Global warming scam exposed!

[taks]

Anyway, do you have proof that glaciers as a collective are losing mass?

i already pointed out that we do not monitor enough of the glaciers to make any definitive claims. there are, as well, many glaciers that are growing, in spite of the inability of such crack investigators as lare to uncover them.

 

you have yet to produce anything that actually shows that climate models work as you claim they do.

even the authors, you know, the guys that write the code, don't think they are very good. so why does zoraptor

 

taks

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

 

Take a peek

I didn't actually know who Rush Limbaugh was before watching that. I was living happy.

[Zoraptor]

It seems you have some experience of models, but I would hazard they are scientific rather than operational ones.

Though my formal qualifications are in science, the stuff I worked on (I'd stress it was not me alone doing the work) was related to tourism, to predict things like changes in transport and infrastructure needed, so not pure science.

 

"Inaccuracies", eh? So, according to you, the inaccuracies present in a model of the solar system are comparable to the "inaccuracies" present in current climate models [..] the constant need for readjustment and placeholders in those models..

No, I'm just pointing out that (1) even really simple models are inaccurate (2) inaccuracy does not, ipso facto, mean that they are useless or every model would be useless (3) while most scientists think the climate models are inaccurate they don't think they are useless and you need something more than antifaith or antibelief to justify your opinion that their expert opinions are wrong. And no, rote restatement of base factors endemic to every model, complex or simple, does not count as evidence.

 

Sheesh, even with something as 'simple' as the solar system model they correct for variations from observation and as more and better data becomes available.

 

..you demonstrate how to fail at understanding simple terms like glaciation

Glaciation "to cover with ice or glaciers; to affect with glaciers" can of course refer to the micro (single glacier) or macro (large scale area/ global/ ~ice age) process. I simply answered referring to as many variations as possible as I knew if I left one out that would be the one you "really" meant.

 

Anyway, do you have proof that glaciers as a collective are losing mass?

I have faith and belief that they are, so do not need to provide evidence from those pesky science type fellows with their lieberal biases and need to transfer wealth massively to the third world.

 

Alternatively, the evidence was already posted in the thread showing that the great majority of monitored glaciers are either ~static, or retreating; by taks of all people, who (questionable knowledge of statistical sampling aside) had the sense to make the credible argument that the retreat is natural rather than reiterating rote denial of it happening at all and demanding links for things which had already been provided pages ago or can be found by 2 seconds on google.

[Zoraptor]

Deserves a separate reply since it is an important point.

 

furthermore, the ultimate test of any model is its predictive ability, and in the case of GCMs, not only do they continually fail to demonstrate what is yet to come, the authors openly admit that the GCMs are not predictive tools. their outputs are dubbed "possible scenarios," nothing more. this little understood fact is really just an admission that GCMs are incomplete to the point they should not be used for anything other than curious laboratory investigations.

You do realise that is what I have been saying all along, right? That you cannot tell specifics from the models but they can be used for macro predictions?

 

The majority of scientists are of the opinion that they are good enough for it to be sensible to act on the scenarios they generate, not that the scenarios are gospel truth that will occur- any stochastic model inherently generates ranges of possibilities. There is no requirement for absolute accuracy when making predictions, they are a model for generating risk assessment primarily. And as such it is eminently sensible to act on some things at least, like deciding where and how x million Bangladeshis will live if the sea level does rise significantly. And that's why I've used comparisons to things like hurricanes, where the processes for predicting their formation and paths are rather poor on an individual basis yet still people act on those predictions, and pointed out that even in simple systems you get divergence and need for correction. And as I've said multiple times, there's barely anyone who doesn't think the earth is warming, the disputation is over how much it will, whether we've caused it and whether we can do anything about it.

 

And to reiterate, I think the 'solutions' suggested for anthropogenic climate change are silly and won't work.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Zoraptor

[Moose]

[taks]

You do realise that is what I have been saying all along, right? That you cannot tell specifics from the models but they can be used for macro predictions?

i don't think you realize what i'm saying: they cannot be used even for macro predictions. the scientists themselves say this, and the results of the models confirm this. the pieces of the puzzle that are missing are not just little things, they are the very basis of our weather and climate. without a complete understanding of the energy budget or cloud formation, you might as well draw a line on a page and say "this is it."

 

The majority of scientists are of the opinion that they are good enough for it to be sensible to act on the scenarios they generate, not that the scenarios are gospel truth that will occur- any stochastic model inherently generates ranges of possibilities.

prove "majority." maybe majority of those that get quoted for the media. furthermore, it is a red herring to say "any stochastic model inherently generates ranges of possibilities." you avoid the truth with this statement since the "range of possibilities" is large enough that falsification is impossible. just about any result is apparently within the range of possibilities, which leaves zero confidence in the results. perhaps these scientists that think such scenarios are reliable enough to use simply don't understand this simple point? certainly their stastical skills have been demonstrated as not up to the task, which leads me to the conclusion they really don't understand why the model developers refuse to call their models "predictive."

 

There is no requirement for absolute accuracy when making predictions, they are a model for generating risk assessment primarily.

which is meaningless when a simple random number generator will provide equally valid results.

 

And as such it is eminently sensible to act on some things at least, like deciding where and how x million Bangladeshis will live if the sea level does rise significantly.

ah, there you go with the emotional argument. couldn't resist the fallacy, eh? btw, do you think the bangladeshis are going to stay till the water gets up to their necks? are they that stupid? please refrain from the "oh noooes! what are we going to do about the XXXXX???" type arguments. you only serve to demean your own credibility by doing so.

 

And as I've said multiple times, there's barely anyone who doesn't think the earth is warming, the disputation is over how much it will, whether we've caused it and whether we can do anything about it.

based on what i keep reading regarding the adjustments made to the primary source of the temperature data, much of the warming does seem to be man made. you can think about that statement for a bit if you'd like.

 

oh, and for the record, you can't average temperature in two different locations and yield a reasonable result unless they have identical atmospheric properties. this whole nonsensical idea doesn't really make any physical sense and i don't know why any legitimate scientist would agree to it.

 

And to reiterate, I think the 'solutions' suggested for anthropogenic climate change are silly and won't work.

there is one, adapt. that is what we do. we will also then be prepared in the event of the reverse situation, which, contrary to popular belief, is much worse for humanity: an ice age.

 

taks

[Zoraptor]

Preface note: coupled fluid dynamic GCM's- the 'inaccurate' ones- are not the only climate change models, though it's easy to get that impression from wikipedia and there's a fixation on anthropogenic warming. Even a CC denial site like climatehoax.org has a model for climate change- prediction of fluctuation using solar output. It predicts that as we are ~at a solar minimum this year ought to be ~the coolest of the decade, so we'll find out if that model gets thrown off a cliff soon (it shouldn't, of course, it's historically a pretty good indicator even if all indications are that this year is going to be far warmer than it predicts).

i don't think you realize what i'm saying: they cannot be used even for macro predictions. the scientists themselves say this

No they don't, and you've already written that they don't. A scenario is a macro prediction.

prove "majority."

You're seriously asking me to prove that the majority of climate scientists believe that little gw global warming is happening? Even the vast majority of CC skeptics accept the warming is happening, including you earlier in the thread.

just about any result is apparently within the range of possibilities, which leaves zero confidence in the results. perhaps these scientists that think such scenarios are reliable enough to use simply don't understand this simple point?

Dunno, but if you disbelieve their expert opinions, as with numbersman the onus is on you to provide reasonable evidence they're wrong beyond mere rote restatement that the models contain errors. If you think a RNG could do as well provide evidence that is true, if it's as self evident as you imply it shouldn't take too long. In any case, even models of 'simple' systems like the solar system tend to throw out things like Mercury crashing into the sun, Earth/Venus orbits crossing, moon crashing into the earth etc so the range of possibilities even in that simple model can be... odd.

ah, there you go with the emotional argument. couldn't resist the fallacy, eh? btw, do you think the bangladeshis are going to stay till the water gets up to their necks? are they that stupid? please refrain from the "oh noooes! what are we going to do about the XXXXX???" type arguments. you only serve to demean your own credibility by doing so.

Ain't a shade of emotion in that. Bangladesh has a high population and a lot of very low altitude land area. If nothing is done and sea levels rise they will get displaced. Much like insurance, there does not have to be certainty over the bad thing happening in order for some action to be sensible. Ideally if the levels rise you have had enough time and preparation to make sure that as few people get displaced as possible. That ain't emotion, it's sense, unless you think potentially millions more refugees in south asia is a good thing.

based on what i keep reading regarding the adjustments made to the primary source of the temperature data, much of the warming does seem to be man made. you can think about that statement for a bit if you'd like.

No need to, I'm well able to identify the fine art of insinuation. I've read the supposed 'smoking guns' and they aren't, and just about everyone outside the strict denialist camp agrees that while there's a fair bit of pettiness exhibited that's pretty much it.

[taks]

No they don't, and you've already written that they don't. A scenario is a macro prediction.

the scientists explicitly state that the models aren't useful for prediction. whether you want to call them macro predictions is up to you, but they are not useful for this purpose and have proven themselves useless.

 

You're seriously asking me to prove that the majority of climate scientists believe that little gw global warming is happening?

i responded to a statement that you claimed the majority of scientists think models are useful. i did not make any claim about whether scientists agree that warming is happening.

 

Dunno, but if you disbelieve their expert opinions, as with numbersman the onus is on you to provide reasonable evidence they're wrong beyond mere rote restatement that the models contain errors.

sorry, but it is sufficient to state that the models have not predicted anything useful to demonstrate they are not useful. furthermore, i'm not sure what "expert" opinions you are referring to regarding models since even jim hansen says they aren't predictions. he runs GISS... sheesh.

 

If you think a RNG could do as well provide evidence that is true, if it's as self evident as you imply it shouldn't take too long.

there you go reframing the question, another red herring. i said that models are inaccurate enough that an RNG would be just as useful, or as the case may be, equally useless. as i recall, the actual temperature record exhibits strong AR characteristics.

 

In any case, even models of 'simple' systems like the solar system tend to throw out things like Mercury crashing into the sun, Earth/Venus orbits crossing, moon crashing into the earth etc so the range of possibilities even in that simple model can be... odd.

again with the red herrings. first, orbital dynamics are very well understood and are periodic functions - the analogy is not even remotely appropriate, and it is quite disingenuous of you to use it (you should know better). what they do not account for is the minor perturbations which require updates over time. a TLE is only useful for a few days as a result (they are updated publicly every 7 days or so).

 

the climate is not even remotely in the same ballpark. if minor unknowns can throw off a well understood periodic model in a few days, what happens when the fundamentals of a climate model aren't known at all over "macro" scales of decades? we're not talking about the variable effect of the solar wind on something in orbit. we're talking about floor to ceiling changes that result from tweaks in the fundamentals assumptions in the models.

 

Ain't a shade of emotion in that. Bangladesh has a high population and a lot of very low altitude land area. If nothing is done and sea levels rise they will get displaced.

you need to look a little deeper into your own statements. doom and gloom arguments, particularly ones as specious as flooding bangladesh, are appeals to emotion (at the current rate, it will take several hundred years for a one meter rise) and only serve to enhance the urgency in which heretofore unproven assertions must be acted upon. what happens as a result of sea level rise has nothing to do with the validity of models or any other claim i have made. in other words, such arguments are evidence of nothing other than your personal bias.

 

unless you think potentially millions more refugees in south asia is a good thing.

you spend all that effort explaining it away then... "OMG!!! millions of refugees!" sigh.

 

even with insurance, there is an assumption of reasonable risks. it isn't reasonable when the pace at which such a travesty would occur is over the course of millenia. it isn't even a travesty. there won't be millions of refugees, either, unless you still clinging to the belief that these people will all stand around long enough to be up to their necks in water, even after i already pointed out how silly that sounds.

 

if the likes of you were to become a non-issue, we might even be able to solve any such problem through our own wits. i mean, in 100 years when the seas have risen by a foot... imagine how much technology will have advanced without the hindrance of alarmism.

 

I've read the supposed 'smoking guns' and they aren't,

um, i was right, you don't understand what i'm talking about. you need to look into the data itself, not the emails.

 

and just about everyone outside the strict denialist camp agrees that while there's a fair bit of pettiness exhibited that's pretty much it.

couldn't resist yet another fallacy - argumentum ad hominem. the only people that think the emails are petty are those that are implicated, or those whose work is threatened, and the alarmists that support them in the face of undeniable evidence. that's the funny thing about religious beliefs, facts are easily ignored by the mind in order to continue the belief.

 

in any case, there is much more to it than just pettiness when scientists that are in charge of data, in charge of the science that gets into the IPCC, and in charge of 10s of millions of dollars of funding every year (michael mann's group brings in $55 M, so much for the well funded skeptics) are rigging the peer review process, then scoffing that skeptical arguments haven't been peer reviewed. when they openly discuss attempts to avoid FOIA requests, they are not simply being petty, they are breaking the law (conspiracy to commit a felony is... a felony).

 

taks

Edited December 14, 2009 by taks

[Zoraptor]

If that one model, one of a whole lot more, 'proves' that CC is a hoax then the solar output one with its temperatures diverging upwards of prediction over the past decade or so 'proves' denialism is a hoax too and we can all go home happy. The whole point of the climate change models is that a significant water rise would be likely to occur quickly not over thousands of years, making everything you've said with respect to Bangladesh founded upon nothing more the assumption of rote and repetitious denialism right up to there not being refugees because it will take place over millenia.

 

If the climategate emails show more than pettiness then a whole bunch of groups- major press associations like the AP, Factcheck.org etc etc etc- are in on The Conspiracy too, as pretty much every single claim made by denialists has been shown and accepted as inconsequential (eg Jones' supposed attempts to block papers by "redefining peer review? Both papers involved made it into the IPCC report). I find the blanket assertion that one group of scientists are incompetent dishonest money grubbing charlatans happy to manipulate and fabricate data for the purposes of social engineering while another is a brave group of Mavericks standing up to The Man with support only from dedicated lay men bloggers and small Main St groups like the American Petroleum Institute to be utterly unproven and only slightly more credible than the same claims leveled against scientists by proponents of intelligent design.

[Walsingham]

May I suggest we draw a line under the true/false debate? In either event the question is what do we do? Assume for the moment that the 'truth' is that man the cause, what can possibly be done?

[taks]

Assume for the moment that the 'truth' is that man the cause, what can possibly be done?

adapt? why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

 

taks

[Gorth]

Assume for the moment that the 'truth' is that man the cause, what can possibly be done?

adapt? why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

 

taks

Adapting this thread to the new global temperatures... putting it on ice

 

Seems like we have reached a dead end as far as the exchange of views goes. Is anybody is going to budge from their trenches? I like Walsinghams question though. Might be worth a new thread.

 

 

Edit: Note to self... need to work out a model that portrays a typical flow of a thread containing political, religious, scientific or philosophical matters.