lolGlobalWarming?

[Max™]

Yeah, that's a better route than showing that they actually followed the scientific method before claiming it was science, call me a fool in denial.

Hi, I've looked at the evidence, lots of sources, and I've also looked for those little things which would show proper integrity by the scientists in this field.


My problem isn't even with the actual idea that humans may be exacerbating global warming, in case you didn't catch that, and were just on "OMG HE DENIES IT, ATTACK!" mode.


It is with CONGRESS, and other GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, full of non-scientists being presented this data as if it were flawless. Can you show me where Congress was presented not only a report with error margins, but a completed paper containing everything which another scientist would need to duplicate this experiment and confirm the results?

That's kind of important you know, having something which is reproducible, and letting other scientists know of ways it could go wrong, be proven incorrect, stuff like that.

Rather than attacking me, can you defend your claim that they actually do this?

[Max™]

I have to believe that Max is trolling. The opposite is too horrific to consider. By the way, did anyone ever read that paper Max had linked in his sig a while back? And he has the gall to lecture OTHER people on the peer-review process, lol.

My paper is in the process of being refined as a theory, I only just started writing it two months ago.

That would be mid way between step 2, hypothesis, and step 3, theory ready to be experimented on.

Did I present it as an absolute fact? Do I feel it is complete enough to be experimented on, not yet obviously, thus why I say it is a work in progress.

I've been considering ways to disprove it, many of them, as many as I can think of, it takes a while to be really thorough about this stuff.

Here is an important aspect of my paper though: I know full well that I could be completely wrong about everything within it, and openly admit this.

Have you seen climatologists say that?

[Tristam]

Yeah, that's a better route than showing that they actually followed the scientific method before claiming it was science, call me a fool in denial.

Hi, I've looked at the evidence, lots of sources, and I've also looked for those little things which would show proper integrity by the scientists in this field.


My problem isn't even with the actual idea that humans may be exacerbating global warming, in case you didn't catch that, and were just on "OMG HE DENIES IT, ATTACK!" mode.


It is with CONGRESS, and other GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, full of non-scientists being presented this data as if it were flawless. Can you show me where Congress was presented not only a report with error margins, but a completed paper containing everything which another scientist would need to duplicate this experiment and confirm the results?

That's kind of important you know, having something which is reproducible, and letting other scientists know of ways it could go wrong, be proven incorrect, stuff like that.

Rather than attacking me, can you defend your claim that they actually do this?

Reproducibility? Again, look at the papers, multiple models, variations on the data, etc. Reproduction --> same conclusions. And lest you forget, you were the one who attacked the field as "junk science." Seriously, there are over 1000 papers (that's a conservative estimate) collecting raw data dealing with the topic at hand. None of them have any real problems with the data/conclusions in the modeling work.

[zoobernut]

Since when do we understand enough about the global climate and how it works to make even halfway decent models about its behavior?

[Tristam]

My paper is in the process of being refined as a theory, I only just started writing it two months ago.

That would be mid way between step 2, hypothesis, and step 3, theory ready to be experimented on.

Did I present it as an absolute fact? Do I feel it is complete enough to be experimented on, not yet obviously, thus why I say it is a work in progress.

I've been considering ways to disprove it, many of them, as many as I can think of, it takes a while to be really thorough about this stuff.

Here is an important aspect of my paper though: I know full well that I could be completely wrong about everything within it, and openly admit this.

Have you seen climatologists say that?

A THEORY incorporates all the avaliable facts into a comprehensive prediction about the way the world works, it is the most powerful scientific explanation for phenomena.

Anthropogenic global warming is a MODEL which fits the avaliable data, which has been collected independently of any model.

So the MODEL fits the FACTS collected through EXPERIMENTS to confirm HYPOTHESES.

Ok now? No theories here.

[Tristam]

Since when do we understand enough about the global climate and how it works to make even halfway decent models about its behavior?

did you read anything I posted? or just ignoring me?

[Max™]

Um, shouldn't there be a theory which the model is based upon?

A theory being some sort of description and explanation of phenomena, as you said.

The model is being used as an experiment.

The facts are supposed to be observed first, and a hypothesis should be built from there.

Then a theory is built from that hypothesis from which you can make predictions and perform experiments.

Then you perform said experiments until you cannot disprove any aspects of your theory, and share with other scientists how they can go about this process to not only prove your findings, but attempt to disprove them.

[zoobernut]

I read everything you posted and I have yet to see where this "model" is coming from. Like I said you need comprehensive data about a system to create a model and we do not know enough about the global climate to make a complex model explaining its behavior. You cannot just look at part of the data and make a model out of that because all portions of the global climate have an effect on each other therefore you need to include all the parts into the model.

[Max™]

At the very least, you need to properly account for all of the major interactions and contributions, and make note of any which you may have improperly considered or were unable to account for.

[thatwasnifty]

You know, Max, this is what institutions like the National Academies and AAAS are for. They have experts review the peer-reviewed, published literature and condense it into language that laypeople can understand. I'd suggest browsing the National Academies Press and reading some of their reports about climate change. Then you might actually understand how this all works. I'll start you off with one: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. For good measure, here's another: Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.

[Tristam]

I read everything you posted and I have yet to see where this "model" is coming from. Like I said you need comprehensive data about a system to create a model and we do not know enough about the global climate to make a complex model explaining its behavior. You cannot just look at part of the data and make a model out of that because all portions of the global climate have an effect on each other therefore you need to include all the parts into the model.

Unbelievable, it's like talking to a brick wall.

As I already explained, what you are proposing is impossible, both experimentally and computationally. If we had all the knowledge you want, it would not be necessary to make models, get it?

[Tristam]

Um, shouldn't there be a theory which the model is based upon?

A theory being some sort of description and explanation of phenomena, as you said.

The model is being used as an experiment.

The facts are supposed to be observed first, and a hypothesis should be built from there.

Then a theory is built from that hypothesis from which you can make predictions and perform experiments.

Then you perform said experiments until you cannot disprove any aspects of your theory, and share with other scientists how they can go about this process to not only prove your findings, but attempt to disprove them.

I wouldn't say this model is used as an experiment, it is an EXPLANATION for experimentally observed phenomena. It is the BEST FIT to the avaliable data. The facts are the individual data points, the model attempts to explain the underlying change over time.

An experiment would be to measure a change in temperature over time to see if it agrees with a hypothesis, the hypothesis being CO2 will cause a rise in temperature. That is just one of many such experiments already carried out which provide data to use in the model.

I think you and Zoobernut really have no idea about the depth and scope of climatological data we have, and all you're really saying is "I don't understand it, so it must be false." I'm sitting here trying to explain these things to you and you're still not getting it.

edit: and furthermore, the two of you clearly do not understand the concept of the Earth's energy budget, so perhaps all my energy trying to explain this is wasted.

[zoobernut]

Unbelievable, it's like talking to a brick wall.

As I already explained, what you are proposing is impossible, both experimentally and computationally. If we had all the knowledge you want, it would not be necessary to make models, get it?

Unbelievable you call people names rather than posting anything worthwhile. If you make a model of something without all the pieces it is not going to be a very accurate or usable model now is it? And quote yourself where you supposedly acknowledged this and explained it. You are so entrenched in the idea of global warming you are blind to any criticism of the theories at all. Your posts are like one giant Al Gore propaganda string trying to scare people into being better to the environment for the sake of the planet. Nowhere did I refute the very real issue of the human impact on the global climate I just think you are blind to anything other than human influence and that is not how good science works.

[Tristam]

Amazing either your a troll or a retard. If you make a model of something without all the pieces it is not going to be a very accurate or usable model now is it? And quote yourself where you supposedly acknowledged this and explained it. You are so entrenched in the idea of global warming you are blind to any criticism of the theories at all. Your posts are like one giant Al Gore propaganda string trying to scare people into being better to the environment for the sake of the planet. Nowhere did I refute the very real issue of the human impact on the global climate I just think you are blind to anything other than human influence and that is not how good science works.

#84

I've tried very patiently to explain to you the underlying causes of climate change and you call me a retard, no wonder you don't understand anything I've posted. Excuse me for getting frustrated.

I am NOT blind to criticism, but I have also not read anything approaching the rigor of the established models for global warming. Perhaps you should show me something new. Other than that you're simply spouting that we don't understand enough when quite clearly it's possible to make reasonable conclusions based on incomplete understanding of phenomena. Again, it's done ALL THE TIME. You think economists don't make forecasts for the future based on incomplete data? You think neurologists don't draw conclusions about memory given the fact that we don't completely know the molecular basis for long term potentiation and long term depression? Don't lecture me about science when you don't know what the fuck.

[zoobernut]

Post #84 says nothing useful to what I was saying. You cannot tell me I don't understand what you posted when you don't even understand what I am posting. Wow it is easy to disregard someone when they don't agree with you and you have no valid counter argument.

Like I was saying the models may fit the CURRENT data possessed and at the moment they might appear to be the best fit however you could say the same thing about when man thought the world was flat and look how that turned out. How hard is it for you to grasp the concept that humans are not the only thing acting on the system.

[Tristam]

Post #84 says nothing useful to what I was saying. You cannot tell me I don't understand what you posted when you don't even understand what I am posting. Wow it is easy to disregard someone when they don't agree with you and you have no valid counter argument.

Like I was saying the models may fit the CURRENT data possessed and at the moment they might appear to be the best fit however you could say the same thing about when man thought the world was flat and look how that turned out. How hard is it for you to grasp the concept that humans are not the only thing acting on the system.

Lol, so what you're saying is it is impossible for a model to make a prediction. Fine, then we disagree.

And I explained even earlier that we do know the underlying causes of climate change and can account for them, this is what I mean by first principles. You're getting confused by feedbacks and forcings and basically trying to account for statistical noise, when I'm trying to tell you that in the context of the climate the underlying causes are more important.

edit: since I like using antarctica as an example, here it is again.

1. Continental drift caused antarctica to move poleward. This had an effect on climate through secondary effects like: A. providing a place for snow to build up B. Diverting and impeding water currents to locally cool the southern hemisphere. C. Lowering sea level and moisture content of the air. etc.

In a similar sense

2. Rising greenhouse gases cause a change in the energy budget of the earth's atmosphere. This will have secondary effects like A. Increased cloud cover and air moisture content. B. Rising sea level. C. Acidification of the oceans. etc etc.

[zoobernut]

Lol, so what you're saying is it is impossible for a model to make a prediction. Fine, then we disagree.

And I explained even earlier that we do know the underlying causes of climate change and can account for them, this is what I mean by first principles. You're getting confused by feedbacks and forcings and basically trying to account for statistical noise, when I'm trying to tell you that in the context of the climate the underlying causes are more important.

edit: since I like using antarctica as an example, here it is again.

1. Continental drift caused antarctica to move poleward. This had an effect on climate through secondary effects like: A. providing a place for snow to build up B. Diverting and impeding water currents to locally cool the southern hemisphere. C. Lowering sea level and moisture content of the air. etc.

In a similar sense

2. Rising greenhouse gases cause a change in the energy budget of the earth's atmosphere. This will have secondary effects like A. Increased cloud cover and air moisture content. B. Rising sea level. C. Acidification of the oceans. etc etc.

The reason why I said you were so entrenched in the idea of global warming that you were blind to any criticism is because if you read my posts I am not disagreeing with anything you post with regards to the effects that humans are having on the global climate. I believe we are having a profound effect on this planet. What I am disagreeing with is the notion that everything happening with respect to global climate change is man made and we are the only influential factor. Now if you had comprehended what I wrote than I don't think you would have become so frustrated because I was not disagreeing with global climate change I was merely adding in a portion of it that is rarely discussed when talking about global climate change. I feel like people are afraid to discuss the other factors because they think it will make the general public think that we don't need to be careful about our emissions anymore.

[thatwasnifty]

Except no one denies that there are natural factors affecting the climate. No one. But natural fluctuations do not account for the observed changed in climate over the past couple hundred years, while the contribution of human activity does. For all intents and purposes, natural factors are irrelevant, and the focus is on what we do and what we can change so that we have a lesser effect on the climate.

[zoobernut]

Except it was denied in this thread read back. Think about it this way pretend the Earth is a car and we are the passengers, now pretend that the car randomly crashes into a wall every 10 minutes. If the wall is global climate change since we the passengers are messing with the steering wheel now the car will crash into the wall in 8 minutes instead of 10. If we had done absolutely nothing it still would have crashed into the wall. We did not cause the car to crash into the wall. My point is that while we can do everything we can to slow or stop human influence on the global climate but we should also think of ways to live with a fluctuating climate because while we can remove our influence we are still heading in the same direction.

Ultimately the Earth will be fine regardless of what we do it is humans and our ability to survive that we are concerned with and just removing our influence is short sighted in the grand scheme of the human race.

[Tristam]

Except it was denied in this thread read back. Think about it this way pretend the Earth is a car and we are the passengers, now pretend that the car randomly crashes into a wall every 10 minutes. If the wall is global climate change since we the passengers are messing with the steering wheel now the car will crash into the wall in 8 minutes instead of 10. If we had done absolutely nothing it still would have crashed into the wall. We did not cause the car to crash into the wall. My point is that while we can do everything we can to slow or stop human influence on the global climate but we should also think of ways to live with a fluctuating climate because while we can remove our influence we are still heading in the same direction.

Ultimately the Earth will be fine regardless of what we do it is humans and our ability to survive that we are concerned with and just removing our influence is short sighted in the grand scheme of the human race.

In all of my posts I have explained to you that we were not on a collision course with climate change so your analogy is deeply flawed. A correction would be to say that the car crashes into the wall lightly every ten minutes, except this time we've floored the pedal in reverse and aren't wearing seatbelts. Sloooooooow global cooling has persisted for the last 6000 years (ice core measurements) and based on acutal measurements of the earth's orbit and axial tilt, would have continued for 23000 years.

In the grand scheme of the earth yes, the planet will be fine. In the grand scheme of the human race, we do NOT know the net effect of climate change. Civilization has thrived under a very very narrow climatological window which is why I say that the debate is done and we are trying to make predictions to mitigate the effects (this is the value of the model). Furthermore our species has evolved under geologically cold climatological conditions and shifting the climate to something approximating the way the world was in the late Permian would be something humanity as a species has never before encountered.