CO2 Residence Time (Soloman vs Segalstad)

[socold]

Oct 3, 2009 16:27:38 GMT nautonnier said:

You missed out the third option SoCold

If you believe the models can be tuned to show anything.

And you believe climate modellers will do anything to promote AGW.

And you believe the models contain something that falsifies AGW.

Then you don't have a third option. You believe the above inconsistency which is the inconsistent second option.

[sigurdur]

Oct 3, 2009 22:32:23 GMT socold said:

Oct 3, 2009 16:27:38 GMT nautonnier said:

You missed out the third option SoCold

If you believe the models can be tuned to show anything.

And you believe climate modellers will do anything to promote AGW.

And you believe the models contain something that falsifies AGW.

Then you don't have a third option. You believe the above inconsistency which is the inconsistent second option.

Can you agree with me that the models seem to have errors?
That using retroanalysis to check for errors that they are not passing the test? Can you also agree with me that models need to be examined closely to see why they are not able to withstand retro analysis?

[poitsplace]

Oct 3, 2009 22:26:00 GMT socold said:

Oct 3, 2009 14:38:40 GMT poitsplace said:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! While it was exasperating reading the first part of your message that last bit made it all worth while. To borrow a word from Dubya, I "misunderestimated" you.

Perhaps instead of challenging others you should ask yourself why you defended the models' basic assumptions by pointing out that a phenomenon that is REQUIRED to demonstrate those basic assumptions...is absent from the real world.

You believe the hotspot problem falsifies AGW, not me.

WHAT??? You supported the validity of the models by asserting that if they weren't valid...then the scientists would have been able to remove something that falsifies the model.

This is like claiming that a child's math problem 2+2=5 MUST be correct simply because he's too stupid to figure it what he did wrong...although I'm guessing the double meaning here is lost on you.

Such a position is inconsistent with your argument that models can be tuned to show anything and that scientists tune them to promote AGW. If you think the hotspot in models falsifies AGW then why haven't these AGW promoting scientists tuned out the hotspot from the models?

I never said they weren't stupid. In fact, I think I've been pretty vocal about that. When you fail to predict the most rudimentary functioning of a system based on your hypothesis ...you give up on the hypothesis because it's falsified. Their failure to remove the hot spot doesn't change the fact that the model gave incorrect results.

Another inconsistent pair I hear from skeptics is the old "Science requires all theories to be falsifiable, therefore AGW (or evolution) is not science because it is not falsifiable" coupled with "AGW (or evolution) has been falsified" and they don't even spot the contradiction.

LOL, you keep using the models' FAILURE as a proof of their accuracy. Its one of the most extreme examples of something NOT being falsifiable. You obviously don't understand what falsifiability means. In the case of evolution it would mean that you could theoretically create false evidence that would cast doubt on evolution and one of its predictions.

In the case of AGW falsified evidence would be say...tampering with the temperature record somehow (Yes it would require a significant plot) to show long periods of time during which temperatures remained the same or fell while CO2 levels soared. OR another way to falsify it would be to manipulate the record so the hot spot which the theory says SHOULD exist (because of absorption and so-called "back radiation") wouldn't exist.

Unfortunately when faced with both of these things simultaneously...you and your brothers and sisters of the AGW faith simply dug in and bulked up your hypothesis with needlessly complex and undetected "heat in the pipe".

People are just looking for excuses and not thinking through their own arguments carefully.

You sure aren't, Socold.

[nautonnier]

Oct 3, 2009 22:32:23 GMT socold said:

Oct 3, 2009 16:27:38 GMT nautonnier said:

You missed out the third option SoCold

If you believe the models can be tuned to show anything.

And you believe climate modellers will do anything to promote AGW.

And you believe the models contain something that falsifies AGW.

Then you don't have a third option. You believe the above inconsistency which is the inconsistent second option.

I think that you have just proved my last sentence.

"If you believe the models can be tuned to show anything."

Models can be built to 'show' almost anything if the wrong values are input - the tuning available depends on the models - some may allow all sorts of impossible parameterizations. There are flight simulators that can be 'tuned' to allow the simulated aircraft to survive impacts with the ground - want to try that for real?

"And you believe climate modellers will do anything to promote AGW."

I believe that climate modelers live in a protected world where failure to be correct does not lead to any negative outcome for them whereas a model result that is extreme will almost certainly be published and result in more research funding. This is an unreal world for most of us where our models and results must be correct or we are not in that job any longer. The lack of negative feedback will naturally tempt climate modelers into making models that support their arguments and lead to research funds rather than models that pass validation but may not lead to publication and funding. Note that this is not all modelers some have a more ethical approach but it is tempting.


"And you believe the models contain something that falsifies AGW."

The models are just models they cannot in themselves falsify the AGW hypothesis or prove it, as they are representations of the AGW hypothesis of how the climate works. Only empirical observational science can falsify the AGW hypothesis . The problem appears to be that more credence is being put in models that fail validation against the real world than in observations of the real world.

"Then you don't have a third option. You believe the above inconsistency which is the inconsistent second option."


This is rather tortured logic - and as I said at the beginning - you are obviously not a professional modeler SoCold and have no comprehension of the responsibility and the work that goes into building models that can be used to support important sometimes safety related decisions.

[icefisher]

Oct 4, 2009 0:45:28 GMT poitsplace said:

You sure aren't, Socold.

Socold's argument is that computers are infallible. Thus a computer model is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. No false Gods allowed. Thus if you are a denier you will fail in producing a computer model.

[socold]

Oct 3, 2009 23:06:05 GMT sigurdur said:

Oct 3, 2009 22:32:23 GMT socold said:

If you believe the models can be tuned to show anything.

And you believe climate modellers will do anything to promote AGW.

And you believe the models contain something that falsifies AGW.

Then you don't have a third option. You believe the above inconsistency which is the inconsistent second option.

Can you agree with me that the models seem to have errors?
That using retroanalysis to check for errors that they are not passing the test? Can you also agree with me that models need to be examined closely to see why they are not able to withstand retro analysis?

Yes

[socold]

Oct 4, 2009 0:45:28 GMT poitsplace said:

Oct 3, 2009 22:26:00 GMT socold said:

You believe the hotspot problem falsifies AGW, not me.

WHAT??? You supported the validity of the models by asserting that if they weren't valid...then the scientists would have been able to remove something that falsifies the model.

This is about an inconsistency with your position. Before anyone even addresses your arguments we should at least make sure your arguments are consistent with one another.

Heres the problem:

On one hand you claim scientists deliberately build the models to show AGW.

But on the other hand you argue they have built a hotspot into the models that falsifies AGW.

If you cannot understand the inconsistency in those arguments there is no hope. But until you address that inconsistency and strike out one of those contradictory arguments, there's no point me even responding. It's no use trying to debate with someone who has a position that makes no sense.

Their failure to remove the hot spot doesn't change the fact that the model gave incorrect results.

This is at odds with your claims that they can tune the models to show anything. I know you want to be able to claim that models are worthlessly tunable and not constrained by physics, but you cannot then also claim they cannot be tuned to show warming without a hotspot. It makes no sense.

The actual situation is that the models are not worthlessly tunable. They are heavily constrained by physics and therefore they cannot simply be built to show anything. That is why there is a hotspot problem and is why scientists can't simply "remove" the hotspot from the models to resolve it.

You obviously don't understand what falsifiability means. In the case of evolution it would mean that you could theoretically create false evidence that would cast doubt on evolution and one of its predictions.

Falsifiable means it can be potentially disproved. Unfalsifiable means it cannot be disproved. Ie the claim that there are invisible pink elephants on the moon is an unfalsifiable claim.

Some skeptics have a knack for both claiming AGW is unfalsifiable and that it's been falsified.

[socold]

Oct 4, 2009 2:18:37 GMT nautonnier said:

"If you believe the models can be tuned to show anything."

Models can be built to 'show' almost anything if the wrong values are input - the tuning available depends on the models - some may allow all sorts of impossible parameterizations. There are flight simulators that can be 'tuned' to allow the simulated aircraft to survive impacts with the ground - want to try that for real?

Okay so we've established that you believe the models can be tuned to show almost anything.

So then your challenge is to explain why those dastardly AGW scientists haven't tuned the hotspot out of the models. Do you have an answer?

[jimcripwell]

socold writes "So then your challenge is to explain why those dastardly AGW scientists haven't tuned the hotspot out of the models. Do you have an answer?":

Models can, ideed, be made to get any answer you like. However, in order to get some answers, one needs to "torture" the input data and other input factors. In order to make the answers credible, one has to justify the input data.

If one assumes, as an input, that the more CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the warmer the world gets, it is comparatively easy to adjust the input parameters within small amounts, and one can get a rise in temperature by 2100 to be 4, 6 or even 20 C. Such small changes to the input can be readily "justified".

However to get something more extreme, like the hotspot, is much more difficult. By the time you have twisted the inputs to get such an effect, the inputs would be easily seen to be nonsense.

[poitsplace]

Oct 4, 2009 12:23:22 GMT socold said:

Oct 4, 2009 0:45:28 GMT poitsplace said:

WHAT??? You supported the validity of the models by asserting that if they weren't valid...then the scientists would have been able to remove something that falsifies the model.

This is about an inconsistency with your position. Before anyone even addresses your arguments we should at least make sure your arguments are consistent with one another.

In either situation YOU ARE WRONG! That's why it makes no difference. YOU are the one that painted yourself into this corner. I merely pointed out that YOUR OWN ASSERTIONS are inherently incorrect. The problem you're having with my position is just a misguided criticism of your own nonsense. It is YOU that claims the models can't be tuned. It is YOU that claims they cannot remove the hotspot. If the models can be tuned to show about anything, then they're potentially meaningless. If they can't be tuned to anything then the missing hot spot is evidence that the models are wrong (and ironically...their lack of an ability to follow reality means they actually could be tuned to show things that aren't reality so you're doubly screwed on this one).

There's no winning this for you.

You obviously don't understand what falsifiability means. In the case of evolution it would mean that you could theoretically create false evidence that would cast doubt on evolution and one of its predictions.

Falsifiable means it can be potentially disproved. Unfalsifiable means it cannot be disproved. Ie the claim that there are invisible pink elephants on the moon is an unfalsifiable claim.

Some skeptics have a knack for both claiming AGW is unfalsifiable and that it's been falsified.

Falsifiability doesn't necessarily apply only to the experiment...it also applies to the person with the belief. You are sitting there telling me that I'm wrong but it's YOUR BELIEFS that are nonsensical. This whole time you've probably been thinking I was some kind of idiotic fool rambling about their poorly conceived, self contradicting beliefs...but all I did was show you how your own views were inherently wrong.

Now I wash my hands of you on this matter. You're a lost cause until you come to terms with this stuff.

[spaceman]

" when a difference makes no difference, then there is no difference" spock

.oo358? co2 ... at what level Will the co2 affect the atmosphere? This is the craziest thing in science I've seen in my lifetime. Well, almost. When the French red cross told the Americans to start screening the blood for hiv, and the American reply was " we can't do that, it hasn't been proven".

I am mystified at the simplistic approach that co2 is the ONLY cause of global warming. They aren't even qualifying that they might be wrong.

[socold]

Oct 4, 2009 15:36:25 GMT poitsplace said:

Oct 4, 2009 12:23:22 GMT socold said:

This is about an inconsistency with your position. Before anyone even addresses your arguments we should at least make sure your arguments are consistent with one another.

In either situation YOU ARE WRONG!

You've skipped a step. I am talking about your initial argument selection. This happens before any response from me, or whoever, to to those arguments.

I am pointing out that you can't select and use two contradictory arguments fullstop. Irregardless of whether one of them is a valid argument, it's just wrong to throw out two contradictory arguments.

In this case the two arguments, roughly:

1) Something in the models falsifies AGW

2) Scientists rig the models to show AGW

are contradictory. If #2 is true then #1 cannot be, and vice-versa.

By using both arguments you make it look like you are just trying to throw out as many arguments against AGW as possible without caring about the self-consistency of your position.

Why should I bother responding to your arguments when I know one of your two arguments must logically be false? It's as if you are unreasonably making me spend twice the time just because you can't be bothered to figure out which one is false.

[northsphinx]

I am little bit confused Socold.
The models all have a positive feedback from increased CO2 by higher temperatures and more moist in the air. I don't get this because if CO2 do absorbs IR well as the model is trimmed to do will there be a drier atmosphere.
If the atmosphere absorbs more of outgoing energy by radiation will that heat the atmosphere. You know the hot spot.
But high temperatures at high altitudes as in high pressure zone will stabilize the atmosphere and reduce clouds and reduce humidity. We see that in the deserts. The hottest places on earth is also the driest because of relatively high temperatures at high altitudes.
A more absorbing atmosphere would reduce cloud and vertical lift of moisture.

On the other hand is cloud now considered to be a cooling forcing/feedback as from www.drroyspencer.com/2009/09/the-2007-2008-global-cooling-event-evidence-for-clouds-as-the-cause/
But that is not according to current models. So is the current models need a update? To show that less cloud heat the earth?

[nautonnier]

Oct 4, 2009 12:28:40 GMT socold said:

Oct 4, 2009 2:18:37 GMT nautonnier said:

"If you believe the models can be tuned to show anything."

Models can be built to 'show' almost anything if the wrong values are input - the tuning available depends on the models - some may allow all sorts of impossible parameterizations. There are flight simulators that can be 'tuned' to allow the simulated aircraft to survive impacts with the ground - want to try that for real?

Okay so we've established that you believe the models can be tuned to show almost anything.

So then your challenge is to explain why those dastardly AGW scientists haven't tuned the hotspot out of the models. Do you have an answer?

You ascription to me of some feeling that AGW proponents are 'dastardly' is not appreciated.

From what I have seen, the models they have created require a feedback from warming due to the hydrologic cycle which would lead necessarily to a tropical tropospheric hotspot. This should be there with the AGW models of the atmosphere and is a requirement for the AGW feedback mechanism - without such a positive feedback from water vapor AGW hypothesis fails. Therefore the models MUST show feedback and thus the hotspot or they are not modeling the AGW hypothesis.

As we have discussed before on this board about the hotspot - it would be remarkably easy to find as instrumented aircraft are operating right where it should be ALL the time and in almost all areas of the world.

It is not there. Not at all.


So due to the direct metrics from airborne sensors and satellites showing by actual measurement that there is no hotspot - AGW proponents have gone to the extreme of claiming that proxies such as upper level winds show there actually is a hotspot just that thermometers are not seeing it. This is a level that even Biffra would not go to.

So the reason that they have not taken the hotspot out of the models is that it is a fundamental requirement of the AGW hypothesis.

They could of course make the models even better by using values that show the atmosphere really has a low sensitivity to CO₂ scattering of 8% of the IR spectrum - this would remove the embarrassing hotspot, and show that natural cycles have a more powerful effect and therefore that the world will not warm dramatically. Then the models' outputs would probably match what is happening now ....

Indeed - you will no doubt be surprised to know that some of the modelers ARE doing this and surprise!! - they show that the world is not going to fry - indeed it might get colder...for example Mojib Latif as reported here



www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327254.000-world-will-cool-for-the-next-decade.html


"FORECASTS of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. We could be about to enter one or even two decades of cooler temperatures, according to one of the world's top climate modellers.
"People will say this is global warming disappearing," Mojib Latif told more than 1500 climate scientists gathered at the UN's World Climate Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, last week. "I am not one of the sceptics. However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it.""


The embarrassing and unwelcome questions will start with "why are we funding you guys if there is really no problem?" Followed by "How can I get away with taxing the country and get re-elected - if you are publishing papers that say there is no warming and its going to get COLDER!!??" I would think that the questions may get nastier from then on.


You will of course be able to cite the IPCC AR4 model that shows this 20 years of cooling won't you?

And how many really serious far reaching political decisions have been based on those AR4 models and the narrative for policy makers?

[socold]

Oct 4, 2009 21:02:39 GMT nautonnier said:

Oct 4, 2009 12:28:40 GMT socold said:

Okay so we've established that you believe the models can be tuned to show almost anything.

So then your challenge is to explain why those dastardly AGW scientists haven't tuned the hotspot out of the models. Do you have an answer?

From what I have seen, the models they have created require a feedback from warming due to the hydrologic cycle which would lead necessarily to a tropical tropospheric hotspot.

Once you accept things in the model "lead necessarily" to other things by virtue of physical constraints, then you are ready to realize that the physics "lead necessarily" to the water vapor feedback.

And you'll also then understand why the "models can be tuned to show anything" line of argument is a false one.