|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 6, 2009 0:04:05 GMT
Might as well stop trying to explain it. He doesn't have the ability to understand the contradiction. You might as well be trying to explain it to your dog or a concrete block.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 6, 2009 19:37:50 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 ) 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? The hotspot argument cannot exist if scientists are willing and able to fudge the models to support AGW. As long as we agree that logically then scientists either cannot, or will not, tune the models to support AGW, then we can move forwards to actually look at the hotspot problem. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 6, 2009 19:52:26 GMT
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's not an excuse for it, it's a necessary clarification so we are all on the same page of why the hotspot is expected. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 6, 2009 20:18:10 GMT
Socold, You are completely unwilling to accept that models can be manipulated. The "inputs" can be honestly manipulated, but only within ranges constrained by empirical data and basic physics. Even dishonest manipulations are constrained - by the model behavior itself. As an extreme example it's not honestly possible to violate conservation of energy in a model and dishonestly doing it would produce wacky results in the model output. You'd expect someone who did it properly would have a model that matches the real world better than someone who deliberately used unrealistic inputs. Or whether they can. If for example the certain result is to remove the hotspot, then the reason they haven't done so must either be because they are honest or that they can't remove it (or both). It can't be the case that they are both dishonest and able to remove it or else it wouldn't be there. |
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 6, 2009 20:47:27 GMT
Socold, You are completely unwilling to accept that models can be manipulated. The "inputs" can be honestly manipulated, but only within ranges constrained by empirical data and basic physics. Even dishonest manipulations are constrained - by the model behavior itself. As an extreme example it's not honestly possible to violate conservation of energy in a model and dishonestly doing it would produce wacky results in the model output. You'd expect someone who did it properly would have a model that matches the real world better than someone who deliberately used unrealistic inputs. Or whether they can. If for example the certain result is to remove the hotspot, then the reason they haven't done so must either be because they are honest or that they can't remove it (or both). It can't be the case that they are both dishonest and able to remove it or else it wouldn't be there. The fact is that they have removed the hot spot. Over and over - even when they got caught with cooking the books. They abandoned it briefly until this last IPCC report when they became frantic over recent global cooling and sea ice expansion and needed to make one last push for political action before their goose was cooked (so to speak). Where do you think the the term Mann-made global warming came from. It's pointless to debate how they could or could not cook the numbers - inputs, modeling, whatever. The fact is that the hockeystick graphs (all of them) relied on, at the very least, faulty data and it has been proved. The MWP was eliminated as was the LIA and regardless of what tortured logic one attempts to apply to that, those graphs (upon which all alarmist theory and solutions are based) are wrong, wrong, wrong. It's not up to the skeptics to prove AGW theories wrong. Its up to AGW proponents to prove themselves right. It is the job of skeptics to point out the fallacies, inconsistencies and inadequacies of AGW theory - something they are doing a very good job at. Its the alarmists who are not doing their job - all they do is hide data, change subjects and miscount polar bears. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 7, 2009 1:55:19 GMT
The current AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels) excuse for the missing hot spot is the tropical troposphere warming comes from any sources. That's not an excuse for it, it's a necessary clarification so we are all on the same page of why the hotspot is expected. Despite multiple references directly from IPCC AR4 and climate modelers themselves clearly indicating a tropical tropospheric "hot spot" due to rising GHG, you have insisted it doesn't matter. It does matter. The sole purpose for Santer 08 was to prove the models correct with respect to the "hot spot". Unfortunately for the authors, their "research" was ferreted out as once again; junk science. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 7, 2009 3:06:09 GMT
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. Were you born yesterday? Its been getting warmer, there is no hot spot. With your premise the warming has no cause. Let me know when you land back on earth from the land of hyperbole. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 7, 2009 3:12:00 GMT
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. What gave you the idea anybody had to demonstrate anything to win the Nobel prize? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 8, 2009 17:46:33 GMT
It's not up to the skeptics to prove AGW theories wrong. Its up to AGW proponents to prove themselves right. It is the job of skeptics to point out the fallacies, inconsistencies and inadequacies of AGW theory - something they are doing a very good job at. Its the alarmists who are not doing their job - all they do is hide data, change subjects and miscount polar bears. The skeptics first need to get their positions in order and not throw out contradictory claims. If you claim the scientists have the intent, ability and motive to remove the hotspot from the models then it's you who has to explain why they haven't done it. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 8, 2009 17:52:54 GMT
That's not an excuse for it, it's a necessary clarification so we are all on the same page of why the hotspot is expected. Despite multiple references directly from IPCC AR4 and climate modelers themselves clearly indicating a tropical tropospheric "hot spot" due to rising GHG, you have insisted it doesn't matter. It does matter. The problem is that skeptics wrongly claim the hotspot is only expected by rising GHGs - that it's a fingerprint of GHG. Therefore it's important to clarify that the hotspot is expected from any source of warming. The Santer paper argued that the models and observations are not incompatible given the uncertainty in the observations and model projections on that time scale. None of this of course provides an answer to the conundrum of why haven't scientists removed the hotspot from the models if they want observations and models to better match in that respect. You got a new answer for that one yet? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 8, 2009 17:54:30 GMT
It isn't. All causes shows a hotspot. It's an effect not a cause. Were you born yesterday? Its been getting warmer, there is no hot spot. With your premise the warming has no cause. Your claim that "The hotspot is evidence the warming is coming from the alleged cause" was wrong. Don't shoot the messenger. |
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 8, 2009 18:01:24 GMT
It's not up to the skeptics to prove AGW theories wrong. Its up to AGW proponents to prove themselves right. It is the job of skeptics to point out the fallacies, inconsistencies and inadequacies of AGW theory - something they are doing a very good job at. Its the alarmists who are not doing their job - all they do is hide data, change subjects and miscount polar bears. The skeptics first need to get their positions in order and not throw out contradictory claims. If you claim the scientists have the intent, ability and motive to remove the hotspot from the models then it's you who has to explain why they haven't done it. I've come to understand your obdurate nature, Socold, but now you are just being obtuse. You copied just one part of my post and neglected the part that answers your question. In fact, post after post on this thread (and other threads) have answered your question. Your own hockeystick graph answers the question. AGW leaders extolling climate researchers to get rid of the MWP answers your question. But your faith is your faith and I won't try to sway you, just as I would not want anyone to try to sway me from my religion about which I would seem obtuse to someone who would try to convince me that there is no God or that I should pray to Buddha. As far as burden of proof goes - you are the one attempting to change the paradigm. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 8, 2009 18:18:20 GMT
The skeptics first need to get their positions in order and not throw out contradictory claims. If you claim the scientists have the intent, ability and motive to remove the hotspot from the models then it's you who has to explain why they haven't done it. I've come to understand your obdurate nature, Socold, but now you are just being obtuse. You copied just one part of my post and neglected the part that answers your question. I neglected it because it didn't. And neither have any of the other posts by other posters. "They have removed the hotspot" isn't a good enough answer because they haven't. The hotspot has not been removed from the models. Therefore the riddle remains: If a man can remove a hotspot and wants to remove a hotspot, why does he not remove it? The problem is skeptics want their cake and to eat it too. Skeptics have 3 arguments against models: 1) Modelers fudge and tune the models to support AGW 2) The models can be fudged and tuned to show anything 3) The models predict a hotspot which isn't there and so AGW is falsified. #1 provides a motive to remove any problems for AGW. #2 provides the means to remove any problems for AGW. Therefore #3, a problem for AGW, should not exist if #1 and #2 are correct. Clearly at least one of those arguments is false. But skeptics just don't want to lose even one precious argument. So we see a lot of hand-waving in this thread trying to divert socold to talk about something else (quick mention hockeysticks!) or claims that it's already been answered. Of course it hasn't, it's a logical inconsistency. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 8, 2009 18:25:53 GMT
It's not up to the skeptics to prove AGW theories wrong. Its up to AGW proponents to prove themselves right. It is the job of skeptics to point out the fallacies, inconsistencies and inadequacies of AGW theory - something they are doing a very good job at. Its the alarmists who are not doing their job - all they do is hide data, change subjects and miscount polar bears. The skeptics first need to get their positions in order and not throw out contradictory claims. If you claim the scientists have the intent, ability and motive to remove the hotspot from the models then it's you who has to explain why they haven't done it. Would you pull your head out of your posterior, Socold. YOU are the one that maintains that the models are somehow incapable of being tuned because you assume they somehow match "reality" (that sensitivity truly is high). YOU are the one that claims that the hotspot cannot be removed. None of these other people make those claims...ITS ALL YOU! Why don't they remove the hotspot when they could? I've no idea. Maybe it's the fact that it would make them look stupid since it would go against THEIR theory. But make no mistake, they could remove it. For that matter... there's nothing stopping you from jumping in front of a bus...and we're all sure as heck stumped as to why you haven't done that. Maybe it's for similar reasons that the researchers don't remove the hot spot. Maybe just because people CAN do things that doesn't mean they'll always take advantage of the opportunity. Now I'd suggest you answer the question created by your own assertions...if the models can't be tweaked to show different behaviors that don't fit with reality...how can the non-existent hot-spot be shown by the models??? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 8, 2009 19:07:49 GMT
Were you born yesterday? Its been getting warmer, there is no hot spot. With your premise the warming has no cause. Your claim that "The hotspot is evidence the warming is coming from the alleged cause" was wrong. Don't shoot the messenger. I will shoot any messenger that tries to twist words. It is your claim that a hotspot is an effect of all warming. . . .I suppose that has to be true if the upper troposphere plays an important role in regulating surface temperatures. But. . . .we have no hotspot, we have warming; ergo the upper troposphere does not play an important role in surface temperatures and of course the corollary to that that CO2 is relatively unimportant as well. That is the only conclusion one can reach from your logic. |
|
