Thanks for your post. This post (and wolfpup’s response previously) are what I consider part of a normal discussion about a complex and difficult topic.
I’m not on any “side”, just interested in what we know and what we are still trying to figure out.
It’s a fun topic precisely because it’s complex and difficult with many unknowns.
At this point GIGO’s posts are worthless.
Although my last post was relatively polite, I was seriously trying to determine if his language is so bad as to not even understand the point, or if he is developmentally disabled. I chose to assume the language angle.
Repeatedly arguing against such basic valid points that even the climate scientists wouldn’t argue about causes a poor perception of any information he may provide or any point he may attempt to make.
The fact that he is unaware of his own behavior and the effect it has only makes the perception worse.
Ok, I’ll rephrase that as “there is limited ability to perform controlled experiments”.
As I was saying, it is clear one side is ignoring when they go for the absolutes and continue to accuse the other side of the same with very little to go on. As one noticed, scientists have been discussing and identifying polar vortexes in the past decades.
Your opinion, not what I get from even scientists in the SDMB.
What I got so far is that you were not aware of how inadequate your sources are regarding this subject.
Repeating the point that we can not perform experiments ignores what it was done for a long time when conditions change and nature does the job for us to test. (of course if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to record it, whatever theories one forester had on what critters do with a naturally fallen tree would remain unproven)
There is indeed a need to rephrase one’s position, and not come with absolutes that in reality are made to ignore what is being done, and there is also the repeated claim that we can not look at past timelines. It also implies that paleoclimate is useless.
This post really confirms a basic lack of knowledge about the point being made.
This was the original point:
We can’t perform experiments ON the climate which makes progress much more difficult than if we could.
Performing observations and natural experiments is a much more difficult method of figuring out what is going on and whether the model accurately accounts for everything that is important.
Nowhere in that valid point does it say “throw out all climate science and give up”, which appears to be your interpretation.
This is Stephen Schneider from Stanford’s wording:
“We can’t carry out controlled experiments with Earth’s greenhouse effect because
we have only one Earth and because such experiments would take decades or
longer for definitive results.”
The longer you argue against the climate scientists, the more you dig yourself into a position of looking like someone that truly does not understand the basic issues. This point is something the climate scientists (and pretty much everyone else but you apparently) know intuitively and immediately, it’s not even up for discussion.
Read it again, that was granted already, Indeed I do interpret what the point is when using models in climate science, the experiments can and are carried when nature does the job in controling the experiment.
Ok, let’s test this, see if you can find scientists that disagree with these points:
1 - Controlled experiments
Being able to run controlled experiments on the climate would speed up the validation of models. If we had a 2nd Earth and we had the resources to manipulate various aspects to see what the result would be, we would be able to gain a better understanding faster of the climate.
For example: they could have stopped man-made CO2 emissions completely starting in the 80’s and by now we would have a much better idea about how stopping man-made CO2 emissions would impact the climate.
That is what you are arguing against - that this type of controlled experiment would not gain us information faster.
2 - Long climate cycle
If the climate cycle were shorter (say 3 years instead of 30) we could gain information faster even without controlled experiments. Today a 15 year plateau is either a plateau or part of a change. If the cycle were 3 years then a 15 year plateau could be categorized as a change much more easily.
You are also arguing against this point, why I cannot understand.
WTF? What sources are you talking about? This is just obvious stuff to anyone that looks at the situation and does a little analysis.
Hmmm, 1 Earth, very large, 30 year climate cycles (at minimum): conclusion, tough to run controlled experiments.
Who wouldn’t come to that conclusion? Seriously is that not just painfully obvious to everyone?
But if you want sources how about these:
Scientists that wrote the IPCC report you directed me to that supported my arguments?
Or the climate scientists at Stanford?
Or pretty much every climate scientist everywhere?
Observational and natural experiments are certainly valid (of course), but with a system this complex it is very difficult to use just these types of tools to gain understanding.
Not at all. Performing an experiment “on the climate” and “manipulate” are pretty clear.
The purpose of the point was exactly what was stated.
It is very very difficult to validate climate models because we can’t perform experiments on the climate.
I didn’t say impossible.
You simply don’t understand the math involved.
If you have 1 timeline that your model is being created to replicate, it is very difficult to know if you modeled the system or if you just matched that 1 timeline.
If the starting conditions for the real system were a little different, would your model still work or would it deviate because it has a bias towards the other timeline/data.
This back and forth is just freaking ridiculous (not sure why I persist, I’m a masochist? not sure).
Here’s a climate scientist, I don’t know anything about him other than he’s at Stanford so I assume he has at least some brain power:
“We can’t carry out controlled experiments with Earth’s greenhouse effect because we have only one Earth”
Here’s GIGO from the internet:
“nature does the job in controling the experiment”
I think you should call up Stephen Schneider and argue with him instead me.
Wrong people to argue, you should tell all those people that awarded Einstein recognition to remove those recognitions as the moon gravity bending the light from stars as predicted by Einstein was done thanks to nature doing the hard work.
And the point I made stands, it is difficult, not impossible and scientists have done so already, so much so that academics agree that that is the case.
Really, in the end what Stephen Schneider insisted was that models are an important part of the whole picture even with uncertainties, they are not the only one of the many lines of inquiry that told him and many others that humans are changing the climate. The reality is that this FUD attempt was seen before on many occasions, (as it is the FUD that looks for a cherry pick to minimize the big picture that even that researcher told us) it is important to realize that it is an old maneuver and one should go first with the assumption that you are not aware of that.
Yes, do you understand that not even Schneider (as a contributor to early IPCC reports) would not toss out the valid method used to gain information and understanding?
Did I ever say we should toss out a valid method to gain information and understanding?
Are you even aware of the point I was making?
It’s as if you don’t even read the posts, you just feed the words into “Eliza - Climate Version” and out pops a response with some of the relevant words but zero understanding.
Nope, in reality I already got the concession I looked for, but you act like if that is not the case. And I already granted your point, I’m just saying that indeed, indeed, there is a distortion of what researchers are doing if we only insist that one item like direct experimentation is the only correct way to deal with an issue in science.
I didn’t ever say that direct experimentation is the only correct way to deal with an issue. Did you think I did say that? If so please point out where I said that.
That was the point, yes, no more is needed. The problem I saw was that your early absolutist say so was implying that that was the only way for scientists to work with models in relation to this issue. Since you clarified, there are no more problems…
Except using that quote from Schneider, as it turns out I was aware that he was dead, but then again so is Einstein, a lot of what they talked about is still valid, and well, using him to press for a choice that even he thought that it was not the whole history is a distortion in my book.
Testimony of Stephen H. Schneider
Professor, Department of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
July 10, 1997
CLIMATE CHANGE: CAUSES, IMPACTS AND UNCERTAINTIES
I don’t believe in global warming or global cooling.To many places in the world are too hot and other places too cold.Go to northerin US states and Canada and say global warming and they will say it is the opposite it is below normal this year.
Go to Dallas and Atlanta and there where many times the weather was below normal this year amd last year.Yes the Antarctica and north pole is melting!! Well too many other places it seem like a freek show .Go back two or three years ago in the northerin US states and Canada not as cold what it should be!! And last year well more so this year well below normal.
Also have fun when the weather fluctuates by 10 or 15 degrees by the next day!! Yes the weather is messesd up but it seems more like a roller coaster ride.Not slowly of getting hotter.
