|
|
Post by steve on Jun 20, 2011 13:51:47 GMT
When evolution and inheritance of characteristics was first described noone knew about genetics yet the basic idea of selection through competition remains a key part of the theory. Even now one can easily point out that the science of genetics is "in its infancy". Dismissing a subject because it is "in its infancy" is not an argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 20, 2011 14:56:44 GMT
When evolution and inheritance of characteristics was first described noone knew about genetics yet the basic idea of selection through competition remains a key part of the theory. Even now one can easily point out that the science of genetics is "in its infancy". Dismissing a subject because it is "in its infancy" is not an argument. 1. Sorry, but it most definitely is an argument. 2. Climate science is at about the same point in its development that genetics was when eugenics reigned supreme. Thanks for the comparison!  |
|
|
|
Post by handyman on Jun 20, 2011 15:12:21 GMT
The obvious first reaction; if the sunspot lull causes cooling, where is the cooling? a rhetorical question, obviously. We just had the warmest 12 month period ever recorded in the instrument period even as the sun went to sleep. Which instruments in what locations were used to record these record-setting temperatures? I can assure you, they are NOT anywhere near where I live, unless someone has tampered with the readings. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 20, 2011 15:52:30 GMT
No it isn't.
And breeding for characteristics in animals came well before Mendel and Darwin. Such breeding (and eugenics) is an attempt to subjugate the idea of "natural" selection and happened long before science understood even the basics of genes.
Now we have a good idea of the physics of the weather processes that give us our climate, so it's way ahead of genetics there.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 20, 2011 16:27:43 GMT
No it isn't. And breeding for characteristics in animals came well before Mendel and Darwin. Such breeding (and eugenics) is an attempt to subjugate the idea of "natural" selection and happened long before science understood even the basics of genes. Now we have a good idea of the physics of the weather processes that give us our climate, so it's way ahead of genetics there. Sorry, Steve. You're treading very close to a-historicism here, even if it's in support of your own fair-sized ego. Eugenics is a very specific scientific disaster, involving human sterilization among other things, that you might want to learn more about before *attempting* to sweep it under the rug. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 20, 2011 17:24:31 GMT
It takes an ego to spot one. I wouldn't dream of sweeping eugenics under the carpet even if you are sailing close to a Godwinian comparison in bringing up the subject.
"Infant" science bombed heck out of Hiroshima, sorted out small-pox, sent 12 men to the moon, discovered quarks, fired the Industrial Revolution and is now telling us that we are heating up the planet by emitting CO2. Your argument that "infant science" can be ignored is not an argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 20, 2011 17:36:55 GMT
It takes an ego to spot one. I wouldn't dream of sweeping eugenics under the carpet even if you are sailing close to a Godwinian comparison in bringing up the subject. "Infant" science bombed heck out of Hiroshima, sorted out small-pox, sent 12 men to the moon, discovered quarks, fired the Industrial Revolution and is now telling us that we are heating up the planet by emitting CO2. Your argument that "infant science" can be ignored is not an argument. Mischaracterization/straw man I've said, and you'd agree if you were thinking clearly, that climate science is in its infancy. And, yes, as anyone who studies the history of science knows, the overwhelming majority of scientists have been wrong about just about everything as long as science has existed. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 22, 2011 3:27:51 GMT
Just read a few lines of the "Royal Society ." I didn't try to read it as a scientist, which I am not, so I read it as a juror which I will actually be this week. "If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit." The paper was filled with a lot of thought. "Are thought" and so on. I was intrigued with the sentence " Climate models vary considerably in complexity." Am I to assume some are simple like a child's drawing and others complex like a Van Gogh? Complex they may be, they are static and provide only a bastard image of reality. Facebook maybe the social media darling site of the moment but it pales compared to real face time. So to complex climate forecasts are digital facades of reality. Just as digital bytes on Facebook are not real people so to digital climate models are not "real" they exist only in the virtual reality of their own design. Not the real world. I believe readers of the this report need to be clear what the difference between the two are. As the paper said "It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future." and "There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding." It is well established humans can influence the environment it is less so established the climate. It's easy to observe Facebook as a digital model, the one we see when we login, yet in reality we can't see "Facebook" as it is simply to large and complex. We can observe our own input but not all users input, there are too many users. So I question the findings of climate scientist as perhaps not "real" but only "subjective" to our own input (carbon) to the climate. codetalker, A couple of comments; Regarding 'climate models'; you wrote, "Climate models vary consriderably in complexity." Am I to assume some are simple like a child's drawing and others complex like a Van Gogh?" Climate models are physical descriptions of the climate system presented in the language of Physics, mathematics. The difference between the simple and the complex is not their relevance but their level of detail; more like a Picasso sketch vs a Rembrant. Then, "There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding". Precisely! Scientific understanding is intrinsically incomplete and subject to revision. This is the basic nature of all of science. But right now, there is no compelling evidence for such alternatives. Finally, you question climate scientists; others question evolutionary biologists. But now we have the unexplained 'dark matter'. Are you also questioning the atomic theory of matter? Perhaps you should be. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 22, 2011 4:00:13 GMT
Climate models are physical descriptions of the climate system presented in the language of Physics, mathematics.
Then, "There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding".
You mean like convection, conduction, and cloud variability?
Climate models today are one-legged dogs.
In fact they are not climate models at all they are radiation models. A climate model should at least deal with the variability of a majority of variables that effect climate.
Finally, you question climate scientists; others question evolutionary biologists.
Not many question evolutionary biologists today.
But thats only because it took a hundred years for the science to get beyond the petty politics young science tends to open the door for.
Thats how long it took to discredit the political manipulation of evolutionary science by politicians and finally put Lamarckist evolutionary biology and eugenic evolutionary biology in the trash heap where they belonged.
The young science of evolution was exploited mightly by those that believed that mankind could be a big player in this field. And they did it largely by suppressing free expression.
So its a damned good thing that people questioned evolutionary biology and the scientists that sold out to those politically convenient ideas.
It was finally a free society that was the one that chose not to politicize evolutionary biology for its own idea of how the world should be run that saved the world from untold horrors. Unfortunately that only happened after the biggest horrors the world has ever witnessed!
How dare you insult somebody simply because they ask questions you have proven yourself incapable of answering!
As I said before Thermo. Is that all you have? Ad hominems?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 22, 2011 13:45:41 GMT
icefisher
Do you really believe that climate models do not represent convection and clouds? Or are you making a point about parametrization? If the latter, you do know that *some* models do represent convection and clouds - while they are too expensive to run globally out to 100 years you don't actually need to run globally to 100 years to experiment with cloud feedbacks and variability.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 22, 2011 14:26:00 GMT
steve writes "Do you really believe that climate models do not represent convection and clouds?"
You have left out a word. The question ought to be something like "Do you really believe that climate models do not ACCURATELY represent convection and clouds?"
I am sure climate models attempt to represent convection and clouds. The question is, how accurate is this representation? Is the representation accurate enough to allow the output of the models to be considered good enough to answer the specific question being addressed? It is these sorts of questions that modellers NEVER seem to address. It is sort of like, "We have a model. The model represents reality. Here are the results".
Sorry, from my perspective that approach is nonsense. Let us be shown that the models have been validated so that they can, indeed, solve the problem they claim they can.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 22, 2011 16:54:28 GMT
You should read the context of the question before butting in and suggesting get-out clauses for icefisher. After all, some people still think that positive feedbacks and forcing are inputs to the model rather than outputs from the model, so why wouldn't icefisher actually believe that all climate models are simple radiation models with no attempt to represent other processes?
Don't be silly. They address the questions all the time. Perhaps you should address your lack of knowledge of what climate modellers do before criticising them.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 22, 2011 17:03:48 GMT
You should read the context of the question before butting in and suggesting get-out clauses for icefisher. After all, some people still think that positive feedbacks and forcing are inputs to the model rather than outputs from the model, so why wouldn't icefisher actually believe that all climate models are simple radiation models with no attempt to represent other processes? Don't be silly. They address the questions all the time. Perhaps you should address your lack of knowledge of what climate modellers do before criticising them. I think most of those in this forum critical of climate models have researched the issue enough to know there are serious shortcomings in the programming. And please steve, don't regurgitate the same barf mulch that GCM's are anything more than engineering code. Courtillot discusses GCM's here |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 22, 2011 17:43:07 GMT
magellan,
It depends on what you mean by "serious shortcomings in the programming".
If you mean that climate models are not programmed according to their specification then there are serious shortcomings in your research.
If you mean that they still use "goto" statements then you are pointlessly perfectionist.
I've never gurgitated, let alone *re*gurgitated any barf about models not being engineering code or otherwise. It's an irrelevant semantic point as far as I'm concerned. The diversion also has nothing to do with prising out Icefisher's meaning - which was my original question.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 22, 2011 18:05:24 GMT
Magellan:
Thank you for the link. Most interesting it is.
|
|
