[OT] How science is not done

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Sep 10, 8:31 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

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?

That wasn't his point. His point was, asking for more experimental
verification that global warming is real is like asking for more proof
of the first law of thermodynamics.


____________________
Actually, I was asking for proof of the accuracy of climate models. I accept
that the earth has generally warmed over the last 170 years. If you believe
that some climate science model is as well supported by subsequent
experimental results as the law of conservation of energy, perhaps you can
point me to the predictions of this theory and the subsequent experimental
results?

We know that the Sun shines on the Earth. We know that atmospheric
aerosols reflect some of that sunshine away. We know that the night
side of the Earth radiates heat into space - at a rate that is
affected by global carbon dioxide levels.

So more "proof" of global warming is needed only _if_ one thinks that
climate science maybe _doesn't_ adhere to the first law of
thermodynamics.

_________________________
So all the different climate science models are all correct, because they
all adhere to the first law of thermodynamics, even though they make
different predictions? And none of them need experimental verification,
because none of them break thge law of conservation of energy? How can they
all be correct, if they make different predictions?


John Savard

_______________________
Climate science is correct because it doesn't break the first law of
thermodynamics, and so there is no need to even bother check the predictions
of the theory with experiment? Do you feel the same thing about string
theory, or the Aristotlean model of the Universe (which is steady state, and
so conserves energy) or phrenology, being the science of inferring
personality by the shape of the skull, which also does not conflict with the
law of conservation of energy.

All this tap-dancing is making me dizzy. Can you provide any pointers for
sites which compare the predictions of climate science models to subsequent
experimental data? Somebody must have checked, surely, isn't the comparison
of theory to subsequent experiment completely fundamental to the scientific
method?

On Sep 10, 9:18*pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Climate science is correct because it doesn't break the first law of
thermodynamics, and so there is no need to even bother check the predictions
of the theory with experiment? Do you feel the same thing about string
theory, or the Aristotlean model of the Universe (which is steady state, and
so conserves energy) or phrenology, being the science of inferring
personality by the shape of the skull, which also does not conflict with the
law of conservation of energy.

The baseline claim, that AGW is real, is a *direct consequence* of
conservation of energy. Sunlight comes in, infrared goes out, global
equilibrium temperature is whatever makes the two balance.

A prediction that atmospheric carbon dioxide will bring miniskirts
back into fashion would be like phrenology. Even one of how the
world's winds and ocean currents will respond to global warming could
be wrong. Just warming on average, though, isn't on the same level.

All this tap-dancing is making me dizzy. Can you provide any pointers for
sites which compare the predictions of climate science models to subsequent
experimental data? Somebody must have checked, surely, isn't the comparison
of theory to subsequent experiment completely fundamental to the scientific
method?

The fundamental practical limit to doing controlled experiments with
the Earth's climate is the same one as prevents controlled experiments
with large-scale biological evolution. Your insistence on only one
kind of proof is a rhetorical ploy of which the creationists are also
fond, to answer your question from another post.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Sep 10, 9:18 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Climate science is correct because it doesn't break the first law of
thermodynamics, and so there is no need to even bother check the
predictions
of the theory with experiment? Do you feel the same thing about string
theory, or the Aristotlean model of the Universe (which is steady state,
and
so conserves energy) or phrenology, being the science of inferring
personality by the shape of the skull, which also does not conflict with
the
law of conservation of energy.

The baseline claim, that AGW is real, is a *direct consequence* of
conservation of energy. Sunlight comes in, infrared goes out, global
equilibrium temperature is whatever makes the two balance.

____________________________
The mere fact that climate science does not break the law of conservation of
energy does not by itself make it true.



A prediction that atmospheric carbon dioxide will bring miniskirts
back into fashion would be like phrenology. Even one of how the
world's winds and ocean currents will respond to global warming could
be wrong. Just warming on average, though, isn't on the same level.

__________________________
So the only part of climate science that you believe is beyond doubt is that
the earth is warming? All the rest could be wrong? Even though it doesn't
conflict with the law of conservation of energy, which proves it must be
true?


All this tap-dancing is making me dizzy. Can you provide any pointers for
sites which compare the predictions of climate science models to
subsequent
experimental data? Somebody must have checked, surely, isn't the
comparison
of theory to subsequent experiment completely fundamental to the
scientific
method?

The fundamental practical limit to doing controlled experiments with
the Earth's climate is the same one as prevents controlled experiments
with large-scale biological evolution.

_________________________________
Yet I am completely happy with the experimental verification of evolution.


Your insistence on only one
kind of proof is a rhetorical ploy of which the creationists are also
fond, to answer your question from another post.

____________________________________
I don't insist on only one kind of proof. Evolution has lots of experimental
verification, even though we cannot do large scale controlled experiments.
We cannot do controlled experiments in astronomy, either, but lots of things
are extremely well verified experimentally. On the other hand, creationism
is like climate science - no apparent experimental verification. That is why
I think they are both wrong. You apparently seem to think at one of these is
correct theories, even though neither has independent experimental
verification. Some people believe things for reasons other than science, I
guess.

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. 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. 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?

"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

On Sep 11, 4:25*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

So the only part of climate science that you believe is beyond doubt is that
the earth is warming? All the rest could be wrong? Even though it doesn't
conflict with the law of conservation of energy, which proves it must be
true?

Except for the last sentence, which is stated ironically, you are
indeed correct.

After all, one of the possible consequences of global warming is that
the course of the Gulf Stream could be shifted, causing the glaciers
to come down over Europe. Glaciers have a nice high albedo, thus
changing the Earths' energy budget. So we could get an ice age.

At the moment, there are emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse
gas, which appear to be about to be triggered if things get any
warmer, from the peat bogs of Russia and from the ocean floor. The
thawing and other early steps in this process are already visible.

So whether warming is going to be much greater than the back of the
envelope calculation which assumes nothing else changes indicates...
or much less... really is unknown.

What we do know is that the increase in carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere doesn't merely "correlate" with the warming we've seen so
far. That's because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a direct
consequence for nighttime cooling. Just as tar in cigarette smoke
causes damage to cells in test tubes, sinking the "causation is not
correlation" argument as used by the tobacco companies - it's a valid
argument in some cases, but once there's a known mechanism for the
causation, it is not valid.

So we know, for a fact, that the amount of carbon dioxide human
activity puts in the atmosphere is a giant push to the world climate
system. Now, given the poor state of our knowledge in this matter,
there is a _chance_ that everything might balance out, and the result
will be no significant long-term climate change. But that won't be
because of homeostatic mechanisms that we don't know about -
homeostasis had its chance when green plants failed to take advantage
of more CO2 to flourish so much as to bring its level down to the old
value.

The biosphere, on which all life depends, should not be trifled with.
While environmentalists would turn the environment into an idol at the
expense of humanity, and so they oppose even human activity with minor
impact, the impact of global carbon dioxide levels is known not to be
minor. From very basic physics, not from fancy climate models.

Doesn't the burden of proof lie with those who would change the world
economic system? That is a valid point. However, basic physics proves
current carbon dioxide levels won't fail to cause a great disturbance
to the world's climate. What isn't known is exactly how the chips will
fall.

It's like saying... I'll stop sawing off the limb we're sitting on
once you can prove that when it breaks, we won't fall down on top of a
truck carrying mattresses that happens to be going by.

John Savard

My objectionms to climate science are as follows:

1. There is an identified mechanism by which anthropogenic CO2 *could*
increase temperatures, it is at least plausible. However, that is far from
proof that it does. Sometimes quite counter-intuitive things happen in
complex systems, and the proof that it does suposedly matter lies buried
away in a million lines of code and a thousand assumptions, which largely
end up extrapolating the fact that earth is getting warmer, no surprise
there.

2. The Kyoto report described it as "very likely" that "up to one third" of
present warming had an anthropogenic component. Climate science has no
explanation for why the earth has been warming since before heavy fossil
fuel use; it simply does not understand the source of the other two-thirds.
Without this, it cannot predict the future, and it should stop trying to
pretend it can.

3. Climate science does not make accurate, testable predictions. In fact,
most predictions it makes have such ridiculously wide bands of "high",
"low", or "medium" as being worthless as predictions. Like astrology, it is
always going on about how complex the theory is, but it make vague
predictions.

Experimental verification is basic to science. Yes, I know we can't
controlled, planetary wide experiments, but other theories such as those in
evolution and astronomy manage to find experimental evidence.

4. We keep getting told that terrible, terrible things will happen if we
don't stop doing what we have been doing for the last 50 years, but I see
absolutely zero evidence of anything bad happening at all. None.

5. Supporters of AGW warming want to tell me how I should live my life, and
force me to do so by law. They can build windmills on their own roofs, or do
whatever they want, its not their place to tell me how to live because their
computer program told them to tell me.

6. This thing is no longer a scientific argument, it is a religious one.
People who are skeptical about AGW - such as myself - are treated as
heretics, and accused of the most terrible things, rather than the science
being traeted on its merit. And its not.

7. As the original poster very cleverly put it, climate scientists are
making exactly the same sorts of predictions as economics predicts they
would - ie making ever stronger claims of impending disaster. That does not
mean they are doing it deliberately, or even doing it all, but it does mean
that the mere fact that so many agree on the impending disaster has an
excellent alternative reason.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Quadibloc wrote:
On Sep 10, 8:31 am, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

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?

Yes. Unlike your "its just getting warmer" claim.

That wasn't his point. His point was, asking for more experimental
verification that global warming is real is like asking for more proof
of the first law of thermodynamics.

We know that the Sun shines on the Earth. We know that atmospheric
aerosols reflect some of that sunshine away. We know that the night
side of the Earth radiates heat into space - at a rate that is
affected by global carbon dioxide levels.

So more "proof" of global warming is needed only _if_ one thinks that
climate science maybe _doesn't_ adhere to the first law of
thermodynamics.

Close enough.

My point was that his claim that the Earth is warming but with no
apparent cause or mechanism violates both the laws of conservation of
energy and the first law of thermodynamics.

By contrast using the AGW hypothesis and solving the energy balance
equation for a changing atmospheric composition gets a solution which
matches all the observations whilst obeying conservation of energy and
the first law.

The satellite observations of the solar flux prevent the dittoheads from
saying that the sun magically got brighter. No other forcing term has
the right shape to explain the last few decades. AGW forcing will become
more and more obvious in the next two or three decades and eventually
people will have to accept that the scientists were telling the truth.

It is a shame that political expediency will win out. I don't expect
much more than worthless hot air from Copenhagen.

And I predict that when the chickens do finally come home to roost it
will be scientists that get blamed for not shouting loudly enough.

I should also point out that at this stage I am only favour making the
no-regrets energy efficiency savings that are so clearly available.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sep 11, 1:54*am, yourmommycalled wrote:
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. 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. So you clearly did get my post about where
to get the mathematics, documentation, source code, model output could
be found 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. 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No offence but there are two separate motions involved in explaining
the massive seasonal temperature fluctuations which distinguish
weather from climate and for whatever reason,people seem absolutelyn
intent in ignoring the orbital specific motion which allows different
latitudes to experience variations in daylight/darkness at different
points in the planet's orbit.

Far from the hyperfuss of global warming and what causes it,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,Uranus has polar conditions while the Earth is heavily towards the
Equatorial scale.

With 20 billion euro on the table I suspect that empiricists will milk
the ridiculous idea that carbon dioxide acts like a global temperature
dial and continuing with this awful situation where humanity's only
experience of terrestrial and celestial phenomena is through
pollution.

Don't mention my name again you silly child.