Missed the edit:
And AFAIK it is the one making the accusation that modeling is not performed properly or that models have not been released for public review or that they are not useful the one that needs to bring the evidence for. Not just their say so.
you didn’t post a good summation of the cite. And if you’ve ever done any modeling you’d understand my point. The more variables that are entered and the farther the into the future the projections are run, the less accurate the outcome. As for your cite, he starts out isolating Co2 from the modeling process which is a pointless exercise.
It doesn’t negate theories of global warming but it does make the predictions less accurate as they are projected forward.
in English?
You said that I did not post anything, not accurate.
The evidence is integrated, it all fits together. Because of this the IPCC called the evidence unequivocal.
The issue among scientists, even the few skeptics ones, is the magnitude of this.
Dessler reports that we have data that shows the temperatures, CO2 concentrations, water vapor levels, and the water vapor feedback. Most probable Cloud feedback based on the data etc, he reports in the end a value that supports the IPPC estimated temperature increase of 2 to 4 degrees. The value he got was based on the data, not models.
And as he was not using models to make his point, what you say here is just missing the point. He trust models because they follow what the data that was found says.
Ok, but so far you will do a lot to avoid the implications.
AFAIK it is the one making the accusation the one that needs to bring the evidence. Evidence that computer models of climate are not used properly, or that models have not been released for public review, or that they are not useful.
The one that claims that that is so needs to bring the evidence to show that climate researchers are failing at modeling.
As I said many times, the say so of a poster does not mean much until you show your expert. In this case my expert reports he is confirming the expected warming with no modeling but with the data now available. What this showed was that experts are saying regarding the current state of the models, they are getting confirmed and it is real data what is driving the continuing improvement of them.
I have a question: if you take the new, improved, better than evau climate computer model…and ypou lug in the CO2 levels that we know existed in the past, does it deliver temperatures that AGREE with the real temperatures?
This debate interests and frightens me. I’ve read all the data I can find on Climate change and seen a very polarised debate that bears no relationship to any evidence whatsoever. IPCC is a political body, Greens and extreme left wingers seem to dominate this angry and unsubstantiated hypothesis. The ‘alarmists’ denegrate anyone who disagrees. Frankly incorrect statements go uncorrected such as reference to the few sceptics left (Read ‘The Deniers’ for a long list of current eminent ‘sceptics’). If I could find any real data that supports the AGW hypothesis I would support it but I’ve looked and looked and ony found opinion and denegration with reference to some ‘experts’ who are allude with the ferocity of intellectual body guards who are going to come and wipe the floor with anyone disagreeing with this bizarre and very much unsubstantiated cult phenonenon called AGW. Statements like the medieval warming period was localised to europe ??? – absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Manns statistics have most certainly been called into question to the extent that random data entered into his model results in hockey stick shaped graphs.
No matter I fully understand that the cognitive dissonance that resonates with the ‘true believers’ can not ever be intellectually bested. I hear that Gore now wants ‘deniers’ to be treated as racists…!!! - so much for science - the main piller of which is looking for flaws in evidence not hailing agenda based opinion as unassailable fact - I think Stalin and Hitler covered that approach and failed.
God help freedom of speech we are clearly heading for another dark period in history (and if you truly look at the science it may well involve dangerous global cooling!.. : ) )
It’s part of an organized PR campaign, funded by ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers among others, to deter efforts that would, in their view, damage their short-term business interests. It has been remarkably successful in discrediting science and scientists among those who limit their information intake to the “fair and balanced” providers who enable the campaign.
Now why do you call the IPCC “political”, or its conclusions “unsubstantiated”? And what sort of “science” are you referring to that predicts “global cooling”? :dubious:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#SCM
Research Scientist Associate (and software engineer) at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics in Austin reported that:
The important thing to notice is that scientists do a lot of work to confirm the models, they are a tool and the unceartainties are already taken into account.
I know you do not like it, but eventually one has to say it, there are deniers and then there are skeptical scientists, the actual state of affairs is that skeptical scientists are now concentrating on the magnitude of how much humans are influencing the current warming, and this is because they look at the science.
Deniers, well just deny the science.
The context shows that Gore has nothing in mind like that.
According to Al Gore, climate skeptics are the new racists: they say crazy things in casual conversation that others let slide – for now.
The only punishment that he predicts will come for deniers is that people will start to shame the ones saying those crazy things in public and then public discussions will no longer be poisoned by ignorance, and that is in essence what racism was and is.
Gore is remarking on what a racist can no longer do, spew nonsense and be unchallenged in public. And so the same will happen to the current pushers of weapon’s grade ignorance.
And Al Gore is talking about deniers, not skeptics that look at the science and drop silly arguments to concentrate on more reality based criticisms.
You did not read the thread did you?
Besides the one scare from the 70’s being debunked to death, the current one is based on cherry picking the last few years to get a misleading result, independent statisticians agree with researchers, the long term and the acknowledgement of effects like El Nino on years like 1998 still shows that the earth is warming.
Finally, what Gore was talking about was to encourage people that looked at the science to stand up and use their freedom of speech to shame the pushers of debunked information.
So to answer his question: “For the most part it works out OK, though in very warm periods (the Eocene, notably) the results have been sort of funky.”
That is not a question, but an affirmation, the point was to report that new data and changes made to the models do take those problems like Eocene into account now.
But speaking about cherry pickings, do you have any comments about the rest of what the researched reported? The point here is that once again it is not accurate to claim that models are driving climate scientists, they are constantly compared to the real world and they are getting to be more on the money than what was implied by a few here just a few posts before.
I quoted the pertinent information regarding the question asked. If you plug in the information and apply it to historical climate changes do you get the same results. The answer is that the models work OK, most of the time.
Of course since the Eocene was found to be funky the cite also mentions that there is progress to explain that, and the rest of what the expert reports is clear, they work much better than what some posters claim.
As for the canard that scientists do not put forth their models for public review:
It’s not a myth that code has been withheld.
That was then, and incidentally the incident the article refers to was already explained many times before, it was part of the “climate gate” accusations that researchers were doing something underhanded, it turned out that there were more mundane reasons or pumped up accusations from deniers that ignored established release restrictions that data sets had in those days, most of those restrictions have been removed after the issue appeared and the investigations checked those items.
After several investigations the researchers have been exonerated of any wrongdoing, but as usual, it seems that your sources forgot to tell you of those developments, as it is the fact that most of the data and programs were released before and after the “scandal”
The fact that the deniers had those resources for years now and they have not come with show stopping flaws (only misrepresentations and out of context quotes) speaks volumes about who is more correct.
You said it didn’t happen and I cited that it did. Deal with it.
I wanted to add this but the edit time ended:** that was then and not always and there were mundane reasons why data was not released, **it is really misleading to imply that they had something to hide, as it turned out the investigations that exonerated the researchers showed at worst people that had become fed up by time wasting requests from deniers.
Requests that at the time the “Climategate” “scandal” happened, authorities in charge of freedom of information requests on both the US and the UK did agree with the researchers that most requests were frivolous.
So once again you cherry picked a reply to avoid dealing with what researchers and the investigations found. I can not say I’m surprised.
I didn’t cherry pick the article, it was a simple response to your denial of what I said. You can’t deal with anything that threatens your religion of doom. Seriously, I don’t know how you sleep at night. It ain’t happening this year or next year or the year after that or the year after that… You truly need worry about the shit fest of financial ruin that circles the planet. We’re working on global warming and virtually everything that makes c02 will be reduced in the future based on the track of technology today. There won’t be a single product that isn’t more efficient as time moves forward. I don’t understand why you act like we’re all still driving 57 Chevy’s. We’re not. Every car I buy is more efficient than the last and that trend is not going to change because gasoline prices are going nowhere but up. It’s a given just as battery technology improvements are a given.
I realized this is also silly for this reason: you came fist with the affirmation that scientists do not put forth their models for public review. That was not the case and I offered the sources, many of them available from before “climategate” reared its ugly fake head.
On top of that I did said that it did happen: “it turned out that there were more mundane reasons or pumped up accusations from deniers that ignored established release restrictions that data sets had in those days, most of those restrictions have been removed after the issue appeared and the investigations checked those items.”
So this is the third time you come accusing me of not doing something when I already posted it.
As the thread was about Mann one has to notice here that specially with the latest reconstructions by Mann, this accusation that “scientists do not put forth their models for public review” is not true at all.