Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

Megalodon said:
Empirical evidence like the shifting of ecosystems poleward and upward? Or empirical evidence like the historically unprecedented melting of the cryosphere? Or maybe you mean empirical evidence like ocean acidification?
Click to expand...
No, empirical evidence for anything but a recovery from the LIA.
 
Herzblut said:
No, empirical evidence for anything but a recovery from the LIA.
Click to expand...
But Mega cites evidence for GW and thinks, no one will notice the missing "A" in front. Gee, but that leads us back to those darn computer models, and they are not tuned to tell us We are only recovering from LIA.

Hmmm...
 
Herzblut said:
No, empirical evidence for anything but a recovery from the LIA.
Click to expand...

Recovery of LIA? I'm sure you'll provide all the documentation showing the details of that theory, preferably with the explanation of where the heat retained by the emitted CO2 went. Yes, because heat retention by atmospheric CO2 is not a theory, it's a scientific fact.

So please show us your alternative to our current Thermodynamics ;)
 
mhaze said:
But Mega cites evidence for GW and thinks, no one will notice the missing "A" in front. Gee, but that leads us back to those darn computer models, and they are not tuned to tell us We are only recovering from LIA.
Click to expand...

Talking about models, did you find a model that explains how a change in a measurement of solar activity caused a temperature increase ten years earlier?
 
Megalodon said:
Recovery of LIA? I'm sure you'll provide all the documentation showing the details of that theory, preferably with the explanation of where the heat retained by the emitted CO2 went. Yes, because heat retention by atmospheric CO2 is not a theory, it's a scientific fact.
Click to expand...
Heat retention in the oceans (hence, in the climate system) by atmospheric CO2 is a scientific fact? Which science you refer to? Which fact?
 
Poptech said:
The computer hardware runs in reality, the simulation is virtual. BTW there are all sorts of issues relating to the hardware that is not even remotely addressed.
Click to expand...

The measuring and gathering of empirical evidence is done through hardware. Everything after a sensor trips a signal is virtual.

In the models you can account for that.

Is there a problem in having a model and refining it because of empirical data? To my knowledge, that is what usually is done in science.

Like in eh, oh, I don't know, aircraft design...
 
Last edited:
Herzblut said:
Heat retention in the oceans (hence, in the climate system) by atmospheric CO2 is a scientific fact? Which science you refer to? Which fact?
Click to expand...

I'll type this real slow for you:

Fact: Gaseous CO2 absorbs and re-directs radiation in a specific window of the spectrum;

Fact: We increased significantly the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere;

Fact: Due to it's properties, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere results in a global warming;

Fact: You'll have to deal with it, or present evidence for the errors of modern physics.
 
Herzblut said:
Heat retention in the oceans (hence, in the climate system) by atmospheric CO2 is a scientific fact? Which science you refer to? Which fact?
Click to expand...

And btw, before trying to change the subject with non-sequiturs, please provide all the documentation showing the details of the theory that current warming is caused by a recovery from the LIA, preferably with the explanation of where the heat retained by the emitted CO2 went.
 
realpaladin said:
The guide states: In case of any discrepancies with reality, it is reality that has gotten it wrong.
Click to expand...
In reality, there's no global warming for a decade despite significant industrial CO2 emissions. Hence, the presumptive fact that "increase of CO2 in the atmosphere results in a global warming" is false or at least wrongly stated.
 
Herzblut said:
In reality, there's no global warming for a decade despite significant industrial CO2 emissions. Hence, the presumptive fact that "increase of CO2 in the atmosphere results in a global warming" is false or at least wrongly stated.
Click to expand...
Dude! I was just trolling... it is something from 'The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy' by Douglas Adams...
 
Herzblut said:
No, with your conduct.
Click to expand...

Oh, spare me... We've been through this before, and you've been hit with reality time and time again. Your persistence to ignore it, like you did again, is not anyone's problem but yours.
 
Herzblut said:
In reality, there's no global warming for a decade despite significant industrial CO2 emissions. Hence, the presumptive fact that "increase of CO2 in the atmosphere results in a global warming" is false or at least wrongly stated.
Click to expand...

You've seen these before, so it's safe to assume you are lying...



Just in case, the last trendline includes 1998, where the warming supposedly stopped.



But we know how it is with you, Herzy... Same old, same old...

 
macdoc said:
Old papers for dated ideas which is Poptech's idea of pure empiricism is indeed....old dated and wrong.
Click to expand...
No I actually don't have papers that old. The majority are since 2000.

macdoc said:
AGW has been well established in the science community by scientific method
Click to expand...
Really? then it should be easy for you to prove it.

macdoc said:
Now why don't you join the AGU and challenge their position statement....
Click to expand...

Mac I asked AGAIN for the vote from the association's membership in support of the position statement. The only thing the position statement proves is a majority of the AGU group's board members agreed to that statement. The AGU council has only 27 Members.
 
MattusMaximus said:
The first time you mentioned the 100% number you were referring to your criticism that computer modeling cannot be 100% accurate and therefore isn't trustworthy. Now, after I've pinned you down on the inherent inconsistency in your own arguments since not even empirical experimentation is ever 100% accurate, you are switching gears to say "the real world does everything 100%".
Click to expand...
You don't even understand the argument as I have stated it clearly over and over.

The one thing you can be sure of is everything happened 100% REAL in the empirical experiment whether you did the experiment 100% correctly or understood it 100% or analyzed it 100% correctly or not.

MattusMaximus said:
"The real world does everything 100%" - just what the hell does that even mean? I think you, like mhaze, are being intentionally vague here.
Click to expand...
In the real world everything in is obeying all the natural laws whether you understand them correctly or not. In a computer model they are only obeying the laws based on how they were programmed in which can be wrong and there is no way to prove they are right.

Your lack of understanding this basic concept only proves your lack of understanding of the real vs the virtual world. It is why so many natural scientists are computer illiterate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom