Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Myriad]

That makes NO sense.

Is this your intent?

Something like NON BELIEVER in climate modes --> BELIEVER in economic models?

There is no basis for such a concept.

No, more like claimed non believer in climate models --> actual believer in economic models.

And of course there's a basis for it. The concept is called a double standard, and it is observed in ideologues of all stripes.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[macdoc]

Wangler enthused

good post, and I like the link.

Gee Wangler - that eidetic memory failing you....having to repeat links how tiresome...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4920073&highlight=models#post4920073

amongst several other times those links have been mentioned
You might as well have both sections memorized so we won't bore you

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

.....

•••

Somehow care to explain the "physics" of economic models before this conflation gets out of hand.....

 

[Drysdale]

It seems like your orbit is quickly decaying. You're about to ignite yourself!

By the way, yet another thread without clear subject and statements on your part...

You know, I was thinking the same about you oddly enough.
I generally dont participate in the GW threads since I'm not a scientist nor a programmer. I do read them and at least attempt to keep an open mind though.

But all you've done in this thread is muddy the waters with critiques of individuals with differing views of your own. I have'nt seen you offer anything substantive scientifically. All your posts drip of cynicism and disrespect even moreso than the long time resident warmers which is saying something.

Why dont you try and debate the science and quit with the juvenile subject shifting.

 

[macdoc]

Despite English as a second language he has a far firmer grasp of the physics of climate than those he is deservedly dissing....

Science is not about "opinion" - it's about evidence.....bear it in mind before you step into a subject to say you know little about ....speaking of puerile...

Your use of the term "warmers" gives lie to your "open mind" attempted disguise.........
Perhaps better stick to your political forums.

 

[Wangler]

Wangler enthused

Gee Wangler - that eidetic memory failing you....having to repeat links how tiresome...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4920073&highlight=models#post4920073

amongst several other times those links have been mentioned
You might as well have both sections memorized so we won't bore you

It was a good link the first time I saw it, too!

 

[Wangler]

Despite English as a second language he has a far firmer grasp of the physics of climate than those he is deservedly dissing....

If I was cynical, I would interpret this as meaning that you feel anyone who doesn't speak English as a first language has some barrier to learning about climate physics, which Alec has managed to overcome.

 

[lomiller]

Despite English as a second language he has a far firmer grasp of the physics of climate than those he is deservedly dissing....

in some cases he even has a better grasp of the English Language...

 

[Wowbagger]

Virtual reality can be whatever you want it to be and computer climate models are just that, they are the code based on the subjective opinions of the scientists creating them. The real world has no such bias.

Yes, that is true. But, I do not see any evidence of any policy-makers taking models more seriously than that.

ETA: Actually, on second thought, I do object to the usage of "subjective opinion" in your statement. These are empirical-based models, based on well-understood climate processes. They are not mere opinion. But, the point about them being a virtual reality is accepted.

You still have failed to provide your definition of the word "model". I am speaking ONLY of computer models, specifically computer climate models.

And my point, here, is that there is no difference, from the perspective of science, between a computer model that extrapolates from real data; and a theory worked out on paper using real data.

Both are subject to revision and improvement over time. Your celebration of empirical evidence as "more accurate" than computer models is misguided, for that reason.

The evidence for AGW exists in both, but you dismiss both, for different reasons: The computer model you dismiss as "not realistic". The empirical evidence you dismiss as "not really AGW". I think your real problem, is that you hardly know much about the discipline of the scientific method.

Computer flight simulations are vastly different then computer climate models. The only comparison is they are both simulations.

You stated computer models can not predict the future, and I stated how far they can do so.

 

[MattusMaximus]

They are more accurate because the laboratory is 100% real. Computers cannot accurately immitate reality for future predictions.

And yet they do all the time. Just talk to those folks who are conducting today's spacewalk about how computers projected their orbital trajectory. Or chat with any of the Apollo astronauts about how computers, all the way back in the 1960s, were able to calculate their trip to the Moon. Specifically, you could chat with anyone involved with the Apollo 13 mission where computer simulations helped to solve the problem of how to power up the LEM correctly for the emergency return to Earth.

Nah, those damned computers can't predict anything useful

I am not afraid of models. Why would I be afraid of something that is a joke? I actually think it is hillarious massive amounts of computer illiterates are suckers. AGW exists due to computer illiteracy.

Oh wow... just, wow...

So you mean that all the computer professionals who make their careers out of programming, running, troubleshooting, and interpreting computer modeling of any kind (including climate modeling) are computer illiterate?

 

[macdoc]

Wangler wrote

If I was cynical, I would interpret this as meaning that you feel anyone who doesn't speak English as a first language has some barrier to learning about climate physics, which Alec has managed to overcome.

Understanding the physics and expressing his thoughts in a second language are two entirely different things...he does one superbly and the latter with endearing grace....

 

[aleCcowaN]

You know, I was thinking the same about you oddly enough.
I generally dont participate in the GW threads since I'm not a scientist nor a programmer. I do read them and at least attempt to keep an open mind though.

But all you've done in this thread is muddy the waters with critiques of individuals with differing views of your own. I have'nt seen you offer anything substantive scientifically. All your posts drip of cynicism and disrespect even moreso than the long time resident warmers which is saying something.

Why dont you try and debate the science and quit with the juvenile subject shifting.

Point not taken.

I agree about the thread no going the way it should. But the matter here is that almost nothing is submitted for discussion, yet everything is considered debatable. Somewhat, people with science background has mixed up saying "[Link] That's it. Huh?" with stating something in order to discuss. Two things are always absent: i) A person that says "It is my understanding/conviction/etc. that A, and that is because of/related/implies/will bring/etc. B. I also submit this documents [link] [link] in support of what I am saying"; ii) The same person participating in good faith and willing to admit errors without any harm to his/her reputation.

Under such conditions I haven't allow myself to engage in debating any "scientific" matter proposed here [In a parallel thread I had, but I wrote first "Bait bitten ... Toing!!!" and engaged myself willingly in the kind of idiotic infantile argumentations, reasoning as information went popping out, just to show what they are doing here and there]. Instead, I addressed directly the two individuals that I detected were and are doing the more harm not to the thread topic -there's no such thing here- but to the forum itself. I addressed what I understand to be the foundations of their behaviours and their personal communicational styles. If the people involved are cataloged as warmers or deniers, I don't give a darn for it, as it is accidental. And about the "muddy" aspect you know the soil and water and all the mess with them were in these fora way before I clicked into here.

You must acknowledge the differences between human beings humanly debating about human issues (like the "the paranormal", "why Obama...", etc.) and human beings with the chance of debating natural-non-human issues in a humanly way or in a scientific way. If you can't separate both things or you have little science and methodology to contribute, you do good by not participating in this forum. Allow others to 100% confront those who having not one neither/or another yet do participate .

And thanks for that "juvenile"...

 

[Drysdale]

Despite English as a second language he has a far firmer grasp of the physics of climate than those he is deservedly dissing....

Science is not about "opinion" - it's about evidence.....bear it in mind before you step into a subject to say you know little about ....speaking of puerile...

Your use of the term "warmers" gives lie to your "open mind" attempted disguise.........
Perhaps better stick to your political forums.

Hmm, kinda like your use of the term deniers?
Those seem to be the monikers given to both sides on this forum.
Warmers believe in AGW and Deniers dont basically, correct?

I said I attempt to have an open mind. Not that I attempt to have no opinion. I think it's a bunch of crap to be blunt though yes.

Just as you believe hook line and sinker. You have sold yourself on AGW and refuse to listen to dissenting opinions. Kinda like much of congress.

If it is a scientific debate why the need to suppress counter views?
Is'nt that the basis of science? Validate,validate and validate more to test all possibilities? The so called deniers are'nt the ones suppressing hearings.

That pretty much sealed it for me. If your argument is so tenuous as to oppress any dissenting views, I think it's kinda obvious who's using smoke and mirrors here.

 

[Drysdale]

Point not taken.

I agree about the thread no going the way it should. But the matter here is that almost nothing is submitted for discussion, yet everything is considered debatable. Somewhat, people with science background has mixed up saying "[Link] That's it. Huh?" with stating something in order to discuss. Two things are always absent: i) A person that says "It is my understanding/conviction/etc. that A, and that is because of/related/implies/will bring/etc. B. I also submit this documents [link] [link] in support of what I am saying"; ii) The same person participating in good faith and willing to admit errors without any harm to his/her reputation.

Under such conditions I haven't allow myself to engage in debating any "scientific" matter proposed here [In a parallel thread I had, but I wrote first "Bait bitten ... Toing!!!" and engaged myself willingly in the kind of idiotic infantile argumentations, reasoning as information went popping out, just to show what they are doing here and there]. Instead, I addressed directly the two individuals that I detected were and are doing the more harm not to the thread topic -there's no such thing here- but to the forum itself. I addressed what I understand to be the foundations of their behaviours and their personal communicational styles. If the people involved are cataloged as warmers or deniers, I don't give a darn for it, as it is accidental. And about the "muddy" aspect you know the soil and water and all the mess with them were in these fora way before I clicked into here.

You must acknowledge the differences between human beings humanly debating about human issues (like the "the paranormal", "why Obama...", etc.) and human beings with the chance of debating natural-non-human issues in a humanly way or in a scientific way. If you can't separate both things or you have little science and methodology to contribute, you do good by not participating in this forum. Allow others to 100% confront those who having not one neither/or another yet do participate .

And thanks for that "juvenile"...

And yet more words but little substance. You a lawyer by chance?

Address the counterpoints presented.

 

[Pixel42]

If it is a scientific debate why the need to suppress counter views?

Who is suppressing counter views? Who is stopping Pielke et al publishing their work? Who is trying to get Watts' and other blogs shut down? Who is stopping news media reporting the views of people who doubt AGW? Examples, please.

 

[macdoc]

Drysdale mused..

If it is a scientific debate why the need to suppress counter views?

It's not a debate and that's where you err...

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/

the science of AGW is well established despite the gadflies with ill informed opinions better suited to political forums

If you wish to argue with an informed opinion from your uniformed one....Dr. Gammon's email is at the end..

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

*“This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
*“This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

[email protected]

The consequences and how best to deal with the situation of our own making that we face collectively are far from clear
....when you get that far let us know and a discussion about dealing with the consequences could ensue....

Until then - the most informed thing you've said is you are "not very knowledgeable"...

stick with it grasshopper it's a solid position...as to the "open minded".....doubtful...

 

[aleCcowaN]

Hmm, kinda like your use of the term deniers?
Those seem to be the monikers given to both sides on this forum.
Warmers believe in AGW and Deniers dont basically, correct?

I said I attempt to have an open mind. Not that I attempt to have no opinion. I think it's a bunch of crap to be blunt though yes.

Just as you believe hook line and sinker. You have sold yourself on AGW and refuse to listen to dissenting opinions. Kinda like much of congress.

If it is a scientific debate why the need to suppress counter views?
Is'nt that the basis of science? Validate,validate and validate more to test all possibilities? The so called deniers are'nt the ones suppressing hearings.

That pretty much sealed it for me. If your argument is so tenuous as to oppress any dissenting views, I think it's kinda obvious who's using smoke and mirrors here.

For a person who does not participate much in science fora, since he/she is not a scientist nor a programmer nor yada yada you have had a lot of intervention so far.

For a person who tries to keep an open mind you're stuck to too many of that snack-like ideas available in the markets.

And yet more words but little substance. You a lawyer by chance?

For all you should know about myself look my profile and signature here.

Address the counterpoints presented.

Sure! Open your thread for that and I'll gladly answer.

I should reconsider the old saying and convert it to "There's nothing more alike a Fascist than a raging Skeptic" You know why? Because if you answer this and other posts we will be obliged to answer them, then you'll continue to point to personal issues, thus becoming yourself the very same thing you intended to criticize in post #603 as soon as tomorrow noon -a time for Guinness' Records!-.

 

[Poptech]

the science of AGW is well established...

...in virtual reality.

 

[lomiller]

Hmm, kinda like your use of the term deniers?

Denier is a fairly generic term for someone whom will never accept the conclusions of mainstream science no matter how much evidence is presented. Its use in this case is appropriate.

If it is a scientific debate why the need to suppress counter views?

It isn’t, really. A scientific debate requires that both sides have science they can bring to the table, which simply isn’t the case here. What we have is one side presenting data from papers published in such Journals as Science and Nature, and another presenting internet blogs and “reports” from political think tanks. That is not a scientific debate.

 

[Poptech]

No, more like claimed non believer in climate models --> actual believer in economic models.

And of course there's a basis for it. The concept is called a double standard, and it is observed in ideologues of all stripes.

Except for the fact that this would be a lie and a strawman.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, that is true. But, I do not see any evidence of any policy-makers taking models more seriously than that.
......

All the alarmist predictions of AGW on which it is asserted that "Urgent action must happen now" (blah blah blah) are based on computer scenarios (models) and you can see these in the IPCC reports 2007, chapter 8, also in the summary for policy makers. These are models of course. Parameters input to them include such things as sensitivity to CO2, which is essentially derived from another computer model.

As far as do policy makers take those seriously, on the one hand they might, and on the other they may just use it as a ruse to create a juicy new stealth tax. Likely a mix of both. Whether you see evidence of policy makers taking models seriously or what you consider serious or evidence isn't really material.