|
Post by FineWino on May 19, 2009 4:52:59 GMT
Yesterday at 10:40am, icefisher wrote: "There are plenty of CO2 models that suggest very modest warming, clearly those have not been falsified" Today at 7:33pm, finewino wrote: "There are no climate models that show negliable warming from rising co2 because the basis of the model is that CO2 is the largest driver of atmospheric warming." My emphasis now: Yesterday at 10:40am, icefisher wrote: " There are plenty of CO2 models that suggest very modest warming, clearly those have not been falsified" Today at 7:33pm, finewino wrote: " There are no climate models that show negliable warming from rising co2 because the basis of the model is that CO2 is the largest driver of atmospheric warming." Ah my bad. I forgot that I must be found wrong either way. Is that your solution? Rename co2 to something else in an attempt to make it go away? Unfortunately in the scientific world the significant forcing for a doubling of co2 is derived from physical laws and empirical evidence and merely changing it's name cannot alter that. They know what they believe and believe what they know. What they believe is based on experiments and physics. This is also what they know. Perhaps they only believe the atmospheric and lab tests and don't actually know. Perhaps they are all brains in a jar. Confused? I was too when I read your argument. It just makes no sense. No, in science you modify the model to better match the real world. The model is the hypothesis. By modifying the model you are modifying the hypothesis. And BTW climate models and the real climate are in reasonable agreementHere's a test for you. Can you give one example of one of these "horrible things" Hansen has said that haven't come true? You say "none of" so that implies you have a list of at least three. I am only asking you to present one item. I suspect you might find your list blank. That is because out of wishful thinking you have convinced yourself that you have a point which you don't actually have. socold, your editing of my comments eliminating the parenthetical qualifiers belies your disingenuous nature. You continue to convince me by your manner that you are a junior high or high school student with too much time on your hands. Someday you will realize the importance of understanding what you DON'T know, and the importance of credibility .
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 19, 2009 0:33:18 GMT
There are no climate models that show negliable warming from rising co2. The primary weakness of the skeptics position is that it isn't backed up by rigorous calculations of the physics. The skeptic position entirely relies on current understanding of physics at play in the climate being completely wrong. socold, there are no climate models that show negligible warming from CO2 (of the models purported by the AGWers, anyway) because the basis of the model is that CO2 is the largest driver of atmospheric warming. The models can't determine what the relative strength of the various drivers are, they can only do calculations based on the assumptions that are programmed into the models, assumptions made by humans who are trying to figure out what is going on. For example, if they took exactly the same model that they are currently using, and instead of calling their greatest forcing component CO2 they called it dog farts, it would indicate that as the level of dog farts increased the planet would get warmer. In the model, CO2 is just a name assigned to a forcing component that the (IPCC sanctioned) modelers have entered as the largest forcing component. They have made assumptions about how that component behaves based on what they BELIEVE, not on what they KNOW. There is a big difference between believing and knowing. You have already said in a number of threads that you don't understand the physics; you also don't understand models. Models are simply a series of calculations based on a hypothesis. You run the model, and then you compare it to empirical data. If the model and empirical data are in reasonable agreement, it supports the model (not necessarily the hypothesis), and one tries to improve the model to better match the hypothesis. If the model and empirical data are not in reasonable agreement, it disproves the hypothesis, and you try to create a new model based on a different hypothesis that is a better match to the empirical data. THAT is the scientific method. The social problem we are faced with now is that you and those who share your beliefs (but clearly either don't understand or don't care about science) have turned this on its head and are purporting that the (IPCC sanctioned) models are reality. It is not. They are flawed models that has not predicted anything correctly. None of the horrible things that Gore, Hansen, et al have been screaming like chicken little about for years have happened. I would suggest that as soon as you are old enough take a basic high school physics course, and try to learn the difference between models and reality.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 16, 2009 20:26:08 GMT
In the opening paragraph of the paper socold refers to, the authors stated that one of the bases for their study included "...correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data."
They are not clear regarding the specific methodology or the reason for their massaging of the data.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 13, 2009 23:08:56 GMT
Oh great so AGW is the only possible example of ACC. Thus if the earth cools down man made climate change is B*ll*cks ;D Yes the human impact on global temperature is long term warming. If we have long term cooling, that cannot be attributed ot man. If socold believes it, it must be so.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 13, 2009 4:15:52 GMT
ACC looks exactly like Al Gore I can at least agree that I wouldn't want to experience THAT!
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 10, 2009 21:20:54 GMT
I am not making any claims over what is normal. In fact I am saying use of the word 'normal' is wrong here. A baseline is useful for putting data into terms of an anomaly. It doesn't define the chosen baseline as being 'normal'. And by refusing to commit to anything being "normal" you conveniently allow yourself the freedom to define anything you please as anomalous.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 9, 2009 6:09:56 GMT
An eerie quiet has fallen over the thread.......
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 9, 2009 0:10:42 GMT
The blackbody (or greybody) radiation law is used a lot in heat absorption/radiation calculations. Stephan-Boltzmann says that it goes as a*T^4. However, if T is not uniform, the parts that are above the average could emit substantially more. For example, if T' is 300 + 20 (Kelvin), a surface at 320 K would emit around 27% more energy than one at 300 K. Similarly, a surface at 280 K would emit about 27% less energy. Since this all uses the linear approximation for (1 + x)^4, everything works out, so that the average emitted energy is the same as if everything were at the average temperature. 320^4 is 29.4% greater than 300^4 280^4 is 24.2% less than 300^4. That is a significant difference. Using a linear approximation for a fourth order polynominal only makes sense for very small incremental changes.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 8, 2009 3:40:55 GMT
Buffering capacity being infinite doesn't mean pH will not drop, in fact quite the opposite, it means the ocean will absorb more and more co2 without end. Socold, The definition of "Buffering Capacity" is the ability to resist changes in pH. To "buffer" chemically , is to resist changes in pH! Do you realize how ridiculous the above statement of yours is to anyone who understands this? It is so frustrating trying to have a rational discourse with you, because you say so many things that make no sense whatsoever. I think that you either need to do a crash course in basic science, or stick to Myspace. Please know what you are talking about before making such ridiculous statements. There is no value in simply regurgitating things you don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 1, 2009 17:49:36 GMT
Socold are you implying that we can not contest a claim of evidence without hijacking the thread? The research he cited could not / did not show whether temp drove CO2, CO2 drove temp, or something else was driving both, and it no way presented evidence of global warming. If that indeed is the best evidence Steve can muster, then perhaps the troll charge is valid. He's just wasting bandwidth. No, Magellan is the one claiming that you cannot contest a claim of evidence without hijacking a thread. The problem with Magellan's questions and jtom's comment above is an apparent failure to understand that you cannot "prove" anthropogenic warming, or indeed most scientific findings including evolution, general relativity, quantum theory, in one post or one paper. While I still think you (jtom) have misunderstood the paper you're referring to, it is but one paper that deals with one issue - namely that there is a good relationship between CO2 and temperature. As there is a physical mechanism that means CO2 drives temperature, then it's a useful test of that relationship. If you can show that temperature drives CO2 over long periods, then do so; there are some candidate explanations that can be explored. Using your own examples, Evolution, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics (not "Quantum Theory", as you stated) are all models that at various times in history were proposed to explain certain physical phenomena or processes. The models were created, and if they were good models we would be able to measure certain phenomena/processes that the models predicted. In the case of these three models, the observations in the real world were consistent with the predictions of the models, within the limitations of the models. That is why they are generally accepted today. There is still scientific debate about these and other models, even though they are very good at predicting most of what we can observe. Einstein himself was not satisfied with General Relativity and knew it was incomplete and failed in some areas. In the case of the AGW model, none of the predictions of the model have come to pass. Sea levels are not rising as predicted. Temperatures are not rising as predicted. The polar ice cap has not vanished. There has not been an increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, or massive storms. There have not been unprecedented droughts or floods. None of the doom and gloom predicted has come to pass, and despite CO2 levels that continue to rise, the ocean heat content and the average global temperature are falling. A reasonable person who understands science would accept the fact that the AGW model is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on May 1, 2009 2:15:57 GMT
magellan, I fear this is the fate of any such challenge threads, because there is no verifiable evidence (as one would define such WRT the scientific method) of AGW.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Apr 30, 2009 13:53:44 GMT
Like I said socold, what you have is belief, not understanding. And when you don't have the facts to support you, it's back to the dismissive arrogance toward the "skeptics." Spoken like a true zealot.
FWIW, I am a physicist. It's not that I don't understand the models, it's that I understand the limitations of them. I will admit I do not understand the details of a specific model (no one does except the modeler who wrote the code, and usually they only have a limited understanding of the pieces.)
Let's consider your nice pictures of the "model" of "average precipitation." It's relatively easy to "model" something that you already have the data for. It's called "fitting."
Did you know that for any bounded set of data, there exists an infinite number of solutions that will fit the data? That is a mathematical fact. The difference in the solutions is how they behave OUTSIDE the set of data they are designed to fit. What this means in the case of, say, the IPCC climate models is that they have only considered a few of the possible solutions, and they chose only those for which CO2 is the primary forcing agent.
They effectively fit the data to a bounded data set (recent past history) but they have failed to predict the future behavior. Their solutions "fit" the bounded set of data but outside that bounded set their solutions do not match the behavior of temperature. There is probably an infinite number of ways to say that their models fail to predict the behavior of the climate!
Getting back to your presentation of "average precipitation" data, ask for a map of what the precipitation will be in the period of 01JAN2014 through 31MAR2014, and if they are willing to do it, it will come with lots of disclaimers.
Monitor the 10 day weather forecast for your locale over a period of 2 weeks. Does it stay the same from day to day? I'd bet it doesn't; I live in an area with some of the mildest, most stable weather in the U.S. this time of year and the forecast is never that static.
There is a big difference between being able to model past or average behavior of climate, and being able to predict it, and therein lies the rub.
You believe in AGW because you have some need to believe it, just as others of your ilk.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Apr 30, 2009 3:04:04 GMT
Socold, if the physics of the models is over your head, but you believe in the output of the models, then what you have is "Faith", not "Understanding" or "Knowledge." Since you do not understand the physics, please refrain from using references that you do not understand as part of your argument. It would appear that like most warmers, you are a zealot who has no understanding of the actual science (or lack thereof) but has a need to believe in the concept of AGW. It is impossible to meet magellan's challenge. Models are not science, models are just a non interactive video (or or non-video) game. They are full of approximations, parameters, and, quite frankly, guesses. Occasionally, a model comes close to duplicating the actual behavior of a system. That has not yet happened with a climate model. The concept of AGW is B.S., but the mandate of the IPCC specifically charges them "...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." That is a direct quote from the IPCC site. Without "human-induced climate change", there is no need for the IPCC. So here we are....
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Apr 16, 2009 19:26:05 GMT
This needs to be tattooed inside the eyelids of every denialist here. The projections are NOT NOT NOT a forecast. They are a longer term trend. Just as it has always been warmer some years than others, and cooler some years that others, we're going to have "Weather" and we're going to have some other effects. Right now we have an effect called "The sun has taken a major nap" and the effect of that is cooler WEATHER. When the sun wakes up, and it eventually will, things are going to be far uglier than they were prior to SC24. And if the great unwashed masses don't "get" that the current cooling trend doesn't mean AGW is wrong, we're screwed because come SC25, or SC26, whenever the sun resumes its more normal level of activity, CO2 is going to be much higher, and the "Hockey Stick" from the 20th Century is going to get a really good run for its money. The projections ARE a forecast. The projections ARE NOT a trend. A TREND is what is REALLY HAPPENING as illustrated by REAL DATA. A PROJECTION is just a PROJECTION. The PROJECTION is the product of a MODEL that is based on the MODELER'S HYPOTHESIS. If you look at the current TREND (i.e., REALITY) it is inconsistent with the PROJECTION (i.e., the IPCC models.) The PROJECTIONS of the MODELS which purport the HYPOTHESIS that AGW is the primary driver of climate is INCONSISTENT with the current TREND of the climate. In a world where SCIENCE was still important, the conclusion would be that the MODEL is INCORRECT, because it is INCONSISTENT WITH MEASURED OBSERVATIONS IN THE REAL WORLD. Instead, we are now living in a world where science has been trumped by politics. The Charter of the IPCC is to assess the damage done by man made global warming and what can be done to minimize it. They need to perpetuate the belief in man made global warming or they don't have a purpose. Instead of normal scientific review, they label as "denialists" those who disagree with their "consensus" (consensus has nothing to do with the scientific method, I might add) and treat them as though they have some mental illness. Very Ptolemaic of them (and you.) FCH, you and your self righteous minions of the Church of AGW can do all the name calling you want, but it doesn't change the scientific reality that the IPCC models have failed to support their hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by FineWino on Apr 10, 2009 14:47:22 GMT
I think that this is one of the most important points that the AGW proponents on this board routinely dodge with arguments such as: While we're onto logical subtleties, if I throw 20 dice and get zero sixes, does this falsify the model that says I should get about 3 sixes? Does it prove an alternative theory that the dices must be unbalanced? In a word, no. That would be like running the climate model to project the temperature for the next day and basing future projections on that limited data. On the other hand, if you were to throw those dice several thousand times you should be able to come to a conclusion with a high level of confidence. The models we are discussing all predict an increase in temperature as a function of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The earth should be warmer now than it was 10 years ago. It is not. That has not occurred, therefore the hypothesis that the models are based on is false.
|
|