Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
durbster said:
Sorry if my tone is off but if you accept the mainstream scientific view rather than the PH climate-cult, it means you are regularly attacked...So you'll have to excuse me if I have a somewhat defensive stance. Normally I'm very pleasant and reasonable 
Anyway, computer and physical models are the only way we can test the AGW theory so yes, they use them to predict, then compare against observations. That CO2 would increase temperatures was predicted several decades ago (back in the 1950s I think) and it has happened, so it looks very much like things have been pretty much going as expected...
...Nevertheless, after tens of thousands of papers and decades of research, the evidence for MMGW has grown, not diminished.
Thank you for responding.Anyway, computer and physical models are the only way we can test the AGW theory so yes, they use them to predict, then compare against observations. That CO2 would increase temperatures was predicted several decades ago (back in the 1950s I think) and it has happened, so it looks very much like things have been pretty much going as expected...
...Nevertheless, after tens of thousands of papers and decades of research, the evidence for MMGW has grown, not diminished.
I was going to ask more, but it all leads back to the models, I don't see any further evidence. It all boils down to the models predicting one thing, which doesn't happen (temp rising is what I am thinking of), so then the model is changed (which is good science) but then there is no questioning of how wrong the models are. It seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog to me.
Anyway, thanks.
I'll be reading and watching as the story continues.
Halb said:
...It all boils down to the models predicting one thing, which doesn't happen (temp rising is what I am thinking of), so then the model is changed (which is good science) but then there is no questioning of how wrong the models are. It seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog to me.
Just on that specific point, every single temperature dateset there is shows warming. I'm curious as to why you think that isn't the case?durbster said:
Halb said:
...It all boils down to the models predicting one thing, which doesn't happen (temp rising is what I am thinking of), so then the model is changed (which is good science) but then there is no questioning of how wrong the models are. It seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog to me.
Just on that specific point, every single temperature dateset there is shows warming. I'm curious as to why you think that isn't the case?turbobloke said:
Gandahar said:
johnfm said:
The Arctic will be ice free in summer within 34 years apparently.
And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
I bet you read it at a non NASA web site based in the USA owned by a bloke who is white and middle aged and has a bee in his bonnet ?And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
In which case unless the chap is a liar (not restricted to white middle aged types) it could still be NASA as the location you describe would be a secondary source.
Also johnfm doesn't take to spinning yarns, so a link may well be discoverable.
However there's no harm in taking the RS at their word in the case of nullius in verba. If only the RS did likewise.
It makes little difference - forecasts of Arctic sea ice disappearance are as frequent and as wrong as Met Office weather forecasts, though they got it right today by the look of it. Woohoo.
There is an interesting trend downwards though, though nobody seems to be able to come up with a good reason for it. So it's an interesting question mark which might help in the bigger global picture, which even more complex of course. It still remains though that the recent downward trend on Arctic sea ice is something climate skeptics have failed to answer away. Conversely the climate warming folk have failed to provide a connection. It's getting to be something just to prove a point. Problem is, it cannot prove a point in the near term and will not do so until a lot more work is done.
The Antarctic sea ice is proving a bit of a conundrum also last two years .......
mybrainhurts said:
durbster said:
Halb said:
...It all boils down to the models predicting one thing, which doesn't happen (temp rising is what I am thinking of), so then the model is changed (which is good science) but then there is no questioning of how wrong the models are. It seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog to me.
Just on that specific point, every single temperature dateset there is shows warming. I'm curious as to why you think that isn't the case?And failing ?
If it is such a fraud how come you are so bad at proving it is, this has been going on years now.
durbster said:
Just on that specific point, every single temperature dateset there is shows warming. I'm curious as to why you think that isn't the case?
There has been a rise of 0.8-0.9 C in the past 150 years. Basically most if not all of that is a recovery from the little ice age. Nobody denies it.mybrainhurts said:
durbster said:
Halb said:
...It all boils down to the models predicting one thing, which doesn't happen (temp rising is what I am thinking of), so then the model is changed (which is good science) but then there is no questioning of how wrong the models are. It seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog to me.
Just on that specific point, every single temperature dateset there is shows warming. I'm curious as to why you think that isn't the case?durbster said:
Phud said:
Durbster,
Please can you provide a complete guide to what the makeup of the atmosphere should be...
Of course I can't.Please can you provide a complete guide to what the makeup of the atmosphere should be...
The best conditions are quite obviously the ones that human beings have thrived in. This is not about protecting the planet, it's about protecting ourselves and our infrastructure.
He doesn't give a s
t about anything except the status quo.dickymint said:
Because of this? .............
He doesn't give a st about anything except the status quo.
durbster said:
The best conditions are quite obviously the ones that human beings have thrived in. This is not about protecting the planet, it's about protecting ourselves and our infrastructure.
And there we have it ............ To hell with feeding and allowing growth and prosperity to any existing non industrialised society!!He doesn't give a s
t about anything except the status quo.
No idea what you're on about to be honest. By "ourselves", I was referring to humans, if that's your beef.
durbster said:
dickymint said:
Because of this? .............
He doesn't give a st about anything except the status quo.
durbster said:
The best conditions are quite obviously the ones that human beings have thrived in. This is not about protecting the planet, it's about protecting ourselves and our infrastructure.
And there we have it ............ To hell with feeding and allowing growth and prosperity to any existing non industrialised society!!He doesn't give a s
t about anything except the status quo.No idea what you're on about to be honest. By "ourselves", I was referring to humans, if that's your beef.
The Arctic is approx the same average temperature in 2014 as in 1944 according to HADCRUT - Why was it OK then, and man-made and dangerous now?
The models are programmed to assume CO2 causes warming but ignore many other known and unknown factors, yet because the incomplete junk models can't reproduce the observed warming without the CO2 hypothesis, they assume man's CO2 is the missing ingredient!
Even the fiddled data doesn't show the degree of warming predicted in the models. They have show no predictive ability. That is a failed hypothesis.
Your position is preposterous, illogical, and unscientific.
durbster said:
Sorry if my tone is off but if you accept the mainstream scientific view
Why on Earth do you mention the "mainstream scientific view"?For all of history, the scientists were wrong about everything.
Why on Earth could you be stupid enough to believe that our generation of scientists must be right about everything?
Kepler described the motion of the planets with reasonable accuracy. Unfortunately, he missed the fact that the Sun, planets, asteroids, comets, oort cloud and all other matter played a major role.
Newton spotted this childish error, and for 150 years nobody disagreed with him. So the declared Newton's theories to be "Laws".
Then Einstein came along, and really upset the applecart.
For 12 years, people like you mocked Einstein. You believe that science operates by consensus. You are wrong.
Science operates by direct observation.
don4l said:
Then Einstein came along, and really upset the applecart.
For 12 years, people like you mocked Einstein. ...
Oh no, not the Einstein line again. For 12 years, people like you mocked Einstein. ...
So tell us, who represents Einstein in the world of climate-science denial? I didn't get an answer last time.
don4l said:
You believe that science operates by consensus.
No I don't.HTH.
lionelf said:
don4l said:
For all of history, the scientists were wrong about everything.
Richard Feynman said:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
Follow Richard Feynman's advice and you won't go far wrong.Bernouili theory isn't completely correct on how planes can fly. If it was, then paper airplanes wouldn't work! And what's more, our old friend, NASA have got it wrong as well.
NASA presents several incorrect theories for lift, but no theory claimed to be correct. NASA argues as if by discarding all incorrect theories, what remains would be the correct theory, but science does not work this way because there are infinitely many incorrect theories, and the correct theory does not come out from a negation. NASA ends with an cryptic message connecting back to Bernouili and Newton. To truly understand the details of the generation of lift, one has to have a good working knowledge of the Euler Equations. This is a cover-up of the fact that NASA does not know what keeps airplanes in the air, which of course cannot be admitted.
Oh, the irony !!!
NASA presents several incorrect theories for lift, but no theory claimed to be correct. NASA argues as if by discarding all incorrect theories, what remains would be the correct theory, but science does not work this way because there are infinitely many incorrect theories, and the correct theory does not come out from a negation. NASA ends with an cryptic message connecting back to Bernouili and Newton. To truly understand the details of the generation of lift, one has to have a good working knowledge of the Euler Equations. This is a cover-up of the fact that NASA does not know what keeps airplanes in the air, which of course cannot be admitted.
Oh, the irony !!!
Jinx said:
lionelf said:
don4l said:
For all of history, the scientists were wrong about everything.
Richard Feynman said:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
Follow Richard Feynman's advice and you won't go far wrong.
I have to admit, that is an unexpected escalation of the scale of the problem. I mean, this changes everything. I'll have to pick a creation myth to believe and start referring to smartphones as "magic boxes".
I find Newton's explanation is actually more apt.
Newton said:
If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Science usually builds on previous discoveries. It was the science of Newton that informed the science of Einstein.Edited by durbster on Thursday 25th August 09:36
lionelf said:
robinessex said:
This is a cover-up of the fact that NASA does not know what keeps airplanes in the air, which of course cannot be admitted.
Oh, the irony !!!
Do you steer clear of planes then? If not, why not?Oh, the irony !!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff