I am a 54-year-old with two masters’ degrees, albeit not in science, but with more than enough statistics. My own blog contains more than 900 articles about the science, some from primary sources, some even you lot could understand. Vocabulary is not a problem for me.

The comments on this blog are really sad.

Your point has already been addressed repeatedly. Hint; it may have escaped your notice, but climate forecasting is simply long-range weather forecasting – as is the nature of models, the longer the term, the more general the results.

As for logic, it has apparently escaped your notice that I am supporting science and attempts at developing better modeling – not AGW. While the AGW hypothesis is scientific, as I’ve repeatedly noted, being scientific does not mean that it cannot be wrong.

Check back to my first post: I proposed a possible test that could indicate either cooling, stability, or warming without favoritism. Many subsequent posters took that as support for one outcome. Which side of an argument is more likely to oppose a objective test?

Personally, I would recommend spending some more time in a library, reading works that may or may not agree with you. It is entirely too easy to spend your time on the internet absorbing only information with which you already agree.

Sigh, you have yet to address my point (hint, I never mentioned Weather prediction).

This grows tiresome and it is obvious you have more energy to devote to this this than I.

I assure you, were I your logic professor this would not be a passing example.

However, I will simply leave you with this:

Get off my lawn you hippie!

Section One: Yes, the blockquotes seem to be working properly.
Section Two: Noting that models have limitations. Yes. Already discussed and – since the various atmospheric models continue to make useful predictions – the way to falsify and supplant them continues to be to make better models.
Section Three: Sorry, but demanding the falsification of a model that does not make falsifiable predictions as a prerequisite for being awake means that you’ll have to remain asleep.
Section four: To summarize, unless the logically impossible happens, you will continue to ignore the predictions of computer models. I trust that, in the interests of intellectual honesty, that will include not only short and long term weather prediction, but travel planning, medical applications, and all other forms of computer models? Or is doubt about the statistical basis of falsifying modeling only relevant where it is personally convenient to apply it?
Section five: Two logical problems here. First, and most obviously, this assumes that since one consequence of a given change is beneficial, all consequences must be. The same logic can be used to produce statements of the form “I have flat feet. I have fallen into a coma. The flat feet no longer bother me. Therefore the coma is beneficial”. Secondarily, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the value of models is statistical. The AGW/CO2 projections may well be inaccurate. That would not mean that the models were unscientific or even that they were poor models. It would simply mean that they are not perfect.
Section six: Sorry, but human desires tend to be distributed along the usual bell curve. The model projections are not.

Jeez

You’ve put up multiple posts, but the same answer applies to each, so I’ll simply put it up once.
As already explained, since models are inherently simplified, falsification of a model is statistical. Current atmospheric models make a great many predictions every day; every weather report involves a test of atmospheric modeling. Such models produce results far in excess of random chance, therefore their “falsification” requires either the creation and demonstration of a better model to supplant the current ones or a demonstration that their net predictive value has – for reasons unknown – dropped below random chance At this point that would require many years of weather predictions that were less accurate than would be expected by sheer chance. Your complaints about “not rebutting the point” continue to demonstrate a failure to understand the nature of modeling, or the explanation thereof, to begin with.
Your brain runs a set of models for “walking” that predict how you should move to walk successfully in your current environment. If you trip or stumble, that model has failed, and – by your logic – should be discarded. Personally, I prefer to replace the model with an improved version that includes the new data and to continue to walk.

savethesharks

I quite agree: “The notion that there can be no debate about global warming” is absurd. So are many of the proposed “solutions”. Fortunately, none of that has anything more to do with science than some tribal shamans pronouncement that we are all cursed because someone tipped over the sacred rock.

IF they ever hit the target, we have to wait another hundred years to see where the further target is hit. How many times will that shot be high?

Socrates (even though he was technically a Sophist), was ultimately one who believed in inductive, rational, reasonable inquiry.

Interesting reading for those who care: http://facweb.bcc.ctc.edu/wpayne/socrates.htm

Ironically, some of Socrates’ zealot Sophist followers who took what he said into overdrive and helped prosecute him in the end.

The reason I say that is that “sophistry” (in all its modern derogatory and unflattering forms) is sometimes used by individuals on this blog.

Smokescreens, agenda, rhetoric, and DEFINITELY ad hominems, are all red flags to skip and not read the post…not too mention if the post seems like a 1000-word rant.

There is a beauty to brevity and that is exceptionally the case in the blogosphere here.

Well….back to THIS thread, and the article that inspired it, is a quote from Mr. Jacoby’s article

“When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, BUT WITH THE CLOSE-MINDED DOGMA OF A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT.”

I wonder what the great Socrates himself would think of “city-state “leaders” like Al Gore??

Not too highly I would surmise….

Chris
Norfolk, VA

I like youre extension of that analogy, couldn’t agree more.

I understand that point, although I have issues with certain parts of the context you cited. However, Thoth said (I don’t have the exact quote), that you cannot discard a model unless you have a better one to replace it and that is patently untrue. I was not delving into the specifics of GCMs, their role in weather prediction, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

But as for the model discussion, it’s simply run out of gas. Models are wrong. All of them. Not one computer model predicted the steep decline in temps since 2007.

Now, if someone ever falsifies the hypothesis of natural, normal and routine climate change, based on the seasonal, solar, diurnal, galactic and oceanic effects that have been going on since way before the first SUV appeared, wake me.

But unless that happens, the AGW/CO2 hypothesis fails — as everyone else here seems to understand without any problem. But you’re new around here, so maybe you’ll eventually get up to speed and realize that your always-inaccurate computer models are the only thing that the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is based on; and the real world contradicts them: click

The atmosphere has had many times the CO2 concentration in the past with beneficial effects. It seems preposterous that some folks still cling to their strange belief that a change in a minor trace gas, from four parts in ten thousand to five parts in ten thousand, will trigger some fantastic kind of tipping point and cause runaway global warming. Regular folks don’t think like that unless there’s a verifiable, real world basis for it. Computer models don’t count as that basis.

The reason climate models are always wrong is simple: the results from models always tend towards the desires and expectations of the modelers. But I guess when all you’ve got is those always-wrong climate models, then that’s what you have to run with.

You can have the next [several hundred ±] words, Thoth. I’m headed for the current events page to read up on the good news from latest Gallup poll!

Im getting the point Thoth is conveying… Ill use an analogy, ok so youre sighting in a rifle(simplest predictive tool that comes to mind). You dial in till yah droppin three rounds on the bull. After you’ve zeroed a cross wind picks up, at 100m youre a few mm of, at 500 youre about a half foot off, at 1000 you dont even hit the target, so you re-zero, factoring in the new influences. As opposed to buying a new scope.

The problem with models is figuring out exactly what are the influences that are throwing them off… for example the current ones could be exaggerating the co2 forcings, or it could be that theyre right but the water vapour is causing a negative feed back… or water vapour was causing a greater positive feedback and co2 a smaller one, or some completely unknown mechanism is at play(ie ocean currents)

But if we keep “re-zeroing” the models it will lead to more accurate models eventually, and a better understanding off the climate system, i personally do agree with this… but i certainly wouldnt agree to basing policy on a models predictions when the accuracy of them brings the quantification’s into question.

But in short hes saying why throw away a perfectly good scope just because it isnt zeroes correctly.

Hopefully I can sort out the nesting here

Indeed you have; thank you.

Unfortunately, not knowing much about science isn’t strictly restricted to one side or the other

I wholeheartedly agree, that’s why I enjoy the opportunity to increase my knowledge so that I can reformulate my arguments to be as sound as possible, and I’m hoping others will do the same. Granted, the matter should never even arise among people who in reality only wish to debate on the proposed solutions, but since it does, I’ve found that diminishing opponents’ confidence in their own understanding of the justification they’re using to be extremely effective at causing them to reveal their true motives, which are often so repugnant that no further effort is required.

Whatever gets you through the night. I addressed one point and one point only.

1. One does not need a new model in order to falsify a model.

All your talk of weather prediction, model theory, epistemology, quantum electrodynamics, summer and post Labor Day fashion, and phenomenology has not remotely approached rebutting that point.

“jeez: Hmm..I didn’t label anything common sense or natural. I described a simplified scientific process for falsification of models in a particular use and that use was not weather prediction. To address 3 above, no you need only to address pertinent points. You addressed not a single one of mine. My original post stands completely unanswered. You have the ability to write a lot, but I’m afraid you are demonstrating more of an ability to type than an ability for logical thinking. This is not a political debate where sound bites lead to scoring points.”

All of your points have indeed been addressed in the original post on models. All models necessarily loose detail, which is why comparison of predictions derived from models is statistical. If you want to claim otherwise you need to examine the development and use of models in general and establish some basis for that claim. If you don’t want to bother doing that, that’s your privilege – but why should I be interested in the repetition of ideas that have already been examined? New ideas and logical presentations are interesting. Your personal beliefs are your business.

As far as “making things simple” goes, please note that that was at the end of the post and after a rhetorical question; at that point you are not the only person being addressed.

“Parse Error

A road map is very good for showing me how to get from Philadelphia to Chicago, fair for showing me how to get across town, and useless in my house.

I’m having trouble reconciling that with:

On a practical note, the various climatic models are used in weather prediction, with good, practical results.

As a guess, have we applied the same principle that created the floor plan of the house to make a map of the city which is no longer useful at the resolution originally used?

A model is a model, and it can either make valid predictions or it can’t.

Hey Parse….the problem is….the members of the cult AGW will say anything or set forth anything that helps prove their argument.

I’m very well aware of these arguments; I make similar ones myself all the time when confronting the neo-Malthusians who want to drag us back into the Stone Age. They like to turn to The Science for support, however the overwhelming majority of them know little to nothing about science and simply parrot Gore-Al’s talking points. The more familiar we are with every aspect of the subject, the easier it is to show such people they are trying to use something they don’t even understand as a political weapon, and drive those discussions straight to the realm they belong in.

Hopefully I can sort out the nesting here: The reason why models are useful in weather prediction and yield practical results is because there is a difference between “The weather tomorrow? Who knows?” and “Severe thunderstorms and high winds with a 70% chance of accuracy”. You may not always get the thunderstorms and high winds when they’re predicted, and you might get such a storm when nothing is predicted thanks in part to that local scaling problem. On the other hand, taking precautions every day is impractical, hence such predictions can help you avoid a substantial portion of the damage that an unexpected storm would normally inflict. That’s practical and profitable, which is why we have weather reports.

The atmospheric models tend to be going the opposite way from the “house map” to “city map” route. They’re most useful for things like projecting the progress of a cold front through an area, less useful for small-scale items. That’s why you see “a cold front will be moving through Ohio tomorrow afternoon or evening” instead of “70% chance of cold”. They give it an extremely high probability of coming through, but the exact timing is subject to the viewers exact location and to local conditions.

Now, “A model is a model, and it can either make valid predictions or it can’t.” is flatly incorrect. There are no models which make 100% accurate predictions about the real world. That’s why comparing models is a statistical matter.

I’d agree on the neo-Malthusians. Unfortunately, not knowing much about science isn’t strictly restricted to one side or the other – and most of the proposed “solutions” have little to nothing to do with the science.

I’ll probably have to look in again tomorrow. I have other things to do this evening. Have a nice evening everyone.

A road map is very good for showing me how to get from Philadelphia to Chicago, fair for showing me how to get across town, and useless in my house.

I’m having trouble reconciling that with:

On a practical note, the various climatic models are used in weather prediction, with good, practical results.

As a guess, have we applied the same principle that created the floor plan of the house to make a map of the city which is no longer useful at the resolution originally used?

A model is a model, and it can either make valid predictions or it can’t.

Hey Parse….the problem is….the members of the cult AGW will say anything or set forth anything that helps prove their argument.

I’m very well aware of these arguments; I make similar ones myself all the time when confronting the neo-Malthusians who want to drag us back into the Stone Age. They like to turn to The Science for support, however the overwhelming majority of them know little to nothing about science and simply parrot Gore-Al‘s talking points. The more familiar we are with every aspect of the subject, the easier it is to show such people they are trying to use something they don’t even understand as a political weapon, and drive those discussions straight to the realm they belong in.