Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

a_unique_person said:
You just agreed with him. We don't know anything 100%.
Click to expand...
We don't have to because the real world already does everything 100%, which is my point. It is not about how much we know but where we attempt to learn about what we do not know and there is only one place we can learn this correctly, the real world.
 
Poptech said:
We don't have to because the real world already does everything 100%, which is my point. It is not about how much we know but where we attempt to learn about what we do not know and there is only one place we can learn this correctly, the real world.
Click to expand...

So how do you plan for the future?
 
Poptech said:
We don't have to because the real world already does everything 100%, which is my point. It is not about how much we know but where we attempt to learn about what we do not know and there is only one place we can learn this correctly, the real world.
Click to expand...

The models are based on our best knowledge physical laws of the real world. All science can only do that, if it's computer code or a mathematical formula.

Pure empiricism is not science.
 
Originally Posted by a_unique_person
Pure empiricism is not science.
Click to expand...

Poptech responded
Yes science is empirical.
Click to expand...

That's NOT what unique said.....he said "pure empiricism".....do read the post....

Your argument, Poptech, aside from being poorly framed, is old and discounted....

Nature 38, 609-611 (25 October 1888) | doi:10.1038/038609a0

Empiricism Versus Science

THERE is among the general public a perennial JL tendency to exalt and honour the man of affairs- the man whose business it is to pose as figurehead and carry through great schemes in the face of the community- at the expense of the quiet student or the scientific pioneer. And every now and then this permanent tendency is played upon by someone who ought to know better, and excited into more conspicuous vitality; sometimes taking the form of a demonstration in favour of " practice" as opposed to " theory/' sometimes the form of a flow of ribaldry against scientific methods and results.
Click to expand...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v38/n991/abs/038609a0.html

:garfield:
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
That's NOT what unique said.....he said "pure empiricism".....do read the post....
Click to expand...

Exactly. Empiricism is an important part of science, but if that was all we used, we would still be stuck in the 1800's. Einstein was advancing science with thought experiments quite successfully. It took years to confirm empirically many of his ideas.
 
and Einstein is still being confirmed empirically.....

http://esciencenews.com/articles/20...atory.einsteins.theory.passes.strict.new.test

Strange that the strongest and clearest signals of climate change and AGW are the analogue ones - the most empirical of all.....

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

are the ones the denier cadre seem inclined to ignore....

Multi-year ice almost gone....
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/040609.html

In Poptech world....all one derives is .....hmmmm :garfield:

Since there is no underlying structure of accumulated knowledge and theory to fit observation into.

I think he needs a reminder about the "thesis" part of scientific method.

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
You seem to be confusing the advance of the knowledge obtained using the scientific method
Click to expand...
Please prove AGW using the scientific method.

I have not ignored signs of climate change. I have stated that there is empirical science to support climate change, there is nothing but virtual reality to support the AGW religion. You just don't understand the difference between AGW and climate change.

Mac why are you citing old papers? Isn't that "illegal" according to you? But all of this has always had to do with subjectively defining validation criteria.
 
Last edited:
Poptech said:
Please prove AGW using the scientific method.

I have not ignored signs of climate change. I have stated that there is empirical science to support climate change, there is nothing but virtual reality to support the AGW religion. You just don't understand the difference between AGW and climate change.

Mac why are you citing old papers? Isn't that "illegal" according to you? But all of this has always had to do with subjectively defining validation criteria.
Click to expand...

Hang on a minute. You do accept that science can be advanced without relying completely on empricism?
 
Old papers for dated ideas which is Poptech's idea of pure empiricism is indeed....old dated and wrong.

••

AGW has been well established in the science community by scientific method
....nobody can resolve Poptech's ignorance of that 'cept Poptech.

Now why don't you join the AGU and challenge their position statement....

Human Impacts on Climate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.
Click to expand...

http://www.agu.org/

Now you "claim" to be a computer scientist...they should welcome you with open arms and listen wraptly to your brilliant refutation of their stated position....

Likely outcome > 0
 
Poptech said:
Real Climate Misunderstanding Of Climate Models (Roger A. Pielke Sr. Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science)

Looks like Gavin as a lot to learn. It is not wonder RealClimate.org attacks all the computer illiterates.
Click to expand...

Some of Pielke's student projects on "tuning Climate models".

PARAMETERIZATION PROJECTS - April 26, 2006:

Hehehehe....

BenBurch said:
Without such models, NASA couldn't fly anywhere.
Click to expand...
The argument that alleges comparability and similitude between climate models and those in aerospace is false. The standards of aerospace modeling, if applied to climate models, destroys them.

Parameters used in selected parameterizations in atmospheric modeling - chapters 7 to 9 - Pielke, R.A., Sr., 2002: Mesoscale meteorological modeling. 2nd Edition, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 676 pp

No anawer to my simple question? Indicates that advocates of proving AGW through computer modeling are too ignorant to defend their premise?
technoextreme said:
Ehhhh gads that isn't close to being correct. Whenever you perform an experiment you always introduce uncertainty. ....
Click to expand...

And the introduced uncertainty of a climate model run?

What is it?
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
The models are based on our best knowledge physical laws of the real world....
Click to expand...


From the Piekle reference-
the only basic physics in the models are the pressure gradient force, advection and the acceleration due to gravity. These are the only physics in which there are no tunable coefficients.Climate models are engineering codes and not fundamental physics.
​
 
Poptech said:
We don't have to because the real world already does everything 100%, which is my point. It is not about how much we know but where we attempt to learn about what we do not know and there is only one place we can learn this correctly, the real world.
Click to expand...

As I already suspected, you seem to be playing word games here. 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%".

"The real world does everything 100%" - just what the hell does that even mean? I think you, like mhaze, are being intentionally vague here.

You are attempting to change arguments and definitions mid-stride, move the goalposts of the discussion, I think in order to avoid admitting your glaring logical inconsistencies & keep propping up that strawman you like beating so much - not a good sign if you want respect here or within the scientific community, Poptech.

Until you and mhaze can honestly address the logical inconsistency (without weasling word games) in the arguments that I have clearly & repeatedly pointed out, all of your arguments regarding computer climate modeling are dubious, at best.
 
Last edited:
Herzblut said:
The point is that science cannot be advanced without relying at all on empirical evidence.
Click to expand...

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?

Or is it some of that elusive empirical evidence that will show (when it finally comes to light in a very fluid near future) that global warming is not happening, if it's happening it's not our fault and if it is it's actually good in many immeasurable ways?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom