Interesting opinion.
Really? Because climate scientists look for this information, too. Because it helps their understanding. Just because some make arguments beyond reason using that lack of information doesn’t mean that it’s not still a gap of understanding. You don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
There are extensive synoptic charts, going back centuries in some areas. Since the fifties there is an abundant amount of information about weather patterns in the NH, including jet stream data. Some of this is even online and free to view.
That’s an interesting tactic during a debate. It doesn’t really support your position, but it sounds important.
I believe it’s possible , and even probable. The more chaff thrown about, the more noise in the discussion, the less chance of anyone with a life being able to follow along.
Correct, just saying that when one looks at the current state of affairs, it is just like 2007 regarding the ice loss acceleration, the information is searched for and it is important, but regarding if we should add the weather extremes in the negative or the positive column the sensible thing now is to punt like the IPCC did with the ice loss in 2007.
What it has to be noticed here is that now there is more evidence to report that the ice loss acceleration has landed on the growing bad column.
Contrarian:
Do you think I’m a “contrarian” or a “denier”?
What do you think I deny?
Experiments:
This response is a perfect example of how you can’t seem to separate individual points in this discussion. Anything that even correctly identifies challenges for climate scientists is interpreted by you to mean that all climate science should be thrown out.
Just because I raise a point about the inability to perform controlled experiments on the environment doesn’t mean I’ve said anything about observational or natural experiments.
Observational and natural experiments can be used to gain information/knowledge. I would never claim they can’t.
But when I point out that the inability to perform controlled experiments makes it very very tough to confirm models in our lifetime - you incorrectly interpret that as a statement about observational and natural experiments.
Even when I tell you the difference you persist.
Even this post in which I clearly state that information and knowledge gained due to observational and natural experiments should NOT be tossed out, it probably won’t register that I have that opinion.
And if I end this post with the valid statement that the inability to perform controlled experiments coupled with the long cycles makes it very very difficult to confirm climate models in our lifetime - you will interpret that as me saying that observational and natural experiments are irrelevant and worthless.
It’s kind of entertaining.
I persist for the sole reason that it would be a real accomplishment to get you to ever grasp/admit what the climate scientists freely admit (all of them) that those two things do present significant challenges when trying to validate the models.
With all respect, that’s a rhetorical MO you are exceptionally skilled at.
Thank you, I was laughing 
And that is why one consults experts, just as one should go to see an astronomer to explain the amazing stuff out there and not an astrologer, one should look at what the climate scientists are reporting and not the contrarians.
Of course, and we shouldn’t even be having a discussion about anything. Just a list of experts to go read. No need for any debate, much less an informative and lively discussion.
:smack:
Neither, just a confused fellow that needs to be reminded of the big picture that people like Schneider report.
As for the rest of your post, I already agree, I’m correct in my impression that you cannot ever let go of the idea that I disagree with Schneider when he reported about direct experimentation, on the contrary, I already did agree, and I will just continue to report that just leaving it like that (with his lifetime work not mentioned) was a disservice to Schneider and the true state of affairs on how useful computer models are nowadays.
Of course the problem persists when after all that you say that:
Because that clearly tells others that you continue to act like if the testimony by Schneider was not done and that his **lifetime ** of work validating the models was never done.
Moving the goalposts, I was replying for your evasive point that was actually very valid, we can not spend our lives learning about everything, like in the case of the astronomy we can have a lively discussion about if we should explore the asteroids for profit, but it is really silly to consult an astrologer for the best time to launch the expedition.
The denier sources that think cherry picking makes good science are just as astrologers because they also look for information that confirms their already made biases.
“Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it”.
Well. That answers everything doesn’t it. The models don’t work because shit happens.
Nice.
Of course that is not what he said, we already know that most of the sources you rely on do not care about accuracy.
It seems to me that it is like the 70’s all over again.
(Warning: Disco)
No, it was not, the misrepresentation happened in the popular media, now it is mostly in popular denier media.
Well you called me both a contrarian and a denier when responding to my posts in the past.
What do you think I’m confused about?
Here’s the last sentence of the conclusion of this article:
Validating ENSO Simulation in Coupled Climate Models
“The presence of this error despite our progress in coupled modeling in the last decade reminds us of our limited understanding of the climate system.”
Basically you are arguing with the climate scientists at this point.
I just got done quoting him. From your cite.
That is referring to the ENSO or in other words, el nino, a subset of the whole picture, AFAIK it also includes ocean data that was not very complete until recently. The point I made stands, by not mentioning what Schneider did you are omitting a lot of what he had done.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/105th/schn0710.htm
What I can say here is that it is really uncalled for to use the own words of a researcher to ignore what he spent a lifetime working with.
As so often happens, this lie is ironic, in that the claim “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” is actually a warmist claim, a straw man they trot out, and then try to defeat in battle. (and yes, this is far afield from the topic, as all GIGO dominated topics end up)
But it’s funny, A Google search turns up a few dozen hits, and every single one of them is the same thing, “Because in the 70’s, Deniers will tell you, All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming.”
That’s the only phrase that claims “All climate scientists believed an ice age was coming”. It doesn’t exist otherwise. You won’t find it on any climate blogs, denialist sites (whatever they are), and especially not in any news stories. Which is why it’s so damn funny.
I used to think facts would matter too. They won’t.
Like **RaftPeople **did with Schneider, not reporting what else he said was just like Colmes and Hannity on FOX.
What we have is a
Quote confirming an already made up view
vs
A lifetime of work showing how the early quote was not complete and ends misrepresenting what the researcher actually said
Same old. And I prefer to see the big picture, sure there are problems with models, but it is really reckless to claim that there are no validations or observational experiments that showed that the models he used were very good to use indeed.