By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
“Jonas, although writing using a pseudonym, is no troll but a well known, lively and outspoken member of the public opinion about global warming in Sweden.”
Worth mentioning perhaps that he was more or less banned from your own “skeptic” blog because he kept insulting everybody and ruined the discussion ?
(or whatever the reason was, but he don´t post there anymore since the new moderation policy was adopted, probably the reason why he moved here though )
Judging from what is argued, what is claimed, what is actually understood, I don’t think there was anything to lose in the first place. And it is quite remarkable that other regulars here (if there are more capable ones) can watch this kind of intellectual self mutilation and let it continue without helping the poor thing …
Either there are none around, or they are to embarressed to help a friend in need of some gentle guidance, or maybe they aren’t even noticing.
Jonas has never been banned from The Climate Scam:
> Judging from what is argued, what is claimed, what is actually understood
You have shown yourself unable to so judge.
Because you refuse to even attempt to understand what is argued or claimed.
Jonas, although writing using a pseudonym, is no troll but a well known, lively and outspoken member of the public opinion about global warming in Sweden.
…who has nothing better to do than go on a US blog and obsessively whine over a single phrase in a 4 year old report, a phrase which is backed up by the rest of the report, which is backed up by the references in it?
…who is so tedious, vapid, in pathological denial and stupid that not even Exxon will sponsor his idiocy?
And it is quite remarkable that other regulars here (if there are more capable ones) can watch this kind of intellectual self mutilation and let it continue without helping the poor thing …
Jonas, why would any of the regulars here help you?
As I said, the Huntington paper you tried yesterday, contained essentially the same description of the methodology as the Stott paper I linked.
I am still amazed that you thought Navier Stokes equations gave you the antropogenic forcings. Utterly flabbergasted at the sheer amount of ignorance you tried. It matches that of some of the others, if that is any consolation.
But at least you tried with a reference. That is more than almost any other has dared. (Bernard doesn’t count, because he hasn’t even read them, and the ones he has read, not even he thinks are the ‘missing science’)
But you linked to [this paper by Huntingford et al](http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0605/2005GL024831/2005GL024831.pdf) hoping that it would contain what so many have been (and some still are) taking on pure faith.
Well, now I have read it, and it is only a quite small variation from the one i mentioned yesterday. You can read under 2. Methodology and see the same method of regression, the three mechanisms taken into account, which on top of that are assuemd to be additive (so that the regression can make sense)
The three mechanisms are denoted GHG, SUL and NAT, meaning what you’d expect them to mean. The models give each of them their own spatial and temporal pattern, and the so called ‘optimal detection method’ then tries to fit those three different (assumed additive) model-results to observed historic data.
This I had adressed before, in more general terms (at the Perry-thread), it is exactly what i described there, but I might have lost you already (if you still hope NS is what it’s hinged on)
I’d say that anyone understanding only a little of what modelling is about, already in the introduction (where the general method of the study is described) must see that this is not about affirming attribution confidence. It is trying to do its best to fit the three different models available, and the three chosen mechanisms and identifying those coefficients.
The result is presented in Fig 1, and the coefficients don’t even necessarily overlap among the models …
Sorry, but that won’t do …
“Jonas has never been banned from The Climate Scam:”
He would have been banned if he had kept up his style, but he stopped posting instead, and apparently surfaced here to the joy of our fellow americans.
Point is, you don´t want these kind of endless tedious rantings on your own blog.
Magnus, what are you talking about? Right there, in #505, Jonas pierces through the IPCC armor and lays waste to all its arguments!
I’m sure he has sent this thorough analysis to all IPCC members and will be up for a Nobel real soon.
I will just comment on Jonas posting.
.. see the same method of regression, the three mechanisms taken into account, which on top of that are assuemd to be additive (so that the regression can make sense)
I have done extensive work with modelling. Before you just assume that mechanisms are additive you have to be sure that they are reasonably orthogonal (independent).Is that done here?
No, you are merely speculating. Being an insider at The Climate Scam I know who has been and who has not been discussed in terms of being banned.
>that’s all fine, but such do not constitute validation of a model, only how well the[sic] fit the fitted data.
This statement, vague and awkward as it is, only makes sense if one believes the model data are themselves the result of regression analysis, i.e., ‘fitted data’.
Apparently you do know that climate models are the results of ab initio calculations based on well constrained scientific principles and not statistical regressions, so yes, Navier-Stokes is pertinent here, but it is hardly the sole basis on which GCMs are built. So, do we not agree in principle GCMs are __scientific__ models, complying with your demand that scientific support be shown for the SPM claim you question? It is not surprising you would try to weasel out of admitting it.
You repeat the common denialist trope that since models don’t include nor replicate every known and unknown detail of climate, they lack validity. This is absurd, and yes, it is precisely such what makes you a willful idiot. As George Box said, “Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.” Climate models have proven their utility, even Syukuru Manabe’s earliest models from the 1960s have proven valid for many features of the Earth’s climate. Neither Hunterford nor Stott are model validation papers. For that, if we are keeping to the AR4-WGI, we would have to go to Chap. 8 and the references therein. I assure you, you would lose that argument, too.
Regression analysis is used in those papers to compare multiple model runs of a number of models (which I emphasize again, are not the results of regression analysis) using different forcing inputs, i.e., __attributions__, and comparing them to one real word realization. You have not shown that those calculations and their distributions of confidence levels are in any way done incorrectly. If you know of better methods than the various known tools of regression analysis for making such comparisons, then the world is waiting for your genius. That is not a single experiment, it is the cumulative result of many. Of course, there are other papers in that list that do similar multiple experiments using somewhat different methodologies, others that check the methods of those papers against other methodologies and they all basically come to the same conclusion as Hunterford; “We find that greenhouse gas forcing would very likely have resulted in greater warming than observed during the past half century if there had not been an offsetting cooling from aerosols and other forcings.”
__Again, your request was for a single, peer-reviewed scientific paper that supported the claim in the SPM. I have done so, even to the point of proving the SPM claim was an understatement of much of the supporting science. Indeed the paper you cite, Stott, et al. does also. Your argument against methods, as we have seen, is unsupported and spurious.__
Regarding your understanding of regression analysis and its usefulness, some while ago you made a statement about the unpredictability of rolling dice, ignoring the fact it is predictable that as the number of random rolls of a fair die increase the average value of their outcome will converge on 3.5, a predictability gambling casinos rely on in their business plans. This is known as the Law of Large Numbers and is but one elementary principle of statistics from which regression analysis is developed. I’m sure you know this, yet would pretend not to in order make some ignorant and foolish point.
Yes, you are a willful idiot. It isn’t an argument (more evidence of your idiocy. You feign not to know what a formal argument is and ignore or dissemble against a well supported one when it suits you, and think that makes you clever), it’s a conclusion based on the kind of non-argument (hand-waving, unsupported assertions of fact) that you make.
Jonas N, you still are failing the PhD test. All science is “educated guess”/”informed opinion”. There are some additional aspects, but “im Bund und Grund” it is “guesswork”. Guesswork that fits the observed reality best.
Your complaints about the attribution studies are noted, but unfortunately you oversimplify what the attribution studies have done with the models. It’s not just about hindcasting the global temperatures, but also regional patterns. Two different things. And regional patterns, such as faster warming the more Northern you go, is not something that is programmed into the models. It’s a logical outcome of the physics.
Of ourse I’m speculating. But anyone smart enough are free to draw their own conclusions. My opinion is worth as much as yours, insider or not.
That’s the internet for you
>Before you just assume that mechanisms are additive you have to be sure that they are reasonably orthogonal (independent).Is that done here?
Short answer, yes, it has been done.
Rather than engaging in idle speculation, one might actually follow the cited references.
>The result is presented in Fig 1, and the coefficients don’t even necessarily overlap among the models …
For the period in question, 1950-1999, they most certainly do.
luminous beauty 510,
You wrote: ”…since models don’t include nor replicate every known and unknown detail of climate, they lack validity. This is absurd …”.
What is your opinion on the following paper addressing discussing that issue:
”Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences” by Naomi Oreskes, Kristin Shrader-Frechette and Kenneth Belitz.
From the abstract:
”Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible.
Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristic”.
Do you also think that the primary value of climate models is heuristic and what does this mean for the proper usage of those models?
@514, rather than getting someone distracted by Oreskes 17 year old 1994 paper you may prefer to deal with, you might first like to check [this](http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=2032) from Steve Easterbrook.
Pertinently and following on from your abstract quote: “At this point many commentators stop, and argue that if validation of a model isn’t possible, then the models can’t be used to support the science (or more usually, they mean they can’t be used for IPCC projections). But this is a strawman argument, based on a fundamental misconception of what validation is all about. Validation isn’t about checking that a given instance of a model satisfies some given criteria. Validation is about about fitness for purpose, which means it’s not about the model at all, but about the relationship between a model and the purposes to which it is put. Or more precisely, its about the relationship between particular ways of building and configuring models and the ways in which runs produced by those models are used.
“The key questions for validation then, are to do with how well the current generation of models (plural) support the discovery of new theoretical knowledge, and whether the ongoing process of improving those models continues to enhance their utility as scientific tools”.
Sorry for being absent guys. Reading through the latest comments, I notice that the level of frustration has reached epic proportions, most evident in Jeffie, wowie, stuie, Bernie, luminous bounty, und so weiter. For god’s sake calm down. We are only interested in science, not your CO2-affected opinions. So please start talking science and avoid profanities.
Someone said that Jonas N, if he was right (not left?), he would be worthy a Noble prize. Sorry to say, but the only Noble prize that is in reach for CAGWists, is the Noble peace price. On the other hand, Jonas N is not a CAGWist, so there might be an opening here.
Like GWS said in #X, I though we finally had an understanding here, all of us agreeing that the 90-something figure was an educated guess.
Now you are making the argument, that because the models them selves can be regarded as scienctific models, their outcome should be regarded as science too, and therefore accepted as scientific confirmation of the models’ veracity. In the colloquial sense, the first part is correct, the simulations are the result of ‘science’, the argument that they reasonably reproduce historic temp data and therefore ‘scientifically’ affirm them is wrong however.
Let me be clear here: The practice to fit them to observations (yes, that is what is done wrt to the various forcings) is not wrong in it self, but it does not constitute a confirmation of the model assumptions. That would be a circular argument. And unfortunately, many of the attribution studies (at least the ones I’ve seen) are circular in this nature. Circular here, does not imply wrong, but they do not add additional knowledge. And no, you can not build confidence on circular confirmation.
Now, if you look carefully, those references do not purport to do that either. Usually, they phrase their results so that what they say is correct, and it applies only for the assumptions and premisses made. Which are the ones called in question by me here, and others.
But you are wrong on (at least) one more account:
Science as we today view it means that a scientist (and here I exclude everybody who needs to make up their own facts here, leaving only the real scientists) approaches a question, a phenomenon with true curiosity and tries to find an explanation for it, building on 1:st principles as much as at all possible. And offering a hypothetical quantified explaination for the remainder. Which may be fitted to observations. And with that hypothesis formulated, we claim that, if indeed correct, it should explain even more observations, and/or predict future outcomes.
So far, there is nothing wrong with this approach and climate science tries the same. You know, the CO2-hypothesis, the feedback assumptions, the cloud’s function, the water vapor, as a dependant variable etc.
But, and this is important, such a proffered hypothesis, claiming to explain observations, is falsified the moment it cannot do that any more. Yes, you can delay that realisation behind ‘noise levels’ and error bars inferred by your hypothesis. But once it fails, it is falsified. Period! It is established that your hypothesis is **not** the explanation for the observations any more.
Yes, it still might contain relevant parts of the explaination (it usually does) but as a proposed explanatory hypothesis it is falsified, and that’s the end of it.
Which means that you have missed one (or many) important factors which also are a part of the explaination.
You might be aware of that the aerosol cooling is such a post hoc hypothesis needed to modify the original CO2-hypothesis and its lare positive feedbacks. Note: This is still not wrong, it onlye weakens the originally offered hypothesis.
But, when, the now (combined) hypothesis once more fails, it is again falsified. And I mean falsified: It cannot any more be the explaination! The fact that the fit is very good for onetime interval, has no value, if it doesnt have it for all.
And this is where many of the GCM models fail. They are tuned to fit the indutrial era, and a little time before. And the ‘attribution studies’ we’ve seen manage that reasonably well. But unless those models work equally well for any chosen time interval, you should view them as falsified.
Now, what I say here is pretty basic understanding of what models can do. But probably mor controversial in this surrounding.
You have provided a reference which shows, that if the models are correct, if those three implemented forcings included are the relevant ones, if they are included to reasonably correct magnitude (and if all other excluded ones are minor, or favorably cancelling each other out) then the models can hindcast the temperatures. So far I’m with you. Then the different parts of those model simulations (GHG; SUL, NAT) are spearated and the fit to actual observations is identified, including a ‘uncertainty factor’ because there were only few models(!), and a quite standard package statistical fit was made for those separated (assumed additive) contributions to the observational data. And how well the different models could reproduce regionl/temporal different ‘fingerprints’ (of the three included mechanisms.
The reported certainty however is about that fitting procedure, and not the original attribution. And those are two different things. And the former still suffers from the fact that the models only can reproduce history in quite a narrow interval. And even more so since the forcasting has been poor (which is not an argument wrt to what was known 2007, ie the AR4 statement)
One final point:
People resorting to labels such as ‘idiot’, ‘moron’, ‘stupid’, ‘denier/denialist’ or temrs such as ‘Exxon’ ‘right wing’ ‘think tank’ ‘fossil fuel’ ‘tobacco lobby’ ‘creationist’ ‘flat earth’ etc rarely ever have any relevant points of their own. It has been the same here. If you think you have better arguments than them, you need to refrain from such use. Just a friendly reminder …
And you are quite right, I “have not shown that those calculations and their distributions of confidence levels are in any way done incorrectly”.. exactly because they do not, and don’t even purport to do what I say is wrong with that AR4 SPM statement. (I know, you have claimed it is done properly, but what you have presented here points to the opposite.
And I hope you are (or at least become aware) of that ..
GSW drivelled @ #492
@chek, wow Listen to yourselves 486,481. You’ve just suggested that someone, who appears to be Swedish(?), has chosen to blog in english and is doing so purely to pass off errors as a problem with language!.
Ingvar’s bloglist (which I was referring to but ain’t gonna link to) is a paen to pseudoscience and quackery.
It’s like a wall of dirty protest against the rational, the scientific, and the progressive.
That you find such trash defensible is completely unsurprising given your observed total lack of discrimination as long as you can classify such as an anti-AGW fellow traveller.
What is meant by validation and verification in that paper relates those terms to qualitative absolute truth statements. The word they prefer is confirmation, inferring relative validation, as in much better than a Wild Assed Guess. That is, they are not ever complete and perfect, but they nearly always have some usefulness, limits of which can be quantified.
None of this should be news to anyone who works with stochastic and non-linear dynamical processes in open systems. This paper is really a semantic argument, calling for a more rigorous use of terminology in __explaining__ what is known and what is unknown in science. It doesn’t have any actual impact on what is known and what is not.
Much the same can be said of all Science. For example, many people believe Galileo proved, i.e., validated and verified Kepler’s heliocentric model of the solar system. He didn’t. His strongest piece of evidence, the phases of Venus, only suggested that the other planets circled the Sun. It could still be argued that the whole Universe, with the Planets following their Kepler orbits, might be wheeling around the Earth every 24 hours. It was only when Newton combined Kepler’s orbits and Galileo’s studies of falling terrestrial bodies in a unified theory of motion and gravity that a credible explanatory mechanism for the heliocentric theory was established. Empirical confirmation of which was only established by launching satellites.
And we all knew by then the Newtonian Model was also inherently flawed, incomplete and imperfect, don’t we?
Cheek, to anyone reading your crap, it becomes obvious that you think and act with the lower hemispheres. You need to shape up and get some scientific posture.
Dear me, I’m hardly crushed that you think so, Olaus.
Still, I expect that’s at least marginally better than emitting from the lower orifices, like the visiting Jonas’ massive.
You may very well be right about the blog site, I don’t know, I haven’t looked, he can be an avid smurf fan for all I care.
But suggesting someone is sly using english on the internet, rather than their native tongue, in some fiendish plan to cover up errors , is, is …. stark raving bonkers.
When you get to start thinking conspiratorial things like that I would suggest going and standing outside in the fresh air for 10 minutes. You’ll be in a (hopefully) better mental state when you return.
When you are loosing an argument!
This is the first time I`m taking part of a on going debate about global warming on the internet. And I have to say that Im very surpised to see the level of emotions attacks and ad hominems as well as guilt by associations.
I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a scientific discussion but obviously it`s not.
What especially surprises me is that the representatives of the established climate science who Ive expected to stand up and defend climate science with scientific arguments isn`t.
I hold an Phd in rhetoric but I would never use that as an argument to be right r the best on my subject, but obviously there are participants here who think that should be enough to earn trust and gain authority, but clearly its not enough.
Jonas seems to have gone through details on the subject and has found nothing to support the claims by the established climate science to make him comfortable. I`ve tried to catch up o the controvercy concerning M Manns hockeystick and my impression is that the critics have very valid arguments. The best explanation I found for a layman as my self was this presentation of a R Muller.
So now I wonder why spokes persons of climate science defends instead of rejects M Manns behavior and why didnt the climate science takes this oportunity to clean up the mistrust that followed- How can that build trust and gain confidence ?
I simply dont understand what the logic or strategy is supposed to be here! Denial of the hockeystick circumstances can not possbly be a winning strategy.
I think the best arguments is coming from the sceptics here and Jonas N has earned a lot af points (to my dissapointment) in his way to argue and present his case.
Maby Im turning to be more of a sceptic myself.
Anyone interested to give me a reasonable answer?
2 polite posting rejected. Smiley got in. ?
Someone who claims to have a PhD in rhetoric should be able to recognize how dishonest Jonas’ writing is. So is Anders S one of Jonas’ buddies or a sock puppet?
Guys, you need to step it up. It’s getting really embarrassing.
We are only interested in science
So please start talking science and avoid profanities.
Ah yes, tone trolling. A sure sign you have no argument. You’d totally show us if only we weren’t such meanies, right?
Someone said that Jonas N […] would be worthy a [sic] Noble prize. Sorry to say, but the only Noble prize that is in reach for CAGWists, is the Noble peace price. On the other hand, Jonas N is not a CAGWist, so there might be an opening here.
Incoherent, and a lie. If you could disprove AGW, you’d be the first in line.
Also, it’s the Nobel prize. For crying out loud idiot, you even manage to get the name of one of your most famous compatriots wrong three times in a row? Do you really expect to be taken seriously?
I though we finally had an understanding here, all of us agreeing that the 90-something figure was an educated guess.
If by “educated” you mean “the only projection that fits the evidence”, sure. You sure harp on semantics for someone with such a feeble grasp of the English language and science, though. You might want to watch that, it’s becoming a bit too obvious that such harping is all you have.
Anyway, back to Jonas.
Jonas, thank you for that wall of text that demonstrates AGAIN that you have no idea how model validation works. No need to address that further, it’s an excellent reference.
People resorting to labels such as ‘idiot’, ‘moron’, ‘stupid’, ‘denier/denialist’ or temrs such as ‘Exxon’ ‘right wing’ ‘think tank’ ‘fossil fuel’ ‘tobacco lobby’ ‘creationist’ ‘flat earth’ etc rarely ever have any relevant points of their own.
How we talk to you has nothing to do with the validity of our arguments. You can take your tone trolling and put it where the sun does not shine, thank you very much.
If you think you have better arguments than them, you need to refrain from such use. Just a friendly reminder …
So you come on this blog with your vapid whining and then deem to tell us we’re not being nice enough to you? Jonas, if grown-ups calling you on your bovine excrement is too much for you to handle, I suggest you take your ball and go home in order to protect your fragile little soul.
For that matter, someone who claims to have a PhD in rhetoric should be a better writer.
I think you’ll find that your ‘point’ is 99% fantasy.
But go ahead and show I’m wrong … if you can.
Jeeesus! what is wrong with people here?
Thank you for your view on Oreskes’ et al paper.
I am somewhat sceptical to that paper considering essential differences compared to what Easterbrook is writing (see the link in chek’s comment above).
Easterbrook also provided this summary:
“Summary: It is a mistake to think that validation is a post-hoc process to be applied to an individual “finished” model to ensure it meets some criteria for fidelity to the real world. In reality, there is no such thing as a finished model, just many different snapshots of a large set of model configurations, steadily evolving as the science progresses. And fidelity of a model to the real world is impossible to establish, because the models are approximations. In reality, climate models are tools to probe our current theories about how climate processes work. Validity is the extent to which climate models match our current theories, and the extent to which the process of improving the models keeps up with theoretical advances”.
So the climate models are tools that probe our theories how clouds influence climate change. But so far the theoretical understanding of cloud processes is poor. The same could be said about natural variability. This suggests that climate models now should be used to probe various theories for cloud processes and natural variability in order to develop a better understanding of those climate processes.
But how can the climate models be valid for a complete theory of the climate when such essential parts as cloud processes and natural variability are not yet sufficiently understood?
Isn’t it premature to rely on projections of models where essential parts of the climate processes are not based on an acceptable level of theoretical understanding?
Oh what a shocker, another heavily spelling-challenged Swede rolls in. Anders, if you’re still at
I`ve tried to catch up o the controvercy concerning M Manns hockeystick
you really have a lot more catching up to do. Try searching this blog for “Mann” and/or “hockey stick” and get back to us.
Not if they work, no. Besides: got something better?
Trying this entry again, previous did not get in
Thanks for a civil answer. I have mostly got non civil answers or comments
Jeeesus! what is wrong with people here?
Whining about people not being nice enough is a very old and tired tactic to distract from the actual discussion. It’s called tone trolling, and is heavily frowned upon.
Sorry chek, it was wow 481. You were merely stating that he couldn’t get away with it as his english was quite good(?) chek 486
Can some people here refrain from making an issue of how people spell in the English language?
IT IS COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT!!
I bet the foreign speaking people posting on this blog are better at English than their critics here are at any foreign language.
Its just stupid stupid stupid ad hominem
What, Jonas is doing this somewhere else as well? Which blog is it?
BTW I never guessed that English is not your first language.
Isn’t it the theoretical understanding that the model is based on that makes it reliable?
For a model based on less theoretical understanding and more of empirical knowledge based on curve fitting it is essential to get continuous feedback from observations and experiments in each stage in the model development process.
How much of such continuous feedback is feasible in climate model development considering that the necessary climate observations have time scales of hundred years and should be spatially distributed all around the globe from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the atmosphere?
How we talk to you has nothing to do with the validity of our arguments. You can take your tone trolling and put it where the sun does not shine, thank you very much.
Whining about people not being nice enough is a very old and tired tactic to distract from the actual discussion. It’s called tone trolling, and is heavily frowned upon.
“Whining about people not being nice enough is a very old and tired tactic to distract from the actual discussion.”
I know it looks like a joke, with all the abuse being thrown about, but I think stu was actually being serious.
No, I can not. Please read #498. It’s rude. I bothered to learn the language so I can make myself understood; it’s not rocket science. Again, I’m not asking for perfect prose here — it’s just that having to read things like “Im” over and over grates and slows down reading.
No, it is not. At no point did I dismiss an argument because of poor spelling, I noted it because it was blatant and repetitive. Again, please read #498.
By the way #1: it’s rude to jump in a thread without reading it.
By the way #2: It’s not “Its”, it’s “It’s”, as in the contraction of “It” and “is”. You’re welcome.
Ingvar, GSW: do yourself a favor and look up tone trolling. You’re completely missing the point, and it’s getting a bit painful to witness.
Firstly, the current climate models do have quite a bit of theoretical understanding in them (this is not Wall Street curve fitting). They are not perfect, and never will be: it is impossible to write a fully theoretically underpinned model of an inherently chaotic system.
However, with the best of our current understanding, very sophisticated models have been created — based on measured data, projected data and mathematical models of interactions between many, many factors. To see if they work, for starters, you can “roll back” and see if their projections match observed data.
So what would convince you? A mathematical model that predicts the movement of every molecule on the planet?
Pehr, here is a good place to start.
“So what would convince you? A mathematical model that predicts the movement of every molecule on the planet?”
Of course not, I’d settle for a model that did a half way decent job of ‘predicting’ future climate before it happened, as opposed the absolutely fabulous job they do years after.
>The practice to fit them to observations (yes, that is what is done wrt to the various forcings)
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. They are not fits. This is a term implying the time series of observed forcings are statistically regressed against the observed temperature time series. This would be a statistical model. Yes, that would be a circular argument, but GCMs are not statistical models. They are physical models. Instead observed forcings are inputs used to iteratively calculate finite solutions to multiple sets of non-linear differential equations of well understood and empirically established scientific principles and observations (First principles is a philosophical term hung-over from Neo-Platonism and Scholasticism, a time when it was believed the Truth of Natural Philosophy could be deduced from Perfected Ideal Concepts, or, otherwise, prove the existence of God. A mind-set that persists among certain kinds of political theorists. Any one who uses that term concerning modern science, should be instantly recognized as poorly informed). These simulations are completely independent of the temperature record. __They are not statistical fits__, no way, no how. If you cannot understand the difference, there is no hope for you.
>…is not wrong in it self[sic], but it does not constitute a confirmation of the model assumptions.
Of course not. That is done in other studies which are cited in support of these studies. See Chap 8.
>Then the different parts of those model simulations (GHG; SUL, NAT) are spearated[sic] and the fit to actual observations is identified…
Again, you fail to understand what is being done. These are not parts of simulations, these are multiple separate individual realizations in which the various forcings are combined or withheld, as __inputs__.
>You might be aware of that the aerosol cooling is such a post hoc hypothesis needed to modify the original CO2-hypothesis and its lare[sic] positive feedbacks.
No, I’m not aware of such. You have references? Or is this just more exercise for your wrists? I do know the radiative physics of NOx in aerial suspension is well understood. Likewise, the stratospheric effects from explosive volcanoes. I know theoretical studies were done as far back as the 1970’s and included in the Charney and JASON reports and empirical studies under the rubric of global dimming have proceeded apace. I know there are large uncertainties in the size of secondary effects (formation of water droplets) but little uncertainty in their sign. Particulates is another matter. What do you know?
>And this is where many of the GCM models fail. They are tuned to fit the indutrial[sic] era, and a little time before. And the ‘attribution studies’ we’ve seen manage that reasonably well. But unless those models work equally well for any chosen time interval, you should view them as falsified.
Some very, very few empirically derived parameters are ‘adjustable’, but not tuned to fit anything. The nature of the adjustment made has to be based on some physical reasoning. Their impact on the overall outputs of GCMs is not as great as one might think.
[Amazingly](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6.html), they work pretty damn well over the last [1000 years.](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.html) Need we go into studies that show climate models’ utility in constraining temperature changes to known attributed forcings during the inter-glacial and glacial periods of the Pleistocene, the PETM, snowball earth, or other climatic variations in Earth’s deep past?
And even more so since the forcasting[sic] has been poor (which is not an argument wrt to what was known [in] 2007, ie[sic] the AR4 statement)
Horsecrap. Even Hansen’s 1988 scenario B model predictions haven’t been falsified to date. And the flux adjustments in that relatively primitive model are known to overstate sensitivity.
>One final point:
>People resorting to labels such as ‘idiot’, ‘moron’, ‘stupid’, ‘denier/denialist’ or temrs[sic] such as ‘Exxon’ ‘right wing’ ‘think tank’ ‘fossil fuel’ ‘tobacco lobby’ ‘creationist’ ‘flat earth’ etc rarely ever have any relevant points of their own. It has been the same here. If you think you have better arguments than them, you need to refrain from such use. Just a friendly reminder …[sic]
Thomas Jefferson said, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” I, and I am certain, others here, find your propositions and ideas to consist in the main of vague and unsupported assertions combined with ignorant opinion, little more than gibberish. In other words, you really have no arguments. You should be thankful I have the time and patience to address the specifics of your witless maunderings. So the ridicule you must bear. The misspellings, typos and distorted syntax don’t help much either. Use preview and edit yourself. Just a friendly suggestion.
So as not to insult actual idiots, who can’t help their ignorance, I’ve tried to restrict my personal use for you to the term ‘willful idiot’, which for many reasons I have explained thoroughly, the shoe fits you well. As for your sycophantic chorus, sock-puppets or whatever they may be, the term ‘useful idiots’ comes to mind. You don’t particularly like the terms ‘denialist’ and ‘denier’? Well if someone is so obviously in denial, and you are (yes, you are!), what terms would you prefer? In my part of the world, we have a saying, “You can call me anything, just don’t call me late for supper!” I suggest you grow a pair. Just a friendly suggestion.
luminous, don’t you just FEEL Freeman Dyson quotes coming? I’m sure there’ll be some uninformed banter about flux adjustments and pre-emptive pooh-poohing of Hansen 1988 thrown in. If there’s a link to ClimateAudit in there I call bingo right now.
Look, there’s absolutely no point discussing confidence levels with Jonas – he’s in denial as to the physical properties of CO2:
>the term ‘trapping heat’ is more appropriate for propaganda nonsense by failed ex VP politicians, directed at scaring kids
Clearly, by arguing confidence levels with him, you’re putting the cart before the horse.
As for Olaus, he seems strangely reticent to giving a straight answer – *CO2 has certain well-established physical properties which act to trap outgoing heat*.
Why can’t Olaus just say, “Yes, that’s true”?
>>The practice to fit them to observations (yes, that is what is done >>wrt to the various forcings)
>Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. They are not fits.
Jonas is correct but he perhaps didn’t use the right word. Models are ‘calibrated’ to give the best ‘fit’ to past observations. There is a difference, but the end result is the effectively the same.
But you knew that LB, didn’t you?
Uninformed banter about flux adjustments: check.
GSW: care to address Hansen’s 1988 numbers?
I am convinced that climate models are useful for the purpose of developing theory of climate processes as emphasized by Easterbrook. However, I am skeptical to the usage of climate models for projections, not in principle but in the way those projections currently are used. The empirical components in the models together with the associated tuning of parameters is a weakness which has not even been sufficiently emphasized in the reports of IPCC. This has led to an overconfidence in climate model simulations of a future climate (this view is based on a lecture by a professor who is a specialist in climate modelling).
I think that the view that has been propagated for some years on climate is a simplistic one. This might lead to bad decisions. There is a danger that drastic climate changes in the near future are assumed without any support from robust science resulting in an unacceptable waste of resources. We could for example end up in a transition to insufficient energy systems unable to cope with natural extremes such as unusually cold winters (in case of Sweden).
On the other hand I think that a long term slowly progressing climate warming is supported by theory, observations and model results. This must be closely monitored although it is difficult to see significant harmful effects during the next 50 – 100 years in Sweden. Hence, in our case in Sweden, coping with possible harmful effects abroad is a matter of international solidarity.
Ok, they’re crap.
You see Stu, GSW doesn’t know about Hansen’s scenario B because such things are overlooked at denial central. But then back at GSW HQ, Montford doesn’t even know the Earth orbits the sun, giving rise to the long polar night. Perhaps a ‘Galileo’ moment might in this case actually do the pair of them some good.
@#539 “from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the atmosphere”?
You’re a bit out of your depth. The top 700m of ocean is where the action is. Any deeper and you’re merely fishing to impress.
You’re back! that was a lot longer than 10 minutes though, feeling ‘normal’?
Ok, perhaps not.
This must be closely monitored although it is difficult to see significant harmful effects during the next 50 – 100 years in Sweden.
You do see that the next 50-100 years would have significant harmful effects elsewhere, right? Places where a lot of people live right now? What do you think these people are going to eat? Where do you think these people are going to go?
GSW: thank you for showing us the depth of your insight.
Thanks stu. Remember, you only have to ask.
It is necessary to know where and when the problems will occur. It is very important to do the right things in the form of adaption and mitigation. Both too much and too little may cause serious damage and result in serious loss of resources. Solving the problems is a matter of international solidarity, as I already mentioned.
So please start talking science
Obviously you’re not really interested in the science otherwise you would point out the scientific journal that supports your assertion.
Check the new paper from NCAR in Nature Climate Change.
It seems to me that Jonas N has gone from arguing that climatologists did not actually do the work to calculate ranges of human-caused warming, and therefore are liars and f-r-a-u-d-s, to now claiming that the methods they used are wrong, or otherwise inappropriate.
By his own moving of the goal-posts, he disproves his own original premise.
Jonas N loses.
You seem to be all excited and sweaty about Richard Muller. Do you mean [this Richard Muller](http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Muller.htm)?
Or [this one](http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=richard+muller+misinformation&x=0&y=0)?
You must mean [the Richard Muller whom Peter Sinclair showcases from 9:15 onward in this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us&feature=youtu.be). Watch the whole video, because the second half is all about Muller, and the first half sets the stage for the second…
[“Ingvar Engelbrecht” said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5291500):
>Can some people here refrain from making an issue of how people spell in the English language?
>IT IS COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT!!
>I bet the foreign speaking people posting on this blog are better at English than their critics here are at any foreign language.
>Its [sic] just stupid stupid stupid ad hominem
The spelling issue is not actually beside the point, because there is a peculiar consistency of mis-spelling amongst some of the Swedish trolls who have manifested on this thread. Just as there is with their shared preoccupation about what they perceive (incorrectly, as it happens) as ad hominem attacks, and just as there is with their similarly-peculiar fawning over the original troll Jonas N. As was noted above, there is a weird timing issue occurring also, and even the nature of the styles of their posts seems to roll over in the same pattern.
Everyone makes spelling mistakes. It’s when different people keep making the same sort of spelling mistakes that it looks suspicious, and that it merits comment. Either most of the Swedes here are socks, or they all attended the same school for learning English and Bastardising Science.
I’d always assumed that you were a native Australian!
Bernard J #564
What an interesting piece of logic! If that is representative for your way of thinking/reasoning it sure explain many other things.
Demanding perfect spelling and complaining when it is not done must be a sure way of keeping people that does not have English as their native language out of this blog. I am sure there are many scientists in the world that is cabable of good, not perfect English.
And for the record. Me, Jonas, Olaus and Pehr are 4 distinctive persons. I do not know them personally, I assume they are Swedish or at least Scandinavian.
So the numerology about postings is just an indication of a a higly conspirative way of thinking.
Or maybe this is a club only for likeminded warmists?
I don’t think anybody would claim that climate models are as good as they need to be, but that does not mean they have no value. Scientists aren’t the only users of models – every aspect of mass society is now dependent on them and they generally do a good job within their limitations.
Besides, what is the alternative – seaweed, chicken entrails or crystal balls? I’m sure every climate modeller wants to improve how their model performs. The current global pressure to reduce public spending probably means little chance of that, particularly with entities such as the Koch brothers using their ill-gotten petroleum speculation profits to bankroll numbers of goons such as Rick Perry to subvert government into not recognising there is a problem.
Arctic amplification of global warming is well known, and with changing dynamics within the system, meteorological disturbances are to be expected. However I’m not aware that anyone predicted the jet stream shift that gave those of us in northern Europe our last two cold winters. There were periods when it was 10-15 degrees warmer in Greenland than here in the UK last December, for instance.
What does seem plain is that whether AGW produces local effects such as more intense and more widespread droughts, heavier and more frequent floods, longer heatwaves or even colder winters, the best policy would be to tackle the root cause. Mitigation would likely be a hyra-headed, piecemeal firefight and geo-engineering a potential disaster waiting to happen.
Even if this generation does not experience the intended benefits of such policies (and there may be unintended benefits such as better air quality) we know from the models that worse effects will come from a melting arctic observed to be releasing sublimated methane with worse GHG properties than CO2 in ever increasing amounts.
The models have lots of parameters describing various physical phenomena, ad hoc assumed assumptions and relationships etc. These are fitted to match various observations. I already described that, I didn’t mean, I never said that GCMs were by themselves where statistical regressions and used for ‘predictions (clippo made such ‘arguments’), I stated the contrary, and you know it. (clippo made such ‘arguments’).
If you misunderstand what I said, it’s OK to ask, but if you must distort things to make (rather ‘save’) your point, you’ve already lost the argument.
>These are not parts of simulations, these are multiple separate individual realizations in which the various forcings are combined or withheld, as inputs
That’s what I said, and that what it says in the paper. But since you now seem to agree with me (you are mostly picking at wordings) that the model simulation runs by them selves don’t (and cannot) confirm the validity of the underlying physical assumptions, and what is more important: that they cannot acertain that all relevant mechanisms are properly captured and included, and you now claim this is done in ch8, it seems as if you are abandoning your first position and the paper you linked.
Regarding aerosols, you seem to confuse ‘known of’ or’ addressed’ with ‘well understood’, a quite common misconception wrt climate understandning. It suffices to see how the models all overstated the [Mt Pinatubo eruption cooling](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.4131&rep=rep1&type=pdf) Fig 1a.
And yes, Thomas Jefferson was a great individual, I don’t presume you are trying to compare yourself with him. Your ‘riduculing’ has mostly been about typos, syntac, and an feeble posturing about Navier Stokes. And looking back, you must feel that various ad homs indeed somehow bolster your stance. Although I cannot see how.
Many here are quite cabable of ridiculing themselves, and I reckon you draw your ‘support’ here among those. Please, be my guest! Might I just remind you of the following statement in #334:
>it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes
And that Jeff H found thousands of supporting references (he didn’t even need to read) and you proved it with a Google serach? Wow, just wow …
Anders S #525
I am sorry to have disappointed you, but how did I manage that?
I don’t think anyone has a problem with models being an effective ‘academic tool'; investigating near-term climatic interactions, performing ‘thought’ experiments etc.
The difficulty is, and this returns to one of Olaus’ points earlier, the field is primarily driven (the high profile bit we choose to fund) to predict the climate 50-100yrs from now, which is in all likelihood impossible to do with any degree of ‘useful’ certainty.
Returning even closer to Jonas original point; the IPCC has a vested interest in a) maintaining CAGW theory as at least plausable b) selling reliability of climate model forecasts c) plugging gaps with ‘expert’ opinion.
So climate models are useful tools, yes, but there is no ‘absolute truth’ revealed in them, they are just an expression of our current understanding of how the planet works. Claiming we know enough to say what the climate will be 100yrs from now is pure hubris.
And I thought you were Anders S#525!
I am fully aware of what science is, and even more so how it is conducted properly (the problem is rather that many here, are not, probably coming from ‘soft science’ backgrounds). But I would not call every attempt to assess reality as “guesswork” of similar or compareable value.
As I said, you follow proper methodology and you may possibly progress (but slowly) and sort out errors, misconceptions, failed hypotheses etc, as you go.
Thanks for noting (acknowledging?) my pointers re attribution and certainty. And of course: every comment I make is a ‘simplification’ of what we are talking about. And I might both spell and phrase it poorly at times (which however cannot be usedd as proof that others are right, although this is frequently attempted).
I am fully aware of the spatial patterns, I have commented upon it twice now, and I’d think it is a viable method to improve the refine the hypothesis and models. But it does not, repeat not, an affirmation of the underlying hypothesis.
You are correct that the polar regions should heat more than the tropics. But that is actually true for many sources of warming, eg if it were due to changes in cloud cover, and humidity.
As you (might?) remember, I don’t have a problem with the AGW-hypothseis per se (but the CAGW-versions of it). And CO2 should have a warming effect, most clearly observable when it is dry, and cold, that is at night, clear skies, and as you say, more visoble in northern regions. And that is actually observed. But to go from there, to that
1. CO2 controls the climate, to a substantial degree, and
2. CO2, through its marginal heating, causes large positive feedbacks through (mainly) water vapor …
.. that requires many and huge steps to be identified and taken, and on the way proven correct and properly captured wrt magnitude. And I am saying that we are nowhere close to that. Even if others are convinced that these hypotheses indeed are the final and correct ones, that only minor detlais remain.
But what is missing, is not minor. And it is not the phrasing of the AR4 attribution claim. This just happend to be what has caused three weeks of kerfuffle here, when I pointed it out … Once that dust settles, there are more problematic parts of the hypothesis worht discussing
(The sad thing though, is that this seems to be the absolute least interest among many, my persona seems much more fascinating. Have youy noticed how many others started to imagine me behind a number of other signatures too? Incidentally, the same people who claim cairvoyant capabilities in other fields as well, and with comparable success
“The sad thing though, is that this seems to be the absolute least interest among many, my persona seems much more fascinating.”
Well, you are an interesting character Jonas (as I’ve said before). All the abuse thats been hurled around you, the patronizing comments and pejorative remarks from the usual ideological bullies, you kept to the point were making, and you made it!
Just under 600 comments on your own thread, you’re still standing, no-one knocked you down! Thats something just on its own!
Also something I thought would never happen – Jeff H has gone off to find out about science!
Jonas @ 569:
The models have lots of parameters describing various physical phenomena, ad hoc assumed assumptions and relationships etc. These are fitted to match various observations.
I am not aware of these ad hoc assumed assumptions and relationships. Please could you elaborate?
I don’t have a problem with the AGW-hypothseis per se (but the CAGW-versions of it).
Again, please could you give an example of a CAGW version, with a citation?
GSW @571. Very lame.
The fake sceptic collectives have only one realistic option – produce better models.
Which we all know ain’t gonna happen.
Well, well,Stu, wow etc. Have you yet again abondon our common ground? I though we could agree on the fact that the 90(-95)% was an opiniated geusswork in an effort to please politicians and ideologist?
Apparently the figure has the same scientific foundation as the magic CGAW buzz-words stating that 500 millions will lack freshwater during dry season if the galciers melts away.
The sience that backs it up is as hard to find as the Yeti. The footprints that are claimed to be the proof of its existance are often enough of anthropogenic origin though.
Demanding perfect spelling and complaining when it is not done must be a sure way of keeping people that does not have English as their native language out of this blog. I am sure there are many scientists in the world that is cabable of good, not perfect English.
Did you actually not #499, or just fail to comprehend it?
That’s not just a lie, but a very, very dumb one on several fronts. First, we’re talking about whoppers such as repeated use of “Im” that an evening with Rosetta Stone Level I would fix; second, near-perfect spelling is easily achieved by using free spell-checking tools and paying attention to the red squiggly lines, hardly an intellectual challenge; and third, even I was able to master the language for crying out loud. So you’re talking about the subset of scientists that are A) smart enough to contribute to climate science yet B) too dense to use a spell-checker.
Most of you fall into category B only. Would you like some help in getting a spell-checker up and running?
And looking back, you must feel that various ad homs indeed somehow bolster your stance.
Sweetheart, I will say this one more time: you do not know what the ad hominem fallacy is. Please stop using the term.
It suffices to see how the models all overstated the Mt Pinatubo eruption cooling Fig 1a.
You look at those graphs and choose to whine about Pinatubo? That’s a new low, Jonas.
So climate models are useful tools, yes, but there is no ‘absolute truth’ revealed in them, they are just an expression of our current understanding of how the planet works.
Umm yes. That’s how science works. If science had ‘absolute truth’, it would stop (@1:50). Meanwhile, you are saying that you’re more than happy to let the climate change unfettered because even though the models are right about mean temperature rise, there are error bars.
Have youy noticed how many others started to imagine me behind a number of other signatures too?
Yes, how could we think such a thing. A sudden influx of like-minded people from the same country with the same language deficiencies. This could have been prevented if you had only warned us that you were calling in your sycophant club.
And it is not the phrasing of the AR4 attribution claim. This just happend to be what has caused three weeks of kerfuffle here, when I pointed it out … Once that dust settles, there are more problematic parts of the hypothesis worht discussing
Yes it was Jonas, that was your entire original point. You’re moving the goalposts AGAIN. You might want to tell GSW:
you kept to the point were making, and you made it!
Which one, GSW? He’s on at least his third “main” point now, after the vapidity of the first few became too embarrassing.
So, Jonas, still no discussion of flux adjustments? Or is that a little too specific and falsifiable for you? So far, you seem to be the only one smart enough to stay firmly in the realm of vague hand-waving.
I though we could agree on the fact that the 90(-95)% was an opiniated geusswork in an effort to please politicians and ideologist?
Asked and answered at #528, the 90-95% is the result of toning down by politicians and ideologists. Stop trolling. And for crying out loud, download a browser with spell-checking and pay attention to the squiggly lines.
I do hope Tim has some time to do an IP check on the collective here, because we’re either dealing with a frantically sock-puppeting sociopath who is starting to slip up, or there’s a national mandate in Sweden to add smileys to everything, tween LJ-style.
Ah stu, the chewbacca defense (look it up sweetheart x x x).
I don’t know which redefinition of “ad hominem” you subscribe to, but our Swedish friends seem to have a better grasp of the meaning of it than you do.
I can only surmise that education in Sweden is demonstrably better than where you originate from.
GSW, for all your fawning support, Jonas’ ongoing D-K syndrome is a failure of understanding, not some triumph of the will agaiunst all adversity to be praised as you seem to think.
Nor is adding your own misunderstanding of the term argumentum ad hominem a voting mechanism to make the incorrect right.
“Nor is adding your own misunderstanding of the term argumentum ad hominem a voting mechanism to make the incorrect right.”
A voting mechanism!!? Is THAT your definition?
How about the more common? (from Wikipedia) “An ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”, “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.”
My non-scientific quess is that 99,87% of all users of the term will go for the wiki-definition.
Poor stu little. What a drama-queen. Him barking like a rabid Paris Hilton dog doesn’t improve his case either. Anyone reading this thread, which probably is one of the most read in Deltoid’s history, can now see how poorly stu and his CAGW-brats are doing. Naked to the skin and more and more aware of it.
jag ser att du också har skoj!
The sectarian mentality among the CAGW-brats is titanic. Soon it will hit the bottom, honors to a greenlandic iceberg from the scientific Times Atlas.
GFreeman: Will you please pay attention? No, it is not his definition, please notice the word “Nor” that starts the sentence. Also, notice the word “by” in the Wikipedia definition. We’ve pointed out that the denialists are wrong, and that they are morons who cannot spell — not that they are wrong because they are morons who cannot spell.
(To the point where they cannot even be counted on to consistently get their own name right — see 583 and 585, for instance).
Det dunkelt sagda är det dunkelt tänkta, Olaus.
Time to let the smiley-brigade crawl back under their bridge.
>The models have lots of parameters describing various physical phenomena, ad hoc assumed assumptions and relationships etc. These are fitted to match various observations.
The models have a small number of adjustable parameters; >10 out of hundreds. If you think that is best quantified as ‘lots of parameters’ you are welcome to your opinion, but in my opinion that makes you a willful idiot.
One example; Falling raindrops don’t fall at an accelerating rate of 9.8 m/s2, so much of the energy from g forces is transferred to the atmosphere. Until very recently there were no useful theoretical models of raindrops that could give a realistic result of how much of that absorbed energy was translated into heat from friction and how much into downward wind sheer. Experiments and in situ observations were conducted to derive an empirical formula. As in all empirical observations, there are instrumental errors and errors in measurement that make these formulas ‘adjustable’ within realistic bounds.
Could you explain, in this context, what you mean by ‘ad hoc assumed assumptions? It seems you’re saying the use of reasonably approximated and empirically confirmed adjustable parameters is something modelers just pull out of their butts, lacking any careful physical reasoning, making GCMs for all extents and purposes useless. Have I got that right? I’m saying they add realistic information that makes them more complete and more useful. Am I being clear enough?
>If you misunderstand what I said, it’s OK to ask, but if you must distort things to make (rather ‘save’) your point, you’ve already lost the argument.
It’s not my place to apologize for your use of vague and ambiguous language.
>>These are not parts of simulations, these are multiple separate individual realizations in which the various forcings are combined or withheld, as inputs
>That’s what I said, and that what it says in the paper.
No, you said, “__Then__ the __different parts__ of those model simulations (GHG; SUL, NAT) __are spearated[sic]__…
‘ which reads as if there were only simulations done with all forcings and the various distinct forcings were somehow magically extracted from from those simulations.
It’s not my place to apologize for your use of vague and ambiguous language
>But since you now seem to agree with me (you are mostly picking at wordings) that the model simulation runs by them selves don’t (and cannot) confirm the validity of the underlying physical assumptions…
Of course not. The validity of conservation of momentum and energy have been well established since Newton. The validity of empirical observations is confirmed by empirical measurements. It is not the purpose of models to confirm the underlying science. You _are_ a willful idiot.
>…and what is more important: that they cannot acertain that all relevant mechanisms are properly captured and included, and you now claim this is done in ch8, it seems as if you are abandoning your first position and the paper you linked.
I make no such claim, though they certainly capture enough of the relevant mechanisms to make them useful. No model will ever perfectly and completely capture every microscopic detail of the real world, nor to replicate it with a one to one correspondence. Such a model would require computing power exceeding the total information content of the universe. How useful they are, however, can be confirmed and quantified. This is the subject of Chap. 8. To think this is a necessary condition for any paper that uses GCMs is incredibly stupid. You are a willful idiot.
>Regarding aerosols, you seem to confuse ‘known of’ or’ addressed’ with ‘well understood’, a quite common misconception wrt climate understandning.[sic] It suffices to see how the models all overstated the Mt Pinatubo eruption cooling Fig 1a.
I admit to being more of a technician than a research scientist, so I’m more interested in what works than being able to explain every damn detail perfectly and precisely on a purely theoretical basis. GCMs work pretty damn well, even if they under- or over-estimate certain phenomena. The important thing is that they realistically simulate those phenomena. I have no problem with compensating those under- or over-estimations with scaling factors to make them more realistic. Is that your problem? Why? It turns out that whether one uses those scaling factors or not has virtually no effect on the trend analysis.
>And yes, Thomas Jefferson was a great individual, I don’t presume you are trying to compare yourself with him.
I’m glad you refrain from making presumptions about that. Now if only you could refrain from making ridiculous presumptions about climate science. As if you couldn’t tell, I am comparing you to those he was criticizing.
>Your ‘riduculing'[sic] has mostly been about typos, syntac,[sic] and an feeble posturing about Navier Stokes.
You’re projecting again.
> And looking back, you must feel that various ad homs indeed somehow bolster your stance. Although I cannot see how.
Yes. Because when you make ridiculous, erroneous and poorly supported propositions couched in vague and ambiguous language, believing by doing so you are actually making a coherent argument, then it adds clarity and focus to emphasize that makes you a willful idiot. Note that is not an ad hom fallacy, which would be to say that because you are a willful idiot, what you say is wrong. Stu and others have pointed out this simple rule of logic repeatedly on this thread, yet it doesn’t seem to sink in. Could this be because you are a willful idiot?
>Many here are quite cabable[sic] of ridiculing themselves, and I reckon you draw your ‘support’ here among those. Please, be my guest! Might I just remind you of the following statement in #334:
>>it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes
>And that Jeff H found thousands of supporting references (he didn’t even need to read) and you proved it with a Google serach[sic]? Wow, just wow …
The point being made wasn’t that all those papers are supporting references for my statement, but that there are thousands of papers in the literature that deal with or touch upon the subject of climate attribution.
Jeff Harvey’s original statement was “Yes, its found in >1,000 papers in the empirical literature as well as in the IPCC reports. Now be a good boy and look them up for yourself.” The operative words being ‘found in’.
I was merely confirming that there are, indeed, thousands of related papers in the empirical literature.
You are the one that leapt to the presumption that __all__ those papers supported my proposition. I only made the claim my proposition was well supported by at least one paper referenced in WGI Chap. 9, which you may recall was the challenge you brought. A challenge, which I might add, has been not just met, but exceeded. QED, despite your ignorant quibbling and dissembling about the efficacy of models; a subject of which you obviously have only the most superficial knowledge and apparently cribbed from denialist blather.
You aren’t the first Internet Galileo to come galloping in here with your precious blog-science thinking he would lay waste to the barbarians with his superior intellect, and ending up screaming bloody murder about how he doesn’t get the respect he deserves.
Au contraire. You are getting precisely the respect you deserve. Idiot.
Correct stu, indeed your ability to express the science underpinning 90-95% are very lightweight, hence your scientific mind are on the same end of the scale. According to you, that is.
As long as you are nothing more than a feeble minded IPCC-groupie, you will never be able to remove the blindfolds of dogma (to see beyond the unscientific doctrins surrounding the CAGW-church). You talk and act like a religious nut. Keep on with the heavy hitting grammar and spelling charges though. They only enforce how little you have to say on the matter at hand.
There is a saying. I will rephrase it a bit.
Never argue with xxxx people. They drag you down on their level and win on sheer experience.
Never mind that. I will get down to their level. I know I cant win there but its just for the record
I have never been on a forum where so many have been so outright rude. There must be a reason for that. Maybe they can’t (look I made a “‘”!) take opposition, especially not from some ugly vikings from the other side of the planet.
Standing back it looks like Jonas really scared them in their private little club where they seemed to enjoy perpetual backscratching.
Maybe we shall leave them at that.
As expected: tone troll, declare moral victory, slink off.
How predictable, pathetic and tedious.
I’ve been thinking this for a while but now that you say “ugly vikings” (actually I’d say “Vikings”), I can no longer resist. Can you put names to these faces?
Comrades! Brothers and … especally sisters! Workers!
There may only be moments left before the Jonas Footwear Brigade bring us and the whole carefully constructed chimera of AGW (or latterly CAGW, or more latterly WTFGW) to our knees. I have of course contacted Comrade Commissar Lambert and Comrade Lord Gore to keep them abreast of events, but bear in mind that it is Saturday and rescue may be some time coming.
Obviously the first line of attack will always be the McinTyre Ploy. As is well known, this is named after the (apparent) Canadian citizen of no discernible background who picked a 0.000008 micron hole in our IPCC masterplan – though bear in mind that normally the system will normally only wake up from LAN at a 20% threat level. This has not prevented that infernal McT dining out on the story for nigh on ten years and founding a cult.
While it was anticipated that that the McTProt would serve to distract the usual quantities of EMOs and borderline paranoid schizophrenics, it in fact proved much more successfull amongst low-level corporate management who had realised too soon that everyone was out to f*ck them over, and would overcompensate mightily. What nobody anticipated was their regression to paranoid states that they had suppressed since they were 15 years old when spots, zits and masturbation were their primary driving concerns.
Of course these will invariably be of the least dangerous, hysterical kind who fully believe that extracting a two inch thread from a garment they are wearing will render them involuntarily, publicly and shamefully naked in milliseconds. Strangely, in a way projected as applying to other people’s peer-reviewed work.
This class of individual (although they may sometimes operate in packs like the dogs they are) may safely be dismissed with brutal ad hominem remarks. None of them have had a classical education and therefore won’t know what thefuck you are talking about, although some of the smarter ones may complain of ‘unfairness’. Basically most just want their drivel ideas to be acknowledged in an uncaring world. Witness GSW and Shub. Deny, shun and rubbish them at every opportunity, if only for their own good.
The really dangerous ones of course don’t bother with blogs but get on with collecting and publishing their own data, but of course our esteemed comrades at the IPCC will already be expecting them, the comfy chair primed and ready. However the likelihood of any of those turning up here this evening is miniscule.
So let fly with all the ad hom attacks we can mister brothers and sisters. The infidel need never know that’s all we’ve got.
And also, please be assured, as I know in my heart with complete confidence, Comrade Lord Gore will already be writing the papers we need to crush this outbreak of unconscienable insolence and have them with us by Monday morning. And always remember, even now in our darkest hour:
“The Revoltion Will Not Be Televised. It Will Be Published By The IPCC”.
Are you telling me that when people in a debate call you an idiot, it is evidence for your intellectual superiority?
Does the same principle apply when you are talking to women in bars? If they call me an idiot, does that really mean that they find me irresistibly charming and sexy?
Let the good times roll!
The tit for tat name-calling and sarcasm is wearing thin with me, but I think the conclusion @ 296 ‘Oh by the way …’ is just heading 593 for Joke of the Thread.
#591 I’ll have a go.
I believe the altarboy on the left hand side is called stu. The big paternal fella in the middle answers to the name Jeff. The other two luminous beauties are wow and bernhard.
The sparkling and innocent looking thing in the front centre must for sure be Jonas N.
Yes, that’s right Olaus. The big hairy hippies must be Stu, Jeff, Wow and Bernard. The little girly girl must be Jonas.
@595 I suspect we’re philosophically opposed but a cool joke friend.
Agree about the name calling.
Have you ever thought about doing your own Blog? I think a few here on both sides would enjoy venturing over there every now and then. You said in 573,
“Once that dust settles, there are more problematic parts of the hypothesis worht discussing”
It’s your thread, fire away!
Still no chance of Jonas contributing to other threads?
GSW, your new theme.
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Let’s skip straight to January.
Past time for more thread.