[OT] How science is not done

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 12:15 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Let me get this straight. Your argument is that evolution is correct, and
so
therefore AGW is also correct. I certainly accept the first premise, but I
am having a lot of trouble seeing how the conclusion necessarily follows.
Perhaps if you could go through your argument step by step ...

Another cute debating technique. It should be clear what my argument
is.

When the scientific community is nearly unanimous in agreeing about
something, they're probably right.

_____________________
Like they were about the Aristotlean model of the solar system, and the
"denial" of plate techtonics in the 1950s, or the Galilean transform in
1880, or Lamrakian inheritance, or ...



Even in such a situation, you will
find some scientists who disagree - but for identifiable reasons,
whether because of a religious belief, or because of the opposite - a
paycheck from tobacco or oil companies.

___________________________
Yet another ad-hominem attack on people you disagree with. And
generalisation from a few cases to being an implied universal truth. And a
total disregard for evidence. I outlined the 5 key signs of conspiracy
kookdom in an earlier post; you just got 3 in one sentence, did you take
notes or something?


Martin Brown's responses to you are more detailed and factual than
mine, but it is obvious to me that your position isn't just the result
of clear thinking and skepticism.

_______________________
Let me guess. You think I work for a tobacco company?

It is true that _Scientific American_, which is influential, sometimes
gives evidence of a left-wing political bias. But you seem to live in
a world where the world scientific community is as much the deserving
subject of skepticism as, say, politicians. I'm sorry, but that's not
a reasonable view to take of a community of people who check facts for
a living.

______________________
What, you think it is unreasonable to ask for evidence that climate science
theory matches experimental data? Isn't this a basic requirement of checking
any scientific theory?


You may not be a creationist, but the creationists are the
only other major group to take this kind of view of the world
scientific community.

______________________
Huh? Why this constant comparison to evolution? For that to be a valid
comparison, you would have to demonstrate they were equally well supported
by experimental results and in particular novel data. For evolution, I have
a ****load of stuff from epidemiology, molecular biology, gene sequencing,
zooology, blah blah. What have you got from climate science? How do you
possibly justify comparing the two?


Science is a means by which we apprehend reality. Having followed the
arguments which establish the truth of Special Relativity, I would no
more disagree with it than I would disagree with the evidence of my
own eyes.

__________________
Nor me. We accelerate particles to very close to light speed in hundreds of
particle accelerators around the world every day, and they wouldn't possibly
work if SR was wrong. We also have strong independent experimental evidence
from all fields of astronomy, spectroscopy, nuclear reactors, and numerous
synthetic experiments. What have you got for climate science?


I direct skepticism at things like ghosts and flying saucers - because
their advocates are clearly not competent. Scientists know what
they're talking about.


It's true environmentalists have cried "Wolf!" a lot. But you do know
how that story ended, don't you?

John Savard

_____________________________
Or it could be that fairy story where the kid said the sky is falling in. In
both cases, my first reaction would be to ask for evidence. Much as I am
doing now about climate science.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Sep 7, 6:17 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

The question in the subject line, and which started all this, is actually
whether climate science can justifiably be termed a "science", given that
it
has not yet made any testable predictions, and current experimental data
does not match theory.

Under most circumstances, this would be a reasonable objection.

However, just as you can't put an entire planet in a flask on a lab
bench, and watch life develop on it for billions of years, to test
evolution directly, you also can't put an entire planet in a flask on
a lab bench to discover how global climate works.

________________________________
But the many proofs of evolution don't rely on us testing it directly, but
we nevertheless have many "proofs" of it. As far as I can see, there are
none for climate science, which should be far easier because the timescales
are so much less.

We do know that temperature has in fact risen over the last little
while

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...ure_Record.png

even as the carbon dioxide level has risen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...Dioxide-en.svg

and this is long enough to average over several La Nina/El Nino
cycles.

Yes, correlation is not causation. But there is a simple, direct,
mechanism for carbon dioxide to cause an increase in the Earth's
equilibrium temperature. Asking for scientific proof of _that_ *is* a
lot like asking for scientific proof that clothes can keep you warm.

__________________________
No, its not like that at all, because I can easily prove for myself that
clothes will keep you warm, I can isolate that variable. Exactly as you
point out, there would probably be an equally good correlation with Canola
oil production or a bazillion possibly relevant geopysical parameters. I
could quite easily believe there is some other underlying cause for climate
change - indeed there must be, because it has always happened - and feedback
loops or chaotic processes that renders anthropogenic CO2 meaningless.

What would persuade me otherwise is what persuades me that evolution through
natural selection and special relativity are correct, agreement between
predictions of the theory and experimental evidence. This would seem to be a
simple thing to find, but I cannot.

We know that people are burning a lot of fossil fuels, putting extra
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - and, in fact, the CO2 level is
rising more slowly than that would imply. So we don't have evidence to
suggest that higher temperatures are causing the increased CO2 levels
- even if that is a possible feedback mechanism to make the results of
our contribution more disastrous.

_________________________
Or less disastrous. Or anything at all, really. Scientific theories are
supposed to make testable predictions.


Similarly, there is a simple direct mechanism by which cigarette
smoking can cause lung cancer. The "tar" in cigarette smoke contains
chemicals that damage the genetic machinery of cells. So we don't have
to go looking for a cancer-prone personality that makes people
likelier to smoke.

________________________
No, but there is huge and overwhelming evidence from morbidity studies,
which show a twentyfold increase in death rate from lung cancer if you are a
smoker. Without evidence of this type, I would not believe that smoking
significantly increased cancer, because their would be no evidence the
theory was true.


It is valid to ask for experimental verification of theories, and to
note that correlation is not causation. But these objections have been
abused by creationists and the cigarette industry, and your arguments
use these objections in the same inappropriate way as theirs did.

_________________________
What argument of mine uses anthing at all from creationists and the
cigarette industry? What objections exactly have I used inappropriately? The
only objection I have to climate science is the seeming complete lack of any
independent experimental verification. I cannot see that it is inappropriate
to expect a scientific theory to have that. That's not my idea, its part of
the scientific method, standard for the last 500 years or so.


John Savard

"yourmommycalled" wrote in message
...
On Sep 7, 8:33 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Have you got one which predicts cooling from 1820 to 1850 when fed 1820s
data?

I just want to see if any of them predict cooling, ever, or whether they
are
all hardwired to produce only warming.

Also, some papers which compare past predictions of climate with measured
results would be great; my main problem with climate science is this whole
agreement between theory and experiment thing.



Curious,did you make a mistake and mean to say the Dalton minimum from
1796 to 1820? Since temperatures increased rapidly after 1820 a model
that "predicts cooling from 1820 to 1850 when fed 1820s data" would
definitely be out whack. I suggested earlier that you go to
http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/ to get the documentation,
source code and test runs. A better site would be
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/Table.php. PCMDI is a climate
model inter-comparison data portal. The documentation for the models,
source and results are freely available. There you can determine for
yourself if "they are all hardwired to produce only warming". They
are not but again you aren't interested in facts.

_____________________________
So, let me get this straight. In order to obtain experimental verification
of climate science predictions, I have to download, compile, and learn a new
computer system, devise an experiment for myself, undertake the data entry,
produce the output, and then compare it to experimental data which I presume
I can download from somewhere.

Hasn't somebody done this already? It would be very clear evidence for the
truth of the model if it predicted 1800 to 1850 climate on the basis of 1800
data, particularly if this data was not used in the construction of the
mathematical model.

If it hasn't been done, why not? It would be a clear and simple test of the
model, and provide massive experimental support if it was true.

It is very lame that when I ask for experimental evidence that a theory is
correct, you say "create your own evidence", which is what you are saying
when you expect me to download and test a model for you.

With trillions at stake and the fate of the planet at stake, I would expect
at list some basic experimental verification.




The problem is that you are not interested in learning anything, admit
that you are parroting things you don't understand anything more
complicated than what a third grader is taught. After teaching
university level science for over 30 years I have run into a few
students like you and I've learned that nothing I or anyone else can
educated you. There was a very late night radio show host that said
you can help the unlearned, but you cannot fix stupid

_____________________________
Gee, 30 years teaching University level science. Maybe somebody should have
taught you about the scientific method, that theories must match observation
.... you may call me stupid, but if asking for experimental verification of a
scientific theory makes me "stupid", then guilty as charged, Professor.



Gee, you spent 2 lines evading a simple yes or no question.


Classic strawman. A simple yes or no answer isn't possible. A analogy
(Yes I know you don't understand, so ask you mommy or daddy for an
explanation) would be answer yes or no to the question "Have you
stopped beating your wife" If you answer yes, you are guilty of wife
beating, if you answer no you are guilty of wife beating. The proper
answer is I have never beat my wife, limiting your answer to yes/no
makes no sense. Just as your insistence on answering yes or no makes
no sense.

_______________________
Gee, and you snipped the question, which was simply about the experimental
support for AGW. First I get two lines evading a reasonable question, then
my question gets snipped entirely and I get 9 lines about a snipped one line
question. I leave your stuff in place in full; but you feel the need to
censor and edit my responses.

Here, I will ask it again:

"The frequent comaprison is made between AGW and evolution. Do you believe
this is a valid comparison, ie that AGW enjoys and equal level of
verification?".

****, it wasn't even me that compared AGW to evolution, somebody else brough
it up as an analogy. I don't think it is a fair comparison. Do you?

Peter Webb wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Peter Webb wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:06:11 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Note the many tactics of the pseudoscientist:

Funny, you claimed that AGW had equally good supporting evidence as
did
evolution.

You are now trying to justify a different statement that an almost
equal
proportion of scientists support both.

Attempting to use insignificant differences in argument to discredit
the
individual or his statements (once I said that evolution and AGW are
similarly accepted, a second time I said that evolution is 99% accepted
and AGW is 97% accepted).


So, just out of curiousity, do you think that AGW is as equally well
proven as evolution?

The evidence at present is that without including the effects of GHG
forcing it is not posisble to balance the energy equation for gloabl
temperatures. That is the Earth is hotter than it should be for the
amount of solar flux the satellites are measuring. The discreprancy
climbed steeply in the last four decades.

The greenhouse effect (an unfortunate name because it is misleading
about the physics) is proven beyond all doubt. The main questions now
are exactly how do some of the irreversible non-linear mechanisms work
and at what level do they trigger serious levels of positive feedback.

The albedo of snow at the poles against open water makes an important
contribution to our present climate. Lose it and you can get a step
change in the power input absorbed at the ground. Exact extent of the
problem varies with the level and type of cloud cover.


The dark energy is liberated through crystals in the shape of naturally
occurring pyramids which operate non-linearly, allowing you to both look
and feel younger.

If you intend to take the **** then I will treat you with the contempt
that you deserve.

These are completely different statements; one is about scientific
evidence,
the other is about the popularity of different theories.

Deliberately misunderstanding the meaning of scientific consensus, and
downplaying its critical role in determining the relative value of
scientific theories.

I get the fact that you believe in climate science because most other
people do.

I expect like me Chris has the background and the resources to look at
any scientific paper he wishes on this subject.

Great.

Have you got one which predicts cooling from 1820 to 1850 when fed 1820s
data?

They will if they take vulcanism into account. I take it that you
deliberately chose a period immediately following the Tamborra super
eruption. A model would have to know about the volcanic aerosols.

I just want to see if any of them predict cooling, ever, or whether they
are all hardwired to produce only warming.

Of course they do if either insolation decreases or GHG forcing
decreases. Equally if you keep adding more GHG then the climate warms.
This should not be a surprise to anyone. Put an extra blanket on the bed
and it helps to keep the heat in.

Also, some papers which compare past predictions of climate with
measured results would be great; my main problem with climate science is
this whole agreement between theory and experiment thing.

OK. If you are serious. And I very much doubt that you are then take a
look at the printed paper copy of the IPCC Science Case Climate Change
2001 p447 has specific predictions for Arctic Sea ice from GFDL and
Hadley models of the day as compared with actual observations to 1998.

We are now a decade further on and you can see that they have the trend
and rate of decrease of sea ice about right when compared to current day
observations. GFDL is a bit more aggressive than Hadley and nature it
turns out went beyond the pessimistic prediction of GFDL.

See for example the NSIDC comparison of the later models with actual sea
ice data. The conclusion is basically that we are warming the poles
somewhat faster than the preferred IPCC models predict.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

I don't believe in climate science because the models don't match
experimental data.

You will have to be more specific. The climate science models do have
significant predictive power.

Well, gee, OK. Ten years ago it was 1999. What were the predictions of
the main climate models of 1999 for the world tempertaure over the last
10 years? To what confidence level do they exceed chance?

If you want an answer to that you can work it out for yourself. Or you
could read the IPCC Science Report which deals in detail with most of
the factors and remaining uncertainties in climate modelling.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

I would ask the same of the models used for the Kyoto protocol, which
was 2 years earlier.

I hope that's not too specific - really any experimental evidence at all
would be a good start.

Try the polar ice distributions then. The specific predictions are made
and they have come true in spades. The best models still under estimate
the extent, but the sense is very strongly for global warming and more
specifically strong polar warming as the polar albedo changes.

The problems arise from determining the sensitivity of some of the
feedbacks. The IPCC models are arguably a bit on the conservative
side. When Nature did an ensemble of wider parameter models far worse
things happened in some of the outliers.

Nature did an ensemble of wider parameter models?

The magazine Nature eg.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture02771.html

That you did not even attempt to justify your original claim about
supporting evidence for AGW is noted.

Always placing the burden of proof on the consensus opinion.

Of course the burden of proof is on the believers in AGW; they are
the ones running around saying the sky is falling in. For that
matter, the burden of proof is always on the people proposing a theory.

No. We are not saying that the sky is falling in. The scientific
evidence for AGW is strong, but hard to sum up in 10 second sound bite.

The *BIG* problem here is that the sky is getting very slightly lower
with time. AGW will happen on a timescale that politicians find
extremely difficult to deal with (ie more than 10 years - heck our lot
right now find planning for the next day too difficult).


And of course that's a *BIG* advantage to climate scientists, many of
whom make predictions about what the weather will be like long after
they are dead, and hence will never see their theories disproven ....

It isn't going to be disproven because their key predictions are already
coming true. There is a bit of a worry that the best models at present
are too conservative and that nature has a few surprises in store.

Tell me about other predictions that have been made about how the world
will end in 100 years unless something is done immediately that have
ever been shown to be true?

How do you think this is even remotely relevant?

Is AGW as well proven as evolution, as you stated? Where is the
equivalent
of the discoveries from gene sequencing of common genes amongst
species
believed to share recent common ancestors?

Continually ignoring powerful evidence presented in discussion (I
didn't
waste my time presenting any, but other people gave some nice examples,
and you haven't responded to them at all.)

You seem to know a little about climate science.

I am aware that there are lots of computer models of how the earth
warms and cools. Which is the correct one? What is the scientific
consensus of what the most accurate computer model is? Which one is
generally believed correct, that I can have a look at?

There are a few that you can play with to get a rough feel for what
will happen in the simpler cases. It is incredibly difficult to fry
the planet - I know I have tried and even with my best efforts the
poles were still just about habitable. I have posted links to a few of
them here before (and also in s.e.d).

Gee, that sounds like fun.

What I would do is use Fourier analysis to extract any low frequency
signal, then polynomial fit the difference. I can easily make the poles
uninhabitable for you.

You use such long words. How impressive. NOT!

The models only permit you to alter the composition of the atmosphere
and total solar irradiance. It is quite hard to drive Earth over the
edge. To that extent the environmentalists are crying wolf, but they do
have a point - the time for profligate waste of energy is over now. We
should be doing a lot more to conserve energy.


Gee, so as evidence for AGW, you talk about what non-scientists do.

Deliberate misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the point of
arguments.

I thought you were talking about what non-scientists (specifically
advertising companies) do, but you snipped the context, so we will
never know.


Just out of curiosity, and as you avoided answering the question,
do you
still believe that the AGW theory is as well proven as evolution
theory?

Continual restatement of questions long since answered, as a diversion
from answering anything substantive.


Gee, you spent 2 lines evading a simple yes or no question.

Is AGW as well suported by evidence as the theory of evolution
through natural selection? It was your comparison, after all ...

Close enough that I would view with great suspicion anyone arguing
against AGW who could not propose an alternative mechanism to explain
the most recent 150 years of historical climate data.

But you have not provided any evidence of the models actually predicting
future climate successfully. In fact, as I understand it, there are
hundreds of models, and none of them agree with each other, and none of
them have ever produced correct results when presented with novel data.

That is wrong in just about every respect. It seems to me you get your
"science" from right wing dittoheads like Rush Limbaugh.

I don't really feel I need to know much more about climate science
theory as such; I know the connections between CO2, ocean acidity,
albedo, vulcanisation and cloud cover are deep and mystical. My lack of
knowledge is where the theory has been experimentally verified.

You choose to remain wilfully ignorant. THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM.

I am posting now to make sure you cannot mislead any other weak minded
individuals than might be reading this thread.


Here is what you said: "Whether or not it fails before 1850 [during a
coling period] really isn't relevant."

You latch on to random cherry picked points and labour them. Vulcanism
plays a certain part in climatic behaviour - Tamborra in 1816 year
without a summer and more of interest to me Krakatoa in 1883-4-5.

Actually, prior to this post, I don't think I had mentioned volcanos,
let alone cherry picked data about them.

You deliberately chose a period immediately following one of the most
violent periods of vulcanism in recorded history and demanded that
climate models should match its cooling effect.

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/G.../page2972.html

Toba is generally reckonned to be the volcano that very nearly wiped
out humanity - cutting our ancestors gene pool down to a small set.

As does the variation in the Earths orbital elements and continental
drift. These longer term geological timescales are important mainly
over millenia. Although there is some evidence that shorter timescale
Keeling tides may be able to cause short scale climate variability.


Yeah, yeah, I know, the theory is magnificently complicated, wheels
within wheels, almost but not quite perfect and complete, probably way
to difficult for me to even begin to comprehend ...

That seems highly likely since you have set out to ignore any
observations or data that would conflict with your preconceived ideas.

BTW, you haven't got to hand the predictions of climate made in 1999 for
the last 10 years and a comparison subsequent actual temperatures, do
you? Or the same deal for the last 20, 30 or 40 years?


Doesn't look like a misrepresentation to me. Looks pretty close to a
direct quote.

Here's another direct quote from you, in passing:

"Anybody who does deny this has little credibility- in the same way
that a denier of evolution is going to have a tough time being taken
seriously."

If they can demonstrate a coherent argument that improves the existing
models

Great. I have a polynomial fit for the last 200 years of climate data
that is accurate to within 0.1 degrees for every one of those years.

Then you really do demonstrate that you are entirely clueless.

**** it. If neccesary, I will polynomial fit every single data point
exactly, which must guarantee me at least equal first place.

It will also be the most amazingly discontinuous looking mess ever. You
are trying to be clever and failing dismally. The key to model fitting
is to use the fewest free parameters to explain the observations.

and shows why they may be wrong then they will be taken seriously. It
is for precisely this reason that Lindzen is not a typical denier for
hire. He is a good scientist and has made important contributions to
climate modelling. His Iris hypothesis is quite elegant - wrong as it
turns out when the idea was tested against observation but useful for
refining the models.

What! You think something is wrong if its predictions are tested against
observation and they don't agree? First time you have ever mentioned it
as a criteria.

So, tell me about climate science's succesful predictions so far. I
promise I won't giggle, or mention the great global cooling scare of the
1970s.

Arctic Sea ice is as unambiguous as any. Very specific prediction of the
models and borne out by observations.

But if you look at Singer, Seitz, Idso et al you see a darker side of
"scientist" for sale - will testify to anything if the money is right.

Now, about your comparison of AGW to evolution ... do you still stand
by that, or were you having a small fit of religious inspiration, and
exaggerated somewhat?

I would, however, settle for a compromise that AGW is as well
supported a scientific theory as (say) string theory, or dark energy
... I can handle being compared to a string theory denier, doesn't
sound so bad.

You cannot deny it unless you can put something else in its place that
better explains the behaviour of our climate. If you have a better
model then lets see it


You want a model which better matches a certain data set?

You give me the data set, and I will give you a model which precisely
predicts it. You can't do any "better" than a perfect fit.

ANOVA says that you can. At least if you want to get something that
sensibly represents the system behaviour inbetween the data points that
you have observed. Over fitting data is a classic naive mistake of badly
trained beginners in scientific data analysis.


otherwise you are just a credulous fool taken in by a sophisticated
public disinformation campaign funded by Exxon and others.


Or maybe I just like to see evidence for extraordinary claims before
believing them. Really quite the opposite of "credulous", I would have
thought.

You should really learn some basic manners, and stop insulting people
simple because they don't believe the same scientific theory as you do.

Tough. You are trying it on in a science group.

I wish the learned societies would take their gloves off when dealing
with some of the charlatans that mislead the public about AGW.

The science is clear enough now. It is one thing to argue about the
finer points of some feedback mechanism, but quite another to deny
reality on the grounds that you don't like the answer.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sep 8, 6:01*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

So, let me get this straight. In order to obtain experimental verification
of climate science predictions, I have to download, compile, and learn a new
computer system, devise an experiment for myself, undertake the data entry,
produce the output, and then compare it to experimental data which I presume
I can download from somewhere.

Hasn't somebody done this already? It would be very clear evidence for the
truth of the model if it predicted 1800 to 1850 climate on the basis of 1800
data, particularly if this data was not used in the construction of the
mathematical model.

If it hasn't been done, why not? It would be a clear and simple test of the
model, and provide massive experimental support if it was true.

It is very lame that when I ask for experimental evidence that a theory is
correct, you say "create your own evidence", which is what you are saying
when you expect me to download and test a model for you.


You don't have to download and test an model for me, I've already done
so.
Your response makes it very clear that you are stupid and lazy and
have no interest in learning . How do I know? Quoting you now

"So, let me get this straight. In order to obtain experimental
verification of climate science predictions, I have to download,
compile, and learn a new
computer system, devise an experiment for myself, undertake the data
entry, produce the output, and then compare it to experimental data
which I presume I can download from somewhere."

Strangely that is exactly how science is done! To suggest otherwise
indicates you are lazy and uneducated. But that's OK even for stupid
and lazy there are alternatives. I posted you should go to

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/Table.php

I said

"PCMDI is a climate model inter-comparison data portal. The
documentation for the models, source and results are freely
available."

I know I used a big word (data portal), but I also said

"RESULTS ARE FREELY AVAILABLE"

Looking at the tables and results there are alot of model output over
the range you are interested in and all predict exactly what happened.

Once you are not interested in anything but listening to your own
voice. Unfortunately everyone else is laughing at you

On Sep 8, 3:30*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Like they were about the Aristotlean model of the solar system, and the
"denial" of plate techtonics in the 1950s, or the Galilean transform in
1880, or Lamrakian inheritance, or ...

Yes, when a new idea comes along, it won't get unanimous acceptance
immediately.

Of course we will learn new things as time goes on.

Scientists used to believe, unanimously, that the Universe was the
surface of a fourth-dimensional sphere with a circumference of 30
billion light-years, uniform in mean density of galaxies. Now, they
think that inflation and dark matter means the Universe is flat on the
largest scale.

Back when people thought the Sun went around the Earth, though, they
still new how to plant grain and shoe horses.

Being strongly skeptical of what scientists believe about things that
are far from the leading edge of research is not reasonable.

John Savard

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Peter Webb wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Peter Webb wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:06:11 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Note the many tactics of the pseudoscientist:

Funny, you claimed that AGW had equally good supporting evidence as
did
evolution.

You are now trying to justify a different statement that an almost
equal
proportion of scientists support both.

Attempting to use insignificant differences in argument to discredit
the
individual or his statements (once I said that evolution and AGW are
similarly accepted, a second time I said that evolution is 99%
accepted
and AGW is 97% accepted).


So, just out of curiousity, do you think that AGW is as equally well
proven as evolution?

The evidence at present is that without including the effects of GHG
forcing it is not posisble to balance the energy equation for gloabl
temperatures. That is the Earth is hotter than it should be for the
amount of solar flux the satellites are measuring. The discreprancy
climbed steeply in the last four decades.

The greenhouse effect (an unfortunate name because it is misleading
about the physics) is proven beyond all doubt. The main questions now
are exactly how do some of the irreversible non-linear mechanisms work
and at what level do they trigger serious levels of positive feedback.

The albedo of snow at the poles against open water makes an important
contribution to our present climate. Lose it and you can get a step
change in the power input absorbed at the ground. Exact extent of the
problem varies with the level and type of cloud cover.


The dark energy is liberated through crystals in the shape of naturally
occurring pyramids which operate non-linearly, allowing you to both look
and feel younger.

If you intend to take the **** then I will treat you with the contempt
that you deserve.

These are completely different statements; one is about scientific
evidence,
the other is about the popularity of different theories.

Deliberately misunderstanding the meaning of scientific consensus, and
downplaying its critical role in determining the relative value of
scientific theories.

I get the fact that you believe in climate science because most other
people do.

I expect like me Chris has the background and the resources to look at
any scientific paper he wishes on this subject.

Great.

Have you got one which predicts cooling from 1820 to 1850 when fed 1820s
data?

They will if they take vulcanism into account. I take it that you
deliberately chose a period immediately following the Tamborra super
eruption.


No.

A model would have to know about the volcanic aerosols.

OK.

You don't know if there were massive volcanic eruptions in the 19th Century,
and that is why climate models don't work for the 19th Century?

By the 19th Century, Europeans had discovered the entire world, and in most
cases there were European observers. Independently of this, surely the local
population would have noticed massive volcanic eruptions in their
neighbourhood. I would also have expected geological evidence for massive
volcanic eruptions 150 years ago.

Are you really telling me that the reason that climate models don't work
when applied to 19th Century is because their were massive volcanos in the
19th Century of which we have no records? Where?



I just want to see if any of them predict cooling, ever, or whether they
are all hardwired to produce only warming.

Of course they do if either insolation decreases or GHG forcing decreases.
Equally if you keep adding more GHG then the climate warms. This should
not be a surprise to anyone. Put an extra blanket on the bed and it helps
to keep the heat in.

Also, some papers which compare past predictions of climate with measured
results would be great; my main problem with climate science is this
whole agreement between theory and experiment thing.

OK. If you are serious. And I very much doubt that you are then take a
look at the printed paper copy of the IPCC Science Case Climate Change
2001 p447 has specific predictions for Arctic Sea ice from GFDL and Hadley
models of the day as compared with actual observations to 1998.

To 1998?

These models were the justification for a world-wide treaty which called for
huge changes to the structure of the world's industry.

Your evidence is a paper published in 2001 which correctly "predicts" sea
ice levels for 1998, which were in fact already known to the author in 2001
when he correctly predicted them.

It is now 2009. What did the model predict for 2001 - 2009, and how well
does it match observation?

Writing a paper in 2001 which predicts the past accurately is not
independent experimental verification. It should be easy to gain such
verification; just look at te climate changes aftewr the paper was written
and see if they were correctly predicted.

Were they?




We are now a decade further on and you can see that they have the trend
and rate of decrease of sea ice about right when compared to current day
observations. GFDL is a bit more aggressive than Hadley and nature it
turns out went beyond the pessimistic prediction of GFDL.

See for example the NSIDC comparison of the later models with actual sea
ice data. The conclusion is basically that we are warming the poles
somewhat faster than the preferred IPCC models predict.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html


So your evidence that the predictions of climate science are correct is in
fact an article which points out every single one of the 18 models analysed
got completely the wrong answer?

This is a strange approach to determining scientific fact. Normally, when an
experiment fails to match a theory, this is evidence the theory is wrong.
You seem to think that the fact that every one of the 18 models made
demonstrably wrong predictions proves they are all correct.

Were you the dude who taught "University level science" for 30 years? Do you
prove to your students that other scientific theories are correct by
pointing out the theory consistently fails to explain experimental data?




I don't believe in climate science because the models don't match
experimental data.

You will have to be more specific. The climate science models do have
significant predictive power.

Well, gee, OK. Ten years ago it was 1999. What were the predictions of
the main climate models of 1999 for the world tempertaure over the last
10 years? To what confidence level do they exceed chance?

If you want an answer to that you can work it out for yourself.


So nobody has bothered already to see if predictions match experiment,
excepting of course the study you provided a link to which shows that they
do not.

If I wanted "proofs" of Special Relativity, I can find them easily. If
somebody said that nobody had ever bothered to verify the predictions of SR
against experiment, and I had to do it myself, I would be very curious as to
why this basic checking had not occurred.

But of course you have provided a link to where the predictions of climate
science were compared to subsequent experimental evidence, and the
conclusion is that thye models were all wrong.

I am not looking for evidence that AGW is wrong. I am lookijng for evidence
it is correct. Providing links to articles which showed the predictions of
AGW do not match subsequent observations is evidence that the theory is
wrong, not that it is correct. Whatever you may tell your science students.


Or you could read the IPCC Science Report which deals in detail with most
of the factors and remaining uncertainties in climate modelling.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Or, you could just simply provide the predictions of the models of what
would happen in the future, and the actual experimental results.

A report which lists all the reasons a model may be wrong (ie the
uncertainties) is not going to make it more likely I will believe it is
true.




I would ask the same of the models used for the Kyoto protocol, which was
2 years earlier.

I hope that's not too specific - really any experimental evidence at all
would be a good start.

Try the polar ice distributions then. The specific predictions are made
and they have come true in spades.


I thought the article you posted said exactly the opposite, that all 18
models tested were wrong?

But, OK, where are the predictions of the model (whatever model you believe
correct) and the subsequent experimental data compared?


The best models still under estimate the extent, but the sense is very
strongly for global warming and more specifically strong polar warming as
the polar albedo changes.


So the best models are wrong, and this proves that climate science is
correct?



The problems arise from determining the sensitivity of some of the
feedbacks. The IPCC models are arguably a bit on the conservative side.
When Nature did an ensemble of wider parameter models far worse things
happened in some of the outliers.

Nature did an ensemble of wider parameter models?

The magazine Nature eg.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture02771.html

That you did not even attempt to justify your original claim about
supporting evidence for AGW is noted.

Always placing the burden of proof on the consensus opinion.

Of course the burden of proof is on the believers in AGW; they are the
ones running around saying the sky is falling in. For that matter, the
burden of proof is always on the people proposing a theory.

No. We are not saying that the sky is falling in. The scientific
evidence for AGW is strong, but hard to sum up in 10 second sound bite.

The *BIG* problem here is that the sky is getting very slightly lower
with time. AGW will happen on a timescale that politicians find
extremely difficult to deal with (ie more than 10 years - heck our lot
right now find planning for the next day too difficult).


And of course that's a *BIG* advantage to climate scientists, many of
whom make predictions about what the weather will be like long after they
are dead, and hence will never see their theories disproven ....

It isn't going to be disproven because their key predictions are already
coming true. There is a bit of a worry that the best models at present are
too conservative and that nature has a few surprises in store.


Well, lets see the predictions of the dominant models of the late 1990s, and
the subsequent experimental verification

Somebody did bother to check if the models were correct, didn't they?

In my experience of "science", if somebody spends a great deal of effort
developing a testable mathematical model, the results of that model are
compared to subsequent experimental data to see if they are correct. This is
the defining characteristic of science and the scientific method; it is what
separates science from religion.



Tell me about other predictions that have been made about how the world
will end in 100 years unless something is done immediately that have ever
been shown to be true?

How do you think this is even remotely relevant?


Because the climate scientists are making predictions about what will happen
in 50 or a hundred years time. AFAIK, of the thousands of confident
predictions of world disaster within 50 or 100 years, none has ever been
proved correct.

Popular though they have been through history.


Is AGW as well proven as evolution, as you stated? Where is the
equivalent
of the discoveries from gene sequencing of common genes amongst
species
believed to share recent common ancestors?

Continually ignoring powerful evidence presented in discussion (I
didn't
waste my time presenting any, but other people gave some nice
examples,
and you haven't responded to them at all.)

You seem to know a little about climate science.

I am aware that there are lots of computer models of how the earth
warms and cools. Which is the correct one? What is the scientific
consensus of what the most accurate computer model is? Which one is
generally believed correct, that I can have a look at?

There are a few that you can play with to get a rough feel for what will
happen in the simpler cases. It is incredibly difficult to fry the
planet - I know I have tried and even with my best efforts the poles
were still just about habitable. I have posted links to a few of them
here before (and also in s.e.d).

Gee, that sounds like fun.

What I would do is use Fourier analysis to extract any low frequency
signal, then polynomial fit the difference. I can easily make the poles
uninhabitable for you.

You use such long words. How impressive. NOT!
The models only permit you to alter the composition of the atmosphere and
total solar irradiance.


Again the fact that the models ignore data which would seem relevant would
indicate that they are wrong, not that they are correct.

You seem to consistently argue *against* the AGW models being correct - you
posted an article which said that the 18 main models all made wrong
predictions as to sea ice, you posted a link to an article which listed the
"uncertainties" which may make the models incorrect, you point out that the
model which you are using ignores key inputs.

Again, I am looking for places where experiment matches predictions, and NOT
stories which point out that theory does not match experiment, and possible
reasons why climate models are demonstrably wrong.


It is quite hard to drive Earth over the edge. To that extent the
environmentalists are crying wolf, but they do have a point - the time for
profligate waste of energy is over now. We should be doing a lot more to
conserve energy.


Maybe, but for me that is an economic and geo-political argument, and not
proof that AGW is correct.





Gee, so as evidence for AGW, you talk about what non-scientists do.

Deliberate misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the point of
arguments.

I thought you were talking about what non-scientists (specifically
advertising companies) do, but you snipped the context, so we will
never know.


Just out of curiosity, and as you avoided answering the question, do
you
still believe that the AGW theory is as well proven as evolution
theory?

Continual restatement of questions long since answered, as a diversion
from answering anything substantive.


Gee, you spent 2 lines evading a simple yes or no question.

Is AGW as well suported by evidence as the theory of evolution through
natural selection? It was your comparison, after all ...

Close enough that I would view with great suspicion anyone arguing
against AGW who could not propose an alternative mechanism to explain
the most recent 150 years of historical climate data.

But you have not provided any evidence of the models actually predicting
future climate successfully. In fact, as I understand it, there are
hundreds of models, and none of them agree with each other, and none of
them have ever produced correct results when presented with novel data.

That is wrong in just about every respect. It seems to me you get your
"science" from right wing dittoheads like Rush Limbaugh.


Well, post where the models predicted future climate successfully.

BTW, I don't exactly know who Rush Limbaugh is, and as far as I know have
never read any papers published by him, so you are also wrong about me
getting my science from him.

However, if he has written any papers which show where climate science
models correct predict experimental data, I will happily read them on their
scientific merits.




I don't really feel I need to know much more about climate science theory
as such; I know the connections between CO2, ocean acidity, albedo,
vulcanisation and cloud cover are deep and mystical. My lack of knowledge
is where the theory has been experimentally verified.

You choose to remain wilfully ignorant. THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM.

And I am desperately trying to remedy it.

Where can I find retrospective studies which compare the predictions of
various climate models with subsequent experimental results, so I can at
least decide which climate models (if any) could at least possibly be
correct?




I am posting now to make sure you cannot mislead any other weak minded
individuals than might be reading this thread.

Ha ha.

Perhaps providing some independent experimental verification would be a
better tactic?

If we were arguing about evolution or SR, and you maintained they were
incorrect, I would galdly supply you with hundreds of links to dozens of
sources of experimental verification. It is the existence of this
independent experimental verification which convinced me - and those people
who beieve in the scientific method - that SR and evolution are correct
theories.

So, what have you got for climate science?




Here is what you said: "Whether or not it fails before 1850 [during a
coling period] really isn't relevant."

You latch on to random cherry picked points and labour them. Vulcanism
plays a certain part in climatic behaviour - Tamborra in 1816 year
without a summer and more of interest to me Krakatoa in 1883-4-5.

Actually, prior to this post, I don't think I had mentioned volcanos, let
alone cherry picked data about them.

You deliberately chose a period immediately following one of the most
violent periods of vulcanism in recorded history and demanded that climate
models should match its cooling effect.


No, I didn't even know it was one of the most violent periods of vulcanism
in recorded history (what does that mean, by the way, is recorded history
2000 years? Instead of terms like "recorded history", couldn't you mention
specific time periods.). I picked it because it was a cooling pewriod.

Does climate science predict that large scale vulcanism cools the earth?

Don't the models include this?

What other cooling forces are omitted from the models?


http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/G.../page2972.html

Toba is generally reckonned to be the volcano that very nearly wiped out
humanity - cutting our ancestors gene pool down to a small set.

As does the variation in the Earths orbital elements and continental
drift. These longer term geological timescales are important mainly over
millenia. Although there is some evidence that shorter timescale Keeling
tides may be able to cause short scale climate variability.


Yeah, yeah, I know, the theory is magnificently complicated, wheels
within wheels, almost but not quite perfect and complete, probably way to
difficult for me to even begin to comprehend ...

That seems highly likely since you have set out to ignore any observations
or data that would conflict with your preconceived ideas.

No, I am looking for "observations or data" that matches the preconceived
ideas in climate models.

These are also known as experimental verification.

Have you got any?



BTW, you haven't got to hand the predictions of climate made in 1999 for
the last 10 years and a comparison subsequent actual temperatures, do
you? Or the same deal for the last 20, 30 or 40 years?


Doesn't look like a misrepresentation to me. Looks pretty close to a
direct quote.

Here's another direct quote from you, in passing:

"Anybody who does deny this has little credibility- in the same way
that a denier of evolution is going to have a tough time being taken
seriously."

If they can demonstrate a coherent argument that improves the existing
models

Great. I have a polynomial fit for the last 200 years of climate data
that is accurate to within 0.1 degrees for every one of those years.

Then you really do demonstrate that you are entirely clueless.


Despite the fact that my climate model exactly matches known climate data?

So the more accurate a climate model is, the more clueless the author ...



**** it. If neccesary, I will polynomial fit every single data point
exactly, which must guarantee me at least equal first place.

It will also be the most amazingly discontinuous looking mess ever. You
are trying to be clever and failing dismally. The key to model fitting is
to use the fewest free parameters to explain the observations.


My model has 200 data points which were used to formulate the model
(technically, they are determined by previous experiment and are hence
"fixed", not "free").

I agree with your central premise that there should be the fewest number of
arbitrary inputs; this is just a version of Occams razor.

The model which you believe is most correct used how many data points as
input parameters? Significantly less than 200? How many were temperature
data, how many were CO2 concentrations, etc?

We seem to agree this is important. You criticise my model for using 200
data points in its formulation, implying this is too high. So how many does
your model use?




and shows why they may be wrong then they will be taken seriously. It is
for precisely this reason that Lindzen is not a typical denier for hire.
He is a good scientist and has made important contributions to climate
modelling. His Iris hypothesis is quite elegant - wrong as it turns out
when the idea was tested against observation but useful for refining the
models.

What! You think something is wrong if its predictions are tested against
observation and they don't agree? First time you have ever mentioned it
as a criteria.

So, tell me about climate science's succesful predictions so far. I
promise I won't giggle, or mention the great global cooling scare of the
1970s.

Arctic Sea ice is as unambiguous as any. Very specific prediction of the
models and borne out by observations.

But didn't you post an article which said the 18 dominant models all got
this wrong?

Why don't you post an article which shows the predictions of arctic ice, and
the actual results?



But if you look at Singer, Seitz, Idso et al you see a darker side of
"scientist" for sale - will testify to anything if the money is right.

Now, about your comparison of AGW to evolution ... do you still stand
by that, or were you having a small fit of religious inspiration, and
exaggerated somewhat?

I would, however, settle for a compromise that AGW is as well supported
a scientific theory as (say) string theory, or dark energy ... I can
handle being compared to a string theory denier, doesn't sound so bad.

You cannot deny it unless you can put something else in its place that
better explains the behaviour of our climate. If you have a better model
then lets see it


You want a model which better matches a certain data set?

You give me the data set, and I will give you a model which precisely
predicts it. You can't do any "better" than a perfect fit.

ANOVA says that you can.

ANOVA says that you can do better than a perfect match between experiment
and theory?

****, I would be delighted with a perfect match alone, let alone better than
perfect.

Where can I find a link to these better than perfect predictions of climate
science?


At least if you want to get something that sensibly represents the system
behaviour inbetween the data points that you have observed. Over fitting
data is a classic naive mistake of badly trained beginners in scientific
data analysis.

Yeah, in practice I wouldn't use a polynomial of degree 200. I would
least-squares fit a polynomial of degree 100, that should give me pretty
accurate answers.

As to whether it "sensibly represents the system behaviour", that is really
just asking if its predictions match experimental results not already known
when the model was constructed.

Which is exactly the question I am asking about your theory.





otherwise you are just a credulous fool taken in by a sophisticated
public disinformation campaign funded by Exxon and others.


Or maybe I just like to see evidence for extraordinary claims before
believing them. Really quite the opposite of "credulous", I would have
thought.

You should really learn some basic manners, and stop insulting people
simple because they don't believe the same scientific theory as you do.

Tough. You are trying it on in a science group.

But alas, when I ask about experimental evidence that climate models are
correct, I get some rave about the politics of some guy called Rush. Lost of
whacko conspiracy theories, but alas no successful predictions of the
theory.




I wish the learned societies would take their gloves off when dealing with
some of the charlatans that mislead the public about AGW.


I wish you would provide pointers to where the theoretical predictions of
climate science are successfully compared to experimental evidence. That is
all I have asked for, but the only links you have provided so far are one to
an article which says the predictions were wrong, and another to where a
scientist in 2001 correctly predicted the climate in 1998.





The science is clear enough now. It is one thing to argue about the finer
points of some feedback mechanism, but quite another to deny reality on
the grounds that you don't like the answer.


Ohh, so there is strong independent experimental verification?

Cool! Can I see it?



Regards,
Martin Brown

"yourmommycalled" wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 6:01 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

So, let me get this straight. In order to obtain experimental verification
of climate science predictions, I have to download, compile, and learn a
new
computer system, devise an experiment for myself, undertake the data
entry,
produce the output, and then compare it to experimental data which I
presume
I can download from somewhere.

Hasn't somebody done this already? It would be very clear evidence for the
truth of the model if it predicted 1800 to 1850 climate on the basis of
1800
data, particularly if this data was not used in the construction of the
mathematical model.

If it hasn't been done, why not? It would be a clear and simple test of
the
model, and provide massive experimental support if it was true.

It is very lame that when I ask for experimental evidence that a theory is
correct, you say "create your own evidence", which is what you are saying
when you expect me to download and test a model for you.


You don't have to download and test an model for me, I've already done
so.

__________________________
Terrific. Could you post the predictions of the model and the actual
experimental results for data accumulated since the model was constructed?


Your response makes it very clear that you are stupid and lazy and
have no interest in learning . How do I know? Quoting you now

"So, let me get this straight. In order to obtain experimental
verification of climate science predictions, I have to download,
compile, and learn a new
computer system, devise an experiment for myself, undertake the data
entry, produce the output, and then compare it to experimental data
which I presume I can download from somewhere."

Strangely that is exactly how science is done! To suggest otherwise
indicates you are lazy and uneducated. But that's OK even for stupid
and lazy there are alternatives. I posted you should go to

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/Table.php

I said

"PCMDI is a climate model inter-comparison data portal. The
documentation for the models, source and results are freely
available."

I know I used a big word (data portal), but I also said

"RESULTS ARE FREELY AVAILABLE"


_____________________________
Great. I couldn't find where the preictions of the models were compared to
subsequent experimental data, pretty basic I know, but I couldn't find it.
Have you got a more specific link to where I can find this for some or all
models?


Looking at the tables and results there are alot of model output over
the range you are interested in and all predict exactly what happened.

________________________________
For independent experimental data, eg temperature data that was not known
when the model was constructed, or explicity not used in its formulation?
This is exactly what I am after! I could not find it on the web page you
gave the URL for, you seem to know your way around the site, exactly where
is it?


Once you are not interested in anything but listening to your own
voice. Unfortunately everyone else is laughing at you


_____________________
No, no, I am interested in independent experimental verification of climate
science models. I will be very grateful when you tell me where to find it on
your site.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 3:30 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Like they were about the Aristotlean model of the solar system, and the
"denial" of plate techtonics in the 1950s, or the Galilean transform in
1880, or Lamrakian inheritance, or ...

Yes, when a new idea comes along, it won't get unanimous acceptance
immediately.

Of course we will learn new things as time goes on.

Scientists used to believe, unanimously, that the Universe was the
surface of a fourth-dimensional sphere with a circumference of 30
billion light-years, uniform in mean density of galaxies. Now, they
think that inflation and dark matter means the Universe is flat on the
largest scale.

Back when people thought the Sun went around the Earth, though, they
still new how to plant grain and shoe horses.

Being strongly skeptical of what scientists believe about things that
are far from the leading edge of research is not reasonable.

John Savard

_____________________________
Thank God for that. All I have done is ask about experimental verification
of AGW, and I have had people abuse me, claim that I was lying, was a
disciple of some guy called Rush Limbaugh, my skepticism is politically
motivated, that I am an "ignorant fool", that I am "stupid" and "unwilling
to learn", that I agree with people who used to work for tobacco companies
and want people to die of lung cancer, just an almost continuous stream of
ad-hominem abuse.

Its like a I asked for evidence of a a religious theory, not a scientific
theory.

Peter Webb wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Peter Webb wrote:

Have you got one which predicts cooling from 1820 to 1850 when fed
1820s data?

They will if they take vulcanism into account. I take it that you
deliberately chose a period immediately following the Tamborra super
eruption.

No.

A model would have to know about the volcanic aerosols.

OK.

You don't know if there were massive volcanic eruptions in the 19th
Century, and that is why climate models don't work for the 19th Century?

No. A model has to be given knowledge of the volcanic aerosol
contributions if it is to get the right answers. There are uncertainties
about the extent of the Tamborra inputs. I personally would love to know
why it didn't trigger the same sort of polar stratospheric cloud
displays in the UK as Krakatao did in the 1880's. It was a much bigger bang.

By the 19th Century, Europeans had discovered the entire world, and in
most cases there were European observers. Independently of this, surely
the local population would have noticed massive volcanic eruptions in
their neighbourhood. I would also have expected geological evidence for
massive volcanic eruptions 150 years ago.

Are you really telling me that the reason that climate models don't work
when applied to 19th Century is because their were massive volcanos in
the 19th Century of which we have no records? Where?

Not at all. The models would work reasonably well if they were given the
right inputs. That is in part how they have been calibrated. The
problems arise in determining accurately what the climate was like in
that historical period when the available global observational
constraints are nothing like as good as in the modern era.

I just want to see if any of them predict cooling, ever, or whether
they are all hardwired to produce only warming.

Of course they do if either insolation decreases or GHG forcing
decreases. Equally if you keep adding more GHG then the climate warms.
This should not be a surprise to anyone. Put an extra blanket on the
bed and it helps to keep the heat in.

Also, some papers which compare past predictions of climate with
measured results would be great; my main problem with climate science
is this whole agreement between theory and experiment thing.

OK. If you are serious. And I very much doubt that you are then take a
look at the printed paper copy of the IPCC Science Case Climate Change
2001 p447 has specific predictions for Arctic Sea ice from GFDL and
Hadley models of the day as compared with actual observations to 1998.

To 1998?

The reason I chose this specific paper is that the printed version is
locked to exactly what they predicted out to 2040 with the models and
data available up to 1998. Their predictions are a slight under estimate
of the extent of polar ice loss seen to date.

This is actually a bit worrying since it means that the CO2 feedback is
more aggressive than the 1998 models have accounted for.

These models were the justification for a world-wide treaty which called
for huge changes to the structure of the world's industry.

Your evidence is a paper published in 2001 which correctly "predicts"
sea ice levels for 1998, which were in fact already known to the author
in 2001 when he correctly predicted them.

NO. CAN'T YOU READ? I THINK YOU ARE BEING DELIBERATELY OBTUSE.

The prediction made in 1998 goes out to 2040 and is so far a pretty good
match to the observations - the GFDL one is pretty close to reality.

Prior to 1960 the sea ice was fairly steady with annual fluctations. It
is only since GHG forcing became non-neglible in the past few decades
that sea ice has taken a serious hit with a systemtic downward trend.


It is now 2009. What did the model predict for 2001 - 2009, and how well
does it match observation?

From the graph I have in front of me it predicted a 5% per decade
decrease in Arctic sea ice and the modern observations show:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

Writing a paper in 2001 which predicts the past accurately is not
independent experimental verification. It should be easy to gain such
verification; just look at te climate changes aftewr the paper was
written and see if they were correctly predicted.

Were they?

YES. Why don't you go and read the literature?

We are now a decade further on and you can see that they have the
trend and rate of decrease of sea ice about right when compared to
current day observations. GFDL is a bit more aggressive than Hadley
and nature it turns out went beyond the pessimistic prediction of GFDL.

See for example the NSIDC comparison of the later models with actual
sea ice data. The conclusion is basically that we are warming the
poles somewhat faster than the preferred IPCC models predict.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html


So your evidence that the predictions of climate science are correct is
in fact an article which points out every single one of the 18 models
analysed got completely the wrong answer?

This is a strange approach to determining scientific fact. Normally,
when an experiment fails to match a theory, this is evidence the theory
is wrong. You seem to think that the fact that every one of the 18
models made demonstrably wrong predictions proves they are all correct.

You are back to sophistry again. The models make predictions that are
specific and have been validated. They are not perfect - nothing in the
real world ever is but they describe the overall system sufficiently
well that we can have confidence in their predictions.

Were you the dude who taught "University level science" for 30 years? Do
you prove to your students that other scientific theories are correct by
pointing out the theory consistently fails to explain experimental data?

You are deliberately twisting my words for your own malign purposes
here. It won't wash. The literature is all out there - if you want to
find how the models were verified and validated then go away and do it!

I don't believe in climate science because the models don't match
experimental data.

You will have to be more specific. The climate science models do
have significant predictive power.

Well, gee, OK. Ten years ago it was 1999. What were the predictions
of the main climate models of 1999 for the world tempertaure over the
last 10 years? To what confidence level do they exceed chance?

If you want an answer to that you can work it out for yourself.

So nobody has bothered already to see if predictions match experiment,

That isn't what I said at all. There is a lot of work going on to test
the models against actuality, and to refine them by running other
planets and simplified test cases.

excepting of course the study you provided a link to which shows that
they do not.

If I wanted "proofs" of Special Relativity, I can find them easily. If
somebody said that nobody had ever bothered to verify the predictions of
SR against experiment, and I had to do it myself, I would be very
curious as to why this basic checking had not occurred.

The basic checking has occurred. You insist that you are not satisfied
with it and cannot be arsed to go and look at any of the references you
have been given. It is your choice to be wilfully ignorant.

Or you could read the IPCC Science Report which deals in detail with
most of the factors and remaining uncertainties in climate modelling.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Or, you could just simply provide the predictions of the models of what
would happen in the future, and the actual experimental results.

A report which lists all the reasons a model may be wrong (ie the
uncertainties) is not going to make it more likely I will believe it is
true.

The scientific position is to build a descriptive model of the planet
and its climate. The scientists are honest. The deniers for hire are
not. It is frustrating that a handful of maverick scientists and a
denier for hire PR machine can hold sway on a credulous population of
scientifically illiterates, but that is how the world is at present.

I would ask the same of the models used for the Kyoto protocol, which
was 2 years earlier.

I hope that's not too specific - really any experimental evidence at
all would be a good start.

Try the polar ice distributions then. The specific predictions are
made and they have come true in spades.

I thought the article you posted said exactly the opposite, that all 18
models tested were wrong?

But, OK, where are the predictions of the model (whatever model you
believe correct) and the subsequent experimental data compared?


The best models still under estimate the extent, but the sense is very
strongly for global warming and more specifically strong polar warming
as the polar albedo changes.

So the best models are wrong, and this proves that climate science is
correct?

The best models reproduce the right behaviour, but the amount of change
being observed is actually slightly larger than GFDL predicts. Taking
the polar ice as a clear observable with very specific predictions from
the models:

AGW Deniers predict: no change
GFDL Model predicts: -5% per decade
Observed data shows: -6 +-2 % per decade

Who are you going to believe? The observations are intrinsically noisy.

It isn't going to be disproven because their key predictions are
already coming true. There is a bit of a worry that the best models at
present are too conservative and that nature has a few surprises in
store.


Well, lets see the predictions of the dominant models of the late 1990s,
and the subsequent experimental verification

Somebody did bother to check if the models were correct, didn't they?

Yes. But if you want to look at it in detail you are going to have to
visit a library. There is some material on verification and validation
of the models on the Hadley site. The other global repository of climate
model testing verification and validation is at LLNL.

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/index.php

You are on your own probing in there. I do have some sympathy for your
position that a simple explanation of the reason why almost all
scientists are agreed on the reality of AGW is needed.

There are just too many dittohead "junkScience" sites out there peddling
obvious lies but which sound plausible to the general public.

In my experience of "science", if somebody spends a great deal of effort
developing a testable mathematical model, the results of that model are
compared to subsequent experimental data to see if they are correct.
This is the defining characteristic of science and the scientific
method; it is what separates science from religion.

No disagreement there. The problem here is that whenever some evidence
of the models correctness is presented you pretend that it isn't enough.

Tell me about other predictions that have been made about how the
world will end in 100 years unless something is done immediately that
have ever been shown to be true?

How do you think this is even remotely relevant?

Because the climate scientists are making predictions about what will
happen in 50 or a hundred years time. AFAIK, of the thousands of
confident predictions of world disaster within 50 or 100 years, none has
ever been proved correct.

Popular though they have been through history.

I suppose Australia deserves it extreme drought conditions then.

What I would do is use Fourier analysis to extract any low frequency
signal, then polynomial fit the difference. I can easily make the
poles uninhabitable for you.

You use such long words. How impressive. NOT!
The models only permit you to alter the composition of the atmosphere
and total solar irradiance.

Again the fact that the models ignore data which would seem relevant
would indicate that they are wrong, not that they are correct.

You seem to consistently argue *against* the AGW models being correct -
you posted an article which said that the 18 main models all made wrong
predictions as to sea ice, you posted a link to an article which listed
the "uncertainties" which may make the models incorrect, you point out
that the model which you are using ignores key inputs.

I am prepared to discuss the science. What is known, what is uncertain
and what is not known at present. Leading edge science always comes with
some level of uncertainty - there is no way of avoiding that.

However, the basic principles are now clear. Adding CO2 at an ever
increasing rate will get us into trouble in the relatively near future.

Again, I am looking for places where experiment matches predictions, and
NOT stories which point out that theory does not match experiment, and
possible reasons why climate models are demonstrably wrong.

Then go and read the IPCC Science Report. It deals with comparisons of
the past records with the models and how they compare. as I have pointed
out before if you get a paper copy of the 2001 report you can compare
the predictions and graphs made at that time with the actual
observations today for yourself without having to rely on outside help.

It is quite hard to drive Earth over the edge. To that extent the
environmentalists are crying wolf, but they do have a point - the time
for profligate waste of energy is over now. We should be doing a lot
more to conserve energy.

Maybe, but for me that is an economic and geo-political argument, and
not proof that AGW is correct.

I am beginning to think that you don't understand anything about how CO2
affects the atmospheric energy balance by blocking outgoing long wave
thermal radiation. It doesn't make sense to deny the possibility of AGW.

Add enough CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere and you would eventually end up
with something like Venus but with a surface temperature of about 690K
instead of 750K (representing our greater distance from the sun). Models
won't allow you to push it that far since they limit it to burning
fossil fuels and not decomposing all the carbonate rocks.

I don't really feel I need to know much more about climate science
theory as such; I know the connections between CO2, ocean acidity,
albedo, vulcanisation and cloud cover are deep and mystical. My lack
of knowledge is where the theory has been experimentally verified.

You choose to remain wilfully ignorant. THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM.

And I am desperately trying to remedy it.

Where can I find retrospective studies which compare the predictions of
various climate models with subsequent experimental results, so I can at
least decide which climate models (if any) could at least possibly be
correct?

As I have said earlier. GFDL looks reasonable, but the models are being
refined and will inevitably get better in the future. The key point here
is that even a relatively simple model can show why adding CO2 will make
the Earth get warmer. And none of the "scientific" sceptics worthy of
the name scientist deny this any more.

I am posting now to make sure you cannot mislead any other weak minded
individuals than might be reading this thread.

Ha ha.

Perhaps providing some independent experimental verification would be a
better tactic?

If we were arguing about evolution or SR, and you maintained they were
incorrect, I would galdly supply you with hundreds of links to dozens of
sources of experimental verification. It is the existence of this
independent experimental verification which convinced me - and those
people who beieve in the scientific method - that SR and evolution are
correct theories.

And yet you can still find plenty of particularly electronics engineers
that still do not believe in relativity a century later. The first GPS
satellites had a disable relativistic corrections feature because the
engineers did not believe the physicists.

So, what have you got for climate science?

Whatever it is it will never satisfy you.

Here is what you said: "Whether or not it fails before 1850 [during
a coling period] really isn't relevant."

You latch on to random cherry picked points and labour them.
Vulcanism plays a certain part in climatic behaviour - Tamborra in
1816 year without a summer and more of interest to me Krakatoa in
1883-4-5.

Actually, prior to this post, I don't think I had mentioned volcanos,
let alone cherry picked data about them.

You deliberately chose a period immediately following one of the most
violent periods of vulcanism in recorded history and demanded that
climate models should match its cooling effect.


No, I didn't even know it was one of the most violent periods of
vulcanism in recorded history (what does that mean, by the way, is
recorded history 2000 years? Instead of terms like "recorded history",

You have to go back about 75000 years for a bigger bang with the Toba
super volcano that was close to a human extinction event and is widely
believed to be responsible for our relatively low genetic diversity.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2005/05_04_28.html

couldn't you mention specific time periods.). I picked it because it was
a cooling pewriod.

Does climate science predict that large scale vulcanism cools the earth?

Of course. Any high altitude aerosol or dust reflects incoming light.

Don't the models include this?

Some do some don't. It was one of the notable discreprancies in the
early models - vulcanism was not well handled for the super volcanoes
that put fine material high up into the stratosphere and alter climate
by changing incoming and outgoing transmission of light and IR.

What other cooling forces are omitted from the models?

I think at present none of them include the Keeling tides (which is AIUI
still not widely accepted). It can be either a warming or cooling effect
so it averages out longer term. Basically it says that larger tidal
range from changes in the lunar orbital elements makes more turbulence
and shunts heat deeper into the oceans. Their paper seemed to be fairly
convincing from an astronomers point of view.

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/G.../page2972.html

Toba is generally reckonned to be the volcano that very nearly wiped
out humanity - cutting our ancestors gene pool down to a small set.

As does the variation in the Earths orbital elements and continental
drift. These longer term geological timescales are important mainly
over millenia. Although there is some evidence that shorter
timescale Keeling tides may be able to cause short scale climate
variability.


Yeah, yeah, I know, the theory is magnificently complicated, wheels
within wheels, almost but not quite perfect and complete, probably
way to difficult for me to even begin to comprehend ...

That seems highly likely since you have set out to ignore any
observations or data that would conflict with your preconceived ideas.

No, I am looking for "observations or data" that matches the
preconceived ideas in climate models.

There are no preconceived ideas in the climate models. They are ab
initio simulations of the system behaviour. If you vary things then they
respond according to a set of linked differential equations.

These are also known as experimental verification.

Have you got any?

Personally no. But if you really want to look the LLNL hold the work.

**** it. If neccesary, I will polynomial fit every single data point
exactly, which must guarantee me at least equal first place.

It will also be the most amazingly discontinuous looking mess ever.
You are trying to be clever and failing dismally. The key to model
fitting is to use the fewest free parameters to explain the observations.

My model has 200 data points which were used to formulate the model
(technically, they are determined by previous experiment and are hence
"fixed", not "free").

But to match those points exactly you need a degree of freedom in the
model for every statistically independent point measured.

I agree with your central premise that there should be the fewest number
of arbitrary inputs; this is just a version of Occams razor.

The model which you believe is most correct used how many data points as
input parameters? Significantly less than 200? How many were temperature
data, how many were CO2 concentrations, etc?

We seem to agree this is important. You criticise my model for using 200
data points in its formulation, implying this is too high. So how many
does your model use?

I doubt over the time range where we have good climate data that
anything beyond a quadratic fit is justified.

Arctic Sea ice is as unambiguous as any. Very specific prediction of
the models and borne out by observations.

But didn't you post an article which said the 18 dominant models all got
this wrong?

They mostly underestimate the effect. In other words the AGW observed
now is strong than our preferred models predicted in the past.

Why don't you post an article which shows the predictions of arctic ice,
and the actual results?

The diagram in the IPCC report 2001 comes from Vinnikov et Al 1999
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...cetype =HWCIT

If you have a Science subscription you can read it for free otherwise I
strongly suggest you look the paper up in a public library. Online
scientific journals are ludicrously overpriced for the casual user.

You want a model which better matches a certain data set?

You give me the data set, and I will give you a model which precisely
predicts it. You can't do any "better" than a perfect fit.

ANOVA says that you can.

ANOVA says that you can do better than a perfect match between
experiment and theory?

****, I would be delighted with a perfect match alone, let alone better
than perfect.

Where can I find a link to these better than perfect predictions of
climate science?


At least if you want to get something that sensibly represents the
system behaviour inbetween the data points that you have observed.
Over fitting data is a classic naive mistake of badly trained
beginners in scientific data analysis.

Yeah, in practice I wouldn't use a polynomial of degree 200. I would
least-squares fit a polynomial of degree 100, that should give me pretty
accurate answers.

Try it and see what happens in between the constrained points. BTW very
few numerical algorithms are stable for a polynomial of degree 100.
Excel these days cannot get much more than a cubic fit right.

It can be done with Chebyshev polynomials though.

As to whether it "sensibly represents the system behaviour", that is
really just asking if its predictions match experimental results not
already known when the model was constructed.

Which is exactly the question I am asking about your theory.

It isn't my theory. I am trying to provide you with some answers on the
basis that I think you may have a point that the scientific community is
not communicating adequately with the general public. And that the gap
is being filled with dittohead BLOGS and deniers for hire.

I wish you would provide pointers to where the theoretical predictions
of climate science are successfully compared to experimental evidence.

LLNL are the central clearing house for model comparisons.

The science is clear enough now. It is one thing to argue about the
finer points of some feedback mechanism, but quite another to deny
reality on the grounds that you don't like the answer.

Ohh, so there is strong independent experimental verification?

Cool! Can I see it?

It is almost enough to point at Venus and note that CO2 is triatomic.
All polyatomic molecules have potential as IR absorbers aka GHG.

The details of the models do not have to be perfect for the rising CO2
(and other polyatomic GHGs like CH4 and N2O) to be attributed to our
warming planet.

Logical inference allows you to conclude that if the heat input from the
sun has not got stronger (and we have accurate satellite flux records
over the past forty years) and the planet is warming then heat is
escaping more slowly. This conclusion is inescapable and even sceptics
like Baliunas and Soon concede this in their scientific papers.

Regards,
Martin Brown