Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[TrueSceptic]

insult removed, please remember your membership agreement

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: brodski

 

[Piggy]

Unnecessary. You speak of the obvious.

Curious while Warmer in this thread support Piggy's devious detours, in the other thread Rodale is criticized for giving no more or less link data than Piggy via Science Daily.

Bias noted.

Besides, Hansen happens to be a huge figure in this field.

Are you blind?

You have been told precisely how to find the original article, and even provided a link to the abstract on PNAS, where it's a matter of a few clicks to get the full article if you want to.

I have cited the original article at length on this thread, with commentary.

What do you want me to do, come read it to you at beddie-bye?

Do you really think you can get away with this kind of nonsense?

 

[a_unique_person]

You do understand that all science is “a model” right? Modeling something is an essential step in the process of making predictions.

e=mc2 is a model.

 

[Spud1k]

Really?

The most dishonest POS on these forums says this?

Is this Hazian logic?

I don't know what you call it but it is a common tactic employed by the deniers these days, so naming it after him would be giving him too much credit. What people often try to do is apply the same logic and rules you get in engineering disciplines to climate science and then attack the science when it doesn't work (Monckton is a classic example). This is sheer fallacy of course; I wouldn't try to invoke atmospheric science to try to falsify structural engineering or anything.

 

[Bluefire]

Basically what Bluefire said. The conclussions are implicit in the models. A run of the models gives no new information, so the study is a tautology.

Just to make my position more exactly known.

My opposition is not specifically to this papers method in itself, as much as it is to the way it is used in this debate.

My interpretation of the paper is that this is sort of a "B -> C" paper. Eg. take some model, and some of IPCC opinions (B) and see what happens if you apply them (C , big difficulties ahead). This is a perfectly valid topic for a paper, and their method could be sound (though I did not check those details since this is a rather uninteresting paper at this stage of debate), as long as it is understood that this is a "B implies C" paper, and not a "C is proven" paper.

The problem is when this is introduced into a debate where B is not agreed upon or proven. One can give us a hundred "B->C" papers, and this will not convince us of C if you do not first prove B.

So, instead of giving us the papers that shows "Model B outputs scenario C", give us the paper that proves/validates something like this: "Model B:s predictions are shown to be skillful when it comes to predicted data X, has withstood specific falsification Y, and has made fullfilled, in absence of the model unexpected, predictions Z during the years after it was a proposed model for {x,c}". (Or some variant thereof. Just a suggestion).

Only after this are the B->C modelings becoming interesting (for me) to analyze.

 

[Megalodon]

You mean something like this?

 

[Piggy]

Just to make my position more exactly known.

My opposition is not specifically to this papers method in itself, as much as it is to the way it is used in this debate.

My interpretation of the paper is that this is sort of a "B -> C" paper. Eg. take some model, and some of IPCC opinions (B) and see what happens if you apply them (C , big difficulties ahead). This is a perfectly valid topic for a paper, and their method could be sound (though I did not check those details since this is a rather uninteresting paper at this stage of debate), as long as it is understood that this is a "B implies C" paper, and not a "C is proven" paper.

The problem is when this is introduced into a debate where B is not agreed upon or proven. One can give us a hundred "B->C" papers, and this will not convince us of C if you do not first prove B.

So, instead of giving us the papers that shows "Model B outputs scenario C", give us the paper that proves/validates something like this: "Model B:s predictions are shown to be skillful when it comes to predicted data X, has withstood specific falsification Y, and has made fullfilled, in absence of the model unexpected, predictions Z during the years after it was a proposed model for {x,c}". (Or some variant thereof. Just a suggestion).

Only after this are the B->C modelings becoming interesting (for me) to analyze.

Can you provide citations from the paper to demonstrate that what you're saying is accurate?

Thanks.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Did you even read my post? Climate models can't be expected to predict specific measures of climate exactly, much less point measurements. And besides, the Hansen 88 predictions are based on a model a full 20 years out of date now. But even then, warming was predicted and warming has happened.

If that's your validation you are very far away of any serious discussion of this issue. Models that don't incorporate Anthropogenic contributions show warming also.

Global models are designed to address global issues. You will always be able to find some details that don't match up but it doesn't falsify the general gist of it. The earth is warming up. Man-made increases in CO2 concentrations are mainly responsible and will cause further warming in the future. Nothing you have said disproves any of this.

Actually is quite different: Nothing you have said PROVES that manmade increases in CO2 are mainly reponsible. You have been shown that the models you trust don't reflect reality at all, in a peer reviewed recent paper and you insist to keep your head on the sand. That's up to you , but the real denier here is you.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

For a followup of Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper (wich falsified models), look at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3486 for a smart discussion, (unlike the one here). Kousutsoyiannis himself is participating and can answer any question about his paper (so the resident mo**ns can ask himself directly.)

 

[Spud1k]

If that's your validation you are very far away of any serious discussion of this issue. Models that don't incorporate Anthropogenic contributions show warming also.

But only a very small amount in comparison. This (among other things) shows that the anthropogenic effects are the dominant factor. I could hurl some references your way if you want, but you'll probably just dismiss them as IPCC propaganda.

Actually is quite different: Nothing you have said PROVES that manmade increases in CO2 are mainly reponsible.

See above.

You have been shown that the models you trust don't reflect reality at all, in a peer reviewed recent paper and you insist to keep your head on the sand. That's up to you , but the real denier here is you.

If you're going to nitpick on the year on year variation, I'd say you've missed the point completely; the current state-of-the-art climate models aren't able to forecast that with any certainty, never mind the ones they had back in 1988. It's the overall trends that are important, not whether they get each year's value right.

Hansen predicted warming. Warming has happened, so qualitatively he was bang on the money. He may not have got the magnitude right, but I still think he did pretty well considering how simple the models were back then compared to what they have now.

And by the way, it's not as if anyone uses Hansen's 1988 predictions or even his model any more. As I keep stressing, the models have come on a very long way in the last 20 years (and will continue to improve in the future), so people are sensibly basing their predictions on the most up to date ones.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I just gave a paper that shows that the opposite is correct.

So, instead of giving us the papers that shows "Model B outputs scenario C", give us the paper that proves/validates something like this: "Model B:s predictions are shown to be skillful when it comes to predicted data X, has withstood specific falsification Y, and has made fullfilled, in absence of the model unexpected, predictions Z during the years after it was a proposed model for {x,c}". (Or some variant thereof. Just a suggestion).

Only after this are the B->C modelings becoming interesting (for me) to analyze.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

You might want to discuss Hansen 2008 then?
Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper?
Anything?
My position here is that models lack predictive skills. I have papers and participate in deep discussions about this issue, just in other forums.

My position on the manmade effect on temperature increase is that it have been falsified by thropospheric hotspots. You migh want to discuss that also, but I'd like to do it in cl¡mateaudit, basically because there is where the papers are discussed seriously. The quality of the posters (BOTH sides) is far, far greater than here and you have access to the authors, (but not to Hansen).

But only a very small amount in comparison. This (among other things) shows that the anthropogenic effects are the dominant factor. I could hurl some references your way if you want, but you'll probably just dismiss them as IPCC propaganda.



See above.



If you're going to nitpick on the year on year variation, I'd say you've missed the point completely; the current state-of-the-art climate models aren't able to forecast that with any certainty, never mind the ones they had back in 1988. It's the overall trends that are important, not whether they get each year's value right.

Hansen predicted warming. Warming has happened, so qualitatively he was bang on the money. He may not have got the magnitude right, but I still think he did pretty well considering how simple the models were back then compared to what they have now.

And by the way, it's not as if anyone uses Hansen's 1988 predictions any more. As I keep stressing, the models have come on a very long way in the last 20 years (and will continue to improve in the future), so people are sensibly basing their predictions on the most up to date ones.

 

[Spud1k]

For a followup of Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper (wich falsified models), look at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3486 for a smart discussion, (unlike the one here). Kousutsoyiannis himself is participating and can answer any question about his paper (so the resident mo**ns can ask himself directly.)

As Lemmy once said, you got yours and I got mine.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I don't like realclimate because they censor posts.

 

[Spud1k]

You might want to discuss Hansen 2008 then?

Which one?

Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper?
Anything?

See my previous posts.

My position here is that models lack predictive skills. I have papers and participate in deep discussions about this issue, just in other forums.

All it comes down to is you (and others) are trying to judge the 'predictive skills' of the models by pushing them beyond their capabilities. None of that changes the prediction of overall warming, which is the main takehome.

My position on the manmade effect on temperature increase is that it have been falsified by thropospheric hotspots.

No it hasn't. It turns out the models were right and the instruments were wrong. See this, this and this.

You migh want to discuss that also, but I'd like to do it in cl¡mateaudit, basically because there is where the papers are discussed seriously. The quality of the posters (BOTH sides) is far, far greater than here and you have access to the authors, (but not to Hansen).

If it's OK with you, I'd prefer to stay here. I consider it more neutral territory.

 

[Piggy]

I don't like realclimate because they censor posts.

You mean they don't allow cranks to post obvious bogosity?

 

[mhaze]

Just to make my position more exactly known....give us the paper that proves/validates something like this: "Model B:s predictions are shown to be skillful when it comes to predicted data X, has withstood specific falsification Y, and has made fullfilled, in absence of the model unexpected, predictions Z during the years after it was a proposed model for {x,c}". (Or some variant thereof. Just a suggestion).

Only after this are the B->C modelings becoming interesting (for me) to analyze.

Since the Warmers can't handle this approach, I thought we'd just repeat it.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic
Really?
The most dishonest POS on these forums says this?
Is this Hazian logic? ​

I don't know what you call it but it is a common tactic employed by the deniers these days, so naming it after him would be giving him too much credit. What people often try to do is apply the same logic and rules you get in engineering disciplines to climate science and then attack the science when it doesn't work (Monckton is a classic example). This is sheer fallacy of course; I wouldn't try to invoke atmospheric science to try to falsify structural engineering or anything.

Reported Truesceptic.

Since you understand these issues:

1. Why assert ad hom when I said this:

Originally Posted by mhaze
You do realize, I hope, that this sort of talk in many fields of science and engineering using quite advanced and skillful models would get you fired?


​

2. Please explain how given this lack of skill, anyone should pay attention to taxation schemes based on CO2 based on admittedly, bad science.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
You migh want to discuss that also, but I'd like to do it in cl¡mateaudit, basically because there is where the papers are discussed seriously. The quality of the posters (BOTH sides) is far, far greater than here and you have access to the authors, (but not to Hansen).
​

If it's OK with you, I'd prefer to stay here. I consider it more neutral territory.

Noise to signal ratios

here 90%
CA 20-40%

 

[TrueSceptic]

Reported Truesceptic.

Since you understand these issues:

1. Why assert ad hom when I said this:

Originally Posted by mhaze [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
You do realize, I hope, that this sort of talk in many fields of science and engineering using quite advanced and skillful models would get you fired?


​

2. Please explain how given this lack of skill, anyone should pay attention to taxation schemes based on CO2 based on admittedly, bad science.

So your personal attack (yet another) on another poster is acceptable? Fine.