Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

[realpaladin]

*me is going to shop for a virtual shotgun*

Them thar trolls are persistent buggers this here yar!

 

[athon]

Not at all. If you have followed this "debate" at all, it is a handful of environmental organizations (Greenpeace), politicians (Al Gore) and sites like RealClimate that dismiss everything that does not support their position.

So? And the denialists do likewise. They find issue with the science and write books, make video clips and also state their piece. They're free to start organisations, wave flags and create movies. Nobody is stopping them.

How does the fact an organisation like Greenpeace disagree with the denial of AGW suddenly mean there is no debate?

RealClimate claims to disprove anything and everything yet Gavin deletes and edits all comments he feels like. There is no "debate", never has been. When they did actually debate - the results are surprising.

I wouldn't know. I've got no interest in 'RealClimate'. I try to keep to the journals, the scientists and the research organisations who are involved in researching climate change. Beyond talking to government officials, university representatives and the scientists who are actually at the front line, I tend to have little time to do more than throw a cursory glance at much else.

The thing is, from what I do see, the nature of the discussion within the research fields and outside of it is very different. Outside is a lot of ignorance and poorly worded arguments. Within, there are no journal articles demonstrating where the idea of a changing climate and anthropogenic influence falls apart. There are no people showing facts and figures that demolish the concept of AGW. There is a great deal of debate, for sure, but nothing of the nature being discussed outside.

Given those people I work with are at the front line of the discussion, I tend to defer to their opinions rather than armchair climatologists.

Now, I'm not taking issue with your (or anybody's) right to voice an opinion. In fact, I'll defend it to the hilt. I'll even help you voice it properly. Yet to state there is some conspiracy to being stifled is quite simply wrong. If you're that concerned, go and study climatology (or a related field) and join the ranks of those who do it for a living.

Athon

 

[Poptech]

Peer-Reviewed papers supporting skepticism

Within, there are no journal articles demonstrating where the idea of a changing climate and anthropogenic influence falls apart.

There are no journal articles not based on climate models supporting AGW. And there are plenty of journal articles supporting skepticism.

180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
- Beck, Ernst-George

Other articles

Edited by Tricky: 

Long list of articles replaced with link to previous post.

Do not cut-and-paste large blocks of text. Since this is a set of references, it might be okay to allow it once, but repeatedly posting it against rule 6

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

 

[athon]

There are no journal articles not based on climate models supporting AGW. And there are plenty of journal articles supporting skepticism.

And here we have the classic 'swamping' method. Overload the discussion with information that the debater knows cannot all be read, without highlighting anything, and he claims victory.

I've played this game many times, Poptech. You're not showing me anything different. I used to go through each article and show where it wasn't saying what they thought it was, or it didn't disprove the entire notion of AGW, or was actually supporting it...until in the end it became blindingly obvious I was wasting my time.

Maybe you're different. Maybe you've got something that could show me why all of the scientists I work with are wrong. Maybe you're right. But there's one major rule we go by in the sci-com field - if you can't make yourself clear, it doesn't matter if you're right. You might as well have said nothing at all.

If you really do have something to say, it's lost in the poor excuse for an argument you're offering. Which could be a real shame considering the fact that pro-AGW are doing such a good job of presenting their side of the issue.

Athon

 

[Poptech]

I used to go through each article and show where it wasn't saying what they thought it was, or it didn't disprove the entire notion of AGW, or was actually supporting it...

They are definitely not supporting it. That was in response to your claim that journal papers did not exist disputing AGW.

Which could be a real shame considering the fact that pro-AGW are doing such a good job of presenting their side of the issue.

Ok then why are you convinced of AGW or that they have a sound argument? I have asked many times for a paper proving AGW not based on Climate Model results. Instead I get all sorts of evidence for climate change. My dispute has never been about climate change but AGW.

 

[macdoc]

It's all over PopTech- your meme has failed.....the world moves on.....

tough goal....1 ton per person....

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited to remove copywritted material. Article can be found here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090622064809.htm

here you go Poptech....join the flat earthers.....they might want to advertise on your site....money is money after alll
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Please do not repost entire articles and/or copywritten material from other websites.

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

 

[athon]

They are definitely not supporting it. That was in response to your claim that journal papers did not exist disputing AGW.

My point wasn't whether they did as you claimed or not - my point was that it's a poor way to respond. Your tactics are no different to those of nearly every other anti-AGW person I've talked to. I've got no particular issue against the idea of anti-AGW, and am not a scientist in the field. I'm from a communications and education background, and am trying to impart some words of wisdom on how to be better received.

Take from it what you will.

Ok then why are you convinced of AGW or that they have a sound argument? I have asked many times for a paper proving AGW not based on Climate Model results. Instead I get all sorts of evidence for climate change. My dispute has never been about climate change but AGW.

Ok, several things:

1) 'Proof' is a mathematical term, not a scientific one. Strange how you readily site a paper that argues in some part against political exploitation of weak science literacy, yet here you're committing the same faux pas yourself.

Science relies on the balance of evidence. As such, you're free to ignore whatever is thrown your way, and are right to do so. Evidently, your threshold for convincing is set rather high.

2) Define AGW. And no, that's not me being glib. If you state 'where climate change is caused solely as a direct consequence of human behaviour', then again, of course you can expect little by the way of evidence. Few scientists I work with would would ever agree with such a claim, yet it's a typical strawman I hear from anti-AGW.

More appropriately, AGW tends to be defined as the influence human behaviour has on climate change. If you say with a straight face that human activities have no long term influence on air movement, water currents, rainfall, local temperatures etc., then you're a bigger fool than I ever gave credit for.

Hopefully you're not that much of an idiot, leaving us with a debate on just how much, and in what ways, human behaviour changes the climate. This is closer to the debate being held by scientists.

As time goes on, there is more and more evidence suggesting that the models formed have merit. There is, of course, many situations where the models are shown to be inadequate, or anomalies are presented, yet rarely do these show the models to be completely useless, but rather that unaccounted variables still exist. Which is, of course, how science moves forward.

3) Anybody can make any call to be convinced and expect no responses if they exclude certain types of evidence. Certainly, climate change operates around models. Without them, its near impossible to relate observations within a context. Models aren't always right, but they can be shown to be useful.

To answer your question, however, there is no single paper or observation that has led me to conclude there is merit to the idea that human behaviour has and will continue to influence our global climate. Years of discussions, reading a number of papers, and talking to a range of people has slowly brought me to this point. My opinion will surely continue to change as I speak to more people and do more research myself.

Athon

 

[Dr Adequate]

There are no journal articles not based on climate models supporting AGW.

I have asked many times for a paper proving AGW not based on Climate Model results.

Good heavens, have the people trying to model the climate been using climate models all this time? I'm shocked. Shocked and dismayed.

I bet AGW-deniers never do that. I bet they use sortilege and gyromancy instead.

 

[realpaladin]

If you code it into a climate model you can prove it! Are you now doubting the virtual world too?

Now please prove climate models are correct before they are coded in.

And um, nukes have been proven to exist and work because they were tested in the real world.

From another thread, but too good not to use over here as well.
I keep the code in a snippet-basket...

 

[SezMe]

Not at all. If you have followed this "debate" at all, it is a handful of environmental organizations (Greenpeace), politicians (Al Gore) and sites like RealClimate that dismiss everything that does not support their position.

I just want to point out, Poptech, that this is exactly what you do except on the other side of the "debate" (your scare quotes). If you are going to dismiss entities such as the ones you've cited on the basis that they reject that which does not agree with their point of view, then we can reject your claimis on the exact same grounds.

 

[Poptech]

1) 'Proof' is a mathematical term, not a scientific one. Strange how you readily site a paper that argues in some part against political exploitation of weak science literacy, yet here you're committing the same faux pas yourself.

This is a common mistake alarmists make. I was not using the mathematical definition of "proof" but the common english usage of "prove".

Science relies on the balance of evidence. As such, you're free to ignore whatever is thrown your way, and are right to do so. Evidently, your threshold for convincing is set rather high.

I will ignore virtual reality as empirical evidence of anything. I was not only trained as a computer scientist but have spent practically my whole life dealing with computer systems. I would hardly call requesting empirical evidence for science "a rather high threshold".

I will ignore the insult part.

As time goes on, there is more and more evidence suggesting that the models formed have merit. There is, of course, many situations where the models are shown to be inadequate, or anomalies are presented, yet rarely do these show the models to be completely useless, but rather that unaccounted variables still exist. Which is, of course, how science moves forward.

Actually they have zero merit. There is no close enough with computer systems. See this is another common mistake alarmists make. There is no "progressive" accuracy with models. There is only right or wrong. This one of the reasons natural scientists and engineers I've met (outside of computer fields) don't properly understand the limitations of computer systems. Writing and compiling code and then getting results does mean it has relevance to anything.

3) Anybody can make any call to be convinced and expect no responses if they exclude certain types of evidence. Certainly, climate change operates around models. Without them, its near impossible to relate observations within a context. Models aren't always right, but they can be shown to be useful.

There are many types of "models" on computer systems. Inputing empirical data into a "model" of the earth can give you a graphic representation of the data which may be useful for studying that data. This is vastly different than complex but 100% wrong long run climate models that contain parametrisation, large grid sections and hypothetical calculations.

To answer your question, however, there is no single paper or observation that has led me to conclude there is merit to the idea that human behaviour has and will continue to influence our global climate.

Clearly man "influences" the planet. The debate is how and how much. Throwing a rock into the ocean will not stop the tides but you are having a "influence". Having everyone on the planet throw a rock into the ocean at the same time, will have a "larger influence" but it will not overcome the gravitational pull of the moon. The hysterical conclusions over anthropogenic CO2 are not based on anything but climate models. The problem is people have lumped everything from real pollution, to land usage into the debate causing emotional appeals to "do good". When the debate is solely on CO2 which is not even pollution! People don't even know this, they commonly confuse carbon monoxide (CO) with carbon dioxide (CO2).

 

[Poptech]

I just want to point out, Poptech, that this is exactly what you do except on the other side of the "debate" (your scare quotes). If you are going to dismiss entities such as the ones you've cited on the basis that they reject that which does not agree with their point of view, then we can reject your claimis on the exact same grounds.

Now obviously you would believe information off a site started by Haliburton which is associated with Dick Cheney! Hypocrite!

 

[Tapio]

After reading through the thread (apart from all of PT's links) I must say I've rarely felt such admiration I feel right now in the way you, athon, once again handle your communications here on the forum.

As somebody who's "foreign" English needs A LOT refinement (especially in how to relate a differing opinion/questions about it without making it sound hostile towards the person), I find great inspiration. Respect. Hope you do too, PT .

Oh, sorry for the off-topic...

 

[Poptech]

From another thread, but too good not to use over here as well.

You do not even make any sense. The climate models cannot be empirically tested. You cannot create a planet earth. You can create a nuclear bomb though. I realize this is way over your head.

 

[Poptech]

using a single, trade-linked model

Yawn.

Mac - Socialism or Capitalism?

 

[realpaladin]

You do not even make any sense. The climate models cannot be empirically tested. You cannot create a planet earth. You can create a nuclear bomb though. I realize this is way over your head.

I am going to add this one as number three! Thanks!

 

[Poptech]

Oh wait you did not get that the first post was sarcasm? I see so you are now going to attempt to distort the context because you lost the argument. That is pathetic.

 

[athon]

This is a common mistake alarmists make. I was not using the mathematical definition of "proof" but the common english usage of "prove".

Yet you're using it in a scientific context. 'Proof' has connotative overtones of certainty. There is no such thing is science, only weight of evidence.

I will ignore virtual reality as empirical evidence of anything. I was not only trained as a computer scientist but have spent practically my whole life dealing with computer systems. I would hardly call requesting empirical evidence for science "a rather high threshold".

The nature of evidence demands context. Observations are objective in nature, yet to call an observation 'evidence' of something, it needs a model to relate to. We could both agree that on the temperature for any given day, yet for it to be subjectively termed 'evidence' we would need to relate it to other observations and state why we think they are related.

I will ignore the insult part.

I'm not sure where I insulted you. I said you have a high threshold for evidence. How is that insulting?

Actually they have zero merit. There is no close enough with computer systems. See this is another common mistake alarmists make. There is no "progressive" accuracy with models. There is only right or wrong. This one of the reasons natural scientists and engineers I've met (outside of computer fields) don't properly understand the limitations of computer systems. Writing and compiling code and then getting results does mean it has relevance to anything.

Then there isn't much more to say, is there. I happen to think models are useful. Computers are useful ways of compiling more complicated models, however in themselves models are simply ways of relating observations in a given context.

Your difficulty, in which case, will be convincing people why models should not ever be used in science. As they have been demonstrated as useful time and time again, and few people would ever happen to agree with you that modeling is a waste of time, I think you'd have a hard time convincing anybody.

In which case, you might want to rethink my advice on how to communicate more effectively.

There are many types of "models" on computer systems. Inputing empirical data into a "model" of the earth can give you a graphic representation of the data which may be useful for studying that data. This is vastly different than complex but 100% wrong long run climate models that contain parametrisation, large grid sections and hypothetical calculations.

So you determine whether a model is useful or not based on a priori conclusions? I don't think so.

They are indeed complex, and many models make significant assumptions. Yet this does not make them any more right or wrong than any other model.

The hysterical conclusions over anthropogenic CO2 are not based on anything but climate models.

Yes, yes, we've already determined that you're entire gripe is over the fact that modeling climate change is useless. And I encourage you to show precisely why, write it up and get it peer reviewed. Then articulate precisely why modeling makes for poor science and communicate it to the public in a clear fashion. If you're that convinced that scientists everywhere have it so dramatically wrong, you've got an obligation to outline just why this is so.

If you're correct, others will see it and communicate the same message. After a while, the paradigm will shift as those without an agenda become convinced by your impeccable logic and overwhelming evidence.

Until then, you're a lone voice on a skeptic's forum who is not presenting a strong case at all, as most of us here see little reason to believe that models make for such poor science.

The problem is people have lumped everything from real pollution, to land usage into the debate causing emotional appeals to "do good". When the debate is solely on CO2 which is not even pollution! People don't even know this, they commonly confuse carbon monoxide (CO) with carbon dioxide (CO2).

Define 'pollution'. It's a bit like the word 'poison' - the definition is in the amount of a substance, and not necessarily in its nature. I avoid using it in my education resources, mostly because it is an emotive word that does little good in helping communicate the science effectively.

As for people confusing the two, I agree some people do it. But committing the fallacy of generalisation doesn't help your argument either. For every idiot, there is an equal and opposing idiot on the other side of the fence.

Athon

 

[realpaladin]

Oh wait you did not get that the first post was sarcasm? I see so you are now going to attempt to distort the context because you lost the argument. That is pathetic.

 

[Poptech]

Yet you're using it in a scientific context. 'Proof' has connotative overtones of certainty. There is no such thing is science, only weight of evidence.

No I am not. You wrongly assumed that.

The nature of evidence demands context. Observations are objective in nature, yet to call an observation 'evidence' of something, it needs a model to relate to. We could both agree that on the temperature for any given day, yet for it to be subjectively termed 'evidence' we would need to relate it to other observations and state why we think they are related.

That is a different definition of model.

I'm not sure where I insulted you. I said you have a high threshold for evidence. How is that insulting?

I thought requiring proof (my context) of something was required by skeptics and scientists? Instead I am told to appeal to authority and have faith.

Then there isn't much more to say, is there. I happen to think models are useful. Computers are useful ways of compiling more complicated models, however in themselves models are simply ways of relating observations in a given context.

That is because you do not understand their limitations. Computers are useful tools but "climate models" are empirically useless code.

Your difficulty, in which case, will be convincing people why models should not ever be used in science. As they have been demonstrated as useful time and time again, and few people would ever happen to agree with you that modeling is a waste of time, I think you'd have a hard time convincing anybody.

You are again confusing different types of models. This is common among alarmists who do not have a background in computer science.

So you determine whether a model is useful or not based on a priori conclusions? I don't think so.

If computer climate models are wrong (they all are), their results are meaningless, computer science 101.

They are indeed complex, and many models make significant assumptions. Yet this does not make them any more right or wrong than any other model.

It makes them all wrong. Again computer science 101.

Until then, you're a lone voice on a skeptic's forum who is not presenting a strong case at all, as most of us here see little reason to believe that models make for such poor science.

That is because you do not understand the limitations of computer systems.

Define 'pollution'. It's a bit like the word 'poison' - the definition is in the amount of a substance, and not necessarily in its nature. I avoid using it in my education resources, mostly because it is an emotive word that does little good in helping communicate the science effectively.

Really? So too much water vapor is pollution?