1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Your Attention Please! There are now 4 kinds of lies!

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by Wildkow, Sep 11, 2007.

  1. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Climate science is often reported as if a 'run' of a computer model is an experiment (it is not!). A computer model can not discriminate theories into true and false because it is not measuring reality. (Such models may give one an idea where to experiment, but to claim they "prove" anything is pure fiction and should lead one to discount the source. At best you can use a computer model to disprove a theory.) Computer models are sometimes used to simulate electronic circuits for engineers - in an electronics circuit (which is a closed system) - these computer models sometimes predict behavior quite different from the real circuit. If such a model is adjusted until the results give the expected result, it is often to the folly of the engineer. The proof of such a circuit must wait until a real circuit is built: reality must be tested, not a model. (Common electronic circuits can be modeled quite well, and these models are of practical use, yet these models still can mislead engineers at times. Be aware that circuit models, besides being a closed system, are several magnitudes less in complexity and size compared to the simplest climate models.)

    Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton has this to say about the computer models:

    "... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."

    The full text of the above quote is worth a read.

    To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming
    is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded
    First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?

    Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this is supported by a lot of historical data.

    Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.

    Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific; just because things are measured to several decimal points means naught when there is no control or false logic.

    Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. The idea that we 'know' the inferred data - is simply wrong. We only have accurate records of solar output from the recent past and we are ignorant of the magnitude of long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) can be accomplished with a solar output theory. It might help to remember that 10,000 years ago Milwaukee was under 40' of ice, so we really do know that temperature can vary on its own. See http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/ We also have reason to believe that glaciers world wide have been shrinking for the last 300 years - this means that things other than CO2 change our climate.


    There we go now we have more ways to lie!

    Wildkow
     
  2. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Climate science is often reported as if a 'run' of a computer model is an experiment (it is not!). A computer model can not discriminate theories into true and false because it is not measuring reality. (Such models may give one an idea where to experiment, but to claim they "prove" anything is pure fiction and should lead one to discount the source. At best you can use a computer model to disprove a theory.) Computer models are sometimes used to simulate electronic circuits for engineers - in an electronics circuit (which is a closed system) - these computer models sometimes predict behavior quite different from the real circuit. If such a model is adjusted until the results give the expected result, it is often to the folly of the engineer. The proof of such a circuit must wait until a real circuit is built: reality must be tested, not a model. (Common electronic circuits can be modeled quite well, and these models are of practical use, yet these models still can mislead engineers at times. Be aware that circuit models, besides being a closed system, are several magnitudes less in complexity and size compared to the simplest climate models.)

    Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton has this to say about the computer models:

    "... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."

    The full text of the above quote is worth a read.

    To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming
    is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded
    First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?

    Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this is supported by a lot of historical data.

    Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.

    Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific; just because things are measured to several decimal points means naught when there is no control or false logic.

    Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. The idea that we 'know' the inferred data - is simply wrong. We only have accurate records of solar output from the recent past and we are ignorant of the magnitude of long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) can be accomplished with a solar output theory. It might help to remember that 10,000 years ago Milwaukee was under 40' of ice, so we really do know that temperature can vary on its own. See http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/ We also have reason to believe that glaciers world wide have been shrinking for the last 300 years - this means that things other than CO2 change our climate.


    There we go now we have more ways to lie!

    Wildkow
     
  3. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,081
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I'm very skeptical of this post simply due to the language used.

    Prove a hypothesis true? You do not do that. Every scientist is taught this in their very first class. Calling a theory "a educated guess"? The grammer is wrong and so is ther definition of a theory. I call BS on the author of those words being a scientist and definately not one in high regard.

    This one is amusing as well

    Yeah, we kinda already know this. Hense the lag time between CO2 and temps in some records.

    Kow, you really should attend classes instead of digging up this crap.
     
  4. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,081
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I'm very skeptical of this post simply due to the language used.

    Prove a hypothesis true? You do not do that. Every scientist is taught this in their very first class. Calling a theory "a educated guess"? The grammer is wrong and so is ther definition of a theory. I call BS on the author of those words being a scientist and definately not one in high regard.

    This one is amusing as well

    Yeah, we kinda already know this. Hense the lag time between CO2 and temps in some records.

    Kow, you really should attend classes instead of digging up this crap.
     
  5. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 11 2007, 07:16 PM) [snapback]510978[/snapback]</div>
    Your claim is that human caused CO2 is causing Global Warming and yet you acknowledge that CO2 lags behind the actual temp rise in some records?!? Either it does or it doesn't if you can't prove one or the other then you can't claim that AGW is a fact! That's called logic try it on for size see how it fits because all the education in the world doesn't help in the face of faulty logic and a lack of common sense. BTW I have been looking all over for it but can't seem to find the total amount of CO2 put up by humans as contrasted to all the other sources. Think you can help? ;)

    Wildkow
     
  6. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 11 2007, 07:16 PM) [snapback]510978[/snapback]</div>
    Your claim is that human caused CO2 is causing Global Warming and yet you acknowledge that CO2 lags behind the actual temp rise in some records?!? Either it does or it doesn't if you can't prove one or the other then you can't claim that AGW is a fact! That's called logic try it on for size see how it fits because all the education in the world doesn't help in the face of faulty logic and a lack of common sense. BTW I have been looking all over for it but can't seem to find the total amount of CO2 put up by humans as contrasted to all the other sources. Think you can help? ;)

    Wildkow
     
  7. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,081
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 11 2007, 07:26 PM) [snapback]510985[/snapback]</div>
    Honestly I am not going to bother posting the information again. I've taken the time to post it for you before and you ignore it so if you want it do a search. As "lag in CO2 vs Temps", I posted a link to an article and sicussion among climate scientists on that subject and you refused to read it as well AND just like I prophesized in that thread, here you are posting the same crap over and over again.

    GO GET A REAL EDUCATION. :p
     
  8. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,081
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 11 2007, 07:26 PM) [snapback]510985[/snapback]</div>
    Honestly I am not going to bother posting the information again. I've taken the time to post it for you before and you ignore it so if you want it do a search. As "lag in CO2 vs Temps", I posted a link to an article and sicussion among climate scientists on that subject and you refused to read it as well AND just like I prophesized in that thread, here you are posting the same crap over and over again.

    GO GET A REAL EDUCATION. :p
     
  9. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    To discuss scientific issues only peer-reviewed.........


    Damn I give up to the strategy of exhaustion.
     
  10. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    To discuss scientific issues only peer-reviewed.........


    Damn I give up to the strategy of exhaustion.
     
  11. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 11 2007, 09:16 PM) [snapback]510978[/snapback]</div>
    I'd be skeptical of this post due to the originator. Best to ignore.

    And it's "damned".

    Republikan spelers.
     
  12. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 11 2007, 09:16 PM) [snapback]510978[/snapback]</div>
    I'd be skeptical of this post due to the originator. Best to ignore.

    And it's "damned".

    Republikan spelers.
     
  13. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,081
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    You are both right. :) lol

    But..... I'll do it yet again.

     
  14. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,081
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    You are both right. :) lol

    But..... I'll do it yet again.

     
  15. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 11 2007, 07:26 PM) [snapback]510985[/snapback]</div>
    As skeptical as I am that anthropogenic CO2 increases are the major driver of climate change, I think your statement is a bit flawed.

    I think the historical record does show CO2 lags temperature and for the misrepresentation of this (i.e., claiming that the historical record shows CO2 driving temperature), Gore should be castigated. However, this historical data does not suggest CO2 cannot drive temperature increases.

    Clearly, all else being equal, the increase of a greenhouse gas could drive some amount surface temperature increase. However, what we don't know is if "all else is equal" and also, to what degree CO2 does in fact drive temperature increases against a backdrop of numerous other, often poorly understood, factors.

    I will disclaim that I am no scientist - so take this comment or leave it - but based on my reading, discussions and emails with climate scientists, etc. I suspect anthropogenic CO2 is driving around 25-35% of observed climate change. Other suspected major factors likely include the ebb and flow of solar fluctuations; changes in the primary greenhouse gas - atmospheric water vapor - whose drivers not completely understood; natural cycles (PDO, NAO, and even longer term cycles); the synchronization of various climate cycles; land-use changes and other non-CO2 anthropogenic factors; and very likely - upwardly biased surface temperature data based on poorly sited urban collection stations.

    From a skeptics position, it would be better to discuss these other factors and not to say CO2 cannot drive climate change however - as I don't think even the skeptical scientists are claiming that increases in CO2 have absolutely no effect. However, I will agree with the original premise of the post that the GCMs (models) are likely to be pretty inadequate.
     
  16. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 11 2007, 07:26 PM) [snapback]510985[/snapback]</div>
    As skeptical as I am that anthropogenic CO2 increases are the major driver of climate change, I think your statement is a bit flawed.

    I think the historical record does show CO2 lags temperature and for the misrepresentation of this (i.e., claiming that the historical record shows CO2 driving temperature), Gore should be castigated. However, this historical data does not suggest CO2 cannot drive temperature increases.

    Clearly, all else being equal, the increase of a greenhouse gas could drive some amount surface temperature increase. However, what we don't know is if "all else is equal" and also, to what degree CO2 does in fact drive temperature increases against a backdrop of numerous other, often poorly understood, factors.

    I will disclaim that I am no scientist - so take this comment or leave it - but based on my reading, discussions and emails with climate scientists, etc. I suspect anthropogenic CO2 is driving around 25-35% of observed climate change. Other suspected major factors likely include the ebb and flow of solar fluctuations; changes in the primary greenhouse gas - atmospheric water vapor - whose drivers not completely understood; natural cycles (PDO, NAO, and even longer term cycles); the synchronization of various climate cycles; land-use changes and other non-CO2 anthropogenic factors; and very likely - upwardly biased surface temperature data based on poorly sited urban collection stations.

    From a skeptics position, it would be better to discuss these other factors and not to say CO2 cannot drive climate change however - as I don't think even the skeptical scientists are claiming that increases in CO2 have absolutely no effect. However, I will agree with the original premise of the post that the GCMs (models) are likely to be pretty inadequate.
     
  17. Darwood

    Darwood Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    5,259
    268
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Your attention Please:
    DO NOT FEED THE TROLLING COWS.

    Tim Bikes: I respect your skepticism. Skepticism is good.
    It's the trolling denialists that need to be ignored and posted around. Their minds are completely closed and are here only to stir the pot and prevent good discussion.
     
  18. Darwood

    Darwood Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    5,259
    268
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Your attention Please:
    DO NOT FEED THE TROLLING COWS.

    Tim Bikes: I respect your skepticism. Skepticism is good.
    It's the trolling denialists that need to be ignored and posted around. Their minds are completely closed and are here only to stir the pot and prevent good discussion.
     
  19. McShemp

    McShemp New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    371
    4
    0
    Location:
    SA, TX
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    F8L - Still, the re-posted text does lead off with the word "estimated" in the data table title.
     
  20. McShemp

    McShemp New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    371
    4
    0
    Location:
    SA, TX
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    F8L - Still, the re-posted text does lead off with the word "estimated" in the data table title.