14 Feb 15
Originally posted by humy"one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from ...”
perhaps you are unable to read but your above quote was already rendered irrelevant before you said it by what googlefudge had just perfectly informatively and concisely told you which was:
“...
He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literatu ...[text shortened]... ience presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from ...”
I did just that. Your credibility is waning.
15 Feb 15
8 edits
Originally posted by joe shmoThat rhetorical question is the wrong question. The right question would be something vaguely along the lines:
How about we take a Poll: Who here [b]personally understands the immense complexity's involved in solving the climatic mathematical model?
I'll go first: No[/b]
Who here has the humility and understanding that, unless you are a climate scientists, climate scientists generally would know vastly more about climate than you and collectively have the immense knowledge of the complex climate needed to making a reasonably reliable climatic model?
I'll go first: Yes
Obviously, nobody here would claim to have all that immense knowledge. I find it strange how so many laypeople assume they must somehow necessarily know better than the experts and the experts don't know what they are talking about just because the average layperson doesn't. I have the understanding that there are both people that know a lot more than I do and people that are a lot more clever than I.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
15 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyOk humy, your response is noted... although it seems a little presumptuous to deem it a rhetorical question. To clarify...I'm not talking about knowing the vast amount of empirical (stamp collecting) knowledge. I want to know,
That rhetorical question is the wrong question. The right question would be something vaguely along the lines:
Who here has the humility and understanding that, unless you are a climate scientists, climate scientists generally would know vastly more about climate than you and collectively have the immense knowledge of the complex climate needed to ma ...[text shortened]... ere are both people that know a lot more than I do and people that are a lot more clever than I.
(1) who here has the capacity for the interpretation and dissemination of the fundamental equations that govern the results of the computational climate model.
(2) knowledge of specific solution techniques for large systems of nonlinear differential equations, and their sensitivities with respect to initial conditions.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by joe shmoMe. [at least in terms of understanding how they work]
Ok humy, your response is noted... although it seems a little presumptuous to deem it a rhetorical question. To clarify...I'm not talking about knowing the vast amount of empirical (stamp collecting) knowledge. I want to know,
(1) [b]who here has the capacity for the interpretation and dissemination of the fundamental equations that govern the resu ...[text shortened]... of nonlinear differential equations, and their sensitivities with respect to initial conditions.[/b]
Studied that kind of thing at university. Not climate models, but all the
principles are the same.
It's still the wrong question though.
Science has known that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the
planet for well over a century, long before computational forecast models
were invented.
The relevant science is trivially easy for anyone with basic high-school science
to understand.
I'm not a climate scientist and I don't work on these models, but I understand
exactly how they work, what the strengths and weaknesses are, and why we
should trust them. More to the point I do know the underlying physics which
tells us that increasing CO2 will cause global warming.
When this issue really kicked of as a serious policy concern was in the 60's,
and some literally back of the envelope calculations were done to see how big
an effect CO2 emissions would have on the global temperatures.
50 years later our best estimates for climate sensitivity to CO2 are basically unchanged.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
15 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, l thank you googlefudge. Now, that I have your attention and I know you are capable of providing sound information on the topic. Would you please direct your attention to thread
Me. [at least in terms of understanding how they work]
Studied that kind of thing at university. Not climate models, but all the
principles are the same.
It's still the wrong question though.
Science has known that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the
planet for well over a century, long before computational forecast models
wer ...[text shortened]... es.
50 years later our best estimates for climate sensitivity to CO2 are basically unchanged.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?subject=Help_with_a_math_problem%3F&threadid=162843
I could use a second opinion on my approach for solving a single, non linear differential equation that arose as a response to a question posed by sonhouse.
I don't know why everyone thought "I was asking the wrong question"?
P.s. I apologize for the deceptiveness of this post, and sorry for putting you on the spot. But please, if you get a chance...look it over and let me know if something/many things are wrong...I hate giving bad information, but I enjoy trying. 😀
16 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudge"I'm not a climate scientist and I don't work on these models, but I understand
Me. [at least in terms of understanding how they work]
Studied that kind of thing at university. Not climate models, but all the
principles are the same.
It's still the wrong question though.
Science has known that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the
planet for well over a century, long before computational forecast models
wer ...[text shortened]... es.
50 years later our best estimates for climate sensitivity to CO2 are basically unchanged.
exactly how they work, what the strengths and weaknesses are, and why we
should trust them. More to the point I do know the underlying physics which
tells us that increasing CO2 will cause global warming."
If you understand how they work then you know that none of them agree with one another. Here are some statements by Singer:
A-For example, as carbon dioxide increases, you would expect a warming. But at the same time that you get this warming or this slight warming, you get more evaporation from the ocean. That's inevitable. Everyone agrees with that. Now, what is the effect of this additional water vapor in the atmosphere? Will it enhance the warming, as the models now calculate? Or will it create clouds, which will reflect solar radiation and reduce the warming? Or will it do something else? You see, the clouds are not captured by the models. Models are not good enough to either depict clouds or to even discuss the creation of clouds in a proper way. So it's not possible at this time to be sure how much warming one will get from an increase in carbon dioxide.
Q-But to go back to my question: What can the models do? Can they take an era and plug in some figures and reproduce what happens?
A-A number of researchers have actually tried to reproduce past climates, using models. And to some extent, they've been successful. And to another extent, they have not been successful, in the sense that you cannot derive what is called the climate sensitivity. In other words, what we really are after is some way of valiating these models. We'd like to know how much of a temperature change is produced if carbon dioxide doubles in the atmosphere? That's called the climate sensitivity. What is the climate sensitivity? As I've mentioned earlier, it can range from as little as one degree in some models to as much as five degrees Centigrade, which equals eight degrees Fahrenheit, in other models. That's a big difference, a huge difference.
Q-Which of these numbers is correct, if any? You cannot just take the median or the average. There's no reason why the average should be correct. Maybe it's the high number; maybe it's the low number. We don't know. We need to find out by making observations and understanding really what happens in the atmosphere.
But my question is: What could convince you that you were wrong? What could convince them they were wrong? What could actually resolve this debate to the satisfaction of honest scientists? If people can always interpret what happened within their model, how do you resolve it?
A-I think that we would have to try to get the models to become better, and try to find more specific fingerprints-as I call them-- in the observations that can either be verified or falsified by models. And the global average temperature simply isn't good enough. It has to be based on geographic variation, or variation with altitude, or temporal variation, or much more detailed measurements. Certainly we know that the models do not agree amongst themselves. So I think the first step is to find out why this is so, and work very hard to at least resolve the differences between [models], and then try to resolve differences between models and observations.
16 Feb 15
Originally posted by joe shmoI have been quoting Fred Singer on this thread and he is a climate scientist. Humy rejected his qualified opinion repeatedly on this thread. Humy has demonstrated that it is his opinion that being a climate scientist isn't enough. Only a climate scientist that agrees with Humy is good enough.
Ok humy, your response is noted... although it seems a little presumptuous to deem it a rhetorical question. To clarify...I'm not talking about knowing the vast amount of empirical (stamp collecting) knowledge. I want to know,
(1) [b]who here has the capacity for the interpretation and dissemination of the fundamental equations that govern the resu ...[text shortened]... of nonlinear differential equations, and their sensitivities with respect to initial conditions.[/b]
Humy operates on the assumption that the majority is always right and a minority is always wrong. His assumption is deeply flawed but he will not accept that. The irony is that he will never challenge any of Singer's statements with facts. His criticism of Singer is not based on any facts because that facts are not on Humy's side. That is why he avoids facts like the plague. Same thing with googlemackinawfudgehoarder who posts opinion pieces that have no credibility. He will not debate using facts either. They both have their minds made up and don't want to be confused with facts.
Originally posted by Metal BrainNope. That is an obviously lie. The proven scientific facts are always right. It just so happens that most scientists have a general tendency not to deny the scientific facts therefore the default assumption should be that their qualified scientific opinion on something is highly likely (but not inevitably ) to be right and therefore the majority that are experts on something are likely to be right on that something until if or when you have evidence/reason to think the contrary. Do you deny this?
Humy operates on the assumption that the majority is always right
I never said/implied/believed/assumed that the majority of scientists are "always right" let alone more simply "the majority is always right" regardless of whether they are scientists and you know this. That makes you a liar.
You seem to have the arrogant assumption that you are always right and anyone that disagrees with you, no matter how qualified they are, must be wrong.
Humy rejected his qualified opinion
It isn't his “qualified” opinion because it isn't based on the known scientific facts. You throw a tantrum and complain when we reject his opinion and yet YOU reject the 'opinions' (based on the scientific facts in this case so the ARE “qualified” ) of all the other many climate scientists that disagree with him because that means they disagree with your opinion -what childish hypocrisy.
Hypothetically, if it is wrong for me to merely reject his opinion then, logically, it must be wrong for you to reject the qualified opinions of all the other climate scientists that disagree with him.
16 Feb 15
Originally posted by humy"It isn't his “qualified” opinion because it isn't based on the known scientific facts."
Nope. That is an obviously lie. The proven scientific facts are always right. It just so happens that most scientists have a general tendency not to deny the scientific facts therefore the default assumption should be that their qualified scientific opinion on something is highly likely (but not inevitably ) to be right and therefore the majority that ar ...[text shortened]... you to reject the qualified opinions of all the other climate scientists that disagree with him.
You make that allegation but cannot prove it. Once again you ignore the facts while lying about them. That's right, I'm calling you a LIAR! I have discredited that pathetic skeptical science link by showing that those that googlefudge relies on for his biased junk have no credibility within the science community. Singer on the other hand has a great deal of credibility with nobody questioning his statements. He even pointed out that the IPCC has no clear consensus of the claims you are making. It actually is not clear that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree with Singer at all. As he pointed out "no poll was taken" so nobody knows, so I don't even know if the vast majority of climate scientists agree with Singer or disagree and neither do you. You just keep buying into that misleading junk you and google get from quack sites like skeptical science. Even the Guardian articles google posted had obvious falsehoods in the very title and not surprisingly the authors are being accused of misleading everyone by other scientists. Nobody is accusing Singer of lying but you and crackpot sites like skeptical science.
I don't think you are stupid enough to continue using skeptical science as a credible source of information. For that reason I have concluded you are a LIAR.
" it must be wrong for you to reject the qualified opinions of all the other climate scientists that disagree with him."
There you go again claiming there are climate scientists that disagree with his statements. You have not shown any climate scientists disagree with his statements. Once again, you are a LIAR!
16 Feb 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo you deny that the majority of climate scientists would disagree with him and say that there is or at the very least will be a significant harmful amount of man made global warming?
There you go again claiming there are climate scientists that disagree with his statements. You have not shown any climate scientists disagree with his statements. Once again, you are a LIAR!
Yes or no?
16 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyI'm saying Singer's statements are accurate and most climate scientists would not call them lies like you did. You have never challenged any specific statement he has made. You have called him a liar though and now you are trying to digress away from that careless statement. You have no reason to call him a liar other than your refusal to accept he knows what he is talking about. I think skeptical science made you look stupid because you put too much faith into their false information. Now you need to find a reputable source of information if you are to avoid looking like a fool again.
So you deny that the majority of climate scientists would disagree with him and say that there is or at the very least will be a significant harmful amount of man made global warming?
Yes or no?
Your question (intended for digression) was poorly worded anyway. Nobody knows what you mean by significant harmful amount. Nobody has taken any polls of climate scientist's opinions with specificity anyway. You don't even know and probably never will unless you poll them yourself. I'll post the same excerpt from the Singer interview I did before to remind you.
"Anything else? . . .
Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn't go by numbers. I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so. In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view.
For example, they came up with a conclusion--the only conclusion of this 1996 report--that there's a discernible human influence on climate. I don't know what that means. Nobody really knows what that means. On the one hand, it's easy to agree with a statement "a discernible human influence on global climate." Sure, why not? Nights are getting warmer. Maybe that's it. On the other hand, it certainly does not mean--as politicians think it does--it does not mean that the climate models have been validated, that there's going to be a major warming in the next century. It does not mean that. And they don't say that. They just imply it."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
Originally posted by Metal Brain
I'm saying Singer's statements are accurate and most climate scientists would not call them lies like you did. You have never challenged any specific statement he has made. You have called him a liar though and now you are trying to digress away from that careless statement. You have no reason to call him a liar other than your refusal to accept he knows ...[text shortened]... they don't say that. They just imply it."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
Nobody knows what you mean by significant harmful amount
Really? Strange then all the climate scientists would know what they would mean by a “significant harmful amount” or any other words of that effect. A significantly harmful amount in this case obviously can mean something like enough to cause thousands (if not millions ) of human deaths in many civilizations because of droughts, flooding etc and, in the worst case scenario, also because of sea level rise flooding many cities thus displacing millions of people. Would you say that enough to cause enough sea level rise to food all the major coastal cities in the world that are very close to sea level so to displace millions of people is a “significant harmful amount” by any stretch of the imagination of what “significant harmful amount” could mean? If not, you are even more stupid than I thought.
The rest of your post is mainly nonsense.
17 Feb 15
Originally posted by humyMore nonsense based on those models that don't agree with one another. Those predictions are worthless as I have shown again and again.Nobody knows what you mean by significant harmful amount
Really? Strange then all the climate scientists would know what they would mean by a “significant harmful amount” or any other words of that effect. A significantly harmful amount in this case obviously can mean something like enough to cause thousands (if not millions ) o ...[text shortened]... ? If not, you are even more stupid than I thought.
The rest of your post is mainly nonsense.
You are a liar. You slandered Singer without any evidence his peers (other climate scientists) disagree with him and now you are being a typical sore loser by insulting me instead of having an honest debate.
The truth is I won this debate a long time ago. You just have a hard time letting go of your pride and admitting you were mislead by overly zealous left wing nuts. Singer is a very intelligent man and I think he believes exactly what he says. He does not seem like the kind of person that would intentionally mislead anybody. He is one of the few dedicated climate scientists that actually read the IPCC report!
The truth is that S. Fred Singer is much more qualified than most climate scientists. More importantly, unlike most people he thinks for himself instead of following the herd because it is a safe bet without doing much real work. The sad part is you don't even know if you are following the majority because there is no true consensus of climate scientists like you once thought. Even I would agree that there's a "discernible human influence on climate". Does that mean I'm a global warming alarmist like you and google? No, it does not.
Originally posted by Metal Brain
More nonsense based on those models that don't agree with one another. Those predictions are worthless as I have shown again and again.
You are a liar. You slandered Singer without any evidence his peers (other climate scientists) disagree with him and now you are being a typical sore loser by insulting me instead of having an honest debate.
The ...[text shortened]... on climate". Does that mean I'm a global warming alarmist like you and google? No, it does not.
More nonsense based on those models that don't agree with one another.
All the models agree that there is man made global warming of the kind of magnitude that would generally be naturally expected to cause thousands if not millions of human deaths thus anything they disagree on are relatively trivial details such as exactly where would be the areas worse effected by floods, not, for example, if there will be more floods. This universal agreement of all the climatic models, which is a result of the models being based on the same irrefutably known basic physics including the laws of physics, is an indicator that their main prediction is certainly not nonsense.
Pointing out that they disagree with trivial details doesn't change that fact.
The truth is I won this debate a long time ago
I think you will find few people here, esp the scientists, would agree with that assertion, and would think it very delusional, arrogant and condescending. You should think extremely carefully about that esp before making any more condescending assertions.