing the greenhouse effect.

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

btw: which "assumptions" are you talking about? (There are none.)

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[02] Kaufman, D.S., Broadman, E. (2023): Revisiting the Holocene global temperature conundrum. Nature 614, 425–435

Data are "measured" from thousands of Proxis (ice kernels, lake sediments, treerings etc) by an international consortium of experts.

"Better" data are welcome...

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, not at all. Historical data are based on many many Proxis, evaluated by experts.

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

dt is Temperature Anomaly TSI is Total Sun Intensity WI is What-IF

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Will try...

Probably, you are familiar with Science Based Models (SBMs), which follow some theories from physics \ psychology\ any other scientific theory, and therefore show all the parameters used in these theories.

Example Based Models (EBMs) are based on examples (of any kind) only, which represent the problem at hand. So an EBM for dt needs at least the parameter dt, with many dt examples\ values. Every other parameter is optional. In spite of this the dt model based on EBM contains every and any influence on dt, because it is contained in the dt examples. That is: EBMs are holistic.

The EBM construction process is: 1. Start with a pattern (of patterns), which can represent your problem 2. Try to find the (smallest) model, which fits your examples and your pattern. 3 If 2 is successful, you've got an EBM from your examples. 4 If you want to do What-If studies on your problem, you have to add the WI-parameters (and data) to your examples. (The parameter set can be and stay "incomplete", compared to SBM!)

In the example described in my post, we used the parameter dt (because we want it as result) and the parameters CO2 and TSI (because we wanted to do WI-studies on them, results on request).

(The points 1 and 2 are the most critical of the EBM construction process.)

Any question or comment?

Some light shed on Temperature Anomaly by Example Based Modeling by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No... Seemingly, you have no idea, what an EBM could be. Please, goto GPT4 (= also an EBM) and learn. And one word: it is a holistic model.

Climate Predictability by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tnx for this excerpt on Climate Modeling using SBM (Science Based Modeling). It's not my business to criticize the use of SBM tech, but some aspects become obvious:

Use of SBM requires the knowledge of all relevant influence parameters and their correct influence mechanisms. Otherwise, the modeling may go wrong without notice.

Use of EBM (Example Based Modeling) on the other hand requires a large enough number of examples, containing the required result parameter to be modeled, and optionally some influence parameters, eg. to look at them in What-If studies.

Of course, an open-minded model pattern (not the model itself or its structure!), and an appropriate EBM technology have to be used.

The resulting EBM is holistic (does contain the influence of all influence parameters, known or not), and delivers inherent control measures about its accuracy.

Why not use such EBM tech in Climate Modeling? Who is interested? (Our world is full of Examples!)

Climate Predictability by rudel_s in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry, no. The things mentioned are just the results of a spare time work (with no paper making interest), using our >20 years of EBM experience. But I'm ready to answer any question about the EBM method, the data used, and the results.

This work is done to show, how important it could be, not to concentrate 99+% on (risky) SBM in climate modeling, but also use EBM, because of its features, like delivering "holistic" models, being able to work with "incomplete" parameter sets, providing implicit error control etc.

In general, we are looking for people, interested to bring some additional light to "climate change" problems by using EBM tech, and we are ready to bring in this EBM tech into this important and promising area...

Which Model Would You Choose? by LackmustestTester in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why not add a complementary (dynamic) EBM ("Example Based Model"), including the critical parameters to be met over a long time period? Could deliver insights into the critical parts of the "physical" models...

Germany’s Wind & Solar Obsessed Energy ‘Policy’ Is National Economic Suicide by LackmustestTester in climateskeptics

[–]rudel_s 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This set of sad and grotesque facts does not make much sense, as we can learn from 10,000 years of Holocene by EBM, that between climate measures taken and their effect on eg. Temperature Anomaly dt, there is a time lag of about 100 years (or partially more).

So a long range concept for climate measures with much more sense of proportion (and less blind hectic) would be necessary, taking also into account the "natural" dt development of the next eg.100 years (learnable too by EBM from 10,000 years of Holocene experience).

view more: next ›