|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 5, 2009 0:46:47 GMT
Socold wrote: 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.
Circular logic is a symptom of a closed mind. It's interesting how that same problem has transferred to the models themselves.
Once you realize that the models are flawed from the outset due to limited AND faulty inputs, you will be ready to realize that the only way to make them produce the preordained conclusion is to torture them until they do.
And you'll also then understand why the models can be tuned to show anything line of argument is the only possible conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Oct 5, 2009 1:32:52 GMT
Socold wrote: 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.Circular logic is a symptom of a closed mind. It's interesting how that same problem has transferred to the models themselves. Once you realize that the models are flawed from the outset due to limited AND faulty inputs, you will be ready to realize that the only way to make them produce the preordained conclusion is to torture them until they do. And you'll also then understand why the models can be tuned to show anything line of argument is the only possible conclusion. The models are engineering style models, and are subject to the limits of the programs. They are not models of basic physics. Asserting the GCM's properly account for water vapor is simply not supported by the facts. And claiming water vapor acts as a positive feedback is not established at all. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 5, 2009 1:49:39 GMT
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. That depends on ones definition of 'tuned'. If you read what I said - it was that the models have never been run with a negative feedback from the hydrologic cycle and low sensitivity to CO 2 as this is the opposite of the AGW hypothesis. If you start from the premise that all warming is caused by CO 2 leading to more water vapor leading to more warming. Then that is what your models will show. I have no doubt that the model algorithms can be altered. However, although it would be the scientific approach - the models will not be altered to show low sensitivity to CO 2 as it would disprove AGW - and you wouldn't want that would you. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 5, 2009 5:00:31 GMT
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. There is no inconsistency Socold. The modelers could easily take the hotspot out. . . .the only problem with doing that for AGW is the forcing to warm the planet has to be coming from someplace and for a CO2 nut. . . .where the CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas would be a good starting place for it. Yeah they could easily model the hotspot out but then they would have to figure out where the heat is . . . .I suppose they could say its coming from Mars. . . .but they would be in danger of getting laughed at. I would suggest before claiming that these models are the only possible models that you actually show them tracking temperatures. . . .because anybody claiming the physics is solid has a few screws loose when the real world isn't responding as predicted by the models. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 5, 2009 20:12:29 GMT
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. That depends on ones definition of 'tuned'. If you read what I said - it was that the models have never been run with a negative feedback from the hydrologic cycle and low sensitivity to CO 2 as this is the opposite of the AGW hypothesis. They can't be run with a negative water vapor feedback anymore than they can be run without a hotspot. Climate theory (not AGW theory) leads necessarily to positive water vapor feedback just as it necessarily leads to a hotspot. This is why as you point out noone has shown negative water vapor feedback in a model. It's not because they haven't bothered - it's that they can't do it. If it were possible then of course someone in international science of the past 30 years would have bothered to do such a thing, whether in a rudimentary 2d model or a fully fledged GCM there has been ample opportunity and plenty of fame incentive to show such a novel result. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 5, 2009 20:27:56 GMT
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. There is no inconsistency Socold. The modelers could easily take the hotspot out. . . .the only problem with doing that for AGW is the forcing to warm the planet has to be coming from someplace and for a CO2 nut . . . .where the CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas would be a good starting place for it. ... Yeah they could easily model the hotspot out but then they would have to figure out where the heat is . . . .I suppose they could say its coming from Mars. . . .but they would be in danger of getting laughed at.[/QUOTE] The hotspot is part of the pattern of warming, not the cause of the warming so if they can rig the models so freely they could easily remove the hotspot and distribute the heat out evenly to other areas. You'd then still get the global warming but no hotspot as part of that warming pattern. Your position is that there is both a strong motive and intent for climate modelers to remove the hotspot from the models and furthermore a very easy means to do it. That would lead necessarily to them promptly removing it. An alternative to your position is that: Perhaps the models are not as easily tunable as you presume. Or perhaps the scientists aren't rigging the models to show AGW but are fairly representing human understanding of climate in them. Or both. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 5, 2009 20:54:24 GMT
Yeah they could easily model the hotspot out but then they would have to figure out where the heat is . . . .I suppose they could say its coming from Mars. . . .but they would be in danger of getting laughed at. The hotspot is part of the pattern of warming, not the cause of the warming so if they can rig the models so freely they could easily remove the hotspot and distribute the heat out evenly to other areas. You'd then still get the global warming but no hotspot as part of that warming pattern. The hotspot is evidence the warming is coming from the alleged cause. Its like DNA evidence that the heat was trapped in the upper troposphere. If they model out the hotspot they have to explain how the heat got back to the surface because it sure didn't come from the upper troposphere. But thats an easy one for you Socold. You have the "missing heat" mysteriously transporting to the bottom of the ocean by some unknown mechanism. Thats were we are now. . . .by the very arguments that AGW alarmists touted AGW namely, no other known physical mechanism, we now have recommendations to put unknown physical mechanisms in place in the models to bring them in line with the real world. LOL! Lets see now. . . .its not the sun, even though the sun has plenty of heat we have no idea how it got here. ergo: Its not CO2, even though there is some speculation that a teensy bit of CO2 in the atmosphere will generate plenty of heat supported by robust feedbacks, we have no idea how it got here. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 5, 2009 21:04:33 GMT
This is why as you point out noone has shown negative water vapor feedback in a model. It's not because they haven't bothered - it's that they can't do it. If it were possible then of course someone in international science of the past 30 years would have bothered to do such a thing, whether in a rudimentary 2d model or a fully fledged GCM there has been ample opportunity and plenty of fame incentive to show such a novel result. LOL! Thats called infamy disincentive of looking like an idiot. Problem is anybody so stupid is probably too stupid to build a computer model in the first place. Socold the output of a computer model is a bunch of numbers and graphs. It can contain as much fiction as Tolstoy. . . .it can be completely fictional. The difference between science fiction and a science theory is the former is trying to entertaining and the latter is trying to convince people. Yes you can take the hotspot out but its not going to help convince anybody, especially after it was in there originally and it failed. You have taken that simple fact and tried to turn it on its head. I have to wonder if you are that stupid or if you are that disingenuous. |
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 5, 2009 21:13:47 GMT
[quote author=socold board=globalwarming thread=776 post=31297 time=1254773549
Climate theory (not AGW theory) leads necessarily to positive water vapor feedback . . .
[/quote]
And there you have the crux of the debate on this board and elsewhere. You are attempting to usurp the domain of climate science with your singular theory. Therefore, it is impossible to discuss other variables and influences because no other arguments fit with your narrow definition of your primary theory.
That is how you can rationalize that some studies are efficacious and others are merely outliers. That is why those attempting to point out the shortcomings of anthropogenic accelerators are, in your world, required to prove your negative instead of you prove your positive.
In the normal world of scientific debate the opposite burden would be the accepted course of research and study. For some reason that does not apply to those whose definition of climate science includes the "undeniable" primacy of CO2.
I lurked on this board for well over a year before I decided to start posting. Through that time I have noticed that the AGW crowd (that is what they are, AGW proponents) mostly present ancillary information in trying to shoot down serious questions about their theory. I noticed that they have continually move the target when it comes to proving their theory. They use straw man arguments and change the debate whenever they are challenged with real world data and science. They bring up the same questions that have been answered again and again and get all puffy when people grow tired of debunking their same, lame arguments.
It would all be so hilarious if it weren't so aggravating.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 5, 2009 21:32:12 GMT
The hotspot is part of the pattern of warming, not the cause of the warming so if they can rig the models so freely they could easily remove the hotspot and distribute the heat out evenly to other areas. You'd then still get the global warming but no hotspot as part of that warming pattern. The hotspot is evidence the warming is coming from the alleged cause. It isn't. All causes shows a hotspot. It's an effect not a cause. And anyway if modelers can simply change the models with ease they can change anything you can possibly argue for. By claiming there are no constraints in the models you've shot yourself in the foot because you you need a constraint to explain why they can't remove the hotspot. According to you they can just change the model to show heat coming from anywhere they want. For example they could make the warming evenly spread throughout the global upper troposphere. Then there will still be warming but with no hotspot. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 5, 2009 21:37:53 GMT
Unfortunately not, the debate as I see it is somewhat less credible and is based on silly memes like:
"the models can be tuned to show anything"
"modelers rig the models to show AGW"
"models show a hotspot and by doing this they falsify AGW"
Put all 3 together and there is a clear and obvious contradiction. At least one of the above arguments is therefore incorrect.
So all I ask is that skeptics first identify and remove the argument which is incorrect. If they don't know which one is incorrect, then please at least stop pretending you know all of them are true.
If we cannot even get past this ridiculous situation where people are clearly just throwing mud hoping it will stick, then we haven't even approached the realm of real debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 5, 2009 21:48:59 GMT
This is why as you point out noone has shown negative water vapor feedback in a model. It's not because they haven't bothered - it's that they can't do it. If it were possible then of course someone in international science of the past 30 years would have bothered to do such a thing, whether in a rudimentary 2d model or a fully fledged GCM there has been ample opportunity and plenty of fame incentive to show such a novel result. LOL! Thats called infamy disincentive of looking like an idiot. The man or woman who can demonstrate a GCM showing no warming from co2 would become famous for demonstrating such a novel result. In the process they would almost certainly win a nobel prize for physics. It would also be a crushing blow for AGW if such a model could better describe the behavior of the climate. Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever to claim noone has "bothered" doing this, which is what your argument boils down to. Yes yes you are just repeating the argument I've already ascribed to you. Ie "the models can be tuned to show anything". Well why haven't skeptics exploited this and demonstrated a GCM can show no warming from co2? Are they not interested in demonstrating what you claim is easy and which would be a powerful argument against AGW? You see not only is it ridiculous to suggest scientists in the past 30 years have not bothered modelling the climate properly, but to also suggest skeptics aren't interested in demonstrating such a thing is even more ridiculous. How can you even explain why it's in the models if the models can be made to say anything? Why didn't they just slowly remove it or not even put such a thing in the first place? You claim it falsifies AGW. If it's such a powerful argument against AGW then you have no explanation for why they leave it in there. Your. Position. Makes. No. Sense. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 5, 2009 21:57:05 GMT
That depends on ones definition of 'tuned'. If you read what I said - it was that the models have never been run with a negative feedback from the hydrologic cycle and low sensitivity to CO 2 as this is the opposite of the AGW hypothesis. They can't be run with a negative water vapor feedback anymore than they can be run without a hotspot. Climate theory (not AGW theory) leads necessarily to positive water vapor feedback just as it necessarily leads to a hotspot. This is why as you point out noone has shown negative water vapor feedback in a model. It's not because they haven't bothered - it's that they can't do it. If it were possible then of course someone in international science of the past 30 years would have bothered to do such a thing, whether in a rudimentary 2d model or a fully fledged GCM there has been ample opportunity and plenty of fame incentive to show such a novel result. Well there has been warming - and there has been no hotspot - so climate theory (actually a falsified hypothesis ) is incorrect and instead of modeling away in a basement - climatologists should try to work out why their models show there should be a hotspot and it is not there. Perhaps an assumption is wrong somewhere or something missing? 2 + 2 =5 in AGW hypothesis therefore 2 + 2 = 5 in the AGW model. The entire purpose of models is to vary things - I wonder why you find that so threatening? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 5, 2009 22:20:19 GMT
They can't be run with a negative water vapor feedback anymore than they can be run without a hotspot. Climate theory (not AGW theory) leads necessarily to positive water vapor feedback just as it necessarily leads to a hotspot. This is why as you point out noone has shown negative water vapor feedback in a model. It's not because they haven't bothered - it's that they can't do it. If it were possible then of course someone in international science of the past 30 years would have bothered to do such a thing, whether in a rudimentary 2d model or a fully fledged GCM there has been ample opportunity and plenty of fame incentive to show such a novel result. Well there has been warming - and there has been no hotspot - so climate theory (actually a falsified hypothesis ) instead of modeling away in a basement - should try to work out why their models show there should be a hotspot and it is not there. Perhaps an assumption is wrong somewhere or something missing? 2 + 2 =5 in AGW hypothesis therefore 2 + 2 = 5 in the AGW model. The entire purpose of models is to vary things - I wonder why you find that so threatening? The current AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels) excuse for the missing hot spot is the tropical troposphere warming comes from any sources. That it isn't warming as advertised or by "any source" is a circular argument, but who cares as long it gives the impression they are fooling others into believing it. You know the saying....tell a _ _ _ often enough and..... |
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 5, 2009 23:47:32 GMT
Socold,
You are completely unwilling to accept that models can be manipulated. Yet, Hansen and others have discussed how they have had to make adjustments to theirs in order to accommodate new capabilities and in response to their own "improvements" after flaws were pointed out.
So, it really comes down to wondering whether they would tweak those models to reach certain results. That is not such a preposterous question considering the vehement advocacy on their part and the far-reaching solutions they want implemented. And, in light of other shenanigans that has been uncovered on the part of the "consensus community" one has to wonder from where the inconsistencies that have been noted originate.
Just sayin'.
|
|
