|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
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"... |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
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" |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
"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 |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
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. |
#345
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
"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 ... |
#346
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
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. |
#347
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
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) ? |
#348
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
"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. |
#349
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
"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. |
#350
|
|||
|
|||
How science is not done
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as DeepUnderground Science Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 11th 07 05:37 PM |
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as Deep Underground Science Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | July 11th 07 04:48 PM |
Mainstream Science Peers Still Trying To Catch Up With Maverick AdvancedTheoretical Science Officers And Researchers | nightbat | Misc | 4 | November 11th 06 02:34 AM |
Top Science Xprize For The Best and Science Team Officers Is In Order | nightbat | Misc | 8 | September 8th 06 09:50 AM |
Science Names Mars Rover Mission Science Program as Breakthrough of the Year | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 16th 04 09:22 PM |