IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags anthropogenic GW

Reply
Old 19th September 2008, 05:32 PM   #441
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
Mod Warninginsult removed, please remember your membership agreement
Posted By:brodski

Last edited by brodski; 20th September 2008 at 02:51 PM.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2008, 06:21 PM   #442
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Unnecessary. You speak of the obvious.

Curious while Warmer in this thread support Piggy's devious detours, in the other thread Rodale is criticized for giving no more or less link data than Piggy via Science Daily.

Bias noted.

Besides, Hansen happens to be a huge figure in this field.
Are you blind?

You have been told precisely how to find the original article, and even provided a link to the abstract on PNAS, where it's a matter of a few clicks to get the full article if you want to.

I have cited the original article at length on this thread, with commentary.

What do you want me to do, come read it to you at beddie-bye?

Do you really think you can get away with this kind of nonsense?
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2008, 09:05 PM   #443
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,986
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
You do understand that all science is “a model” right? Modeling something is an essential step in the process of making predictions.
e=mc2 is a model.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 12:09 AM   #444
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
Really?

The most dishonest POS on these forums says this?

Is this Hazian logic?
I don't know what you call it but it is a common tactic employed by the deniers these days, so naming it after him would be giving him too much credit. What people often try to do is apply the same logic and rules you get in engineering disciplines to climate science and then attack the science when it doesn't work (Monckton is a classic example). This is sheer fallacy of course; I wouldn't try to invoke atmospheric science to try to falsify structural engineering or anything.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Spud1k; 20th September 2008 at 12:11 AM.
Spud1k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 12:18 AM   #445
Bluefire
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 162
Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
Basically what Bluefire said. The conclussions are implicit in the models. A run of the models gives no new information, so the study is a tautology.
Just to make my position more exactly known.

My opposition is not specifically to this papers method in itself, as much as it is to the way it is used in this debate.

My interpretation of the paper is that this is sort of a "B -> C" paper. Eg. take some model, and some of IPCC opinions (B) and see what happens if you apply them (C , big difficulties ahead). This is a perfectly valid topic for a paper, and their method could be sound (though I did not check those details since this is a rather uninteresting paper at this stage of debate), as long as it is understood that this is a "B implies C" paper, and not a "C is proven" paper.

The problem is when this is introduced into a debate where B is not agreed upon or proven. One can give us a hundred "B->C" papers, and this will not convince us of C if you do not first prove B.

So, instead of giving us the papers that shows "Model B outputs scenario C", give us the paper that proves/validates something like this: "Model B:s predictions are shown to be skillful when it comes to predicted data X, has withstood specific falsification Y, and has made fullfilled, in absence of the model unexpected, predictions Z during the years after it was a proposed model for {x,c}". (Or some variant thereof. Just a suggestion).

Only after this are the B->C modelings becoming interesting (for me) to analyze.
__________________
#define question (2b || !2b)
Bluefire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 12:29 AM   #446
Megalodon
Illuminator
 
Megalodon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,228
You mean something like this?
Originally Posted by Rahmstorf et al, 2007
__________________
Stupid is depressing...


Last edited by Megalodon; 20th September 2008 at 12:30 AM.
Megalodon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:08 AM   #447
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Bluefire View Post
Just to make my position more exactly known.

My opposition is not specifically to this papers method in itself, as much as it is to the way it is used in this debate.

My interpretation of the paper is that this is sort of a "B -> C" paper. Eg. take some model, and some of IPCC opinions (B) and see what happens if you apply them (C , big difficulties ahead). This is a perfectly valid topic for a paper, and their method could be sound (though I did not check those details since this is a rather uninteresting paper at this stage of debate), as long as it is understood that this is a "B implies C" paper, and not a "C is proven" paper.

The problem is when this is introduced into a debate where B is not agreed upon or proven. One can give us a hundred "B->C" papers, and this will not convince us of C if you do not first prove B.

So, instead of giving us the papers that shows "Model B outputs scenario C", give us the paper that proves/validates something like this: "Model B:s predictions are shown to be skillful when it comes to predicted data X, has withstood specific falsification Y, and has made fullfilled, in absence of the model unexpected, predictions Z during the years after it was a proposed model for {x,c}". (Or some variant thereof. Just a suggestion).

Only after this are the B->C modelings becoming interesting (for me) to analyze.
Can you provide citations from the paper to demonstrate that what you're saying is accurate?

Thanks.
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 10:40 AM   #448
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 968
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
Did you even read my post? Climate models can't be expected to predict specific measures of climate exactly, much less point measurements. And besides, the Hansen 88 predictions are based on a model a full 20 years out of date now. But even then, warming was predicted and warming has happened.
If that's your validation you are very far away of any serious discussion of this issue. Models that don't incorporate Anthropogenic contributions show warming also.
Quote:
Global models are designed to address global issues. You will always be able to find some details that don't match up but it doesn't falsify the general gist of it. The earth is warming up. Man-made increases in CO2 concentrations are mainly responsible and will cause further warming in the future. Nothing you have said disproves any of this.
Actually is quite different: Nothing you have said PROVES that manmade increases in CO2 are mainly reponsible. You have been shown that the models you trust don't reflect reality at all, in a peer reviewed recent paper and you insist to keep your head on the sand. That's up to you , but the real denier here is you.
Lucifuge Rofocale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 11:25 AM   #449
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 968
For a followup of Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper (wich falsified models), look at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3486 for a smart discussion, (unlike the one here). Kousutsoyiannis himself is participating and can answer any question about his paper (so the resident mo**ns can ask himself directly.)

Last edited by Lucifuge Rofocale; 20th September 2008 at 11:29 AM.
Lucifuge Rofocale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 11:29 AM   #450
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
If that's your validation you are very far away of any serious discussion of this issue. Models that don't incorporate Anthropogenic contributions show warming also.
But only a very small amount in comparison. This (among other things) shows that the anthropogenic effects are the dominant factor. I could hurl some references your way if you want, but you'll probably just dismiss them as IPCC propaganda.

Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
Actually is quite different: Nothing you have said PROVES that manmade increases in CO2 are mainly reponsible.
See above.

Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
You have been shown that the models you trust don't reflect reality at all, in a peer reviewed recent paper and you insist to keep your head on the sand. That's up to you , but the real denier here is you.
If you're going to nitpick on the year on year variation, I'd say you've missed the point completely; the current state-of-the-art climate models aren't able to forecast that with any certainty, never mind the ones they had back in 1988. It's the overall trends that are important, not whether they get each year's value right.

Hansen predicted warming. Warming has happened, so qualitatively he was bang on the money. He may not have got the magnitude right, but I still think he did pretty well considering how simple the models were back then compared to what they have now.

And by the way, it's not as if anyone uses Hansen's 1988 predictions or even his model any more. As I keep stressing, the models have come on a very long way in the last 20 years (and will continue to improve in the future), so people are sensibly basing their predictions on the most up to date ones.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Spud1k; 20th September 2008 at 11:36 AM.
Spud1k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 11:30 AM   #451
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 968
I just gave a paper that shows that the opposite is correct.
Originally Posted by Bluefire View Post

So, instead of giving us the papers that shows "Model B outputs scenario C", give us the paper that proves/validates something like this: "Model B:s predictions are shown to be skillful when it comes to predicted data X, has withstood specific falsification Y, and has made fullfilled, in absence of the model unexpected, predictions Z during the years after it was a proposed model for {x,c}". (Or some variant thereof. Just a suggestion).

Only after this are the B->C modelings becoming interesting (for me) to analyze.
Lucifuge Rofocale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 11:37 AM   #452
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 968
You might want to discuss Hansen 2008 then?
Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper?
Anything?
My position here is that models lack predictive skills. I have papers and participate in deep discussions about this issue, just in other forums.

My position on the manmade effect on temperature increase is that it have been falsified by thropospheric hotspots. You migh want to discuss that also, but I'd like to do it in cl¡mateaudit, basically because there is where the papers are discussed seriously. The quality of the posters (BOTH sides) is far, far greater than here and you have access to the authors, (but not to Hansen).

Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
But only a very small amount in comparison. This (among other things) shows that the anthropogenic effects are the dominant factor. I could hurl some references your way if you want, but you'll probably just dismiss them as IPCC propaganda.



See above.



If you're going to nitpick on the year on year variation, I'd say you've missed the point completely; the current state-of-the-art climate models aren't able to forecast that with any certainty, never mind the ones they had back in 1988. It's the overall trends that are important, not whether they get each year's value right.

Hansen predicted warming. Warming has happened, so qualitatively he was bang on the money. He may not have got the magnitude right, but I still think he did pretty well considering how simple the models were back then compared to what they have now.

And by the way, it's not as if anyone uses Hansen's 1988 predictions any more. As I keep stressing, the models have come on a very long way in the last 20 years (and will continue to improve in the future), so people are sensibly basing their predictions on the most up to date ones.
Lucifuge Rofocale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 11:48 AM   #453
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
For a followup of Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper (wich falsified models), look at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3486 for a smart discussion, (unlike the one here). Kousutsoyiannis himself is participating and can answer any question about his paper (so the resident mo**ns can ask himself directly.)
As Lemmy once said, you got yours and I got mine.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson
Spud1k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 11:49 AM   #454
Lucifuge Rofocale
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 968
I don't like realclimate because they censor posts.
Lucifuge Rofocale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 12:11 PM   #455
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
You might want to discuss Hansen 2008 then?
Which one?

Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper?
Anything?
See my previous posts.

Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
My position here is that models lack predictive skills. I have papers and participate in deep discussions about this issue, just in other forums.
All it comes down to is you (and others) are trying to judge the 'predictive skills' of the models by pushing them beyond their capabilities. None of that changes the prediction of overall warming, which is the main takehome.

Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
My position on the manmade effect on temperature increase is that it have been falsified by thropospheric hotspots.
No it hasn't. It turns out the models were right and the instruments were wrong. See this, this and this.

Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
You migh want to discuss that also, but I'd like to do it in cl¡mateaudit, basically because there is where the papers are discussed seriously. The quality of the posters (BOTH sides) is far, far greater than here and you have access to the authors, (but not to Hansen).
If it's OK with you, I'd prefer to stay here. I consider it more neutral territory.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson
Spud1k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 12:11 PM   #456
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
 
Piggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 15,905
Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
I don't like realclimate because they censor posts.
You mean they don't allow cranks to post obvious bogosity?
__________________
.
How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?
Piggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 02:24 PM   #457
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by Bluefire View Post
Just to make my position more exactly known....give us the paper that proves/validates something like this: "Model B:s predictions are shown to be skillful when it comes to predicted data X, has withstood specific falsification Y, and has made fullfilled, in absence of the model unexpected, predictions Z during the years after it was a proposed model for {x,c}". (Or some variant thereof. Just a suggestion).

Only after this are the B->C modelings becoming interesting (for me) to analyze.
Since the Warmers can't handle this approach, I thought we'd just repeat it.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 02:35 PM   #458
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic
Really?
The most dishonest POS on these forums says this?
Is this Hazian logic?

I don't know what you call it but it is a common tactic employed by the deniers these days, so naming it after him would be giving him too much credit. What people often try to do is apply the same logic and rules you get in engineering disciplines to climate science and then attack the science when it doesn't work (Monckton is a classic example). This is sheer fallacy of course; I wouldn't try to invoke atmospheric science to try to falsify structural engineering or anything.
Reported Truesceptic.

Since you understand these issues:

1. Why assert ad hom when I said this:
Originally Posted by mhaze
You do realize, I hope, that this sort of talk in many fields of science and engineering using quite advanced and skillful models would get you fired?


2. Please explain how given this lack of skill, anyone should pay attention to taxation schemes based on CO2 based on admittedly, bad science.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 02:40 PM   #459
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
You migh want to discuss that also, but I'd like to do it in cl¡mateaudit, basically because there is where the papers are discussed seriously. The quality of the posters (BOTH sides) is far, far greater than here and you have access to the authors, (but not to Hansen).
If it's OK with you, I'd prefer to stay here. I consider it more neutral territory.
Noise to signal ratios

here 90%
CA 20-40%
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:01 PM   #460
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Reported Truesceptic.

Since you understand these issues:

1. Why assert ad hom when I said this:
Originally Posted by mhaze http://www.internationalskeptics.com...s/viewpost.gif
You do realize, I hope, that this sort of talk in many fields of science and engineering using quite advanced and skillful models would get you fired?


2. Please explain how given this lack of skill, anyone should pay attention to taxation schemes based on CO2 based on admittedly, bad science.
So your personal attack (yet another) on another poster is acceptable? Fine.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:05 PM   #461
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
For a followup of Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper (wich falsified models), look at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3486 for a smart discussion, (unlike the one here). Kousutsoyiannis himself is participating and can answer any question about his paper (so the resident mo**ns can ask himself directly.)
Firstly, why are you wasting your time here?

Secondly, you should mind your language.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:13 PM   #462
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
You might want to discuss Hansen 2008 then?
Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper?
Anything?
My position here is that models lack predictive skills. I have papers and participate in deep discussions about this issue, just in other forums.

My position on the manmade effect on temperature increase is that it have been falsified by thropospheric hotspots. You migh want to discuss that also, but I'd like to do it in cl¡mateaudit, basically because there is where the papers are discussed seriously. The quality of the posters (BOTH sides) is far, far greater than here and you have access to the authors, (but not to Hansen).
You have access to some authors. If you think that CA is in any way a truly sceptical, balanced forum then I think you are mistaken.

Last edited by TrueSceptic; 20th September 2008 at 04:25 PM. Reason: sp/typo
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:18 PM   #463
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
I don't like realclimate because they censor posts.
If you want to know why, have a look at Marohasy's blog.

Most blogs are moderated or censored to a degree, including CA. McIntyre knows that the extremists would do more harm than good to his own case.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:20 PM   #464
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,966
Originally Posted by Lucifuge Rofocale View Post
Demetris Koutsoyiannis paper?
Anything?
That's not a link to the paper, but I know of it. It concerns the ability of climate models to accurately predict regional precipitation, with particular regard to Greece. Prof Koutsoyiannis is a hydrologist, and Greece is a country where hydrology matters (there's a reason why it's famous for olives and goats).

Quote:
My position here is that models lack predictive skills.
Climate models don't pretend to predict rainfall in Greece. Greece occupies its own peculiar geographic niche, well downwind of the Atlantic but intimate with the Mediterranean. This is the very specific issue which Prof Koutsoyiannis is naturally focussed on.

In general terms (not Greek) climate models have performed very well. The current melting in the Arctic and sub-Arctic was well predicted in principle (it has been and is happening); the timescale was off but that's mostly to do with modelling ice-behaviour, which is intrinsically more complicated than climate.

We'll find out what happens to Greek hydrology by observation, even if Koutsoyiannis et al come up with a good model of Eastern Mediterranean precipitation in a warming world. Which I doubt they have the resources for.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:22 PM   #465
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,177
Originally Posted by TrueSceptic View Post
Most blogs are moderated or censored to a degree, including CA.
Climateaudit is well know for not only removing posts that disagree with McIntyre, but actually going so far as to change the content of posts.
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:24 PM   #466
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Noise to signal ratios

here 90%
CA 20-40%
90% is probably about right for here but we know where most of it comes from.

So why waste your time here? Could it be because this forum allows things that McIntyre doesn't?
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:38 PM   #467
Diamond
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,726
Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
If by "pick a model" you mean "choose a model that has been verified in the field over decades of constant observation" and if by "feed it assumptions" you mean "use the most conservative assumptions you can", then I guess technically you're correct.

If you think they're claiming the earth will "almost collapse" then you haven't read the article. They are indeed predicting some dire consequences for humans and other species, but this is based on actual research.

Your denial of the possibility of dire consequences is based merely on your own ignorance.

I'll take the research, thank you.
1. You have no evidence that the model has been verified over decades, when it has been tuned to reproduce those decades.

2. You have no evidence that the assumptions fed into the model are physical

3. You have no evidence that warming will produce "dire consequences" and neither do they. The model did not produce a big red banner saying "X species were destroyed" - the modellers were giving their extremely non-expert opinion on biological diversity, ignoring the fact that all life on planet earth has evolved to adapt to climate change.

4. You cannot say that we "deny the possibility of dire consequences". What we can say is that this argument that if climate does continue to warm, some species will thrive and some will do less well - which is the story of life on Earth. What are the dire consequences that have not happened before?

How can anyone deny a future that has not happened? I remember religious people claiming that non-believers were "denying the future Apocalypse and the Final Judgment of God" and that the signs of the End Times were "all around us". The "research" was of similar quality.

There is no difference substantially, between those who use the pronouncements of climate modellers to announce Apocalyptic futures unless we repent of our high carbon ways and seek salvation through "sustainability" and the behavior of religious zealots predicting the End of the World unless we repent of our sins against God.

They are both irrational and they properly deserve skepticism.
Diamond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:45 PM   #468
Diamond
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,726
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Climateaudit is well know for not only removing posts that disagree with McIntyre, but actually going so far as to change the content of posts.
As far as I am aware, Steve McIntyre has removed off-topic comments and references to religion, which he does not want on his blog. He has never changed the content of posts except to update them with new information and to make updates in the light of new information, which appear to be well flagged up as Updates.

You have no evidence that McIntyre changes the content of posts ex-post facto without warning or explanation.

There are many, many comments and commenters who disagree with Steve McIntyre on CA. You must be looking at a different blog to the rest of us. Comments are not pre-screened - unlike RealClimate where comments are deleted without comment or publication all of the time, which frustrates even the cheerleaders.
Diamond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:46 PM   #469
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,986
Originally Posted by Diamond View Post
1. You have no evidence that the model has been verified over decades, when it has been tuned to reproduce those decades.
Sure, you tune it against half the temperature record, then let it run against the rest of the temperature record.

Quote:

2. You have no evidence that the assumptions fed into the model are physical
Maybe if you just show the evidence that the assumptions aren't physical, since you are making the claim.
Quote:
3. You have no evidence that warming will produce "dire consequences" and neither do they. The model did not produce a big red banner saying "X species were destroyed" - the modellers were giving their extremely non-expert opinion on biological diversity, ignoring the fact that all life on planet earth has evolved to adapt to climate change.
They can't. The point is this change is happening rapidly, geological terms the blink of an eye. Adaptation is going to be very tough. Species can't just migrate easily across a landscape dotted with oceans and cities. Adaptation, by it's very nature, means the loss of those that can't adapt.

Quote:
4. You cannot say that we "deny the possibility of dire consequences". What we can say is that this argument that if climate does continue to warm, some species will thrive and some will do less well - which is the story of life on Earth. What are the dire consequences that have not happened before?
The weeds will do quite well, for example.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:51 PM   #470
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Diamond View Post
3. You have no evidence that warming will produce "dire consequences" and neither do they. The model did not produce a big red banner saying "X species were destroyed" - the modellers were giving their extremely non-expert opinion on biological diversity, ignoring the fact that all life on planet earth has evolved to adapt to climate change.
Diamond, do you understand the difference between human timescales and geological timescales?
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:51 PM   #471
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,966
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
All it comes down to is you (and others) are trying to judge the 'predictive skills' of the models by pushing them beyond their capabilities. None of that changes the prediction of overall warming, which is the main takehome.
Exactly.

Piggy has used the term "drinking-straw view" to describe this sort of behaviour; varwoche brought it up years ago when they were all piling onto Mann et al; I think of it as the "Don't look at that, look at this" defence. Don't look at the Arctic (where events are very graphic), look at the tropical mid-troposphere (which is invisible to the naked eye but oh so important, and they have old blog posts to prove it).
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:56 PM   #472
Diamond
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,726
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
That's not a link to the paper, but I know of it. It concerns the ability of climate models to accurately predict regional precipitation, with particular regard to Greece. Prof Koutsoyiannis is a hydrologist, and Greece is a country where hydrology matters (there's a reason why it's famous for olives and goats).
Name me a country where hydrology does not matter.

Quote:
Climate models don't pretend to predict rainfall in Greece. Greece occupies its own peculiar geographic niche, well downwind of the Atlantic but intimate with the Mediterranean. This is the very specific issue which Prof Koutsoyiannis is naturally focussed on.
Nope. He uses Greece as an example of why climate models fail on regional projections of precipitation.

Quote:
In general terms (not Greek) climate models have performed very well. The current melting in the Arctic and sub-Arctic was well predicted in principle (it has been and is happening); the timescale was off but that's mostly to do with modelling ice-behaviour, which is intrinsically more complicated than climate.
I love this. A religious belief couched in pseudo-scientific language. I can predict a warming or cooling of a particular area at a specific time and then when it happens claim that "the timescale was off".

The current melting of the Arctic has happened many times before. Even in the 1920s newspapers reported big ice melts and a reduction in the ice pack with ships going to latitudes comparable with today.

Climate models have not predicted the expansion of the Antarctic ice pack, which continues to grow.

Ignoring the failures of climate models and excusing their clear problems is rather like watching believers in Sylvia Browne or John Edward counting the hits and failing to register their misses.

Quote:
We'll find out what happens to Greek hydrology by observation, even if Koutsoyiannis et al come up with a good model of Eastern Mediterranean precipitation in a warming world. Which I doubt they have the resources for.
Well with 3000 years of experience of climate change, I think the Greeks are better placed than many idiots would think, especially serial idiots who are pre-disposed to believe climate scare stories concocted in a computer.
Diamond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 04:57 PM   #473
Diamond
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,726
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Diamond, do you understand the difference between human timescales and geological timescales?
Yes.

Is there a point to this question?
Diamond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 05:10 PM   #474
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,966
Originally Posted by Diamond View Post
1. You have no evidence that the model has been verified over decades, when it has been tuned to reproduce those decades.
Climate models are physical models, not statistical models, so they aren't tuned to reproduce anything. Models from thirty years ago certainly weren't tuned to the last few decades (they hadn't happened at that time) but warming has occurred with an amplified effect in the Arctic just as predicted.

Over those decades you've been denying (based on no model at all) that any of this would happen.

Quote:
2. You have no evidence that the assumptions fed into the model are physical
They are physical models, based on physical measurements. The only assumptions involve the albedo feedback, which are fed in from ice-behaviour models. Ice-behaviour is notoriously difficult to model. Climate is relatively simple.

What do you think about what's been happening in the Arctic? It has nothing to do with climate modelling, admittedly, but as a real-world thing it should surely take precedence.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 05:12 PM   #475
Diamond
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,726
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Sure, you tune it against half the temperature record, then let it run against the rest of the temperature record.
Without examination of whether the temperature record is reliable, you make a catastrophic error.

Also, and this is where you fall down, even if the model is tuned to the entire temperature record, the non-linear chaotic nature of climate means that outside of the calibration period, the model rapidly diverges.

This has been known since Lorenz first tried to model climate on a billiard ball earth.

Quote:
Maybe if you just show the evidence that the assumptions aren't physical, since you are making the claim.
Certainly. Show me an ice core record which shows changes in carbon dioxide and methane DRIVING (ie PRECEDING) changes in temperature.

Its nearly five years since I first asked you for one and you've failed to answer.

Quote:
They can't. The point is this change is happening rapidly, geological terms the blink of an eye. Adaptation is going to be very tough. Species can't just migrate easily across a landscape dotted with oceans and cities. Adaptation, by it's very nature, means the loss of those that can't adapt.
Which is the story of evolution of Planet Earth. You do believe in the Theory of Evolution don't you?

Because at the moment, you talk about species as fixed things which have never experienced climate variation.

Adaptation (read: survival) is a constant struggle which is the key filter by which evolutionary change occurs, and why all species on planet Earth are evolved to deal with a sometimes rapidly changing climate.

Extinction is also a key result of climate change. Its the story of Life on Earth - Adapt or Die.

Quote:
The weeds will do quite well, for example.
Weeds are just plants that humans can't eat or make use of. Unless you're a believer in a mythical past stable climate, then weeds will have just as much opportunity or threat to survive and flourish as the rest of nature.
Diamond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 05:14 PM   #476
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Diamond View Post
Yes.

Is there a point to this question?
Of course...

You said...
Quote:
the modellers were giving their extremely non-expert opinion on biological diversity, ignoring the fact that all life on planet earth has evolved to adapt to climate change.
ie you seem to be ignoring the fact that the climate is changing on a human timescale where as the animals that are around today have evolved over much longer timescales.

I've run a mile before. But you can't expect me to run another one in 20 seconds.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 05:24 PM   #477
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Diamond View Post

Which is the story of evolution of Planet Earth. You do believe in the Theory of Evolution don't you?

Because at the moment, you talk about species as fixed things which have never experienced climate variation.
He/she did no such thing. He/she said "Adaptation is going to be very tough."

Quote:
Adaptation (read: survival) is a constant struggle which is the key filter by which evolutionary change occurs, and why all species on planet Earth are evolved to deal with a sometimes rapidly changing climate.

Extinction is also a key result of climate change. Its the story of Life on Earth - Adapt or Die.
Ok. So what degree of extinction is it Ok for humans to be responsible for. 0.00000001%? 1%? 50% 99% Everything but ourselves?
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 05:33 PM   #478
Diamond
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,726
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Climate models are physical models, not statistical models, so they aren't tuned to reproduce anything. Models from thirty years ago certainly weren't tuned to the last few decades (they hadn't happened at that time) but warming has occurred with an amplified effect in the Arctic just as predicted.
No it hasn't. The model scenarios of James Hansen have ALL overshot the actual warming of the last 30 years.

The models also predicted POLAR amplification of warming and yet while the Arctic has warmed, the Antarctic has COOLED down.

Once again, like a supporter of a cold reading psychic, you credit the hits and ignore the misses.

Quote:
Over those decades you've been denying (based on no model at all) that any of this would happen.
It hasn't happened. In the 1970s you believed that we were on the verge of catastrophic cooling - now you believe in warming just as the temperatures have levelled off and may even be starting to decline.

How many more cycles of warming and cooling are you going to join before you realise that climate always changes, always has and always will?

Quote:
They are physical models, based on physical measurements. The only assumptions involve the albedo feedback, which are fed in from ice-behaviour models. Ice-behaviour is notoriously difficult to model. Climate is relatively simple.
"Climate is relatively simple" - not as simple as the people who believe that climate models predict future climate. No-one who has actually studied mathematical modelling would make such a ridiculous assertion.

Quote:
What do you think about what's been happening in the Arctic? It has nothing to do with climate modelling, admittedly, but as a real-world thing it should surely take precedence.
What do I think?

I think that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. I think that the Arctic is always either a) warming or b) cooling. There is no such thing as a stable climate.

Is the Arctic warming unusual? No. Newspaper reports and scientific papers from the 1920s and 1930s reported big melting in the Arctic and ships reaching latitudes as high or higher than today. Temperatures recorded in Greenland show temperatures as high or higher in the 1930s than today.



There is evidence that between 6 and 8 thousand years ago the Arctic pack was even smaller and may even have disappeared.

On a much longer scale, we have been been in an Ice Age (with permanent polar ice caps) for only a few million years. Over geological time, most of the time Earth has been without permanent polar ice caps.

Is climate changing? Yes, but that's trivially true because it has always changed.

Is the climate changing at an unusual rate? No. Measurements show that the rate of change of temperature is well within the normal range of climate at this stage in a glacial cycle.
Diamond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 05:38 PM   #479
Diamond
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,726
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
ie you seem to be ignoring the fact that the climate is changing on a human timescale where as the animals that are around today have evolved over much longer timescales.
Rubbish. Climate changes on all timescales not just geological timescales.

For example, here in Australia, the plants and animals are clearly evolved to deal with the multi-year periodic droughts that have been occurring for the last several million years.

They don't simply adapt to geological timescales, they have adapted to to changes that happen from one year to the next.
Diamond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2008, 05:40 PM   #480
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,177
Originally Posted by Diamond View Post
As far as I am aware, Steve McIntyre has removed off-topic comments and references to religion, which he does not want on his blog. He has never changed the content of posts except to update them with new information and to make updates in the light of new information, which appear to be well flagged up as Updates.

You have no evidence that McIntyre changes the content of posts ex-post facto without warning or explanation.
Obviously any evidence for either blogs editorial policy is going to be strictly anecdotal. It’s telling IMO that you are more then willing to accept that as proof in one case but not the other.

In terms of anecdotal evidence, even “skeptics” who take issue with simple things like say McIntyre should publish rather then rant on a blog have reported their posts changed without notification *after* it was already responded to.
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.