Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 16 of 21

PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 19, 2005 8:47 PM

Also, if you work on computer models, you'd know that they predict a range. Insisting that models predict exactly what will happen tomorrow- or ten years from now- would eliminate using all of our economic models, actuarial tables, and medical models. Take Social Security, for example- only the most pessimistic projection predicts that Social Security is going "broke", nonetheless Bush plans his crisis response to that projection.

As far as GCMs, they all predict warming, differing only by how much and when. And the earth is indeed, warming. So the models are at least accurate to predict the trend.

Of course, you COULD say that the measurements are all bogus, but then you'd be irrelevant again, AND self-contradictory.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 19, 2005 8:47 PM

This is all part and parcel to your previous lie. I never claimed that there was conclusive proof. In fact, with a search of this thread you can see that I never used the word “proof” to describe the evidence either way in any post I made in this thread. This is something you made up. It’s either a figment of your imagination or a lie.

But to address your scientific method argument. If you knew anything about the scientific method then you would know that your assumption that science can only disprove is a not actually an axiom of the scientific method at all, but itself a theory called falsificationism. It is itself an unreasonable practice, as it fails to recognize that one cannot necessarily disprove something either. The observations used to disprove something are as likely to be found in error as those used to prove something. So strictly speaking falsificationsim is a fraud, because science can’t disprove anything either. Science can only draw upon the data. It can only make conclusion based on data that is available. Science cannot logically talk in terms of strictly proving or disproving anything, it can only talk in terms of conclusive data or inconclusive data. That is to say, can we reasonably draw a conclusion from the data. We can’t necessarily prove or disprove that conclusion, we can only say that a particularly conclusion can be drawn from the data. If that data is contradictory, as in the case of global warming data, then we must be careful about drawing any conclusion, lest we allow our science to become sectarian. In that case, we can only say that the data is inconclusive.

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, if you work on computer models, you'd know that they predict a range. Insisting that models predict exactly what will happen tomorrow- or ten years from now- would eliminate using all of our economic models, actuarial tables, and medical models. Take Social Security, for example- only the most pessimistic projection predicts that Social Security is going "broke", nonetheless Bush plans his crisis response to that projection.

Another good reason to find the evidence as put forth by the IPCC et al as inconclusive.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
As far as GCMs, they all predict warming, differing only by how much and when. And the earth is indeed, warming. So the models are at least accurate to predict the trend.

Well the earth is probably warming. The mean surface temperature trend is not strong enough to be considered a fact just yet, but certainly the earth is probably warming. And the models are able to predict mean surface temperature. However a GCM that accurately predicts mean surface temperature will not accurately predict atmosphere temperatures or oceans temperatures. They only work for certain sets of data. Either the observations are wrong, or the models are wrong, but certainly one of them is wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Of course, you COULD say that the measurements are all bogus, but then you'd be irrelevant again, AND self-contradictory.

Well this is your party line, but there’s nothing irrelevant or contradictory about skepticism in science. When your ideas become irrelevant to science is when you start dismissing half the evidence to prop up an ideological or sectarian view.

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 19, 2005 8:58 PM

Not so, Finn. The reason why I brought that up is called "hypothesis testing". I was hoping to take this discussion into more- er- relevant territory. Usually, you set up a hypothesis (based on suggestive data and a proposed mechanism) then set about to disprove it. Especially if you are dealing with a hypothesis that requires a lot of data to demonstrate, you avoid the problem of error by looking at things like confidence intervals and so forth.

I actually didn't say that you have conclusive DISproof of the whole concept of global warming, I was just pointing out the fact that for you to demand conclusive proof is scientifically impossible.

RUE

Saturday, February 19, 2005 9:15 PM

Quote:
I’m a little skeptical of this sudden need to recalculate the satellite data, because it reeks of a desire to find numbers that support the simulation

The problem is that though people talk about 'calibration', it is really an uncalibrated measurement. They can calibrate the sensors (before launch), but they can't take tropospheric temperatures for the relevant geography and use that to calibrate the raw radiance signal coming from the same area. It is a 'first principles' measurement based on constants and corrections, rather than a truly calibrated measurement.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 19, 2005 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not so, Finn. The reason why I brought that up is called "hypothesis testing". I was hoping to take this discussion into more- er- relevant territory. Usually, you set up a hypothesis (based on suggestive data and a proposed mechanism) then set about to disprove it. Especially if you are dealing with a hypothesis that requires a lot of data to demonstrate, you avoid the problem of error by looking at things like confidence intervals and so forth.

Yes, based on the evidence. You don’t avoid the problem of error, entirely. A confidence interval is only as good as the data provided. If the data is wrong, then it doesn’t matter how much statistical confidence you have in it. However, if you would like to move this discussion in a different direction, perhaps a mathematical one, then I would be interested in reading your opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I actually didn't say that you have conclusive DISproof of the whole concept of global warming, I was just pointing out the fact that for you to demand conclusive proof is scientifically impossible.

In general, I agree. But I never made such a claim and for you to imply that I did is disingenuous.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 19, 2005 9:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The problem is that though people talk about 'calibration', it is really an uncalibrated measurement. They can calibrate the sensors (before launch), but they can't take tropospheric temperatures for the relevant geography and use that to calibrate the raw radiance signal coming from the same area. It is a 'first principles' measurement based on constants and corrections, rather than a truly calibrated measurement.

That's true. Calibration errors have been observed in the satellite data.

RUE

Monday, February 21, 2005 5:31 PM

Quote:
Finn: You started this game with the insinuations that I lied about my career from the beginning of this discussion.

Actually:

Quote:
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 06:16 Although rue’s ‘fact’ finding mission of the opposing argument may have primarily been an attempt to prop up her own position

Followed by:

Quote:
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 17:50 Finn, If I recall correctly, at one point you claimed to have access to Top Secret US Intelligence on covert ops in S. America. More recently you claimed to be a scientist. So tell me, are you 'intelligence', or a scientist?

When YOU take swipes, expect something back.

RUE

Monday, February 21, 2005 6:10 PM

Finn,
I did try to parse your argument, but it contradicted itself in a baroque pattern of circles.
Here is one brief example: You use crippled and short-term r-s/sat data (which you nevertheless support) plus robust surface temperature data (which you denigrate) to disprove a GCM (which you vehemently oppose), while also at the same time arguing that surface temperature data is meaningless b/c they don't correlate to sat data according to the GCM.
Another brief example: you claim that 'looking' at the hockey stick you can tell that warming and CO2 are not related, at the sme time you claim that GCMs that DO relate temps to CO2 (as well as vocanic events, solar input and other climate drivers) are bogus, but that the hockey stick is not accurate anyway, even tho it 'shows' CO2 and temps are not related.
Perhaps you could come up with a concise statement of your position so we could discuss the topic rationally.
Otherwise, I do agree with SignyM: it is the self-contradictory and (my opinion) essentially dishonest nature of your postings by which you put yourself the category "irrelevant".

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, February 21, 2005 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Finn: You started this game with the insinuations that I lied about my career from the beginning of this discussion.

Actually:
Quote:
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 06:16 Although rue’s ‘fact’ finding mission of the opposing argument may have primarily been an attempt to prop up her own position

Followed by:
Quote:
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 17:50 Finn, If I recall correctly, at one point you claimed to have access to Top Secret US Intelligence on covert ops in S. America. More recently you claimed to be a scientist. So tell me, are you 'intelligence', or a scientist?

When YOU take swipes, expect something back.

That’s very amusing, but clearly the facts say otherwise.

First of all let’s look at what I actually said and not what you took out of context:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Although rue’s ‘fact’ finding mission of the opposing argument may have primarily been an attempt to prop up her own position, I still applaud her for at least attempting to check the other side, and in the process she has apparently learned something.

So conveniently you ignored half of what I said. You seem to have a knack with ignoring half the evidence, don’t you?

Now let’s look at what you actually said.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I was curious enough about the whole issue to look for global warming naysayers.

First I found the Leipzig Declaration. It looked impressive enough, though the list is outdated (last updated in 1997). Out of curiosity, I looked for publications of the 'scientist' signatories (not the TV weathermen who also signed) to get a feel for their area of expertise and their forum for scietific publishing. Nearly all of those listed are found only in reference to aformentioned Declaration, which appears to be their only contribution to climate study. Many, sadly, have since passed on. Out of the entire list, I could find only three who had any publications listed on the internet. Only one was significantly geared to large-scale (though not global) climate. None appear to be researchers in the field.

I could have saved myself the effort if I had simply checked out this site:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Glo
bal_Climate_Change
Quote:
When journalist David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times investigated the Leipzig Declaration, however, he discovered that most of its signers have not dealt with climate issues at all and none of them is an acknowledged leading expert. A journalist with the Danish Broadcasting Company attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who did admit signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an expert on flying insects.

You examined the other side of the argument, what you referred to as “global warming naysayers.” And you concluded that since you couldn’t find publications of the scientists that you examined on the internet, it must then mean that some journalist from the St. Petersburg Times who disagreed with them must be correct. Why scientists necessarily have to publish their works on the internet to be valid science? I don’t know. What a Journalist actually knows about this science that would make his opinion necessarily trump the opinion of several scientists? I don’t know. But what is clear is that your interpretation of the evidence was apparently intended to prop up your own position, not give fair presentation of the so called “global warming naysayers.” You claimed to have examined the other side of the argument, but really your whole argument is based on the opinion of David Oliger, a journalist, who out of sheer luck, I guess, happened to prop up your position. What a coincidence!

So my response was not a “swipe,” but an observation and a fair one.

Now your response to me then was t

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, February 21, 2005 7:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I did try to parse your argument, but it contradicted itself in a baroque pattern of circles.
Here is one brief example: You use crippled and short-term r-s/sat data (which you nevertheless support) plus robust surface temperature data (which you denigrate) to disprove a GCM (which you vehemently oppose), while also at the same time arguing that surface temperature data is meaningless b/c they don't correlate to sat data according to the GCM.

1. There’s nothing “robust” about the surface temperature data compared to the satellite data. For instance, the surface temperature data on average has an error of about 0.2C, the satellite data, on the other hand, has an error of about 0.05C. Furthermore, things like the heat island theory cast further doubt on the accuracy of the surface temperature measurements. So your description of the robustness of the data would seem to be intended to favor one over the other without valid scientific reasoning.

2. I do vehemently oppose the use of GCMs to support policy.

3. I have never argued that the surface temperature measurement is meaningless. Never! You’re in error or you made it up. In fact, I’ve not contended any data was meaningless. What I have said is that if a model of the climate can only predict one set of data associated with the climate, then the best you can say is that it is an incomplete model.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Another brief example: you claim that 'looking' at the hockey stick you can tell that warming and CO2 are not related, at the sme time you claim that GCMs that DO relate temps to CO2 (as well as vocanic events, solar input and other climate drivers) are bogus, but that the hockey stick is not accurate anyway, even tho it 'shows' CO2 and temps are not related.

(1) I never claimed that that analysis came from the ‘hockey stick’ data. In fact, I specifically pointed to the mean surface temperature measurements. How you or why you decided that I got that from Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ data is beyond me.

(2) I think you are confusing the ‘hockey stick’ and the mean global temperature data, and thus you are confusing two different debates.

The conclusion drawn from the ‘hockey stick’ data is that the mean global temperature is unique. That is to say that global mean temperatures have remained constant for a thousand years and then suddenly jump up in just this last century. This data is refuted by (a) other analyses of the proxy data that show much more variation over the last thousand years, and (b) historical evidence independent of the global warming debate that suggests (and has suggested for a long time) that global mean temperature may have varied widely giving rise to what has been called the ‘Medieval Warming Period’ and the ‘Little Iceage.’

Secondly, the mean global temperature is based on surface temperature measurements. And it is this temperature data that he GCMs either predict or are tuned to predict. And the extent of relation between this temperature data and the Carbon Dioxide concentration data is simply that they are both increasing. There is no indication they have increased at the same rate. I don’t doubt that some correlation may exist, but I do question whether the observed increase in Carbon Dioxide completely describes the observed increase in temperature.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Perhaps you could come up with a concise statement of your position so we could discuss the topic rationally.
Otherwise, I do agree with SignyM: it is the self-contradictory and (my opinion) essentially dishonest nature of your postings by which you put yourself the category "irrelevant".

I don’t see anything self-contradictory about my opinion. If these examples you’ve provided are any indication then what I see is an attempt to prop up certain data (i.e. the claimed ‘robustness’ of the MGT), a general misunderstanding of what I have said and a misunderstanding of the data (i.e. confusing the ‘hockey stick’ with MGT.)

PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE