[Riverwind]

wyly, on Nov 2 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

hmm a few years of computer modeling puts vehicles on distant planets....computer modeling predicts whether a plane will fly without a plane being built, computer modeling designs unflyable planes which can only be flown without computer assistance

I would no problems trusting climate models that were validated by millions of small and full scale wind tunnel experiments where the model predictions were compared to the actual results. The trouble is nothing close to that has/can been done for climate models. There is also no comparison between the relatively simple problem of gravitational physics and the impossibly complete problem of the complex problem fluids which are not in equilibrium.

wyly, on Nov 2 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

the debate is over 97% of scientists are on side with the cause of climate change...

And 96% of scientists know nothing about the topic and are no more qualified express an opinion than Myata.

This post has been edited by Riverwind: 02 November 2009 - 03:30 PM

[wyly]

Riverwind, on Nov 2 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

I would no problems trusting climate models that were validated by millions of small and full scale wind tunnel experiments where the model predictions were compared to the actual results. The trouble is nothing close to that has/can been done for climate models. There is also no comparison between the relatively simple problem of gravitational physics and the impossibly complete problem of the complex problem fluids which are not in equilibrium.

And 96% of scientists know nothing about the topic and are no more qualified express an opinion than Myata.

those 97% are climatologists 97%

[Moonbox]

wyly, on Nov 2 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

hmm a few years of computer modeling puts vehicles on distant planets....computer modeling predicts whether a plane will fly without a plane being built, computer modeling designs unflyable planes which can only be flown without computer assistance...in fact computer modeling has proven so reliable in projecting climate change that the projections have be found to be too conservative...

When you are modelling airplanes and rockets, however, you are expected to account for and understand the variables. The engineers and physicists who build these fully understand the properties of the materials they are working with and can control the variables in their simulations and testing FULLY. They don't send a man into the air or into space on assumptions and guesses.

There are very serious limits to what a computer model can tell you. If you tosses a rubber duck into the ocean and asked the computer to tell you where it will wash up on the shore, I doubt many of the 'scientists' would bet big money on the predictions. Why? Because there's no way to reliably program the variables. A big wave could make the difference.

It's the same with climate models. Computer models right now can't even reliably predict the weather a few days from now yet we're trusting them with modelling what our climate will be like 100 years from now? How do you account for the sun? If the earth is warming, and as a result we see more clouds, rain and storms, can the computer tell us what effect that will have in cooling the planet? Can the computer tell us what the effect will be of larger oceans, more arable land and thus presumably more trees? Can it reliably predict air and ocean current change? Not as of yet.

If the computer can't even reliably predict the smaller pieces of the puzzle, why are we so CONVINCED that it can solve the puzzle as a whole?

[Riverwind]

wyly, on Nov 2 2009, 02:51 PM, said:

those 97% are climatologists 97%

There are lies, damnned lies and statistics.
From your link:

Quote

found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role".

I am surprised that there was even 3% that claim that humans did not play a role because most sceptics agree with that point. What is not a point of agreement is whether the human role is significant when compared to others. The same study pointed out that only 82% percent agree that human activity been a significant factor but that question did not distinguish between CO2 and other factors such as land use change. This means the real support among earth scientists for the IPCC position is less 80% according to the data your provided.

It is also worthing noting that the entire IPCC case against CO2 rests on two pillars: interpretations of the paleoclimate data and climate models. The two largest groups of skeptics are geologists and meteorologists who have the most expertise within the fields used by the IPCC to make their case.

This post has been edited by Riverwind: 02 November 2009 - 03:47 PM

[Wild Bill]

Moonbox, on Nov 2 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

That's one of the weakest analogies I've seen here in some time. Be glad you're not a lawyer, because your comparison doesn't even make sense. I'm embarrassed for you that you wrote that.

I suspect that what our friend is really saying is that HE can't understand the science and assumes that therefore no other layman can have a qualified opinion!

Since HE must put his faith in those scientists whose "priestly" lab coats impress him then everyone else must do the same.

This is absurd, of course. Many of us acquire more than a layman's education in sciences over the years, even if self-taught. Some folks actually open books for themselves, even outside or after the school room. You don't have to be a mechanical engineer to understand how an internal combustion engine works, if you're willing to get up off your ass and actually learn about it!

[wyly]

Riverwind, on Nov 2 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

There are lies, damnned lies and statistics.
From your link:
I am surprised that there was even 3% that claim that humans did not play a role because most sceptics agree with that point. What is not a point of agreement is whether the human role is significant when compared to others. The same study pointed out that only 82% percent agree that human activity been a significant factor but that question did not distinguish between CO2 and other factors such as land use change. This means the real support among earth scientists for the IPCC position is less 80% according to the data your provided.

It is also worthing noting that the entire IPCC case against CO2 rests on two pillars: interpretations of the paleoclimate data and climate models. The two largest groups of skeptics are geologists and meteorologists who have the most expertise within the fields used by the IPCC to make their case.

nice piece of fraud on your part, from the link..."The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists" you conveniently forgot to add the petroleum part...and metorolgists expertise is short term weather not climatology...." "Most members of the public(you) think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon." and geologists know buggar all about climate(that's what my bro-in-law the petroleum geologist tells me)


from the link-"the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." and those would be climatologists...

This post has been edited by wyly: 02 November 2009 - 04:43 PM

[wyly]

Moonbox, on Nov 2 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

When you are modelling airplanes and rockets, however, you are expected to account for and understand the variables. The engineers and physicists who build these fully understand the properties of the materials they are working with and can control the variables in their simulations and testing FULLY. They don't send a man into the air or into space on assumptions and guesses.

There are very serious limits to what a computer model can tell you. If you tosses a rubber duck into the ocean and asked the computer to tell you where it will wash up on the shore, I doubt many of the 'scientists' would bet big money on the predictions. Why? Because there's no way to reliably program the variables. A big wave could make the difference.

It's the same with climate models. Computer models right now can't even reliably predict the weather a few days from now yet we're trusting them with modelling what our climate will be like 100 years from now? How do you account for the sun? If the earth is warming, and as a result we see more clouds, rain and storms, can the computer tell us what effect that will have in cooling the planet? Can the computer tell us what the effect will be of larger oceans, more arable land and thus presumably more trees? Can it reliably predict air and ocean current change? Not as of yet.

If the computer can't even reliably predict the smaller pieces of the puzzle, why are we so CONVINCED that it can solve the puzzle as a whole?

because those models have been run backwards and forwards, they confirm past climate and have confirmed projected climate changes, if anything the model projections have proven to be too conservative...you simple don't believe them to be true because you can't comprehend the science....

[Riverwind]

wyly, on Nov 2 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

"The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists" you conveniently forgot to add the petroleum part

Because I suspect that adjective was nothing but an attempt to smear dissenters by implying there is a conflict of interest. I know from other sources that all types of geologists tend to be the most sceptical because they look at the long term and know that 30 years of data is not enough to draw any useful conclusions about what is driving climate. Why don't you try digging up the raw data from the survey rather than the media spin.

More importantly, if you want to cast doubt on a scientist's opinion because of some imagined conflict if interest then you must accept that all "climatologists" with jobs that depend on a belief in AGW that requires government action are also unreliable sources of information. That would mean your 97% support is a meaningless figure. If you expect others to believe that climatologists are "honest" scientists that do not let their desire for a job affect their conclusions then you must also grant the same consideration to "petroleum geologists".

Frankly, the blindness of alarmists when it comes screaming about conflicts of interest is one of the reasons why their are inherently untrustworthy.

This post has been edited by Riverwind: 02 November 2009 - 05:47 PM

[Riverwind]

wyly, on Nov 2 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

because those models have been run backwards and forwards, they confirm past climate and have confirmed projected climate changes

Past performance is no guarantee of future performace. The caveat is as important for climate models as it is for mutual funds. Climate models are non-physical approxmations because we do not have the computing power required to model the earth system from first principles. This means the ability to reproduce the past is likely nothing more than the result of tuning the various parameters.

To make matters worse the majority of data from the past that is fed into the climate models are estimates produced from other computer models because we do not have the real data from 100, 1000 or 10000 years ago. The garbage in - garbage out dictim apply here.

The bottom line is the proof of a computer model's usefulness is its ability to predict the future. So far the climate models are not doing a particular good job of it.

This post has been edited by Riverwind: 02 November 2009 - 06:20 PM

[wyly]

Riverwind, on 02 November 2009 - 06:02 PM, said:

Because I suspect that adjective was nothing but an attempt to smear dissenters by implying there is a conflict of interest. I know from other sources that all types of geologists tend to be the most sceptical because they look at the long term and know that 30 years of data is not enough to draw any useful conclusions about what is driving climate. Why don't you try digging up the raw data from the survey rather than the media spin.

More importantly, if you want to cast doubt on a scientist's opinion because of some imagined conflict if interest then you must accept that all "climatologists" with jobs that depend on a belief in AGW that requires government action are also unreliable sources of information. That would mean your 97% support is a meaningless figure. If you expect others to believe that climatologists are "honest" scientists that do not let their desire for a job affect their conclusions then you must also grant the same consideration to "petroleum geologists".

Frankly, the blindness of alarmists when it comes screaming about conflicts of interest is one of the reasons why their are inherently untrustworthy.

If we both had a brain disorder I'd go see a Neurologist, you would choose a Proctologist....ask a petroleum geologist or any kind of geologist his expert opinion on climatology, each and very one would say I'm not an expert go ask a Climatologist...but with your reasoning asking a proctologist would suffice...

[wyly]

Riverwind, on 02 November 2009 - 06:36 PM, said:

The bottom line is the proof of a computer model's usefulness is its ability to predict the future. So far the climate models are not doing a particular good job of it.

the ever growing hole in your logic is that the models are proving accurate...summers in the arctic growing longer, check...global average temps increasing, check...Sea levels rising, check...% of multi year arctic ice shrinking, check... only problem with the models, they've been to conservative all those projections are happening sooner than projected ...data in data out

[Riverwind]

wyly, on 03 November 2009 - 10:24 PM, said:

the ever growing hole in your logic is that the models are proving accurate...summers in the arctic growing longer, check...global average temps increasing, check...Sea levels rising, check...% of multi year arctic ice shrinking, check... only problem with the models, they've been to conservative all those projections are happening sooner than projected ...data in data out

If you believe that such naive claims are evidence of the "accuracy" of the climate models then you probably believe that astrology can predict the future too. The latest batch of climate models started predicting the future in Jan 2001. Since then temperatures for a number of key metrics have dropped when the climate models said the should have risen. When a proper statistical analysis is done it is possible to show that the difference between reality and the latest batch of models is too large to be explained by random weather variations. Something wrong with the models. The most plausible explaination is they exagerrate the amount of warming that is caused by the CO2.

[Riverwind]

wyly, on 03 November 2009 - 10:18 PM, said:

If we both had a brain disorder I'd go see a Neurologist, you would choose a Proctologist....ask a petroleum geologist or any kind of geologist his expert opinion on climatology, each and very one would say I'm not an expert go ask a Climatologist...but with your reasoning asking a proctologist would suffice...

If I want a second opinion on the statistics used by climatogists then I will ask as a statistician - not a climatogist. If I want a second opinion on the the value of the climate models used by climatologists then I will find the opinion of a physicist who specializes in modelling chaotic systems of fluids. If I want a second opinion on how the climatogists analyze the paleogeologic data I will ask a geologist. And all of these second opinions are telling me that the climatogists don't necessarily know what they are talking about.

[Keepitsimple]

wyly, on 02 November 2009 - 05:16 PM, said:

the debate is over 97% of scientists are on side with the cause of climate change...

Your article just shows how disingenuous the alarmist side can be - represented so well by your "debate is over" comment. No one except an idiot can deny that Climate Change exists. A very large majority agree that do some extent, humans can have an effect. The debate has always been how much of a role humans play - is it minimal, significant, or the major driver? The article - as many others - will not simply come out and ask "Do you believe that humans are the cause of more than 50% of Climate Change?" - or some similar question. Show me a comprehensive survey of scientists that asks a quantitative question and I'll start to pay attention.

Quote

The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.

This post has been edited by Keepitsimple: 04 November 2009 - 06:30 AM

[waldo]

Riverwind, on 04 November 2009 - 12:22 AM, said:

If you believe that such naive claims are evidence of the "accuracy" of the climate models then you probably believe that astrology can predict the future too. The latest batch of climate models started predicting the future in Jan 2001. Since then temperatures for a number of key metrics have dropped when the climate models said the should have risen. When a proper statistical analysis is done it is possible to show that the difference between reality and the latest batch of models is too large to be explained by random weather variations. Something wrong with the models. The most plausible explaination is they exagerrate the amount of warming that is caused by the CO2.

citation request... for your "proper statistical analysis"

by the by - could we discuss examples of "your models" that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without factoring CO2 - thanks in advance for providing example(s).