[OT] How science is not done

On Sep 11, 9:56*am, oriel36 wrote:

... I enjoy
what is now a private work where planetary 'tilt' determines whether a
planet experiences polar or equatorial conditions as it orbits the
Sun,

Well, maybe you should continue to keep it private, as in "all to
yourself"...

On Sep 11, 8:26*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"yourmommycalled" wrote in message

...
On Sep 10, 9:23 pm, "Peter Webb"





wrote:
"yourmommycalled" wrote in message

....
On Sep 10, 3:39 am, "Peter Webb"

wrote:

Pity that nobody has bothered posting experimental verification of the
predictions of climate science anywhere on the web, particularly if
there
is
so much of it. And damn those right wing corporations and their
tobacco
company employee minions, for stopping it being published.

Why don't you just make up some more bull****? You have been
repeatedly provided with everything you have asked for: the papers,
model documentation, the mathematics, the model output, and
verification data.

_______________________________
Umm, no. You have several times claimed this, but is simply not true. If
you
have it, please post it, maybe the original post didn't come through to
my
ISP.

let's see on Sept 9th at 12:32am you posted

"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? "

Further you said on Sept 8th at 6:01 am you posted

"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."

You claim in your posts that you couldn't find where the model
predictions were compared with observed data. Yet you claim that you
would have "download, compile ..." That says you went to the PCMDI
site and looked at what was available.

__________________________
All correct so far.

Once you looked at the site you
found you couldn't just make up more lies and so you whined about
having actually do science.

________________________
No, I asked if somebody had ever bothered to compare the predictions of
climate science models with subsequent experimantal data. The site you
posted does not do that, or anything similar. Hence my disappointment.

So you clearly did get my post about where
to get the mathematics, documentation, source code, model output could
be found

_______________________
But you did not provide a link to where the predictions of the models were
compared subsequent experimental data, which would seem a very easy way to
work out if the theories are correct. (Its called the scientific method,
and
the perhaps gratuitous use of the word "science" in "climate science"
suggests that it should be evaluated using the scientific method)

Got caught with pants down on that one didn't you? I guess
what you me to do is convert a 15gb compressed binary file from PCMDI
into ASCII and post the resulting file on USENET.

______________________
Somebody created a 15 Gbyte computer program and never tested it to see if
its predictions were verified by subsequent experimental data? And you
want
me to use this to create my own experimental evidence, because none is
available on the internet?

Once again you are
just a lazy stupid whiner just like Brad, Danny, Nancy, Ed, Gerald and
AJ. You keep repeating the same bull**** over and over again expecting
people to stop believing observed fact and believe you.

____________________
Do you or don't you have a link to a site which lists the predictions of
even one climate science model and the subsequent experimental data, where
we can see how accurate its predictions were? Even better, have you got a
link which shows the match between the Kyoto predictions and actual
climate
over the last 12 years?

Ah I finally understand. You have no intent of admitting that you are
wrong so you change the what you ask for.

_______________________
No, that is what I have asked for all along.

OK let's try something
very very simple. Let's say we take a very simple model that only uses
basic physics, in other words it uses Navier-Stokes to predict winds,
equation of state for temperatures, Planck's law to handle radiative
transfer processes, etc.

____________________________
Wow, that's simple? I thought using Navier Stokes to accuraetly model even
turbulent flow down a garden hose was difficult, chuck in some unspecified
equations of state for temperatures, radiative transfer processes, etc (!!)
and it all sounds very difficult to me. But you can do this for the whole
earth, and these simple models are correct? Cool! How well do they match
subsequent recorded temperature data?

We know that volcanic eruptions spew
particulates and aerosols into the atmosphere affecting the radiative
balance, but we don't know when, so in our model we include the
effects of volcanic eruptions by simply picking some point in the
future and introduce the particulates and aerosols that are typical
for what has been measured in past volcanic eruptions. We also don't
know what the future rate of increases in CO2, Methane, NOX SOX will
be so we pick an unrealistically high, an unrealistically low and a
more realistic rate of increase.

Would a graph of say 25 years of predictions from this model against
observed temperatures satisfy your request?

___________________________________

Yes, absolutely. That is exactly what I am after, predictions of climate
models versus subsequent actual measured temperatures. I knew it had to
exist; comparing the predictions of theories to independent experimental
data is a how we determine if a theory is possibly correct.

We can completely eliminate the effects of CO2, Methane etc from the
verification, as the values of all of these for the past 25 years are known,
so we know whether the high, medium or realistic values are appropriate.

So yes, please, post the predictions of the theory for the last 25 years,
whether the CO2, methane etc was "high", "medium" or "low" over the last 25
years according to the model (so we know which curve to check against), and
the actual temperatures over the last 25 years.

Brilliant if you can provide information of the agreement between
predictions of even a single climate model and subsequent actual
temperatures - exactly what I have been looking for but nobody has been able
to provide.

Thanks in advance

What a clueless moron!! I cannot repeat this often enough or loud
enough you are a clueless moron. You mouth words and make statements
that not only do you not have a clue what you are talking about but
you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you haven't done even the most
basic web search or looked up anything before you shout your mouth
off. The application of Navier-Stokes to the atmosphere was first done
by L.F. Richardson of the British Meteorological Office. As a Quaker,
Richardson refused to fight, but did serve as an ambulance driver in
World War I. While ferrying the wounded away from the front
Richardson, using only paper and pencil, performed the first weather
forecast by numerical means. The method Richardson used was to solve
the Navier-Stokes equation forward in time. The results were published
in 1922. He was also interested in atmospheric turbulence and the
Richardson number, a dimensionless parameter in the theory of
turbulence is named after him. So yes the Navier-Stokes equation can
and has been used to model and forecast the turbulent atmosphere.
Richardson's method for solving the Navier-Stokes equation is
fundamental that is the basis of all numerical weather prediction.
There is no such things as an "unspecified equation of state". There
is only one equation of state PV=nRT. The equation of state is basic
science and so important that it is taught to middle school students
as soon as they complete the first semester of Algebra-I. The
radiative transfer equations are more complex, but the method for
solving them has been known, understood and used since the beginning
of the 20th century.

The question becomes even given that somebody has done your homework
for you, being such a clueless moron, would even be able to read the
graph and come to conclusion about what it says or will you spout more
of your mindless drivel like "chuck in some unspecified equations of
state for temperatures"

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

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

Incidentally for the purposes of clarity I should point out that I am not
a climate modeller and that I am generally fairly sceptical of computer
models (and have had the opportunity to torture one or two). I work on
software for scientific instruments and data analysis. A very long time
ago I did work on fluid in cell simulations in astrophysics.

I am beginning to lose patience. Most of the answers that you seek are
covered in the IPCC FAQ at a level that should be understandable by
anyone with high school physics and a bit of perseverence.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_FAQs.pdf

I looked through this voluminous report, which contains haundreds of
graphs of measuerements of various temperatures and similar data, usually
with trend lines usefully added, but not one of the graphs or tables (as
far as I could see) showed the prediction of any model at all, and nor
could I find any data whatsoever on the predictions of various models
anywhere in the report.

That is the short summary. You are asking about comparisons of large scale
simulations with observations. There are some figures in Chapters 8 & 9 of
the main WG1 report. But they show observables only up to the date when
the report was drafted.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter9.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter8.pdf

Chapter 9 is probably the most useful here.


It does not contain any comparison whatsoever between prediction and
subsequent experiment. The closest is on page 684 where there is a graph
that says it includes "Comparison between global mean surface temperature
anomalies (°C) from observations (black) and AOGCM simulations". It is not
clear to me that there are any actual "predictions" being made; it does not
give the date or which model was used; and if the model merely accurately
models the past or predicts the future. Its easy to predict the past; where
is the evidence that the models predict the future? What part (if any) of
this graph is actual prediction?



Conservation of energy is an extremely powerful tool and the energy
balance models do not care about the internal details of the system. If
you imagine a sphere around the Earth then by accounting for everything
that comes in or goes out through that sphere you can compute the
average temperature of the Earth.

Gee, so climate science adheres to the first law of thermodynamics. That
is a huge relief. Does it also adhere to all the others as well?

You consider this to be "evidence" let alone "proof" !

Your hand waving claim that the Earth is warming for no apparent reason
defies the first law of thermodynamics.


Lots of things happen for no apparent reason, but don't violate the laws of
thermodynamics.


Physics has the explanation and it predicts the results that we are
seeing.

Has it? Where are the predictions and subsequent temperature data compared,
exactly?


Claiming "correlation does not imply causation" doesn't work when there is
a physical model that shows why we expect adding more CO2 to make the
planet warmer.



That is a plausibility argument at best. For climate science to be both a
science and possibly correct it needs to make predictions that are
subsequently shown to be true, and which could not also be ascribed to
chance. It doesn't.


A model that fits the observations adequately has to include:

GHG forcing (positive)
Aerosols (negative)
Solar Variation (positive)


No, I can create a model that fits the observations perfectly using as
stated inputs:

World canola oil production (positive). This is a proxy for the amount of
land dedicated to cereal crop production, which affects evaporation rates
and albedo.

Average wind speeds in the tropics (negative). These act to redistribute
heat.

Average real cost of a daily newspaper. I have no idea of what the
causative mechanism is here, but let me assure you that if you give me
enough data points I can fit any curve I like to them.

Go and do it then. That should be good for a laugh.


Much how I feel about other people's models.



Over the past century the bulk of the GHG forcing has been in the past
3-4 decades where GHG concentrations really rise quickly. The solar
contribution has been rising erratically. Both factors are roughly
equally important, but the GHG forcing can be ignored before about 1960.

Aerosols take into account vulcanism and sulphur emissions from power
stations during the acid rain era. You can even choose sceptic
scientific papers on this. There is no significant scientific
disagreement on this amongst the scientists.

You just love pedantically trying to explain your complex and (frankly)
tedious theories, when what I have asked for and not received is any
independent experimental verification they are true. The obvious

These are not complex and tedious theories. You are asking for a simple
answer to a complicated question. I have news for you there are no simple
answers. And the models create a lot of data. I have given you examples of
clear observables that are unambiguous.


No, I want a simple answer to a simple answer. What were the specific
predictions made by the models used for Kyoto, and what actually happened?



Remember, my original question was roughly what is the domain of
applicability of today's climate models, that is what I am really trying
to find out.

As I understand it they are now generally applicable.


You mean they are applicable to the range 2009 through to 2009?

If they are applicable to more than just "now", what are the ranges of
applicability? Do they include any time in the future, as well as "now" ?



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.

I would of course be very interested in seeing the specific predictions
made in 1998 and the actual measured data since.

Your statement that the experimental data does not in fact match the
theoretical predictions does not leave me with much confidence.

Look. You are never satisfied.

Because you won't give me any evidence.

Whenever I give you evidence you deny it.


You haven't given any evidence at all the match between the specific
predictions of climate science and what subsequently happened. None. Zero.



I suppose even when there is no Arctic ice cap you will still not
believe in AGW. And an ice free north polar route is on the cards in a
decade or so if current trends of warming continue or accelerate (as
seems likely).

Or maybe it will grow bigger. I am no expert, but I assume that at
various times over the last few million years its size has changed at
various times without any help from us.

But it is changing now and we are driving the change. There is no other
observable cause of the Earths warming. The sun did not suddenly get
brighter - but the Earth is now keeping more heat in because of the CO2 we
have put into the atmoosphere.


Aristotle believed that the stars were embedded in a celestial firmament,
because there was no other observable cause for the the stars not falling to
earth. Lamarck believed that phsyiological changes were inheritible, becuase
there was no other observable cause dor speciaition.

That nobody could think of a better explanation is the hallmark of
practically all incorrect scientific theories.



I can also see how this would provide additional evidence the earth is
warming, but I don't dispute that it. It has been warming for over 150
years. The theory of anthropogenic warming demands an anthropogenic
component. The mere fact that the climate is changing doesn't mean that
man has anything to do with it, the earth has spent long periods either
warming or cooling long before homo sapiens appeared.

I suggest you read the FAQ particularly sections 7.1, 8.1 & 9.2. They
deal with your objections in some detail.

Regretably, on a theoretical basis, and none of them appear to cite any
experimental verification at all.

Which is more the sort of thing I am after - not reasons it is plausible,
experimental verification. Lots of plausible things are untrue.

See Chapter 9 referred to above.


I read it. Show me a single table of the specific predictions of any climate
model and subsequent experimental data or anything vaguely similar. Cut and
paste it here if you still claim it exists. It simply doesn't exist in
Chapter 9.




But you have to ask why is the Earth warming.

Excellent question. It has been warming for over 150 years. Why?

That is a bare faced lie. The Earths climate was cooling from 1884-1900
(after Krakatoa) and from 1945-1970. There is solar forcing.


OK, why did the earth cool in the early part of the 19th Century?



Astronomers know that the sun very very gradually gets brighter on
geological/astronomical timescales and it varies slightly with the solar
cycle too. It isn't quite constant but it is pretty close.


So the earth is also getting warmer because the sun is getting brighter?

What do the models predict for these non-anthropogenic components? When
would the earth start cooling again if we weren't involved?


We can *measure* the solar flux. It hasn't changed by anything like
enough to explain the last few decades. And the changes to the
atmospheric concentrations of GHG match the energy balance required to
fit the observations extremely well. Any reasonable practitioner would
conclude that solar variation and GHG are now significant since about
1970 and that with the rapidly increasing levels of CO2 the latter
forcing will become ever more important.

Damn, I thought you were going to tell me why it has been warming for
over 150 years. Whatever it is, it aint anthropogenic CO2, because 100
years ago it was negligible.

It hasn't been warming for 150 years. Where did you get that idea?

Gee, its been a bit up and down.

Having had a look at some of the data, I am now not even convinced it has
been warming for the last 10 years.

Nevertheless, the earth warms and cools even without anthropogenic CO2; I
haven't seen a climate science model that seems to work for the 19th
Century, its not clear to me at all that climate science models the earth's
climate even in the absence of anthropogenic CO2.




Why do climate scientists think the earth has been warming for about the
last 170 years?

They don't think it has because it hasn't. Next time you invent data or
some other spurious claim make sure that it isn't obviously fake.


OK, where are the models which correctly show the observed temperature
changes in the 19th Century, whatever they were?



Well, yes, to "prove" AGW is occuring you at least need to show the
predictions of the AGW models correlate with subsequent experimental
data; it is the basic requirement of being a science.

There is no absolute proof in science. You can only show that the model is
consistent with the observations. Or find an experiment where the model
fails to predict the right outcome.


Terrific. Lets use the Kyoto models. Are they consistent with subsequent
observations? What did they predict, exactly, and what actually happened,
exactly?



Proof is only possible in mathematics.

Let me guess. These models say the earth is warming. As it has been
warming now for over 150 years, that seems a reasonable bet. At worst,
a prediction made 10 years ago that temperatures would continue to rise
for the next 10 years (ie up until now) would have a fifty-fifty chance
of being true or false.

Mores sophistry. You are determined not to look at the evidence that
might alter your preconceived ideas.

Evidence! Evidence! You mean like predictions of the theory that later
turned out correct? P.L.E.A.S.E post it.

Or is it only available at members only, paid web sites?



For that matter, where does the "A" in AGW enter into this equation,
exactly?

The GHG forcing component is from us changing the atmospheric
composition mostly CO2 with some CH4, CFCs and N2O.


No, I mean in the evidence, in tthe experimental results.

I don't deny te earth is warming, has been for 170 or so years.

Bare faced lie. Repeating it does not make it true.


OK, I don't deny that at various times the earth the earth has gotten warmer
and cooler. In fact, it clearly does so in the absence of anthropogenic CO2,
so the mere existence of warming (or cooling for that matter) is not in any
way evidence that CO2 is a factor, let alone the dominant factor.


AGW Deniers predict: no change

No. I predict a linear decrease, identical in rate to that observed on
average for the last 30 years.

So now you have to explain what is causing this change in temperature.
Excessive motion of fairies and goblins will not do!

Why has the earth's temperature increased for the last 170 years?

Well, we can kick out anthropogenic CO2, because that didn't exist 170
years ago.

As to the real reason, you tell me. I have no ****ing idea. Why did the
temperature of the earth increase between about 1840 and (say) 1900 when
cars and electricity started kicking in?

There is a law of conservation of energy and radiative equilibrium.

In essence the Earth's global average temperature over the long term has
to balance so that energy received is equal to energy radiated. If we
alter the emissivity of the atmosphere (which is exactly what GHG
forcing does) then the global temperature has to rise to compensate.
This is what is being observed. The physics is very sound.

Yeah, climate science does not actually conflict with the law of
conservation of energy, well done, that's a big test of any new theory.

More fundamentally. Your its warming because it is warming "explanation"
is in violation of the law of conservation of energy. It is precisely
because of this that climate sceptics are forced to admit that after 1970
GHG forcing is non-negligible. You could claim Goddidit I suppose.


Actually, I have offered no explanation at all of why it is warming, so its
hard to say my explanantion violates the first law of thermodynamics.

And by the way, I have no explanation. That doesn't mean AGW is correct.
Before Newton, there was no better explanantion for why the stars didn't
fall to the earth other than a series of crystal spheres for stars and the
various planets. Pre Darwin there was no better explanation of speciaition
than Lamarkianism. Just being the only thing you can think of in science is
historically a very bad justification for truth indeed.



I don't deny the climate is changing. Always has, always will.

But you have to explain why it is changing. We have a strong law of
conservation of energy here that you are seeking to violate.


Ohh, sorry, I don't want to break the law. If you see me potentially
trying to break any of the laws of thermodynamics, you pull me up quick.

You just have. When you said the Earth is getting warmer even though the
sun has not been getting any brighter.


I didn't say that. I have made no previous comment at all about whether the
sun is getting brighter. In any event I would expect that there would be
many more things possibly affecting the earth's temperature than merely the
level of solar radiation and anthropogenic CO2. Or maybe in practice its
just random.


On geological timescales we have powerful driving forces that come from
the changes in the Earths orbital elements and continental drift (as
well as vulcanism).

Ahh, vulcanism, what a great word.

I must admit I got a thrill when you said the models were wrong, because
they ignored vulcanism. Vulcan hasn't has this much power since Rome in
300 BC, when he was last worshipped.

I said some of them ignored it. Going into the future it isn't necessary
since we cannot predict major eruptions or earthquakes. However, for
comparing against historical data it is essential that the models do
handle volcanic and manmade aerosols in the troposphere and stratosphere.


And probably lots of other things.

But that is one of the reasons I am inherently skeptical about AGW;
increasing the period over which the model can be fudged to meet known past
temperatures invariably increases the number of parameters which must be
considered; this is a characteristic of curve fiting, and not science.
Evolution through natural selection and special relativity (two other
theories which somebody compared to AGW) do not require constant tinkering
with the theory to match wider domains of interest.

Current AGW models strike me as very similar to Arsitotlean cosmology in its
dying days, where better astronomical observations of more objects caused
the number of crystal spheres needed and the nature of their interactions to
explode in number and complexity; a comparatively simple and (at the time)
plausible explanation became massively complex as it was forced to fit more
and more observations.


I do dispute whether there is any strong evidence that humans are a
major contributer to this, simply because I haven't seen any, and I do
dispute whether the existing computer models are correct, because they
don't seem to work.

ITYM You haven't looked.

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

And if we do not add CO2 at an ever increasing rate, we won't get into
trouble?

The amount we have already added means that temperatures will continue
to rise for a while even if we stopped completely tomorrow.

But then it would cool right down again, right? To pre-industrial levels,
if we stopped completely?

It would take a fair time to go back down to pre industrial levels. We
cannot realistically do that. I honestly doubt at present if we can do
more than slow the rate of increase but that would be a start.


I don't want to know what is realistic.

I am interested in whether the models predict cooling under any
circumstances; looking at the zero emission case is a test of that.

In any event, its a pretty obvious sanity check of a model. If the model
predicts value y (in this case future world temperatures) as a function of
value x (anthropogenic CO2), one of the very first things I would do is
check its behaviour for x=0 or very small. You check extremes. Einstein
first showed that his model of SR produced identical results for v=0 or very
small, and then showed what happens at v = 0.99c. That is how you test
models.

But not climate science. Have you got a single model for what would happen
if anthropogenic CO2 was made very low or zero? That may be unrealistic
physically, but so was accelerating a particle to 0.99c in Einstein's day.



I know there is a lag effect in cycling CO2 through the atmosphere, but
in the long term, today's global temperatures look pretty close to
perfect. So surely the level of CO2 emissions that can be tolerated in
the distant future while maintaining today's temperature is an
important target. What level of anthropogenic CO2 production would be
required for global temperatures to eventually stabilise at today's
levels?

We can't realistically meet that target. I suspect we will do well to
avoid doubling the CO2 concentration from where we are now. And I rather
doubt that anyone has the political will to do it.

Obviously not an answer to my question.

OK. I will answer it in broad terms. Roughly about the same CO2 output as
we had when Keeling first started his measurement series in 1950. That is
only a ball park number from looking at the curve but it should be close
enough. You would have to look up what level of fossil fuel consumption
that translates to.



So the models predict that if we drop our CO2 levels to zero the climate
will eventually cool to approximately to 1950 levels? This implies all of
the change since 1950 can be attributed to anthropogenic CO2, if completely
removing all antropogenic CO2 would take us back to that average
temperature. If there had been any additional factor since 1950, then simply
removing the anthropogenic component would not take us back to that level.

So the models say that there has been no other cause of nett warming since
1950 other than anthropogenic CO2 ?

That's all very interesting, but now you have to explain why what appears to
be a trend of warming which was independent of anthropogenic causes somehow
ceased in the 1950s.



OK. Now maybe we can get somewhere. Ignore the complex full global
climate models (which try to completely model the Earth with regional
and 3D modelling of all the various systems) and concentrate on the
simpler energy balance ones. The latter are very robust in terms of
limited assumptions and clear evidence of an AGW forcing component.

But the earth is getting warmer anyway.

It cannot do so without a supply of energy.
Where does that energy come from?


Well, a very significant reason that the surface of the earth is warm is
because it is sitting on molten rock (magma). A very significant portion of
the warmth even on the surface can be attributed to radioactive processes in
the earth's core, where high density fissile materials (Uranium for example)
are concentrated through gravity. That takes a few billion years to reach
the surface, though

But, more generally, you can't again try and use some naively simplistic
proof of why AGW is plausible, what I am asking for is actual succesful
predictions. There are zillions of plausible but untrue facts; experiment is
how we find the true ones.


THe global models are trying now to predict regional changes to climate.
But you don't need to believe in those to obtain clear evidence for AGW.

By "evidence" do you mean succesful predictions of the theory?

No I mean a chain of logical reasoning that says because energy is
conserved and we have this set of observations the only way to get a self
consistent world model is to utilise GHG forcing after 1970.


So no experimental verification.

What did the Kyoto models predict, and what actually happened? Why does
nobody know? Why don't you? Haven't you ever wondered? Didn't anybody else
think to find out if theory matched experiment?



Prior to 1970 you can get away with ignoring it. If you look at the shape
of the curves it is pretty clear why. There is no other forcing term with
the right shape to explain the recent observations.

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.

Well, warming may be stronger, but still you sneak in that additional
letter "A" in front of "GW", when nothing you have shown demonstrates
it ...

You mean that whatever I post and whatever evidence is presented you
will parrot that phrase ad infinitum.


Well, unless of course it does provide experimental verification of
anthropogenic CO2, in which case I would stop asking for it.

It does but you refuse to see it.

****, cut and paste a table which shows the predictions of a climate model
and the subsequent actual temperatures. Or anything which shows the specific
predictions of climate science and what actually happened afterwards.

And not predictions of the past. Astrology can do this as well. Indeed,
astrologists seem to do it better; I have seen several documented cases of
astrologers making quite specific predictions that later turned out correct;
the explanation of course that with a 1,000 astrologers making 10 specific
predictions a day, some will be correct eventually.

Quite frankly, the track record of specific prediction in climate science
seems markedly inferior to that of astrology, but you guys have everything
astrologers have as well as million dollar supercomputers and well funded
overseas conference budgets.




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.

CO2 is rising because the planet is warming. I have heard people say
that. There seems to be some experimental data supporting this.

The experimental evidence proves *exactly* the opposite.

Well, read what you posted. "rising CO2 ... attributed to our warming
planet".

The CO2 and other GHGs are driving the warming. The amount of energy they
prevent from escaping matches that needed to explain the temperature rise.
This is the smoking gun for an AGW component.


So anthropogenic CO2 completely accounts for all current temperature
increases? There is therefore no other factor? How long has it been the sole
variable accounting for the warming of the earth? When did any natural
warming cease, and why?





Anyone you have heard saying that CO2 is rising now because the planet
is warming is one of the pathological liars I warned you about.

But I thought that was exactly what you said. Re-read it, its still in
context above.

NO. You may have chosen to read it that way, but the CO2 rising through
our emissions is what is warming the planet. It is also true that this
warming will eventually cause additional CO2 and CH4 to be released from
oceans and tundra but as yet these feedbacks are not significant. At
present about 40% of the CO2 we emit dissolves into the oceans.


I am sure it is all very complicated, with thousands of possible variables
to consider, estimates having to be made about their interactions, both
chaotic and emergent behaviour at a number of scales, far out, do the models
then still make correct predictions?



The changing isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2, the increase in
CO2 concentration and the corresponding decrease in O2 (which is now
also measurable with sufficient precision) show clearly that we are
responsible for the changes in the atmosphere. And also that at the
moment the oceans are still mopping up some of the CO2 we emit (ISTR
about 45% of it). The seas are getting more acidic as a result which is
bad news for corals.

The isotope ratio change occurs because burning fossil fuels releases
carbon with a distinctive isotopic signature (less C13 than normal).
Life concentrates the lighter isotopes.

The graph of deltaC13 is online at Scripps
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/gr...13_mlo_spo.pdf

You can even see how during the recessions of 84, the early 90s and now
the isotope ratio trend stabilised (harder to see the change of gradient
in the concentration record). Keelings work on atmospheric CO2 is
definitive in this area:

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/program_h...e_lessons.html


But the paper was written after 1984 and presumably the early 90s, so its
actually just predicting the past?

What are you talking about?

That is one of my own specialities, and something my own models do
extraordinarily well.

Your main speciality is trolling.


I'm hardly trolling. I am skeptical of AGW, and I have given my reasons, and
obviously I think they are valid reasons. That is not trolling.



Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sep 12, 9:53*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:


I have seen dozens like you come and go over the years,you want to
behave responsibly but then utter the empiricist cult experiment/
predictions mantra which has no business in climate studies.Once the
others see this they will rightly tell you to shut up for the whole
purpose is not to promote climate studies or even reduce the obsession
with pollution studies but to defend the 'scientific method'.

With regret I have to side with Pascal in that few people can find
themselves in that mindset where lots of productive work gets
done,most are just full of opionions that search for approval among
others or designed around self-congratulation whereas the genuine
investigator cares for neither as the whole point is to enjoy that
zone where intuitive instincts and intellectual intelligence meet -

"The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical
is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of
mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is
that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the
exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they
have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in
matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such
arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen;
there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do
not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so
numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to
perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are
perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in
order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in
the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake
it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a
process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is
rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."
Pascal

The price of the one-size-fits-all 'scientific method' is the loss of
that precious human faculty which moves between disciplines with ease
and use information from one area to light up another instead of the
hideous monster created by an ill-advised step-by-step approach
beloved of empiricists -

". . . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions,
with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like
someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the
hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which
follows from them could be independently verified." Copernicus De
revolutionibus, 1543

Say what you will from now on,as long as you have affirmed the one
sided mathematical approach mantra they have a perfect right to tell
you to shut up.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 9:53 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:


I have seen dozens like you come and go over the years,you want to
behave responsibly but then utter the empiricist cult experiment/
predictions mantra which has no business in climate studies.

Climate "studies" ?

ROFL

As long as you are not pretending its science ...

On Sep 12, 11:50*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 9:53 am, "Peter Webb"

wrote:

I have seen dozens like you come and go over the years,you want to
behave responsibly but then utter the empiricist cult experiment/
predictions mantra which has no business in climate studies.

Climate "studies" ?

ROFL

As long as you are not pretending its science ...

Seen it all before,weakminded fools like yourself argue against the
guys getting funding for climate studies and they love you for
it ,they can even rightly tell you to shut up just for the fun of it
and they would be right.It doesn't matter that the same guys can't
even explain the seasons correctly using planetary dynamics,the
intellectual level is so low that they are better off bilking humanity
over a pollution issue because whatever it is,it isn't science.

Laugh all you like but the laughter has a hollow ring to it.

On Sep 12, 5:50*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 9:53 am, "Peter Webb"

wrote:

I have seen dozens like you come and go over the years,you want to
behave responsibly but then utter the empiricist cult experiment/
predictions mantra which has no business in climate studies.

Climate "studies" ?

ROFL

As long as you are not pretending its science ...
One of the best things about the stupids like Oriel and Webb is that
they keep providing written documentation about just how stupid and
unteachable they are.

So stupid when I provide you with the link that graphs a 25 year long
forecast against observations over the same period and the curves
match are you going to admit that you know nothing about science and
have been repeating talking points from paid shills (Pilmer, Michaels,
Ball, Lomborg, Baliunas, Soon etc) ?

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:34:13 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

You believe in it because lots of other people believe in it. I get that.

I don't believe in it because its predictions do not match experimental
data. Do you get that?

No, because you are wrong that the predictions and experimental data are
not consistent. If you don't even get that most simple result of the
current research, you're not qualified to have a scientific opinion on
the matter at all.
_________________________________________________


Can you provide a link, or a cut-and-paste, of the predictions of a climate
science model and subsequent experimental data, so I can see this for
myself? Everybody keeps saying it exists, but so far none have been posted
at all.

"yourmommycalled" wrote in message
...
On Sep 2, 1:34 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in
messagenews:aj0s95t5scn629fpu1t1ilsasuulll5h25@4ax .com...



On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:33:36 -0700 (PDT), yourmommycalled
wrote:

This merely documents that you have not taken the time to learn
anything about the science, rather you are parroting the paid shills.
There was no "global cooling scare" in the 1970's. The science
community never said anything about global cooling.

One thing that is often overlooked is that climate science was in its
infancy, with very little underlying theory developed, and the number of
scientists involved in research was tiny compared with today. A
"consensus" of a few researchers giving public support to one or two
other researchers is a very different thing than what we have today,
with something like 95% of thousands of climate researchers generally
agreeing on the broader aspects of climate theory- that theory resting
on a great deal more fundamental geoscience than existed a few decades
ago.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

You believe in it because lots of other people believe in it. I get that.

I don't believe in it because its predictions do not match experimental
data. Do you get that?


The problem with your statement is that predictions DO MATCH
experimental data, YOU just choose to ignore it, because it doesn't
match you pre-conceived politically motivated beliefs

__________________
OK, post the predictions made by a climate science model - the best one you
have - and subsequently measured temperatures.

"yourmommycalled" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 5:50 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 9:53 am, "Peter Webb"

wrote:

I have seen dozens like you come and go over the years,you want to
behave responsibly but then utter the empiricist cult experiment/
predictions mantra which has no business in climate studies.

Climate "studies" ?

ROFL

As long as you are not pretending its science ...
One of the best things about the stupids like Oriel and Webb is that
they keep providing written documentation about just how stupid and
unteachable they are.

So stupid when I provide you with the link that graphs a 25 year long
forecast against observations over the same period and the curves
match are you going to admit that you know nothing about science and
have been repeating talking points from paid shills (Pilmer, Michaels,
Ball, Lomborg, Baliunas, Soon etc) ?

__________________
Yes, when you post a 25 year forecast of climate that correctly predicted 25
years of climate, I will do those things.