Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by heujas:
Why don't skeptics come up with a model that reflect what is happening now instead of constantly attacking the one that seems to fit?
You are confusing scepticism with other beliefs. I have not propounded any other theory. And I have not attacked AGW - I have merely asked for some specific measureable predictions that I can test against reality. I do have some concerns about the reasons why AGW proponents seem so reluctant to meet this normal scientific test. I just want to apply the same test to AGW that I do to any other theory. What baffles me is why this request should lead to such vitriol. |
| |
|
|
I think you just want certainty - and you just can't have it!
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
I think you just want certainty - and you just can't have it!
I am well aware of the uncertainties involved in testing simulation models. I do a fair amount of it in the course of my working life. But why the reluctance of AGW proponents to give specific predictions which I can then test against reality? |
| |
|
|
Yes, but what sort of specific predictions are you after?
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
It seems to me that what you are saying is like the following: A new drug has been released that could cure 90% of people with a particular disease. You have said disease, but you won't take the drug until you are sure that it will definitely work on you. Because of your demographic make up, this means that the only way to be sure is for it to be tested on yourself! So you won't take it... Does that sum it up?
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JLSF: quote: Originally posted by heujas:
Why don't skeptics come up with a model that reflect what is happening now instead of constantly attacking the one that seems to fit?
You are confusing scepticism with other beliefs. I have not propounded any other theory. And I have not attacked AGW - I have merely asked for some specific measureable predictions that I can test against reality. I do have some concerns about the reasons why AGW proponents seem so reluctant to meet this normal scientific test. I just want to apply the same test to AGW that I do to any other theory. What baffles me is why this request should lead to such vitriol.
Ah. This post's more like the JL of old. Jim Hansen did say "I'm a modeller but I rate data more important". Or words to that effect. So if you compare the Earth's environment with that when the CO2 concentration was 380 ppm I think present day civilisation would have a problem. There's a time lag before the full effect of 380 ppm hits us (0.6deg in the pipeline) but then again we'll have moved to 450 or even higher by then. Sea level rise, environmental changes, etc - Well you know the score. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
Yes, but what sort of specific predictions are you after?
OK I've done this list before, so here goes again. Since AGW proponents seem to think we're short of time, I'll restrict my requests to the next twenty years. (I would actually prefer much longer) For each of the next 20 years: 1. The average daytime temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere 2. The average daytime temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere 3. and 4. Ditto for night time temperatures. 5. and 6. Ditto for sea temperatures at a depth of two metres. That will give 120 predictions. If you think that CO2 emissions in the meantime will affect these readings, then give predictions for a range of CO2 emissions. That doesn't seem to be asking the earth (so to speak) |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
It seems to me that what you are saying is like the following:
A new drug has been released that could cure 90% of people with a particular disease. You have said disease, but you won't take the drug until you are sure that it will definitely work on you. Because of your demographic make up, this means that the only way to be sure is for it to be tested on yourself! So you won't take it...
Does that sum it up?
What I would say is that it is up to me whether I take it or not, not up to some scientist. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by realprimate:
Ah. This post's more like the JL of old. Jim Hansen did say "I'm a modeller but I rate data more important". Or words to that effect.
See my reply to Lucibee of a couple of posts back. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JLSF: quote: Originally posted by heujas:
Why don't skeptics come up with a model that reflect what is happening now instead of constantly attacking the one that seems to fit?
You are confusing scepticism with other beliefs. I have not propounded any other theory. And I have not attacked AGW - I have merely asked for some specific measureable predictions that I can test against reality. I do have some concerns about the reasons why AGW proponents seem so reluctant to meet this normal scientific test. I just want to apply the same test to AGW that I do to any other theory. What baffles me is why this request should lead to such vitriol.
There's a theory, it's out there. There's plenty of literature out there to read and plenty of research is regularly being carried out. One cannot conclusively prove anything in climate science, it is such a vast and complex subject. It's a scientific consensus that says if we carry on the way we are, then humans are very likely to cause climate change, or already is. Just like when scientist say eating too much bad food is likely to cause obesity. You may not be able to prove it conclusively, but most scientists believe that is the case. It's not a case of vitriol. But AGW is constantly under attack but yet, skeptics haven't anything to show otherwise. It is very much a case of put up or shut up. |
| |
|
|
And I'm sure this has been posted before as well: Climate models If the climate scientists won't pander to your requests for specific data, it's because they think you are wasting their time by asking to sit back and tick off temperatures for the next 20 years. They probably have more important things to think about - like what on earth they are going to do to stop it!
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by heujas:
It's a scientific consensus that says if we carry on the way we are, then humans are very likely to cause climate change, or already is.
Ah, the "Wise Men They Say" approach. This strikes me as closer to religion than to science. It seems to me the scientific approach is to compare predicitons and reality. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee: And I'm sure this has been posted before as well: Climate models If the climate scientists won't pander to your requests for specific data, it's because they think you are wasting their time by asking to sit back and tick off temperatures for the next 20 years. They probably have more important things to think about - like what on earth they are going to do to stop it!
That's rather a good article. So if climate scientists don't compare predictions with reality, then how do they estimate the "correctness" of their models? |
| |
|
|
Realprimate quote: Perhaps you can find a model that shows an increase in sea ice...
Arctic Sea ice extent varies according to the North Atlantic oscillation. As the aerosol balance between east and west has changed since the 70's so the relative NAO amplitude has changed thus leading to an average decrease in sea ice. That's my hypothesis now please find a climate model that demonstrates that this hypothesis is wrong and that anthropic CO2 is the cause of decreasing sea ice as this would significantly help my understanding of AGW. |
| |
|
|
quote: So if climate scientists don't compare predictions with reality, then how do they estimate the "correctness" of their models?
Why do you think they are constantly updating them? Of course they check with reality - but they can only do that in retrospect - unless you know of a way of checking with future reality (which seems to be what you are asking for)!
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee:
unless you know of a way of checking with future reality (which seems to be what you are asking for)!
No, I want to check in 20 years time. This constantly up-dating them is one of the things that worries me about the "science". It sounds to me rather like curve-fitting. Find enough variables and I will solve by simultaneous equations. That's why I want predictions about the future. |
| |
|
|
OK - so you're not worried that CO2 levels are now higher than at any point in the last 600,000 years? And that we have pretty good evidence that it is our emissions that are the cause and not preceding temperature increases?
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JLSF: quote: Originally posted by Lucibee: And I'm sure this has been posted before as well: Climate models If the climate scientists won't pander to your requests for specific data, it's because they think you are wasting their time by asking to sit back and tick off temperatures for the next 20 years. They probably have more important things to think about - like what on earth they are going to do to stop it!
That's rather a good article. So if climate scientists don't compare predictions with reality, then how do they estimate the "correctness" of their models?
Compare what was modelled, and compare with the climate today. The prediction is pretty much accurate. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JLSF: quote: Originally posted by heujas:
It's a scientific consensus that says if we carry on the way we are, then humans are very likely to cause climate change, or already is.
Ah, the "Wise Men They Say" approach. This strikes me as closer to religion than to science. It seems to me the scientific approach is to compare predicitons and reality.
No, it's a consensus. Because climate science is very complex, I'm sure no two scientists can completely agree exactly what's going to happen, but they can agree a human activity is the most likely cause of the present rapid warming we are seeing. Just as no two economists can agree exactly what a 200% hike in interest rates is going to do. But they can both agree it would probably be bad for the economy, home repossesions go out, drop in investment levels etc. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by heujas: quote: Originally posted by JLSF:
So if climate scientists don't compare predictions with reality, then how do they estimate the "correctness" of their models?
Compare what was modelled, and compare with the climate today. The prediction is pretty much accurate.
I have seen the graphs - what I would like to know are the actual figures, so that I can work out goodness of fit. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by heujas:
No, it's a consensus. Because climate science is very complex, I'm sure no two scientists can completely agree exactly what's going to happen, but they can agree a human activity is the most likely cause of the present rapid warming we are seeing.
Ah, so it is the "Wise Men They Say" approach! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JLSF:
I have seen the graphs - what I would like to know are the actual figures, so that I can work out goodness of fit.
I posted this Hadley data and this GISS data some time ago but never heard anything more. I can't remember if I was replying to you or someone else. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JLSF: quote: Originally posted by heujas:
No, it's a consensus. Because climate science is very complex, I'm sure no two scientists can completely agree exactly what's going to happen, but they can agree a human activity is the most likely cause of the present rapid warming we are seeing.
Ah, so it is the "Wise Men They Say" approach!
You can call it what you want. What additional explanation can you add? Or are you going to give the old "it just is" explanation. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by heujas:
Brilliant! Reduce the global warming debate with a series of misleading questions!
How about the real debate. Has the earth ever seen such rapid warming? What do climate scientist believe is the most likely cause of the rapid warming we are expericing?
What a disingenuous website!
| |
