Interesting comment on climate change

[Walsingham]

This may come as a shock, but your word is not law around these parts, Obbie.

 

Yes, my underpants are law. That's why we don't get many visitors.

[Oblarg]

That's got to be the weakest, most unelegant trolling attempt I've seen in a long time. It fits you.

Care to try again, n00b?

 

Talk about clumsy trolling.

I edited the post, even if you don't really deserve it. So far your contributions to this thread have amounted to calling everyone an ignorant, claiming that any opinions different from your own are irrelevant, and accusing me of being wrong without actually substantiating such claims.

 

This may come as a shock, but your word is not law around these parts, Obbie. We are not your mommy.

 

And yeah, hurt as your pride may be, you are a total n00b at trolling. Not subtle, not funny, not even snobbish enough. Simply... weak.

 

edit: I wouldn't bother, Wals. He's clearly not interested in the link, or even facts that disagree with his prefab opinions. If he was, he would have read it by now, only to have an idea of what the thread is about, don't you think?

 

So, it seems this has lost any semblance of an actual discussion, so I'll be departing from this thread. You don't seem particularly capable of offering something in defense of your views so much as simply restating them in a derogatory tone.

 

Oh, by the way, people who disagree with you are not necessarily trolls.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Oblarg

[Oblarg]

If I may rephrase my somehwat caustic colleague's objection:

 

1. Correlation does NOT mean causation.

 

Clearly in a lab we try to control variables and often can say without reasonable doubt that causation is implied. But this is not in a lab, squeaky. I come from the land of human factors where this point is well understood and long lamented.

 

This is an important point. Poverty correlates with crime. Crime kills millions every year. Yet there is not one tenth of the consensus on action to directly give away stuff and halt poverty.

 

2. A model is not a hypothesis in itself.

 

For example, Lanchester's square law is very good at predicting the outcome of armed conflict, but it excludes everything except biffing from the calculation. This is important because Lanchester would not have predicted the outcome of Vietnam, or the Soviet Afghan war, or the Falklands. A model may predict but often contains no disprovable component, which you will concede is what makes a strong theory.

 

 

3. If, as the quote suggests, equivalent rises are common without industrialisation, then this must be accounted for. Thus far I see no account. Calling me a fool doesn't do the job. But I have no doubt you will supply the necessary now I point this out.

 

Observations that do not agree with the model serve that purpose. If new, reliable observations do not agree with your current model, your model is wrong.

[Walsingham]

If I may rephrase my somehwat caustic colleague's objection:

 

2. A model is not a hypothesis in itself.

 

For example, Lanchester's square law is very good at predicting the outcome of armed conflict, but it excludes everything except biffing from the calculation. This is important because Lanchester would not have predicted the outcome of Vietnam, or the Soviet Afghan war, or the Falklands. A model may predict but often contains no disprovable component, which you will concede is what makes a strong theory.

Observations that do not agree with the model serve that purpose. If new, reliable observations do not agree with your current model, your model is wrong.

 

I realise we're being rather heated, but I am afraid I have to disagree further, rather than agree. Models in themselves merely describe a simulated behaviour, almost invariably hedged in with assumptions imperative due to restricted data and understanding. Yes, they are very valuable because as a 'working' model they often an be tested for internal coherence, but applying models as a form of reality prediction is fraught with danger. Models don't just become wrong as you suggest. They become restricted in application.

[213374U]

You don't seem particularly capable of offering something in defense of your views so much as simply restating them in a derogatory tone.

Nah, I restate my points in as derogatory a tone as I'm capable of when folks refuse to address the points and instead have a go at me. It's simple, really. It doesn't say much about you that you haven't been able to recognize this pattern yet.

 

 

Oh, by the way, people who disagree with you are not necessarily trolls.

Oh, by the way, people who disagree with you are not necessarily wrong, nor are their opinions meaningless. That may actually be the case, but it's up to you to write a convincing rebuttal.

 

 

A model may predict but often contains no disprovable component, which you will concede is what makes a strong theory.

 

 

3. If, as the quote suggests, equivalent rises are common without industrialisation, then this must be accounted for. Thus far I see no account. Calling me a fool doesn't do the job. But I have no doubt you will supply the necessary now I point this out.

 

Observations that do not agree with the model serve that purpose. If new, reliable observations do not agree with your current model, your model is wrong.

Obbie, meet Bohr's atomic model. Bohr, meet Obbie. Etc...

[Oblarg]

If I may rephrase my somehwat caustic colleague's objection:

 

2. A model is not a hypothesis in itself.

 

For example, Lanchester's square law is very good at predicting the outcome of armed conflict, but it excludes everything except biffing from the calculation. This is important because Lanchester would not have predicted the outcome of Vietnam, or the Soviet Afghan war, or the Falklands. A model may predict but often contains no disprovable component, which you will concede is what makes a strong theory.

Observations that do not agree with the model serve that purpose. If new, reliable observations do not agree with your current model, your model is wrong.

 

I realise we're being rather heated, but I am afraid I have to disagree further, rather than agree. Models in themselves merely describe a simulated behaviour, almost invariably hedged in with assumptions imperative due to restricted data and understanding. Yes, they are very valuable because as a 'working' model they often an be tested for internal coherence, but applying models as a form of reality prediction is fraught with danger. Models don't just become wrong as you suggest. They become restricted in application.

 

A model that cannot be used for any form of prediction is a worthless model.

[Oblarg]

You don't seem particularly capable of offering something in defense of your views so much as simply restating them in a derogatory tone.

Nah, I restate my points in as derogatory a tone as I'm capable of when folks refuse to address the points and instead have a go at me. It's simple, really. It doesn't say much about you that you haven't been able to recognize this pattern yet.

 

 

Oh, by the way, people who disagree with you are not necessarily trolls.

Oh, by the way, people who disagree with you are not necessarily wrong, nor are their opinions meaningless. That may actually be the case, but it's up to you to write a convincing rebuttal.

 

 

A model may predict but often contains no disprovable component, which you will concede is what makes a strong theory.

 

 

3. If, as the quote suggests, equivalent rises are common without industrialisation, then this must be accounted for. Thus far I see no account. Calling me a fool doesn't do the job. But I have no doubt you will supply the necessary now I point this out.

 

Observations that do not agree with the model serve that purpose. If new, reliable observations do not agree with your current model, your model is wrong.

Obbie, meet Bohr's atomic model. Bohr, meet Obbie. Etc...

 

Bohr's atomic model is incorrect for anything other than the ground state of hydrogen, bud.

 

I never said *your* opinion was invalid (though, seeing how the post was worded it's pretty telling if you thought I did). So far the ball is in your court. I called you out on your completely absurd "just a theory" argument, and you never properly responded.

[213374U]

Bohr's atomic model is incorrect for anything other than the ground state of hydrogen, bud.

No ****, Sherlock! What was the model originally posited for, genius? Did it serve its purpose?

 

At any rate, re-read what Walsingham said, think how Bohr's model illustrates his point, and rethink your ridiculous statement that "a model that cannot be used for any form of prediction is worthless". I'll be waiting.

 

 

I called you out on your completely absurd "just a theory" argument, and you never properly responded.

I already explained how AGW isn't even up to "theory" standards, as far as the scientific meaning of the word goes. A hypothesis with a basis on highly contested data and woefully incomplete and fine-tuned mathematical models? Sure. A "theory"? Perhaps, but only in the "I have a theory: you are a moron" sense.

 

So tell us, what is AGW, according to you? A scientific Law? An epistemological imperative? A palindrome?

 

PROTIP: It's also useful to explain HOW the argument you are trying to refute is wrong. The catch is that bluffing is much more difficult.

Edited March 25, 2010 by 213374U

[Zoraptor]

Had that "discussion" with numbersman last year. It's pointless.

 

Since Wals actually took some of the stuff I was saying on board though...

If I may rephrase my somehwat caustic colleague's objection:

 

1. Correlation does NOT mean causation.

Correct, but horribly overstated both in the frequency of usage and in what it actually means which is that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. It disproves nothing and is evidence for very little as often correlation is due to causation. In other words- and I cannot think of a single counterexample short of unprovable thought experiments- the vast majority of science is based precisely on the observation that while correlation does not intrinsically = causation correlation "observation" is the only way to find causation. Throwing it out as a bon mot counterargument is a very common tactic, but it's qualitatively feeble.

 

Clearly in a lab we try to control variables and often can say without reasonable doubt that causation is implied. But this is not in a lab, squeaky. I come from the land of human factors where this point is well understood and long lamented.

Which, once again, is fine as a general point, but irrelevant to the actual issue as the question at hand does not depend upon 'social' issues, but on -theoretically at least- scientifically isolatable ones. Practically it is... difficult... to model but that is more due to it being the interface of a whole bunch of individually complex systems and certainly not due to "human factors".

 

2. A model is not a hypothesis in itself.

It pretty much is, at least in the scientific sense. Any and all model are also a hypothesis even if the practical depth of the hypothesis is phenomenon X can be successfully simulated by applying mathematical relationship A to variables LMN and constants PQ, though it's slightly more fuzzy the more towards the social side you get as the variables tend to get less prone to modeling. But basically it's a poor point for the same reason that "correlation != causation" is a fundamentally vapid statement as in common usage- any worthwhile scientific model pretty much is a mathematical statement of a hypothesis.

 

Models in themselves merely describe a simulated behaviour, almost invariably hedged in with assumptions imperative due to restricted data and understanding. Yes, they are very valuable because as a 'working' model they often an be tested for internal coherence, but applying models as a form of reality prediction is fraught with danger. Models don't just become wrong as you suggest. They become restricted in application.

That's pretty much right, though models certainly may 'just become wrong' if the science underpinning them is simply wrong. Not strictly a mathematical model, but the "plum pudding" model of the atom certainly is wrong in every significant way, and from a mathematical perspective some of the church approved earth centric models of the solar system certainly just became wrong.

[Oblarg]

Bohr's atomic model is incorrect for anything other than the ground state of hydrogen, bud.

No ****, Sherlock! What was the model originally posited for, genius? Did it serve its purpose?

 

At any rate, re-read what Walsingham said, think how Bohr's model illustrates his point, and rethink your ridiculous statement that "a model that cannot be used for any form of prediction is worthless". I'll be waiting.

 

 

I called you out on your completely absurd "just a theory" argument, and you never properly responded.

I already explained how AGW isn't even up to "theory" standards, as far as the scientific meaning of the word goes. A hypothesis with a basis on highly contested data and woefully incomplete and fine-tuned mathematical models? Sure. A "theory"? Perhaps, but only in the "I have a theory: you are a moron" sense.

 

So tell us, what is AGW, according to you? A scientific Law? An epistemological imperative? A palindrome?

 

PROTIP: It's also useful to explain HOW the argument you are trying to refute is wrong. The catch is that bluffing is much more difficult.

 

What exactly are you trying to prove? The model was wrong. If your entire point is that models can be wrong, then this is a very stupid argument indeed. It doesn't change the fact that you have to assume a model is correct for it to have any value, and you revise it when its predictions no longer match observations. I don't see where we are disagreeing, nor do I see how it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Of course, you can always just disregard the data as "woefully incomplete," but somehow I trust the majority of the scientific community over some nobody on an internet message board.

[213374U]

Had that "discussion" with numbersman last year. It's pointless.

Nice, because other than this, there's nothing in your post I disagree with. So, other than dotting the i's and crossing the t's in Wals' post (and sending some happy feelings my way while you're at it), what do you have to say about the OP?

[213374U]

The model was wrong.

It wasn't. Not as far as providing an explanation for the emission spectrum of hydrogen goes, at any rate. In a general sense, yes, it's wrong -- though I've mostly heard it described as "incomplete" and "limited". It wasn't meant to explain ALL reality at the subatomic level, FOREVAR. Unlike your mind, science isn't a 0 or 1 thing.

 

 

Of course, you can always just disregard the data as "woefully incomplete," but somehow I trust the majority of the scientific community over some nobody on an internet message board.

Well, it must be nice to have faith in something at least. Good luck with that.

 

Btw, that's an informal fallacy. (argument from authority)

Edited March 25, 2010 by 213374U

[Zoraptor]

Had that "discussion" with numbersman last year. It's pointless.

Nice, because other than this, there's nothing in your post I disagree with. So, other than dotting the i's and crossing the t's in Wals' post (and sending some happy feelings my way while you're at it), what do you have to say about the OP?

Heh, that did sound a touch snippy.

 

Basically I didn't take the OP particularly seriously as there were a bunch of very large assumptions in it, namely no warming since 1998 (a canard argument and much the same sort of statistical manipulation that proponents are often accused of as 1998 was the hottest on record, and almost certainly a statistical outlier- removing it means there has been continued warming- may not be a problem with the original article but with the commentor) and that the earlier temperature changes could not have been human influenced despite a whole lot of potential CC causing stuff having already happened (eg extremely large scale deforestation of Europe, again showing the same sort of fixation many proponents are accused of, just this time on fossil fuels).

 

Caveat: I'm only commenting on the part Wals quoted, nothing more, I haven't read the original article. And I've never been a fan of either side arguing about fossil fuels as while there are very good reasons for exploring alternatives (primarily that we will have to at some stage) CC is not one of them.

[213374U]

Well, I can only recommend that you read the article if you have the time, then. It highlights some admissions made in an interview by one of the big time scientists that worked for the IPCC, to make the point that the observed warming is well within normal parameters. The guy was hit pretty hard by the whole "Climategate" thing, apparently. It also mentions a few other interesting details I particularly hadn't heard, but overall the tone is fairly hostile to the man. The fossil fuels issue is only mentioned in passing, I think.

 

Hey, who knows. Maybe we can actually get this thread back on track and leave the philosophy of science for another day...

Edited March 25, 2010 by 213374U

[Oblarg]

The model was wrong.

It wasn't. Not as far as providing an explanation for the emission spectrum of hydrogen goes, at any rate. In a general sense, yes, it's wrong -- though I've mostly heard it described as "incomplete" and "limited". It wasn't meant to explain ALL reality at the subatomic level, FOREVAR. Unlike your mind, science isn't a 0 or 1 thing.

 

 

Of course, you can always just disregard the data as "woefully incomplete," but somehow I trust the majority of the scientific community over some nobody on an internet message board.

Well, it must be nice to have faith in something at least. Good luck with that.

 

Btw, that's an informal fallacy. (argument from authority)

 

It's not a fallacy if the only people who are really qualified to judge are the authority to whom you are referring.

 

It's not blind faith, either. I've read my fair share of articles either way, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of anthropogenic global warming. The only issue I have is the rush to "do something about it" instead of an accurate assessment of the potential damage.

[Walsingham]

Can I hazard a wild four-part-harmony guess that you're a physical scientist, Obs?

[213374U]

It's not a fallacy if the only people who are really qualified to judge are the authority to whom you are referring.

Hold on. Who is qualified to judge? Physicists? Anyone with a science degree? Someone involved with the IPCC? Those whose opinion supports your own? Just who, exactly?

 

And weren't you saying just last page that "the ability to read and basic understanding of science" was enough? Which one is it?

 

 

I've read my fair share of articles either way, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of anthropogenic global warming.

Yeah, the problem is that, in science, it's also necessary to deal with the data that doesn't agree with one's hypothesis. And I was told that it's also important to try and maintain perspective of the limited application value of one's model, considering how other factors aren't well understood and therefore left out or parametrized: Bohr wouldn't have tried to use his model to predict the emission spectrum of carbon.

 

Also:

 

[Oblarg]

It's not a fallacy if the only people who are really qualified to judge are the authority to whom you are referring.

Hold on. Who is qualified to judge? Physicists? Anyone with a science degree? Someone involved with the IPCC? Those whose opinion supports your own? Just who, exactly?

 

And weren't you saying just last page that "the ability to read and basic understanding of science" was enough? Which one is it?

 

 

I've read my fair share of articles either way, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of anthropogenic global warming.

Yeah, the problem is that, in science, it's also necessary to deal with the data that doesn't agree with one's hypothesis. And I was told that it's also important to try and maintain perspective of the limited application value of one's model, considering how other factors aren't well understood and therefore left out or parametrized: Bohr wouldn't have tried to use his model to predict the emission spectrum of carbon.

 

Also:

 

 

Taking previous posts out of context doesn't help your point.

 

Anyone with the ability to read and basic understanding of science should be able to form an educated opinion based on the testimony of scientists who study the actual data. I never said any person could go look at the data and draw conclusions, because that's idiotic; there's too much of it, and the only people really capable of getting any viable conclusions from the available data are those who do it for a job. However, random people on message boards are not going to topple the views of the majority of the scientific community. Usually, when you don't draw the same conclusions from the data you've seen as scientists who have seen much more data than you do, it's not because the scientists are wrong, it's because you haven't seen enough data. I'm not naive enough to think I'm qualified to prove or disprove anthropogenic global warming based on the limited information available to me, thus the only reasonable stance is to trust the conclusions of those who do have access to the data. This does not mean I should not look at the information that I can, and certainly people who don't know anything about science will have less-informed opinions than those who do (see: nonsense such as "I always said it wasn't a big deal, for the simple fact that the atmosphere is so damn large that our emissions can't logically have that great an effect... "), but it does mean that the opinions of those who analyze this stuff as a career are very likely more reliable than mine. This goes for pretty much anyone.

 

I suppose I don't share your view that our current models are not sufficient, though I'd like to see some of the sources that have led you to that conclusion.

[213374U]

Fair enough. I personally don't have an opinion on the issue of whether it's possible that such a thing as man-made warming could be happening -- I'm not qualified to judge, not by a long shot. But the more I read, the less convinced I am that presently science is close to accurately explaining what's really going on, so preditions shouldn't be taken as gospel. The ostracization of scientists that don't subscribe to the mainstream opinion doesn't help, either.

 

However, having seen first-hand how petty, unprofessional and most importantly, unscientific some scientists can be (scientists are people, too), I'm not going to trust either side just because they say I should, especially when the results of their work aren't what is advertised. It can't be stressed enough that climate modelling is a work in progress, and therefore the debate is far from closed (this constant need for adjustment and revision of predictions is what denialists use as ammunition against AGW). I guess my stance on this could be summed up as "hold your horses", until the job is done and the data cherrypicking shenanigans and political bull**** is finished on both sides.

 

For reference, the "changelog" between TAR (2001) and AR4 (2007) models: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_docum...l_evolution.pdf

 

As you can see, we aren't quite there, yet.

[Gfted1]

Pfft, global warming is for chumps. You REALLY want something to worry about? Something that will affect the lives of millions long before .3 inches of water? Behold the dying off of two of the world largest contributers to the food chain, the bees and the coral reef systems of the world.