Conspiracy Theory Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming?

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

If I might be permitted to make a prediction, you won't. Rather you will continue to pretend that you are "sitting on the fence" in respect of conclusions of orthodox science and continue to pretend that by doing so you are not denying those conclusions.



I disagree with the assumption underpinning your first comment and invite you to explain what you believe I have not worked out. Your second comment would be irrelevant even if the assumption upon which it was based were true. That you would wish to share an irrelevancy is not surprising - you are playing to your strength.

Personally I don't give rats arse what you think I may think.

I have put my position in the thread much earlier.

I accept that the indications are that increased Co2 appears to be leading to a rise in global temperatures.
What the ultimate rise is, how long it takes to get there and exactly what the ramifications of the rise are I am not sure.
I don't feel the models are accurate enough to make blanket claims of absolutes.
Make of that what you will.

 

[Windhover]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Personally I don't give rats arse what you think I may think.

If so, perhaps you would like to reflect on your attitude to criticism from the words of a person you do give a rats arse about. Yourself:

"Or that the issue has begun to be an emotive issue, with many refusing to accept any criticism of the their view, responding to said criticism like religious nutters using argument from authority to defend their "Faith"?"

I have put my position in the thread much earlier.

Indeed you have. What is more, you think your opinion so valuable you repeat it below . . .

I accept that the indications are that increased Co2 appears to be leading to a rise in global temperatures.
What the ultimate rise is, how long it takes to get there and exactly what the ramifications of the rise are I am not sure.
I don't feel the models are accurate enough to make blanket claims of absolutes.
Make of that what you will.

. . . just as I predicted. You pretend to sit on the fence when in fact by denying the accuracy of the models what you are doing is denying the opinions of orthodox science. You might just as well deny the evidence of the value of vaccination.

The one thing you won't do is admit that there is simply no peer-reviewed evidence to support your fence-sitting. But, by not engaging in that debate you tell me all I need to know. Denial is in your blood.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

If so, perhaps you would like to reflect on your attitude to criticism from the words of a person you do give a rats arse about. Yourself:

"Or that the issue has begun to be an emotive issue, with many refusing to accept any criticism of the their view, responding to said criticism like religious nutters using argument from authority to defend their "Faith"?"




Indeed you have. What is more, you think your opinion so valuable you repeat it below . . .



. . . just as I predicted. You pretend to sit on the fence when in fact by denying the accuracy of the models what you are doing is denying the opinions of orthodox science. You might just as well deny the evidence of the value of vaccination.

The one thing you won't do is admit that there is simply no peer-reviewed evidence to support your fence-sitting. But, by not engaging in that debate you tell me all I need to know. Denial is in your blood.

Hahahahahahaha!

Nice prose.

You try too damned hard to be taken seriously, even as a fanatic.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

That made for a good laugh at least.
I'm assuming that was a satirical send-up to illustrate the extent of the cheer leading which has developed along with the theories.

Or you could be serious.
In any case it was funny.

Pretty poor response there dude. It's a sure sign you're losing the debate when you slip into snide ad him mode like that and then try to hand wave arguments away by saying you're not trying yo convince anyone of anything. Why bother responding at all if that's the case?

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Pretty poor response there dude. It's a sure sign you're losing the debate when you slip into snide ad him mode like that and then try to hand wave arguments away by saying you're not trying yo convince anyone of anything. Why bother responding at all if that's the case?

Yours would be a credible response if there was a debate going on.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

In answer to the OP....


No I haven't...I'll stand by what I've said, this "scam" is another currency for fledging EU states and corporates nothing more , nothing less.

If only they could tax volcanoes, sheep (well they will indirectly).

To be hood winked to thinking anything else is laughable...

What the dinsosaurs caused the ice age?

People who don't understand that this debate is multifactorial and not ALL about CO2 are frankly delusional or their livlihood depends on it

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Yours would be a credible response if there was a debate going on.

Well, you are doing your darnedest to avoid one in one.

Ever heard of the phrase JAQing off? Google it. Its a piss poor argumentative fallacy.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Well, you are doing your darnedest to avoid one in one.

Ever heard of the phrase JAQing off? Google it. Its a piss poor argumentative fallacy.

You could say then that I was not having one....as I suggested.
Even if you consider Windhovers myopic diatribe as debate, it certainly was not with me.
I would have said it was more like a sermon or lecture.
Something I have no interest in.

Accordingly, as I have little interest in being lectured by Windy on what my views should be.
I'm don't really feel I have to answer to you on how I view his/her input.

I don't really care how you view mine.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

I stopped reading at the word 'diatribe', something you accused me of when I responded quite politely to a question you asked me earlier in the thread. I took umbrage at the time but decided to just ignore it in the interest of civility but if you can't read an alternative opinion without resorting to barbs like that then I wonder what you are doing participating in a discussion forum? Especially if your not having a debate or trying to convince anyone of anything. What exactly are you doing, just trying to foment doubt?

 

[Windhover]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

You could say then that I was not having one....as I suggested.
Even if you consider Windhovers myopic diatribe as debate, it certainly was not with me.
I would have said it was more like a sermon or lecture.
Something I have no interest in.

Accordingly, as I have little interest in being lectured by Windy on what my views should be.
I'm don't really feel I have to answer to you on how I view his/her input.

I don't really care how you view mine.

Um, are you for real? Let me make the "debate" between us simple for you.

You say: There is so much uncertainty in the models and shit (just like Prof Dyson says), how can anyone be sure whether we are all going to be roasted by climate change, if any.

I say in response:
1. There are so many things beyond my capacity to understand that uncertainty is a constant.

2. Even so, one thing that I am confident about is that the application of scientific method will give a closer approximation to "reality" than astrology, praying or any other supposed "method". For me the evidence of the accuracy of scientific method is as demonstrable as the keyboard and computer that are in front of me.

3. Orthodox science (you know, the peer-reviewed stuff, not the blog-sites of know-it-all nobodies or the opinions of illustrious non-experts like Prof Dyson) speaks with one voice (called a "consensus") that the threat of AGW is real and unabated likely to be catastrophic in a way that, say, cyclone Yarsi could be compared to a summer breeze.

4. I conclude that you, by fence-sitting, are rejecting the opinion of orthodox science. You are "denying" it just as much as if you believed in witches.

You say in response: Well, nothing of substance. A few garbled swipes at my good self and then a repetition of your fence-sitting position.

I say in response: Your garbled swipes are garbled, and explain why (and have a bit of fun in the process). I then state that your fence-sitting, unjustified, is just being a denialist. (I also correctly predict your response.)

Now it is true that we do not progress much from there. It is not for me to ascribe fault for any lack of progress but I do dispute your characterisation of my response to you as (a) being questionable debate; (b) a lecture or sermon and/or (c) not being debate with you.

Over to you Pie-eyed.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Um, are you for real? Let me make the "debate" between us simple for you.

You say: There is so much uncertainty in the models and shit (just like Prof Dyson says), how can anyone be sure whether we are all going to be roasted by climate change, if any.

I say in response:
1. There are so many things beyond my capacity to understand that uncertainty is a constant.

2. Even so, one thing that I am confident about is that the application of scientific method will give a closer approximation to "reality" than astrology, praying or any other supposed "method". For me the evidence of the accuracy of scientific method is as demonstrable as the keyboard and computer that are in front of me.

3. Orthodox science (you know, the peer-reviewed stuff, not the blog-sites of know-it-all nobodies or the opinions of illustrious non-experts like Prof Dyson) speaks with one voice (called a "consensus") that the threat of AGW is real and unabated likely to be catastrophic in a way that, say, cyclone Yarsi could be compared to a summer breeze.

4. I conclude that you, by fence-sitting, are rejecting the opinion of orthodox science. You are "denying" it just as much as if you believed in witches.

You say in response: Well, nothing of substance. A few garbled swipes at my good self and then a repetition of your fence-sitting position.

I say in response: Your garbled swipes are garbled, and explain why (and have a bit of fun in the process). I then state that your fence-sitting, unjustified, is just being a denialist. (I also correctly predict your response.)

Now it is true that we do not progress much from there. It is not for me to ascribe fault for any lack of progress but I do dispute your characterisation of my response to you as (a) being questionable debate; (b) a lecture or sermon and/or (c) not being debate with you.

Over to you Pie-eyed.

I rest my case.

I said in my opinion that the models used to form projections of climate change 50-100 years into the future were not accurate enough to conclusively predict an outcome.
Therefore I am undecided or on the fence as to the actual outcomes of the clearly existing evidence of Global Warming.
I have not denied anything.

You obviously have a problem with that.

As they say "stiff shit".

I don't have to defend assumptions or misrepresentations you have made in regard to my position or motives.

You are the one pontificating on what it is exactly I should believe, based on what you are willing to accept and believe.

Well, Bully for you.

If I were in the market to be convinced of a position by a poster on BF there are dozens I would turn to first before even considering someone who comes across as a zealot on either side of the discussion.

Cheers.

 

[Windhover]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

I rest my case.

No. You say that at the end of your convincing argument, not when you are about to agitate it.

I said in my opinion that the models used to form projections of climate change 50-100 years into the future were not accurate enough to conclusively predict an outcome.
Therefore I am undecided or on the fence as to the actual outcomes of the clearly existing evidence of Global Warming.
I have not denied anything.

You obviously have a problem with that...

Yes, I do have "a problem with that". When you write "that the models used to form projections of climate change 50-100 years into the future were not accurate enough to conclusively predict an outcome" may I make 1 comment and ask 1 question.

Comment: The same scientists who give you "clearly existing evidence of GW" are also giving you, "projections of climate change 50-100 years" hence. Orthodox science says the models are accurate enough to make dire predictions about the global climate if carbon emissions are not curtailed. You are "denying" the conclusions of orthodox science.

Question: What is the peer-reviewed evidence that supports your doubts about the accuracy of the models? [Links to commentaries that themselves link to and explain the peer-reviewed evidence would be entirely satisfactory. I am not asking much, just where you get the information that forms your doubt].

I don't have to defend assumptions or misrepresentations you have made in regard to my position or motives.

You are the one pontificating on what it is exactly I should believe, based on what you are willing to accept and believe.

You are missing the point. I could not care less what you believe. I am only interested in knowing the basis upon which you form your "doubting" state. In doing so I have knocked away your reliance on Freeman Dyson (since, rightly, you seem no longer to defer to him over real climate experts) and wonder where else you might find support for your fence-sitting, which is a position, whether you like it or not.

If I were in the market to be convinced of a position by a poster on BF there are dozens I would turn to first before even considering someone who comes across as a zealot on either side of the discussion.

If you were in such a market I couldn't agree with you more that you should not allow your opinion to be informed by zealotry on either side. Do you think it is zealotry on my part to point out that your fence-sitting is a rejection of orthodox scientific opinion, a proposition which you are free to disagree with and support by reference to any scientific opinion you rely on?

I don't. On the contrary, if you could provide me with satisfactory scientific opinion that casts "significant" doubts on the accuracy of the climate models I would be more than happy to change my opinion. If I have a vested interest in the debate it is definitely one that hopes that AGW is a myth, or at least of dubious quality.

Over to you Pie-eyed. Do you want to help me see things your way?

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

No. You say that at the end of your convincing argument, not when you are about to agitate it.



Yes, I do have "a problem with that". When you write "that the models used to form projections of climate change 50-100 years into the future were not accurate enough to conclusively predict an outcome" may I make 1 comment and ask 1 question.

Comment: The same scientists who give you "clearly existing evidence of GW" are also giving you, "projections of climate change 50-100 years" hence. Orthodox science says the models are accurate enough to make dire predictions about the global climate if carbon emissions are not curtailed. You are "denying" the conclusions of orthodox science.

Question: What is the peer-reviewed evidence that supports your doubts about the accuracy of the models? [Links to commentaries that themselves link to and explain the peer-reviewed evidence would be entirely satisfactory. I am not asking much, just where you get the information that forms your doubt].




You are missing the point. I could not care less what you believe. I am only interested in knowing the basis upon which you form your "doubting" state. In doing so I have knocked away your reliance on Freeman Dyson (since, rightly, you seem no longer to defer to him over real climate experts) and wonder where else you might find support for your fence-sitting, which is a position, whether you like it or not.



If you were in such a market I couldn't agree with you more that you should not allow your opinion to be informed by zealotry on either side. Do you think it is zealotry on my part to point out that your fence-sitting is a rejection of orthodox scientific opinion, a proposition which you are free to disagree with and support by reference to any scientific opinion you rely on?

I don't. On the contrary, if you could provide me with satisfactory scientific opinion that casts "significant" doubts on the accuracy of the climate models I would be more than happy to change my opinion. If I have a vested interest in the debate it is definitely one that hopes that AGW is a myth, or at least of dubious quality.

Over to you Pie-eyed. Do you want to help me see things your way?

Conveniently a respected Climate Scientist was interviewed on this exact subject today on ABC Radio.
As soon as the transcript is available I will post it.

Uncertain climate models impair long-term climate strategies

New calibration satellite required to make accurate predictions, say scientists

A new paper published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, explains weaknesses in our understanding of climate change and how we can fix them. These issues mean predictions vary wildly about how quickly temperatures will rise. This has serious implications for long term political and economic planning. The papers lead author is Dr Nigel Fox of The National Physical Laboratory, The UK's National Measurement Institution.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/npl-ucm091911.php

Although model-based projections of future climate are now more credible than ever before, the authors note they have no way to say exactly how reliable those projections are. There are simply too many unknowns involved in the future evolution of climate, such as how much humans will curb their future greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm

How Well Do Coupled Models
Simulate Today’s Climate?

AFFILIATIONS: REICHLER AND KIM—Department of Meteorology,
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Thomas Reichler, Department of
Meteorology, University of Utah, 135 S 1460 E, Rm 819 (WBB),
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0110
E-mail: thomas.reichler@utah.edu
DOI:10.1175/BAMS-89-3-303
©2008 American Meteorological Society


RESULTS.
The outcome of the comparison of the
57 models in terms of the performance index I2 is illustrated
in the top three rows of Fig. 1. Th e I2 index
varies around one, with values greater than one for
underperforming models and values less than one for more accurate models.

Given the many issues that complicate model
validation, it is perhaps not too surprising that the
present study has some limitations. First, we note the
caveat that we were only concerned with the timemean
state of climate. Higher moments of climate,
such as temporal variability, are probably equally as
important for model performance, but we were unable
to investigate these. Another critical point is the
calculation of the performance index. For example,
it is unclear how important climate variability is
compared to the mean climate, exactly which is the
optimum selection of climate variables, and how
accurate the used validation data are. Another complicating
issue is that error information contained
in the selected climate variables is partly redundant.
Clearly, more work is required to answer the above
questions, and it is hoped that the present study will
stimulate further research in the design of more robust
metrics.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inscc.utah.edu%2F~jkim%2Fpublications%2Fpapers%2FRK_2008_BAMS_Performance.pdf&ei=iOVET4PbKuiSiQfihqSXAw&usg=AFQjCNGZRG42UVLB_IvTnGSeRivBjJCokg

Then read all of this...
A detailed audit of the forecasting method used to construct the climate models used by the IPCC.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...rcD-Ag&usg=AFQjCNE1Qc13nxdf4hFm3z2Go1ME2EumoA

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

No. You say that at the end of your convincing argument, not when you are about to agitate it.

I say what I like, when I like.

 

[wmvaux]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

The simple fact is the so called experts have a 400% variable, so that shows how accurate their predictions are. Would you trust a mechanic if they said your car service will be between $150 and $600? No!, you would want a more accurate figure and some assurance your not getting ripped off.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

The experts accept their models are inaccurate.

The biggest indicator is "fit" and the tendency for a.) The Models which best describe past "known" climactic events to be preferred over those which do not and b.) those which do not to be adjusted to "fit" these "knowns".

The last pdf I linked to compares the forecasting "method" used in Climate Models with the more than 100 recognised parameters generally accepted as vital in ensuring the most accurate end forecast.

The paper is an examination the forecasting method, not the data.

Current climate models fail this test on multiple fronts.

I have posted this and the other links for no other reason that to show the variable accuracy ascribed to climate models oft described is "accurate".

 

[Windhover]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Conveniently a respected Climate Scientist was interviewed on this exact subject today on ABC Radio.
As soon as the transcript is available I will post it.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/npl-ucm091911.php

Thank you for the response and the links that you have provided to support your fence-sitting position. It is convenient that I should deal with each of the links individually.

The first link is to Dr. Nigel Fox who is agitating for more resources to be spent on improving the accuracy of climate models. In that call he did say this:

"The result is varying model forecasts. Estimates of global temperature increases by 2100, range from ~2-10◦C. Which of these is correct is important for making major decisions about mitigating and adapting to climate change: for instance how quickly are we likely to see serious and life threatening droughts in which part of the world; or if and when do we need to spend enormous amounts of money on a new Thames barrier. The forecasted change by all the models is very similar for many decades only deviating significantly towards the latter half of this century."

Obviously this statement would not motivate you to sit on the fence. As +2C is regarded as the threshold point for catastrophic change and it is at the bottom end of the scale of global temperature changes, while improving the models would be very useful (as he suggests, telling us when to build the Thames barrier) there is a clear and unequivocal message supported by Fox coming through the "noise" in the models.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm

I wonder whether you stayed to read even the headline of this link. The headline reads "Climate models look good when predicting climate change". Importantly the article based on a paper by Reichler and Kim seems to fairly reflect the headline. But perhaps you can explain why this supports your fence-sitting.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inscc.utah.edu%2F~jkim%2Fpublications%2Fpapers%2FRK_2008_BAMS_Performance.pdf&ei=iOVET4PbKuiSiQfihqSXAw&usg=AFQjCNGZRG42UVLB_IvTnGSeRivBjJCokg

And this is of course the paper by Reichler and Kim. You have quoted a section of the paper that surprise, surprise, says the climate models could be more robust. But, properly understood, a conclusion that the climate models are unreliable for policy purposes is absolutely contrary to the paper's conclusions.

Then read all of this...
A detailed audit of the forecasting method used to construct the climate models used by the IPCC.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...rcD-Ag&usg=AFQjCNE1Qc13nxdf4hFm3z2Go1ME2EumoA

This last paper is very interesting. I note that one of the lead authors is Prof. J. Scott Armstrong, who is a professor of marketing. The paper is published in a scientific journal of no repute based on its editorial policy. A critique of the paper by a leading climate scientist, Trembath is here: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/07/global_warming_and_forecasts_o.html

and an amusing debunking of the paper by Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/.

So thank you for explaining the basis upon which you perch upon your fence. It is a matter of personal regret that I find myself unpersuaded by your links to follow you up on to the fence.

But please be sure to have the good marketing professor's paper front and centre when you wave down at those of us concerned about AGW who are listening to people who at least pretend to understand something of climate science.

 

[Windhover]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Oh, and Pie-Eyed, if you think I have set out to make you look ridiculous (fence-sitting and all) at least consider for a second whether you might have contributed just a little bit.

 

[MeeSo]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

The experts accept their models are inaccurate.

The biggest indicator is "fit" and the tendency for a.) The Models which best describe past "known" climactic events to be preferred over those which do not and b.) those which do not to be adjusted to "fit" these "knowns".

The last pdf I linked to compares the forecasting "method" used in Climate Models with the more than 100 recognised parameters generally accepted as vital in ensuring the most accurate end forecast.

The paper is an examination the forecasting method, not the data.

Current climate models fail this test on multiple fronts.

I have posted this and the other links for no other reason that to show the variable accuracy ascribed to climate models oft described is "accurate".

You can't seriously find that paper in Energy and Environment compelling? It's awful. It essentially boils down to their judgment of whether temp estimates and the like meet their own forecasting methodology but they appear to lack the skills to even break down the models and the methodology used to perform a proper assessment. Where's the discussion about model ensembles? Of model comparisons to empirical evidence such as paleoclimate recontructions? Of hindcasting? Of the break down of GCMs to simple one and two dimensional models to assess their components? They don't even ask the obvious question of how many model runs where required to arrive at these estimates. Most of their criticisms seems to be formed around the language used in the reports, the usual ignorance about fitting the models to the data without realising that models are as much about understanding climate as forecasting it and vague assertions about weak evidence such as this

Global climate is complex and scientific evidence on key relationships is weak or absent. For example, does increased CO2 in the atmosphere cause high temperatures or do high temperatures increase CO2?

The answer to that question of course is not one or the other it's both. Anyone who has such a fundamental misunderstanding of the science and the methodology used or has to reference Wattsian idiocy like the urban heat island effect to bolster their case for uncertainty shouldn't be criticising the experts. Of course model outputs are uncertain. No climate modeller would assert that they are predictions of absolute certainty. They are simply estimates of what is reasonably likely to occur based on our current understanding of the science. A good rule I've found is that if a paper makes a case for uncertainty and little else but ignores the two-directional implications of uncertainty then you might as well dismiss it out of hand. There are far better discussions about uncertainty in the literature from climate scientists and modellers themselves.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Thank you for the response and the links that you have provided to support your fence-sitting position. It is convenient that I should deal with each of the links individually.

The first link is to Dr. Nigel Fox who is agitating for more resources to be spent on improving the accuracy of climate models. In that call he did say this:

"The result is varying model forecasts. Estimates of global temperature increases by 2100, range from ~2-10◦C. Which of these is correct is important for making major decisions about mitigating and adapting to climate change: for instance how quickly are we likely to see serious and life threatening droughts in which part of the world; or if and when do we need to spend enormous amounts of money on a new Thames barrier. The forecasted change by all the models is very similar for many decades only deviating significantly towards the latter half of this century."

Obviously this statement would not motivate you to sit on the fence. As +2C is regarded as the threshold point for catastrophic change and it is at the bottom end of the scale of global temperature changes, while improving the models would be very useful (as he suggests, telling us when to build the Thames barrier) there is a clear and unequivocal message supported by Fox coming through the "noise" in the models.





I wonder whether you stayed to read even the headline of this link. The headline reads "Climate models look good when predicting climate change". Importantly the article based on a paper by Reichler and Kim seems to fairly reflect the headline. But perhaps you can explain why this supports your fence-sitting.




And this is of course the paper by Reichler and Kim. You have quoted a section of the paper that surprise, surprise, says the climate models could be more robust. But, properly understood, a conclusion that the climate models are unreliable for policy purposes is absolutely contrary to the paper's conclusions.



This last paper is very interesting. I note that one of the lead authors is Prof. J. Scott Armstrong, who is a professor of marketing. The paper is published in a scientific journal of no repute based on its editorial policy. A critique of the paper by a leading climate scientist, Trembath is here: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/07/global_warming_and_forecasts_o.html

and an amusing debunking of the paper by Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/.

So thank you for explaining the basis upon which you perch upon your fence. It is a matter of personal regret that I find myself unpersuaded by your links to follow you up on to the fence.

But please be sure to have the good marketing professor's paper front and centre when you wave down at those of us concerned about AGW who are listening to people who at least pretend to understand something of climate science.

Strangely they all go toward the inaccuracy of the models.
Which is exactly what you asked for.

I'm not out to debunk Climate science and never have been.

The fact the models are inaccurate is not a wild claim and has been accepted by even the most dedicated climate scientists.

That is my point.

You are the one denying any inaccuracy.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

You can't seriously find that paper in Energy and Environment compelling? It's awful. It essentially boils down to their judgment of whether temp estimates and the like meet their own forecasting methodology but they appear to lack the skills to even break down the models and the methodology used to perform a proper assessment. Where's the discussion about model ensembles? Of model comparisons to empirical evidence such as paleoclimate recontructions? Of hindcasting? Of the break down of GCMs to simple one and two dimensional models to assess their components? They don't even ask the obvious question of how many model runs where required to arrive at these estimates. Most of their criticisms seems to be formed around the language used in the reports, the usual ignorance about fitting the models to the data without realising that models are as much about understanding climate as forecasting it and vague assertions about weak evidence such as this
The answer to that question of course is not one or the other it's both. Anyone who has such a fundamental misunderstanding of the science and the methodology used or has to reference Wattsian idiocy like the urban heat island effect to bolster their case for uncertainty shouldn't be criticising the experts. Of course model outputs are uncertain. No climate modeller would assert that they are predictions of absolute certainty. They are simply estimates of what is reasonably likely to occur based on our current understanding of the science. A good rule I've found is that if a paper makes a case for uncertainty and little else but ignores the two-directional implications of uncertainty then you might as well dismiss it out of hand. There are far better discussions about uncertainty in the literature from climate scientists and modellers themselves.

The article goes directly to the construction of the models.

Find me any other way to analyze forecasts, beside hind sight?

 

[MeeSo]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

The article goes directly to the construction of the models.

Find me any other way to analyze forecasts, beside hind sight?

I never mentioned the other articles. I have no issue with them. I was specifically talking about the Energy and Environment publication which was obviously trash and has little if anything to do with the construction of models. Even if you're not aware of the journal's history or the people they cite in the references their cherry picking of quotes, inability to assess the models themselves and their constant references to their own work as support should give you pause.

What are you even trying to argue? No one with any knowledge of modelling is denying that their projections are uncertain. It's why they have confidence intervals. All we can do is make an estimate of what is likely to occur.

If you want something to analyse them against the best is probably their response to Pinatubo which is discussed here http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/eemartin/GLY307410/Schmidt_PhysToday'07_ClimMod.pdf

If you want a well sourced history of modelling with their various successes and failures look here http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

What are you even trying to argue?
No one with any knowledge of modelling is denying that their projections are uncertain. It's why they have confidence intervals. All we can do is make an estimate of what is likely to occur.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm

Exactly what you have written above. Thankyou.

Windy insists that my claims that the models are inaccurate, that the long term predictions are less than certainties, not absolutes by any stretch, that this fact is widely accepted within climate science and the discussion generally is not only wrong but makes me a Global Warming denier.

The links I posted were the result of a single google search to shut him/her/it up.

In normal circumstance I'd spend so time and put in some effort, but at this point in the discussion I could not really bothered wasting too much time on a zealot like Windy.

I don't even know why I bothered to be honest. He/she/it already agreed with every point I've made anyway in the process of ranting maniacally about my "denial".

 

[Windhover]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Strangely they all go toward the inaccuracy of the models.
Which is exactly what you asked for.

I'm not out to debunk Climate science and never have been.

The fact the models are inaccurate is not a wild claim and has been accepted by even the most dedicated climate scientists.

That is my point.

You are the one denying any inaccuracy.

1. You claim I deny any inaccuracy in the models. Prove your claim from any of my posts or withdraw it.
2. The debate between us is whether the inaccuracy in the models is so large that they do not usefully inform public policy formation.
3. Orthodox science (represented by the IPCC - that is what it is there for) says that the models are sufficiently useful to inform public policy in seeking to cap temperature rise below 2C.
4. You say, it appears largely based on the paper of a Professor of Marketing but also on eminent non-experts like Dyson, that the models are so unreliable you cannot say one way or the other whether we face risk of catastrophic AGW.

If any of the above 4 points is incorrect please explain specifically which point(s) you disagree with and, as importantly, why you disagree.

If the above 4 points are correct then by siding with a Professor of Marketing over the IPCC (among other expert climate scientists) you are DENYING the science.

But I think you disingenuously know that by now.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

1. You claim I deny any inaccuracy in the models. Prove your claim from any of my posts or withdraw it.
2. The debate between us is whether the inaccuracy in the models is so large that they do not usefully inform public policy formation.
3. Orthodox science (represented by the IPCC - that is what it is there for) says that the models are sufficiently useful to inform public policy in seeking to cap temperature rise below 2C.
4. You say, it appears largely based on the paper of a Professor of Marketing but also on eminent non-experts like Dyson, that the models are so unreliable you cannot say one way or the other whether we face risk of catastrophic AGW.

If any of the above 4 points is incorrect please explain specifically which point(s) you disagree with and, as importantly, why you disagree.

If the above 4 points are correct then by siding with a Professor of Marketing over the IPCC (among other expert climate scientists) you are DENYING the science.

But I think you disingenuously know that by now.

I am not going to attempt to prove anything to you in relation to your own mindless diatribe.
As far as I am concerned your posts are the rants of a zealot.
I have not sided with anyone and for you to claim I have is your own idiocy shining through.
If this offends you then stiff.
Nothing you have to say, or post holds any interest to me other than as a example of the extreme self importance you place on your own view.
I stated my position and since you have continually misrepresented it simply so you can read your own posted garbage.