Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

[realpaladin]

Found the BOLD button have you? Man, I can't wait till you discover what the other buttons do.

 

[Poptech]

Or empirical evidence like the historically unprecedented melting of the cryosphere?

It is not unprecented.

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Geological Survey of Norway)

And Antarctica is not melting.

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking (The Australian)

Antarctic sea ice increasing: study (ABC News, Australia)

Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover (NASA)

Or maybe you mean empirical evidence like ocean acidification?

Which is not a problem.

Modern-age buildup of CO2 and its effects on seawater acidity and salinity
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 33, no 10, May, 2006)
- Hugo A. Loáiciga

This paper's results concerning average seawater salinity and acidity show that, on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the observed or hypothesized rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

 

[D'rok]

It is not unprecented.

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Geological Survey of Norway)

And Antarctica is not melting.

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking (The Australian)

Antarctic sea ice increasing: study (ABC News, Australia)

Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover (NASA)


Which is not a problem.

Modern-age buildup of CO2 and its effects on seawater acidity and salinity
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 33, no 10, May, 2006)
- Hugo A. Loáiciga

These authorities that you have appealed to, are they the ones you wish us to consider authoritative?

 

[Poptech]

Also regarding position statements Mac, I suggest you try reading the paper I posted.

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

Professional societies represent a somewhat special case. Originally created to provide a means for communication within professions – organizing meetings and publishing journals – they also provided, in some instances, professional certification, and public outreach. The central offices of such societies were scattered throughout the US, and rarely located in Washington. Increasingly, however, such societies require impressive presences in Washington where they engage in interactions with the federal government. Of course, the nominal interaction involves lobbying for special advantage, but increasingly, the interaction consists in issuing policy and scientific statements on behalf of the society. Such statements, however, hardly represent independent representation of membership positions.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Wow. There you go again. You are attempting to move the goalposts of the discussion.

You made it very clear earlier in the thread that your beef with computer generated climate modeling was that it wasn't 100% accurate and therefore could not be trusted. You then started to insist that "empirical experimentation" was more reliable, but then it became apparent that you had painted yourself into a corner because it was pointed out to you that all such experimental science is also not 100% accurate.

Then this question was posed to you: Why do you prefer one technique (empirical experimentation) over another (climate modeling), when both are admittedly not 100% accurate yet this is your complaint about only one of them? Are you not guilty of a glaring logical inconsistency within your own arguments here?

And rather than squarely address these apparent inconsistencies and my criticism, you try to change gears, redefine the discussion, and claim that we "just don't understand"...

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.

However, unfortunately for you, this is the Internet, and we can track these discussions. So, no matter how much you attempt to run away from it, I can find and paste your original comments regarding the 100% accuracy question...

Linky #1

My dismissal of the use of computer climate models for scientific conclusions, predictions and policy is based solely on computer science. The models are not a 100% perfect reproduction of the earth and all it contains in real time, therefore they cannot predict anything. I am just amazed at the lack of understanding people have with computer systems.

Linky #2

100% accuracy is required for relevant results. But weather models are tracking real time data and essentially just extrapolating basic weather movement, cloud cover, rain ect... Long term weather modeling is where it becomes laughable. Climate models are attempting to simulate the climate and give temperature projections 100 years from now. Total nonsense.

So, are you going to keep on running away, or are you going to answer my challenge & criticisms of the logical consistency of your own arguments?

 

[Poptech]

Wow. There you go again. You are attempting to move the goalposts of the discussion.

Nice strawman, I did no such thing.

You made it very clear earlier in the thread that your beef with computer generated climate modeling was that it wasn't 100% accurate and therefore could not be trusted. You then started to insist that "empirical experimentation" was more reliable, but then it became apparent that you had painted yourself into a corner because it was pointed out to you that all such experimental science is also not 100% accurate.

Of course empirical experiments are more reliable because the "laboratory" AKA the real world is 100% REAL. As opposed to virtual experiments where the "laboratory" has nothing to do with reality.

I didn't paint myself into anything. You fabricated an argument based off not understanding mine.

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.

No you really don't understand and it explains a lot. So are you going to continue to create strawman arguments?

 

[Herzblut]

Of course empirical experiments are more reliable because the "laboratory" AKA the real world is 100% REAL. As opposed to virtual experiments where the "laboratory" has nothing to do with reality.

But wasn't it you who pointed out the pretty suboptimal US temperature station measurements?

 

[Poptech]

But wasn't it you who pointed out the pretty suboptimal US temperature station measurements?

Yes of course. Again, a REAL temperature still exists in the REAL world whether we measure it 100% correctly or not. My problem is not with empirical temperature measurements but accurately taking empirical temperature measurements. I prefer this than to using a virtual thermometer.

 

[lomiller]

No, empirical evidence for anything but a recovery from the LIA.

Without the following you are simply speculating wildly

1 - empirical proof of the existence of the LIA
2 - empirical proof of the magnitude of the LIA
3 - empirical proof there would have been any recovery if nature had simply been left to take it's course
4 - empirical proof of the magnitude of the recovery from the LIA

 

[Poptech]

Without the following you are simply speculating wildly

1 - empirical proof of the existence of the LIA
2 - empirical proof of the magnitude of the LIA
3 - empirical proof there would have been any recovery if nature had simply been left to take it's course
4 - empirical proof of the magnitude of the recovery from the LIA

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea
(Science, Vol. 274. no. 5292, pp. 1503 - 1508, November 29, 1996)
- Lloyd D. Keigwin

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa
(South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126, 2000)
- P. D. Tyson, W. Karlén, K. Holmgren and G. A. Heiss

The Little Ice Age as Recorded in the Stratigraphy of the Tropical Quelccaya Ice Cap
(Science, Vol. 234. no. 4774, pp. 361-364, October 17, 1986)
- L.G. Thompson, E. Mosley-Thompson, W. Dansgaard, P.M. Grootes

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting data mining Megalodon, but all the graphs I have seen have shown 1998 to be the highest year in recent history. It is a bit hypocritical that when skeptics point out that the warmers are using to short of a time span it is ignored, but if any skeptics use to short of a time span it is used as an argument against them. Talk about consistency

 

[a_unique_person]

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.

If a tree falls in the wood, does it make a sound? What is the sound of one hand clapping?

 

[Poptech]

If a tree falls in the wood, does it make a sound? What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Yes a tree falling will make a transmitted vibration of a frequency whether a human is there to hear / measure it or not. The sound of one hand clapping.

 

[Herzblut]

Yes of course. Again, a REAL temperature still exists in the REAL world whether we measure it 100% correctly or not. My problem is not with empirical temperature measurements but accurately taking empirical temperature measurements.

Wood be nice. Even more fundamental is to at least know the accuracy of a measurement, however bad it might be. Any measurement without a solid error estimation is without scientific merit. And measuring local temperatures around airports is highly valuable for the aviation industry, but not so much for climate science.

 

[macdoc]

but all the graphs I have seen have shown 1998 to be the highest year in recent history.

do you know what El Nino and La Nina are???

typical denier ...ENSO not in the vocabulary or you would not make such a ill informed comment....

 

[Poptech]

So Mac are you admitting natural forces drive climate? That is alarmist heresy!

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes a tree falling will make a transmitted vibration of a frequency whether a human is there to hear / measure it or not. The sound of one hand clapping.

They were rhetorical questions. Read Athon's posts again. You are saying we can't ever know anything 100%. We can't. We will never have perfect knowledge of anything to do with science. Even 'nature' is never 100% certain of anything.

 

[Poptech]

They were rhetorical questions. Read Athon's posts again. You are saying we can't ever know anything 100%. We can't. We will never have perfect knowledge of anything to do with science. Even 'nature' is never 100% certain of anything.

No I am saying that empirical experiments are performed in a 100% REAL environment, whether we understand the environment 100% or not. Virtual reality is not 100% REAL and never will be. You are simply trying to make excuses for the modelers.

 

[a_unique_person]

No I am saying that empirical experiments are performed in a 100% REAL environment, whether we understand the environment 100% or not. Virtual reality is not 100% REAL and never will be. You are simply trying to make excuses for the modelers.

You just acknowledged, we will never have a 100% understanding of the environment. Get over it.

 

[Poptech]

You just acknowledged, we will never have a 100% understanding of the environment. Get over it.

My argument was never about our understanding of the environment but whether the REAL world is 100% REAL or not, it is - virtual reality is not.