Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[westwall]

A model to be predictive MUST be able to recreate what is KNOWN to have occured. NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT. Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.

1. Please provide the evidence for that claim.

2. My original user name is SAT. Your ideas about me are as crazy as your ideas about AGW.

Define the Scientific Method and how hypotheses are tested. Then apply to computer models (which are defacto hyptheses) then get back to us when you have a handle on the scientific method.

 

[westwall]

A model to be predictive MUST be able to recreate what is KNOWN to have occured. NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT. Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.

1. Please provide the evidence for that claim.

2. My original user name is SAT. Your ideas about me are as crazy as your ideas about AGW.

I'm not a skeptic, but the claim "NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT." is not verifiable as it is a negative - it is up to YOU to show that at least one climate model is capable of that to disprove the claim.

We have. To date no computer model has EVER been able to recreate the weather that occured 5 days ago. Perfect knowledge of the climatic conditions, perfect knowledge of every aspect of the physical world and they can't even come close to doing it.

I've posted plenty of links to studies showing that exact thing spidey toober...go find them.

 

[westwall]

I'm not a skeptic, but the claim "NO CLIMATE MODEL IS CAPABLE OF THAT." is not verifiable as it is a negative - it is up to YOU to show that at least one climate model is capable of that to disprove the claim.

This is the part I'm asking him to back up:

Furthermore, every climate model to date has predicted warming NO MATTER WHAT NUMBERS ARE INPUT.

He appears to be referring to a specific attack on climate change models. It sounds as if someone has put in random numbers and still shown a prediction of warming, in order to show that the models are flawed. I'd like him to back that up, or explain what he's getting at.

Every computer model tested so far does that. Here's an admission from a devout warmist....


Monday, July 06, 2009
So the science ISN'T settled?: Alarmist Gavin Schmidt admits big problems with climate models
Edge: THE PHYSICS THAT WE KNOW: A Conversation With Gavin Schmidt [with video]

Some models suggest very strongly that the American Southwest will dry in a warming world; some models suggest that the Sahel will dry in a warming world. But other models suggest the exact opposite. Now, let's just imagine that the models have an equal pedigree in terms of the scientists who have worked on them and in terms of the papers that have been published — it's not quite true but it's a good working assumption. With these two models, you have two estimates — one says it's going to get wetter and one says it's going to get drier. What do you do? Is there anything that you can say at all? That is a really difficult question.
...
The problem with climate prediction and projections going out to 2030 and 2050 is that we don't anticipate that they can be tested in the way you can test a weather forecast. It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can't predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically. That is something that we can't really get a handle on.
...
Freeman Dyson has made a critique of models. I don't know Freeman Dyson; I've met his children. He seems like a very smart person. He has done some very interesting physics. He seems like a guy I would like to know. Yet his statements about climate, climate models, climate modelers, Jim Hansen in particular, are not the statements you would expect a smart person to make. It's like Shakespeare writing a play and then pulling a quote from a penny dreadful sheet that he found in the street. It just seems very inconsistent that somebody who thinks so hard and is so smart about so many things says dumb things like, oh, climate modelers think that their models are real and can't see the real world. I paraphrase but he said something very similar. It betrays a complete ignorance of either climate modelers, climate models or what it is that climate science is all about. His statements about Jim Hansen were very similar.


Tom Nelson: So the science ISN'T settled?: Alarmist Gavin Schmidt admits big problems with climate models

 

[SAT]

Define the Scientific Method and how hypotheses are tested. Then apply to computer models (which are defacto hyptheses) then get back to us when you have a handle on the scientific method.

http://www.grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven

 

[westwall]

Define the Scientific Method and how hypotheses are tested. Then apply to computer models (which are defacto hyptheses) then get back to us when you have a handle on the scientific method.

‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Are you incapable of thinking and writing for yourself? I can understand mathematics, hell I admit to bing a complete calculator cripple now, but really? You can't even do simple stuff like I asked you to do?

 

[SAT]

The complaints about the models have to do with long range predictions. The years 2030 and 2050 are mentioned. Yes, it's true, we don't have a crystal ball. What we have are decades of data, and predictions made in the past that keep being validated by what is happening right now.

You're picking at threads because you have an agenda.

 

[SAT]

Define the Scientific Method and how hypotheses are tested. Then apply to computer models (which are defacto hyptheses) then get back to us when you have a handle on the scientific method.

‘Climate models are unproven’—Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

Are you incapable of thinking and writing for yourself? I can understand mathematics, hell I admit to bing a complete calculator cripple now, but really? You can't even do simple stuff like I asked you to do?

If I were working for a grade, sure. But I'm not. You and Si have song and dance show that's a great distraction, but the fact is, it's nothing but a show.

Dispute the science, stop attacking the people who are bringing you the science.

Oh wait...you can't. All you can do is tell other people that they don't get it...as if you were the experts.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, they are science. I have backed it up. Read it. Discuss it.

Your claim is that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

You posted a blog demonstrating the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man.

You've done nothing to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

Sure I have.

I'll get the links for you again.

Review earlier posts about what makes a hypothesis or theory scientific.

The idea that you, with your poor understanding of science, can dismiss the work of climatologists is really incredible. You bleat some phrase until you realize you don't understand it well enough to be talking about it, and then you bleat another phrase.

And BTW-

The predictive models have been validated repeatedly. At a certain point, a rational person has to deal with that.

You've presented zero science supporting your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of any warming.

Either you are lying that you have or you are delusional and/or don't even understand what science is.

Secondly, of course the models are validated - they are non-falsifiable, thus non-scientific.

 

[Si modo]

Yes, they are science. I have backed it up. Read it. Discuss it.

Your claim is that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.

You posted a blog demonstrating the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man.

You've done nothing to support your claim that man made CO2 is the cause of warming.










Idiot.

Hey what is your Ph.D in? Poster above says "a natural science" - just wondering which one.

Chemistry.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

We have. To date no computer model has EVER been able to recreate the weather that occured 5 days ago.

We're talking about climate models, not weather models. And you can't prove a negative. Please stop being stupid. Please.

Perfect knowledge of the climatic conditions, perfect knowledge of every aspect of the physical world and they can't even come close to doing it.

You don't need perfect knowledge to do science. In fact no scientists has ever had perfect knowledge of anything. Only God has perfect knowledge.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Alarmist Gavin Schmidt admits big problems with climate models

No he doesn't. If you bother to read the interview instead of just taking the word of a blogger, you'll see he makes no such "admission". But I know you can't read more than a couple sentences at a time, so don't bother.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

The human fingerprint in global warming



Charts are at the link.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

This cites the work of scientists in peer reviewed journals:



The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

This is the view of the scientific community. You are not arguing with me. You are disputing the work of PhD climatologists.

[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

Most? Likely?

Yes. Most all scientific predictions come down to one of likelihood. Are you uncomfortable with statistics and probability?

 

[westwall]

The complaints about the models have to do with long range predictions. The years 2030 and 2050 are mentioned. Yes, it's true, we don't have a crystal ball. What we have are decades of data, and predictions made in the past that keep being validated by what is happening right now.

You're picking at threads because you have an agenda.

No, I don't have an agenda, that is in the warmists ballpark and to deny that they have an agenda is simply ludicrous and a denial of fact. The complaints about the models is manifold, first off they ignore most drivers of climate, like water vapor and clouds. They simply make no attempt to model either factor.

Secondly, because they ASSUME (something done in science at your peril) that CO2 is THE driver of climate they bias for that. That's why no matter what number you punch into the model it allways shows warmth. In fact, to make an attempt at reality they have to mofify the models every hour or so otherwise the models predict temperatures at the poles that rival the surface of the sun within a few days.

Thirdly, they are written in an incredibly poor language that is fraught with all sorts of problems. Most every other science has abandoned the use of that computer language because of those problems.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What is truly sad is it is more difficult to get a Bachelors in Geology then it is to get a PhD in Climatology.

I'm sure you hold both degrees and can say that for sure - after all - you aren't a bullshitter at all.

But actually - considering most schools don't even offer a "Ph.D. in Climatology" - you're wrong, it'd be a lot harder to get one of those. Most climatologists have degrees in physics, atmospheric science, chemistry, etc. etc. I will get a PhD in physics on December 16th. I don't have a B.S. in Geology. So I can't for sure say which is easier.

 

[westwall]

We have. To date no computer model has EVER been able to recreate the weather that occured 5 days ago.

We're talking about climate models, not weather models. And you can't prove a negative. Please stop being stupid. Please.

Perfect knowledge of the climatic conditions, perfect knowledge of every aspect of the physical world and they can't even come close to doing it.

You don't need perfect knowledge to do science. In fact no scientists has ever had perfect knowledge of anything. Only God has perfect knowledge.

If a climate model can't recreate what we know has occured, how can it predict what will occur?

 

[westwall]

Alarmist Gavin Schmidt admits big problems with climate models

No he doesn't. If you bother to read the interview instead of just taking the word of a blogger, you'll see he makes no such "admission". But I know you can't read more than a couple sentences at a time, so don't bother.

Then I suggest you watch the video on youtube toober. It is very plain that that is EXACTLY what Schmidt is doing. But that would be science, and as we all know, you don't do science.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Alarmist Gavin Schmidt admits big problems with climate models

No he doesn't. If you bother to read the interview instead of just taking the word of a blogger, you'll see he makes no such "admission". But I know you can't read more than a couple sentences at a time, so don't bother.

Then I suggest you watch the video on youtube toober. It is very plain that that is EXACTLY what Schmidt is doing. But that would be science, and as we all know, you don't do science.

Are you saying the transcript is not genuine?

 

[SAT]

No, honey. I've presented evidence, a dozen people have presented evidence. You just trot out another dodge. I think you're both a liar and delusional.

The questions arise again-how is it that you're this much better at science than overwhelming majority of climate scientists?

You know the science exists, so why do you play this game of pretending that it doesn't?

Fill us in.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

We have. To date no computer model has EVER been able to recreate the weather that occured 5 days ago.

We're talking about climate models, not weather models. And you can't prove a negative. Please stop being stupid. Please.

Perfect knowledge of the climatic conditions, perfect knowledge of every aspect of the physical world and they can't even come close to doing it.

You don't need perfect knowledge to do science. In fact no scientists has ever had perfect knowledge of anything. Only God has perfect knowledge.

If a climate model can't recreate what we know has occured, how can it predict what will occur?

I'm sorry you're just plain wrong.

Please trying reading the abstracts. I know its hard when its not all pictures and people talking. But give it a shot. Here's two right here.

High-resolution regional climate model validation and permafrost simulation for the East European Russian Arctic

HAL - INSU

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming



The human fingerprint in global warming



Charts are at the link.

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion

This cites the work of scientists in peer reviewed journals:



The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change



This is the view of the scientific community. You are not arguing with me. You are disputing the work of PhD climatologists.

[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

Most? Likely?

Yes. Most all scientific predictions come down to one of likelihood. Are you uncomfortable with statistics and probability?

I am when the "scientists" resort to lies to push economy killing taxes.
How much of our GDP should we spend to reduce our CO2 output?
Why should we be afraid of warmer weather?