Edit Preferences
Logout
Pharos's Comments (358)
View Comments:
Sort:
1 - 25 of 358
Climategate In Perspective, Featuring Isaac Newton
Commented Nov 25, 2009 at 03:17:39 in Green
“Just who funded Newton?”
Climategate In Perspective, Featuring Isaac Newton
Commented Nov 25, 2009 at 02:23:37 in Green
“Do you have any idea what the papers in question are about. Let me try a non-science analogy. An article is published in say, Sports Illustrated, arguing that Babe Ruth's records should be stricken from the record books because he was in fact an Alien from Mars. Would you think that sports writers that objected and tried to organize a boycott or have the editor removed were trying to suppress the truth?
The papers in question were, to a climate scientist, just about as loony as what I proposed about Babe Ruth. You see an objection to a flawed peer review as an attempt to suppress the truth because you simply don't understand the science well enough to recognize true junk science.”
The papers in question were, to a climate scientist, just about as loony as what I proposed about Babe Ruth. You see an objection to a flawed peer review as an attempt to suppress the truth because you simply don't understand the science well enough to recognize true junk science.”
ReedYoung replied on Nov 30, 2009 at 04:16:59
“Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review”
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review”
NL207 replied on Nov 29, 2009 at 01:18:17
“Have you read these papers? Or are you just blowing smoke up somebody's arse?
My money is on the latter.”
My money is on the latter.”
Climategate In Perspective, Featuring Isaac Newton
Commented Nov 25, 2009 at 02:08:24 in Green
“You don't understand what they are talking about. Just how do you think scientist work? Do you think some data is gathered and then some theory (model if you prefer) is created and then they present the two and everyone goes oh yes, great, next problem. Measurements need to be analyzed, they need to be understood. Structures in the data may be real or may be artifacts. It's rare for a measurement to depend on only one variable (temperature for instance) and so it's not only legitimate to manipulate the data , it's a virtual requirement in order to make sense of it. If more than one factor contributes to a measurement it's reasonable to see what happens to the data if one factor is changed. That's not manipulation to fit data to a preconceived idea, it's simply trying to understand the data. Raw data without analysis is virtually worthless. Just how would you propose that these scientists approach understanding model results and data?”
Aiden replied on Nov 25, 2009 at 11:12:11
“Just to be clear, you're stating that the science is unsettled and that the debate is not "ova" as The Goracle would say?”
Why I'm Joining The Hopenhagen Movement
Commented Oct 31, 2009 at 04:03:56 in Green
“No one is suggesting that. There is a need to control the impact of human activity on climate.”
fumes replied on Nov 01, 2009 at 08:47:03
“then stop exponential human breeding..
and choose who breeds and who doesn't.”
and choose who breeds and who doesn't.”
Why I'm Joining The Hopenhagen Movement
Commented Oct 31, 2009 at 03:59:57 in Green
“We all agree water vapor accounts for most of the warming of the planet. What's your point?”
fumes replied on Oct 31, 2009 at 11:46:49
“it's not dependent on CO2.”
Why I'm Joining The Hopenhagen Movement
Commented Oct 31, 2009 at 03:54:12 in Green
“Climate is defined as an average over 30 years. Variations from year to year say nothing about climate change or average global temperature changes. When the global temperature data is averaged and plotted, it is clear the average temperature is increasing.
As many of us keep pointing out:
Local is not the same as global; climate is not the same as weather.
Weather is like tossing a coin. We can't predict the outcome of a few tosses very well. Climate is like tossing a coin a million times. We can predict that outcome quite precisely.”
As many of us keep pointing out:
Local is not the same as global; climate is not the same as weather.
Weather is like tossing a coin. We can't predict the outcome of a few tosses very well. Climate is like tossing a coin a million times. We can predict that outcome quite precisely.”
Norpag replied on Oct 31, 2009 at 13:49:21
“Pharos - As earth cools , statements such as yours are the last refuge of the AGW faithful. Cooling is always referred to as weather but anything else is evidence of CO2 warming. Your definition of climate as a 30 year average is a fiction. . Google - Hadley Cru - look at the black line on their temperature graphs in the top right hand corner. This 5 year moving average curve clearly turns over about 2002 - 3 .
Your notion that climate models are like a coin toss and that climate can be precisely predicted is simply ludicrous. Climate is the result of the complex interaction of many variables.
Until we understand these natural cycles better we can't begin to calculate the effect of anthropegenic CO2 with any accuracy .We can say that it is small and decreases with increasing CO2 because the CO2 sensitivity equation is logarithmic.
The notion that we can control climate by controlling anthropgenic CO2 is the equivalent of primitive societies throwing virgins into lakes to”
Your notion that climate models are like a coin toss and that climate can be precisely predicted is simply ludicrous. Climate is the result of the complex interaction of many variables.
Until we understand these natural cycles better we can't begin to calculate the effect of anthropegenic CO2 with any accuracy .We can say that it is small and decreases with increasing CO2 because the CO2 sensitivity equation is logarithmic.
The notion that we can control climate by controlling anthropgenic CO2 is the equivalent of primitive societies throwing virgins into lakes to”
Senate Climate Bill: Two Futures, One Choice
Commented Oct 06, 2009 at 13:15:22 in Green
“Of course you will find the concentrations of gases in the atmosphere on such sites. What are you talking about?
From one such site:
dry air Gas Mixing ratio (mol/mol)
Nitrogen (N2) 0.78
Oxygen (O2) 0.21
Argon (Ar) 0.0093
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 365x10-6
Neon (Ne) 18x10-6
Ozone (O3) 0.01-10x10
Helium (He) 5.2x10-6
Methane (CH4) 1.7x10-6
Krypton (Kr) 1.1x10-6
Hydrogen (H2) 500x10-9
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 320x10-9”
From one such site:
dry air Gas Mixing ratio (mol/mol)
Nitrogen (N2) 0.78
Oxygen (O2) 0.21
Argon (Ar) 0.0093
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 365x10-6
Neon (Ne) 18x10-6
Ozone (O3) 0.01-10x10
Helium (He) 5.2x10-6
Methane (CH4) 1.7x10-6
Krypton (Kr) 1.1x10-6
Hydrogen (H2) 500x10-9
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 320x10-9”
Senate Climate Bill: Two Futures, One Choice
Commented Oct 06, 2009 at 13:08:27 in Green
“I did not suggest we stop asking questions. I hear all the time "anything can cause cancer" which is simply not true. That comes from the artificial sweetener debacle. When an artificial sweetener was found to have a potential to cause bladder cancer, the FDA tried to "soften" the news so as to not panic people.
The idea that anything is possible in science is simply not true. When progress was made in physics by discovering the theory of relativity, that new theory had to correctly explain why F=ma was true at everyday (low) speeds.
Suggesting that CO2 could cause cancer is not helpful. It could unnecessarily scare people. CO2 has been proposed as a treatment for colon-rectal cancer (heated CO2 during surgery) . If the idea gets out that CO2 causes cancer, people with cancer, who are probably under sever stress and not at their peak when it comes to decision making could decline a life saving procedure.”
The idea that anything is possible in science is simply not true. When progress was made in physics by discovering the theory of relativity, that new theory had to correctly explain why F=ma was true at everyday (low) speeds.
Suggesting that CO2 could cause cancer is not helpful. It could unnecessarily scare people. CO2 has been proposed as a treatment for colon-rectal cancer (heated CO2 during surgery) . If the idea gets out that CO2 causes cancer, people with cancer, who are probably under sever stress and not at their peak when it comes to decision making could decline a life saving procedure.”
Senate Climate Bill: Two Futures, One Choice
Commented Oct 06, 2009 at 04:10:15 in Green
“While you may be on the right side of the AGW discussion, you are muddying the waters with this tangent into cancer and its causes. We will never know every cause of genetic mutations, nor even every cause of cancer. We need to make informed decisions based on the best available science today.
Science gives us at best an incomplete description of nature. As a society we need to understand that and learn to live with making the best decisions based on incomplete knowledge. Incomplete does not imply not useful. Progress in science has been rather remarkable, but we have along way to go.”
Science gives us at best an incomplete description of nature. As a society we need to understand that and learn to live with making the best decisions based on incomplete knowledge. Incomplete does not imply not useful. Progress in science has been rather remarkable, but we have along way to go.”
PlaceboStudman replied on Oct 06, 2009 at 09:19:27
“"We need to make informed decisions based on the best available science today."
This is true. This was also true before the 1970's when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, and 100 years ago when schitzophrenia was considered a form of demonic possession. And it will continue to be true in 50 or 100 years when stem cell research leads to cures for spinal cord injuries and other neurologically based disabilities and diseases.
But, did homosexuality's classification as a mental disorder end the story and stop the research that changed the diagnosis? Did schitzophrenia's label as demonic possession stop the research into the real causes of schitzophrenia?
No,
My point being that, if we don't ask the questions and hypothesize, we will have no reason to find the real answers, and all I did was present one hypothesis that ANY foreign substance *could* potentially lead to the genetic basis of cancer and other disabilities”
This is true. This was also true before the 1970's when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, and 100 years ago when schitzophrenia was considered a form of demonic possession. And it will continue to be true in 50 or 100 years when stem cell research leads to cures for spinal cord injuries and other neurologically based disabilities and diseases.
But, did homosexuality's classification as a mental disorder end the story and stop the research that changed the diagnosis? Did schitzophrenia's label as demonic possession stop the research into the real causes of schitzophrenia?
No,
My point being that, if we don't ask the questions and hypothesize, we will have no reason to find the real answers, and all I did was present one hypothesis that ANY foreign substance *could* potentially lead to the genetic basis of cancer and other disabilities”
iQuit
Commented Oct 06, 2009 at 02:17:53 in Green
“Tell him to try it in front of you so you can revive him.”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Oct 01, 2009 at 14:32:46 in Green
“I am having trouble replying to questions. Seems to time out when I have tried to reply. I am not deliberately ignoring anyone's questions.”
fumes replied on Oct 02, 2009 at 10:56:37
“sorry about that pharos..
i'm a moderator here and until you get a barometer and learn how to use it..”
i'm a moderator here and until you get a barometer and learn how to use it..”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Oct 01, 2009 at 12:25:07 in Green
“You are not accurately describing what climate scientists do. Climate models are just not a best fit to data. They are a solution to physics equations. Your description of fitting data is not what is used in climate modeling.
I don't know what you mean by alarmists but climate scientists do not take global warming as a premise in their models. Global warming is a result of the solution of the physics-based models.
All of science is an approximation. Science never accounts for all contributions. As I said, we can't solve the classical three body problem, how do you expect to take into account all contributions?
The mistake is in thinking that because something is left out or modeled only approximately that the result is invalid. There are known limits on the unknowns. For example, clouds can not reflect more light than comes from the sun. We also know how much light reaches the surface of the earth and we can measure how much light comes from the sun. That means we can make useful quantitative estimates of the effect of leaving out the clouds. One of the techniques used by deniers is to imply that any approximation is the same as 100% uncertainty which is simply wrong.
If your criteria for accepting a scientific result is taking into account "all contributions" then you are simply asserting you don't believe in science.”
I don't know what you mean by alarmists but climate scientists do not take global warming as a premise in their models. Global warming is a result of the solution of the physics-based models.
All of science is an approximation. Science never accounts for all contributions. As I said, we can't solve the classical three body problem, how do you expect to take into account all contributions?
The mistake is in thinking that because something is left out or modeled only approximately that the result is invalid. There are known limits on the unknowns. For example, clouds can not reflect more light than comes from the sun. We also know how much light reaches the surface of the earth and we can measure how much light comes from the sun. That means we can make useful quantitative estimates of the effect of leaving out the clouds. One of the techniques used by deniers is to imply that any approximation is the same as 100% uncertainty which is simply wrong.
If your criteria for accepting a scientific result is taking into account "all contributions" then you are simply asserting you don't believe in science.”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Oct 01, 2009 at 02:21:13 in Green
“Again you seem to have a poor understanding of data analysis and to not understand what is meant by climate (average over 30 years).
Climate models make predictions about climate (30 year average). How can you use a year to year variation to say anything about climate?
Average the data over a 10 year period (which is kind of stretching the definition of climate) and see what you get.
Here is a sample analogy..
Theory: A coin that is tossed is equally likely to land heads or tails.
Experiment: The first three tosses are heads.
You claim my theory is proven wrong. No, one needs to have enough data to make the measurement statistically significant.
Weather prediction is like predicting a single coin toss (hard).
Climate prediction is like predicting the average of 30 years of tossing a coin - much easier.
Your using one year's result to argue that predictions of 30 year averages is wrong is just plain nonsense.”
Climate models make predictions about climate (30 year average). How can you use a year to year variation to say anything about climate?
Average the data over a 10 year period (which is kind of stretching the definition of climate) and see what you get.
Here is a sample analogy..
Theory: A coin that is tossed is equally likely to land heads or tails.
Experiment: The first three tosses are heads.
You claim my theory is proven wrong. No, one needs to have enough data to make the measurement statistically significant.
Weather prediction is like predicting a single coin toss (hard).
Climate prediction is like predicting the average of 30 years of tossing a coin - much easier.
Your using one year's result to argue that predictions of 30 year averages is wrong is just plain nonsense.”
Chic Bowdrie replied on Oct 01, 2009 at 13:56:01
“Calinative, I confess I skimmed your arguments posted here on the 800 lag time and thought of taking a longer look later. I think it belongs in another discussion on interpretation of long time data. Global warming alarmists count on people believing that if we don't stop CO2 now, Manhattan will be underwater by 2100. The CO2 in question has only been around for 50 or so years. We can't wait 800 years to see what happens”
Calinative replied on Oct 01, 2009 at 04:21:20
“"Average the data over a 10 year period"
To be fair, we should stretch it over 800 years.”
To be fair, we should stretch it over 800 years.”
Chic Bowdrie replied on Oct 01, 2009 at 04:02:25
“NO, I have a pretty good understanding of data analysis. And I know that you can't prove a theory with one experiment. Are you a scientist? I'm having some doubt. If you do your experiment over again I'm sure you'll come up with a 2:1 result. If you keep doing it over and over, let a few other people try it (ie thorough testing) and it keeps coming up heads, I want you to come with me to Las Vegas.
As far as your 30 year average, that technique would have completely obliterated the effects of all solar (non-magnetic) and volcanic activity factors. Do you have any actual climate modeling experience? It doesn't take 30 years to smooth out the variability of the last ten years of no warming. The best time interval for surface temps is one year, because that takes into effect seasonal variability. Polar ice cap melting maybe longer. Changes in temps at the bottom of the ocean? Yeah about 30 years, so what's the point? What we are discussing here is whether or not CO2 affects our year to year global surface temperatures.”
As far as your 30 year average, that technique would have completely obliterated the effects of all solar (non-magnetic) and volcanic activity factors. Do you have any actual climate modeling experience? It doesn't take 30 years to smooth out the variability of the last ten years of no warming. The best time interval for surface temps is one year, because that takes into effect seasonal variability. Polar ice cap melting maybe longer. Changes in temps at the bottom of the ocean? Yeah about 30 years, so what's the point? What we are discussing here is whether or not CO2 affects our year to year global surface temperatures.”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Oct 01, 2009 at 01:16:41 in Green
“But it is not true.”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Oct 01, 2009 at 00:47:38 in Green
“OOPS - sorry I mangled the language above, but I think my point is still understandable.”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Oct 01, 2009 at 00:45:27 in Green
“Correction accepted - sadly.”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Oct 01, 2009 at 00:41:15 in Green
“There is no oversimplification.
Models are not used for supporting a theory, models are the theory.
I certainly don't want to use the word prove (except in a mathematical sense).
The work by the Pilkeys does not apply to the physics models that climate scientists use (the word model is the source of much confusion but that doesn't change the science).
There is no tweaking of parameters as you mean it.
Physicists can't even solve the three body problem. What makes you think we will ever account for all contributions?
There is no premise that CO2 is the cause of global warming. There is not even a premise that global warming exists. Global warming is a result of the physics-based models.”
Models are not used for supporting a theory, models are the theory.
I certainly don't want to use the word prove (except in a mathematical sense).
The work by the Pilkeys does not apply to the physics models that climate scientists use (the word model is the source of much confusion but that doesn't change the science).
There is no tweaking of parameters as you mean it.
Physicists can't even solve the three body problem. What makes you think we will ever account for all contributions?
There is no premise that CO2 is the cause of global warming. There is not even a premise that global warming exists. Global warming is a result of the physics-based models.”
Chic Bowdrie replied on Oct 01, 2009 at 02:11:40
“What do you mean "there is no tweaking of parameters?" The relative contributions of GHGs, solar and volcanic activity, clouds, and so on, are each represented by variables in the equations that comprise the models. Have you worked on these models? I haven't done climate change modeling, but I have worked with models to fit data. You can do a regression and have the model spit out the best-fit parameters or you can manually tweak the parameters to see how it affects the fit or model predictions.
A parameter is a variable in a mathematical expression, a variable value that, when it changes, gives another different but related mathematical expression . . .
Not accounting for all the contributions to climate change is exactly the problem. A major problem with climate models is clouds. The models use huge average blocks to estimate the cloud cooling contribution. To better account for clouds the blocks have to be smaller. Apparently that requires too much computer time.
A premise is a synonym for hypothesis. It's the basic idea you base your argument on. Most skeptics don't deny there has been global warming. The premise of alarmists is that man-made CO2 is largely responsible for recent increases in temps (the premise) and that if we don't ban fossil fuels (the main source of man-made CO2), Greenland and the Antarctic will melt and Manhatten will be under water by 2050. That's the argument that has me pulling out what's left of my hair.”
A parameter is a variable in a mathematical expression, a variable value that, when it changes, gives another different but related mathematical expression . . .
Not accounting for all the contributions to climate change is exactly the problem. A major problem with climate models is clouds. The models use huge average blocks to estimate the cloud cooling contribution. To better account for clouds the blocks have to be smaller. Apparently that requires too much computer time.
A premise is a synonym for hypothesis. It's the basic idea you base your argument on. Most skeptics don't deny there has been global warming. The premise of alarmists is that man-made CO2 is largely responsible for recent increases in temps (the premise) and that if we don't ban fossil fuels (the main source of man-made CO2), Greenland and the Antarctic will melt and Manhatten will be under water by 2050. That's the argument that has me pulling out what's left of my hair.”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Sep 30, 2009 at 23:57:43 in Green
“If you read the comments here you notice there are many deniers who claim global warming has stopped and the earth has been cooling for the past decade. So just to be clear ,you have no issue with the global warming measurements that show significant global warming?
Assuming that is the case, then all I can say is that there are climate models, based on physics, that climate scientist use to make predictions. These models do a good job of predicting older data. Recent predictions do not agree as well with the data unless the CO2 created by humans is taken into account.
Scientists make measurements and come up with mathematical models (theories if you prefer) to explain the measurements. If the theory and data agree, we can then say we have some understanding of what we are studying.
Anyone is free to come up with another explanation (theory) but that theory must be able to make predictions that can be measured (tested). As far as I know, no AGW denier has come up with such a valid (meaning testable) theory.”
Assuming that is the case, then all I can say is that there are climate models, based on physics, that climate scientist use to make predictions. These models do a good job of predicting older data. Recent predictions do not agree as well with the data unless the CO2 created by humans is taken into account.
Scientists make measurements and come up with mathematical models (theories if you prefer) to explain the measurements. If the theory and data agree, we can then say we have some understanding of what we are studying.
Anyone is free to come up with another explanation (theory) but that theory must be able to make predictions that can be measured (tested). As far as I know, no AGW denier has come up with such a valid (meaning testable) theory.”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Sep 30, 2009 at 23:12:05 in Green
“It's hard to know where to start. Simply stating something is true does not make it true. Everything in this article has already been thoroughly discussed and the criticism shown to be wrong. It's hard to tell what, if anything is new. Additionally, even if all of the "hockey stick publications" were either wrong or fraudulent, it wouldn't change the facts. We have physics-based models and we have measurements neither of which have anything to do with the "Hockey Stick". The two agree.”
realpolitic replied on Sep 30, 2009 at 23:39:12
“Well, among deniers stating something makes it true and on Fox News. These are the only two venues where it does!”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Sep 30, 2009 at 22:39:15 in Green
“Where did I use the word prove? Why would you even bring up the concept? Do you really have such a poor understanding of science?”
Calinative replied on Sep 30, 2009 at 22:56:22
“The argument is not whether there is warming or not. The argument is whether or not it is man-made. The only factor caused by humans is the release of CO2. If you are claiming that humans are affecting the temperature of planet earth, then you are claiming CO2 is a cause of that warming. I have asked numerous times for you to provide some proof of this. It is the "False Premise" Herkimer is talking about.
It is a dubious claim, since CO2 has never caused warming in the past. CO2 follows warming by 800 years. If you believe it causes warming, please provide some proof.”
It is a dubious claim, since CO2 has never caused warming in the past. CO2 follows warming by 800 years. If you believe it causes warming, please provide some proof.”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Sep 30, 2009 at 22:11:31 in Green
“Global warming has not been on hold. The science does not agree with you on that simple fact. You are plain wrong. You can look up the data and plot it yourself.”
Chic Bowdrie replied on Oct 01, 2009 at 01:23:28
“"In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback." From http://wat
I have looked up the data and it's been plotted already. Does this not show 30 years where the last 10 or so doesn't go higher the peak in 1997? http://www
I have looked up the data and it's been plotted already. Does this not show 30 years where the last 10 or so doesn't go higher the peak in 1997? http://www
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Sep 30, 2009 at 22:07:44 in Green
“Why didn't you continue reading for the rest of the story?”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Sep 30, 2009 at 22:05:29 in Green
“As tempting as that might be, I can't agree with the approach. If we don't understand the cause of the problem, we can't effectively evaluate if the solutions will help or will have unintended consequences that will make the problem worse.
There is not only an anti-science trend in this country, but an anti intellectual-trend that puts our survival at risk. As a society need to effectively counter these extremely dangerous ideas.”
There is not only an anti-science trend in this country, but an anti intellectual-trend that puts our survival at risk. As a society need to effectively counter these extremely dangerous ideas.”
Pharos replied on Oct 01, 2009 at 00:47:38
“OOPS - sorry I mangled the language above, but I think my point is still understandable.”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Sep 30, 2009 at 21:50:46 in Green
“What false premise? There was a time when conditions on earth would not support most modern animals. While you are technically correct that the current climate is not as extreme as some in the past, one should not forget that if we return to some of those past climates, we will all die.
Climate scientists have physics-based models (not correlations as some have claimed here) that do a good job of predicting past climate. The current climate predictions are not accurate unless the CO2 released by human activity is taken into account.
While that is a bit of an oversimplification, it is still a reasonable summary of the current state of the science. Deniers need to address that key idea and they never do.”
Climate scientists have physics-based models (not correlations as some have claimed here) that do a good job of predicting past climate. The current climate predictions are not accurate unless the CO2 released by human activity is taken into account.
While that is a bit of an oversimplification, it is still a reasonable summary of the current state of the science. Deniers need to address that key idea and they never do.”
Chic Bowdrie replied on Sep 30, 2009 at 23:11:59
“Oversimplication is precisely what is troubling us. Models are useful for supporting a given theory, but a good fit to the data is not sufficient for "proving" (or whatever word you want to use) the theory. Did past IPCC reports predict a leveling off in temps the past 8-10 years? The new data will be added to the old, the model parameters will be tweaked, and new (hopefully less catastrophic) predictions will be published by the IPCC. There are many references that explain the weakness of model argument. My favorite is "Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future (Pilkey, 2007)." Until climate scientists can account for all the unknown contributions (clouds, etc.), they should stop with the scare tactics and concentrate on suggestions for adapting to global warming or cooling whichever the future holds.
Note that a correlation is just one way of stating the goodness of fit of data to an equation. Let's not get caught up in statistical semantics unless that is the issue. I am glad you ask what the false premise is. I think it is that CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of the ASSUMED unending global warming. Whether or not the latter is true, the former is most likely false, IPCC models notwithstanding.”
Note that a correlation is just one way of stating the goodness of fit of data to an equation. Let's not get caught up in statistical semantics unless that is the issue. I am glad you ask what the false premise is. I think it is that CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of the ASSUMED unending global warming. Whether or not the latter is true, the former is most likely false, IPCC models notwithstanding.”
Calinative replied on Sep 30, 2009 at 22:11:16
“If you really think scientists have proven that CO2 causes warming, surely you can provide a link to that proof somewhere.
The fact is it has not been proven.”
The fact is it has not been proven.”
What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
Commented Sep 30, 2009 at 20:28:33 in Green
“Where do you come up with the idea that climate scientists are only correlating CO2 and temperature? They are using physics-based models to explain measurements.
An atmospheric physicist is not the same as a climate scientist.
The author completely fails to address the most basic results of climates science as related to AGW. It's hard to know where to begin explaining what is wrong with the article from a science perspective.”
An atmospheric physicist is not the same as a climate scientist.
The author completely fails to address the most basic results of climates science as related to AGW. It's hard to know where to begin explaining what is wrong with the article from a science perspective.”
Chic Bowdrie replied on Oct 01, 2009 at 03:16:16
“I apologize for the shorthand. I should have at least said correlating temps with climate change factors including CO2. The question is to what degree CO2 is responsible for the fit and/or model prediction. In statistical language this would be what percent of the variability is explained by the CO2 factor? The physics-based models, as I understand them (please enlighten me if I'm mistaken), take the data from all known factors that could be contributing to global temperatures. One of those contributions is CO2. The algorithm representing it will be weighted to a certain degree. Likewise the various other algorithms are manipulated so that a best fit to the data is obtained. Here is the issue. There is no absolute rule that constrains how to assign the relative weight of each factor. There is a large possibility that a good fit may be due to coincidence. Is there a statistician in the house?
Now excuse me if I missed it elsewhere, but please give at least one example of a "basic result of climate science as related to AGW" and what is wrong with his editorial from any perspective.”
Now excuse me if I missed it elsewhere, but please give at least one example of a "basic result of climate science as related to AGW" and what is wrong with his editorial from any perspective.”
1 - 25 of 358
