Help
Sign In »
Register Now!
This topic is locked
SkepticLance said:
It is almost ironic. People like iNow are ignoring what I am saying and accuse me of ignoring what they are saying.
I guess putting quote boxes around every single one of your claims and answering them is ignoring what you said. :rolleyes::eyebrow:
Quote
Re clouds.
Clouds are ONE uncertainty in computer models. There are lots of unknowns. What I am saying is that this demonstrates that models are not completely reliable. Clouds are an unknown that has received some publicity. Other sources of uncertainty are still too poorly understood to even get much publicity. Such as biological effects on climate.
Clouds are ONE uncertainty in computer models. There are lots of unknowns. What I am saying is that this demonstrates that models are not completely reliable. Clouds are an unknown that has received some publicity. Other sources of uncertainty are still too poorly understood to even get much publicity. Such as biological effects on climate.
Ok:
1) Here is information on what we know about the clouds and their connection with global warming in a nutshell: http://www.windows.u...o_feedback.html
2) Biological effects have been accounted for. We know EXACTLY how much is being absorbed back into the carbon cycle. In fact, we do know the biological impact on other gases such as methane.
3) Once again, name an uncertainty that has NOT BEEN DEBUNKED. As far as we know, they have already been shown to have negligible effect, or are not adequate to account for what we observe.
Quote
And, no. I do not need to quantify the uncertainty.That is why it is called uncertainty. Because it can't be quantified. Once it is understood well enough to be quantified, it will no longer be an uncertainty.
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Wait just a minute! Let me pinch myself to see if I am dreaming or hallucinating. No, I'm not. Ok, lets repeat that quote again, with emphasis added:
Quote
And, no. I do not need to quantify the uncertainty.That is why it is called uncertainty. Because it can't be quantified. Once it is understood well enough to be quantified, it will no longer be an uncertainty.
Did I just read what I thought I read? How could someone, especially one who is a microbiologist and presumably had some training in science, possibly be this far misled and misinformed?
Are you kidding me? One of the very basic things you learn in introductory science and experimentation is that you ALWAYS have to include the uncertainty The uncertainty has to be quantified. And why, because of the instruments you are using. All instruments and measurements have some sort of uncertainty because they are limited to some degree. Thats why we have something called "significant figures", so that you can ACCOUNT FOR THE UNCERTAINTY. All climate models do this! In fact, every single science experiment, prediction, and measurement that has EVER been done since Galileo does this! The uncertainty is even included in the graphs and data we have provided for you to review over, and it tells exactly how much! To say that uncertainty cannot be quantified in science, well, you aren't doing any science, your just either denying something, preaching, or at the very least misleading other people about the quality of your measurements.
Ok, maybe I'll get over this once I go walk around outside and take a deep breath.
Quote
I gave a good reference to the fact that uncertainties over cloud formation generate uncertainties in computer models. iNow is repeating history. Because he does not like the fact that there is evidence against his assertions, he is just riding over it - essential ignoring the evidence.
Yes, and they have already been addressed. Reread all the posts.
And this is quite ironic given the number of references we've provided, and yet you still refuse to acknowledge it. You on the other hand are quite happy picking data plots (READ: data plots) that correspond to your argument.
Quote
The whole point is that it is not possible to accurately predict the future. We can talk about probabilities. But that is all. Anyone who thinks that they can do more is engaged in intellectual auto-eroticism.
But this isn't about predicting the future in general. This is about prediction what may happen if things continue the way they are. And there is every reason to believe that the models are more or less accurate. Especially since some of these models made in the past (and note, they were LESS ACCURATE before) have actually been right about how the climate would change over a couple of decades!!
iNow said ;
"So, how is it, precisely, that you feel the climate models fail?"
Quote
Do you remember the graphs bascule posted? I should have kept them to post again, but didn't. They showed a good correspondence within acceptable error levels with warming over the past 30 years. However, their simulation of the years before that were not good. In some places, they were way out. I would personally be very surprized if the last 30 years could not be reasonable well modelled, since the pattern was so straight forward. When things got complex, the models failed to simulate them with any accuracy at all.
And can you point to where they failed? Because, I can show a bunch of climate predictions that have been correct, albeit off by a very tiny amount.
Quote
Lockheed is demanding evidence.
I have given evidence of uncertainty in the impact of cloud formation. However, because it cannot be quantified, it cannot be 'proven'. On the other hand, if you have a reliable and accurate technique, it can be quantified, and therefore generate evidence. The onus is on you to produce that evidence.
I have given evidence of uncertainty in the impact of cloud formation. However, because it cannot be quantified, it cannot be 'proven'. On the other hand, if you have a reliable and accurate technique, it can be quantified, and therefore generate evidence. The onus is on you to produce that evidence.
No you have not. All you've done was cherry picked data, and without providing a reference so we could validate, and then used that little subset of what was actually presented to support your views. Among that you've ignored just about everything else we've presented! In short, it was a major strawman. Pretty much, your argument basically is "We don't know what may end up actually happening, therefore the climate models are wrong", and that's invalid. It's an argument from ignorance.
And I've (and everyone else) have provided plenty of evidence to back my claims. I've provided data tables, graphs, and above all, links that demonstrate how climate models actually work. Not just in this thread too where this debate has been taking place. You on the other hand have provide little, if any! And the references you did provide do not support your argument. Therefore, we are going to ask you again: Do you have any genuine evidence that supports your position, one that hasn't been debunked, one that we can check for its reliability, and above all one that is peer reviewed.
If you don't or can't find any, then why on Earth do you insist on continuing this pointless argument, and denying the data and measurements despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of it
MultiQuote
