British voters say humans not to blame for

[Cradle of Fish]

I hope you would not suggest to start saving this mainstream from AGW via using force? If the mainstream chooses to die from AGW - what you gonna do? Spray them all with Agent Orange? And what if this is our evolutionary chance to develop a perfect body cooling system? Would you dare to stop the Evolution?

Yes exactly I'm an environmental blackshirt for pointing out that the majority isn't educated in the matter.

The problem is if the mainstream choose to die from something like that the rest of us have to go with them, and that's not very fair.

[Moon Monkey]

No you said models were wrong and NEVER answered why instead you went off and said you won't acknowledge scientific papers. I told you why those links aren't reliable. I have asked you to tell me why the papers I posted are inaccurate. I can only presume you don't understand them.

But just to make you feel less left out I'll give you a direct reply to the NIPCC from NASA's Gavin Schmidt and Penn States Michael Mann.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/

Scientific papers aren't blind faith, if you understood them you could critique them, I'll be waiting on the

I'll tell you (AGAIN) why they are wrong. I have a PhD and a number of years research experience in nonlinear dynamic systems modelling and prediction so I KNOW they are inaccurate. Predicting backwards or to the present is easy in comparison but until I am shown otherwise I will just laugh at the 100 year predictions, even accurate 100 second predictions are unlikely.

As for critiquing papers, I am a senior reviewer for a number of journals and conferences, I have published many papers myself on the identification, modelling and prediction topic and I think I probably know the pitfalls a little better than you. I think your religious zeal on this topic is restricting you from joining the discussion as a scientist, if that is indeed what you claim to be.

I understand the papers however I am unable to check the results myself, I have spoken to you before on scientists 'fudging' their results. I cannot tell you where or if the papers are inaccurate because I do not have access to the models or data used.

I read the papers however do not accept results in blind faith, you do...thats religion not science. If you were a scientist would you base your work on someones results that you hadn't checked for yourself ? I presume you wouldn't but on this topic you do.

BTW That review if the NIPCC report (which I never claimed to be gospel, just that it asked similar questions to those I had) on the models just keeps giving something along the the "They contain our best current understanding for how the physical processes interact" answer. I liked this quote from one of the links:

One of the most important features of complex systems is that most of their interesting behaviour is emergent. It’s often found that the large scale behaviour is not a priori predictable from the small scale interactions that make up the system. So it is with climate models. If a change is made to the cloud parameterisation, it is difficult to tell ahead of time what impact that will have on, for instance, the climate sensitivity. This is because the number of possible feedback pathways (both positive and negative) is literally uncountable. You just have to put it in, let it physics work itself out and see what the effect is. This means that validating these models is quite difficult. (NB. I use the term validating not in the sense of ‘proving true’ (an impossibility), but in the sense of ‘being good enough’).

The two examples I saw given of actual predictions 'doing a good job' were for very localised 'weather' no global climate models and tbh were not what I would call acceptable and that was for historical observations as of course they cannot compare the predictions yet, I am surprised that they were published....must be the best of a bad lot.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Mattshark]

I'll tell you (AGAIN) why they are wrong. I have a PhD and a number of years research experience in nonlinear dynamic systems modelling and prediction so I KNOW they are inaccurate. Predicting backwards or to the present is easy in comparison but until I am shown otherwise I will just laugh at the 100 year predictions, even accurate 100 second predictions are unlikely.

As for critiquing papers, I am a senior reviewer for a number of journals and conferences, I have published many papers myself on the identification, modelling and prediction topic and I think I probably know the pitfalls a little better than you. I think your religious zeal on this topic is restricting you from joining the discussion as a scientist, if that is indeed what you claim to be.

I understand the papers however I am unable to check the results myself, I have spoken to you before on scientists 'fudging' their results. I cannot tell you where or if the papers are inaccurate because I do not have access to the models or data used.

I read the papers however do not accept results in blind faith, you do...thats religion not science. If you were a scientist would you base your work on someones results that you hadn't checked for yourself ? I presume you wouldn't but on this topic you do.

BTW That review if the NIPCC report (which I never claimed to be gospel, just that it asked similar questions to those I had) on the models just keeps giving something along the the "They contain our best current understanding for how the physical processes interact" answer. I liked this quote from one of the links:

One of the most important features of complex systems is that most of their interesting behaviour is emergent. It’s often found that the large scale behaviour is not a priori predictable from the small scale interactions that make up the system. So it is with climate models. If a change is made to the cloud parameterisation, it is difficult to tell ahead of time what impact that will have on, for instance, the climate sensitivity. This is because the number of possible feedback pathways (both positive and negative) is literally uncountable. You just have to put it in, let it physics work itself out and see what the effect is. This means that validating these models is quite difficult. (NB. I use the term validating not in the sense of ‘proving true’ (an impossibility), but in the sense of ‘being good enough’).

The two examples I saw given of actual predictions 'doing a good job' were for very localised 'weather' no global climate models and tbh were not what I would call acceptable and that was for historical observations as of course they cannot compare the predictions yet, I am surprised that they were published....must be the best of a bad lot.

Yet you can't seem to critique the papers I have shown, that is not acceptance in blind faith, that's the point of a paper to read it and then you can make judgement on it. That is why journal have rebuttals and critiques of papers in them. You haven't bothered though. If you review papers as you claim you could easily do that.

When you did your Ph.D did you also refuse to acknowledge papers for that too?

Its all about evidence Monkey, you ain't posted any.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Mattshark

[Moon Monkey]

Yet you can't seem to critique the papers I have shown, that is not acceptance in blind faith, that's the point of a paper to read it and then you can make judgement on it. That is why journal have rebuttals and critiques of papers in them. You haven't bothered though. If you review papers as you claim you could easily do that.

When you did your Ph.D did you also refuse to acknowledge papers for that too?

Its all about evidence Monkey, you ain't posted any.

Again, and for the last time, how can I critique without access to the models and data used ? I can read them and thats it. Have you been through the papers you post as evidence with a tooth-comb or have you simply swallowed everything that fits your already made-up mind ?

When I did my PhD any paper that I drew upon in my own work was re-simulated to make sure everything was correct. If the models or data were not actually in the paper I contacted the author and got them off him and, as I have told you before, I found mistakes in work that had been followed since the late 70's, contacted the author and proved his errors to him before I published a paper pointing it out. There were many occasions where I saw work that offered me interesting routes for forwarding my own work but upon investigation were not proven and therefore I would not use them.

What am I supposed to be posting evidence of exactly ? Surely you should be posting the data/models to prove your 'beliefs' as I am TELLING you the models are no good...PROVE me wrong.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Bill Hill]

Once again mattshark is tripped up by a basic principle of science.

You've made the claim, you supply the evidence.

So c'mon Matt... get your EVIDENCE OUT for the Scientists..

[itsnotoutthere]

I used to make models.

[MARAB0D]

Yes exactly I'm an environmental blackshirt for pointing out that the majority isn't educated in the matter.

The problem is if the mainstream choose to die from something like that the rest of us have to go with them, and that's not very fair.

I can understand this position. The same time I need to point out that it is a personal opinion, based on personal fears to die following the uneducated Majority. Such personal fears can be rational and irrational. If they are rational and based on a solid scientific proof, then this would be an action of high Morality on your part to educate this ignorant Majority, not to criticise or insult it by calling it ignorant. If it still persists in its ignorance, then it means the concept you are trying to explain is too complex for an average human mind - we can observe that the ignorant Majority occurred to be capable to understand such complex concepts as spherical shape of the Earth, Electricity, Infinity of the Universe, Temporal-spatial relationships of Relativity and many others, which makes the theory you adhere to, to be more complex than any of the above mentioned concepts. The same time it is impossible to find the AGW theory substantiated in a similar comprehensive manner as, say, Relativity - so you are actually lacking the education materials, which you can explain to the public. This appears to be a main reason why the Majority chooses to remain ignorant, as in 21st century the Majority lost the ability to accept complex issues simply on faith, no matter which colour shirts their adepts wear.

There is no free lunch, and it must be quite costly to create an explanation of CO2 action in atmosphere, which would be clear for any housewife (who make the Majority!); so if your environmental organization possesses some sensible funds you can make an offer, and I would consider providing you with such a theory - it would be of course a fake, a joke, but I can guarantee it would take 20-30 years to debunk it

[Mattshark]

Once again mattshark is tripped up by a basic principle of science.

You've made the claim, you supply the evidence.

So c'mon Matt... get your EVIDENCE OUT for the Scientists..

Get lost, I posted papers, he refuses to acknowledge them. He claims they are wrong, burden of proof is on him.

Not complex, not even for someone like you.

[Mattshark]

Again, and for the last time, how can I critique without access to the models and data used ? I can read them and thats it. Have you been through the papers you post as evidence with a tooth-comb or have you simply swallowed everything that fits your already made-up mind ?

When I did my PhD any paper that I drew upon in my own work was re-simulated to make sure everything was correct. If the models or data were not actually in the paper I contacted the author and got them off him and, as I have told you before, I found mistakes in work that had been followed since the late 70's, contacted the author and proved his errors to him before I published a paper pointing it out. There were many occasions where I saw work that offered me interesting routes for forwarding my own work but upon investigation were not proven and therefore I would not use them.

What am I supposed to be posting evidence of exactly ? Surely you should be posting the data/models to prove your 'beliefs' as I am TELLING you the models are no good...PROVE me wrong.

It is your claim that they are wrong, it is your responsibility to show they are, not my job to show they are not. That monkey is a basic scientific principle.

The information is in the papers, use them, if you can't then you should not be editing or reviewing anything except a tabloid.

[Bill Hill]

Get lost, I posted papers,

I don't want a paper boy... I want evidence.

Links please.

[Moon Monkey]

I don't want a paper boy... I want evidence.

Links please.

The only links he has given in the 6 pages of this thread are for a blog run by IPCC authors and the New Scientist mag which isn't reviewed so can simply print whatever it wants and is known to be sensationalist.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Bill Hill]

The only links he has given in the 6 pages of this thread are for a blog run by IPCC authors and the

blog a' blogger blogs. Typical.

The New Scientist mag which isn't reviewed so can simply print whatever it wants and is known to be sensationalist.

The new scientist? ha! yep, it's well known it's not peer reviewed. A scientist friend of mine described it as a 'jazz mag' for people who are 'not into science'..I think that's pretty accurate.

[Moon Monkey]

blog a' blogger blogs. Typical.

The new scientist? ha! yep, it's well known it's not peer reviewed. A scientist friend of mine described it as a 'jazz mag' for people who are 'not into science'..I think that's pretty accurate.

Lol. I don't even know what or where these papers are that he is hanging his hat on as the final and conclusively proven, unquestionable results that have totally closed the door on the AGW debate never mind the data and models I keep asking for.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Mattshark]

I don't want a paper boy... I want evidence.

Links please.

That IS what a scientific paper is boy.

[Mattshark]

Lol. I don't even know what or where these papers are that he is hanging his hat on as the final and conclusively proven, unquestionable results that have totally closed the door on the AGW debate never mind the data and models I keep asking for.

They're papers on global warming from a few journals (including ones such as Nature). You dismissed them with out even looking at them? Because I have put them up numerous time.

Papers are the best source of evidence you are going to get on here, if you have a Ph.D you'll know that.

And don't be so arrogant to assume what I think, I have only asked you to back YOUR claims up and you just keep dodging that. I even put up scientific papers for you to make a case over and you never bothered. You are full of it, if you worked for a journal you'd be able to critique a paper and find out what you need. That is is the point of papers! To offer information and allow other to see how it was done and to replicate it.

You are simply deflecting.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Mattshark

[Moon Monkey]

They're papers on global warming from a few journals (including ones such as Nature). You dismissed them with out even looking at them? Because I have put them up numerous time.

Papers are the best source of evidence you are going to get on here, if you have a Ph.D you'll know that.

And don't be so arrogant to assume what I think, I have only asked you to back YOUR claims up and you just keep dodging that. I even put up scientific papers for you to make a case over and you never bothered. You are full of it, if you worked for a journal you'd be able to critique a paper and find out what you need. That is is the point of papers! To offer information and allow other to see how it was done and to replicate it.

You are simply deflecting.

I don't see anything to deflect. The only claim I am making is that the climate models will be inaccurate in prediction, but then again even most of the guys who proposed and work with those models admit that.

You have not added anything scientific anywhere as far as I can see but still insist on lecturing others on how the scientific process works.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[questionmark]

I don't see anything to deflect. The only claim I am making is that the climate models will be inaccurate, but then again even most of the guys who proposed and work with those models admit that.

How inaccurate, 10%, 20%, 100%?

Naturally incomplete empirical data (and with climate you can never have complete data until a full warming/cooling cycle has been observed) will have incomplete results. So far they have been pretty much on target with their temperature raise prediction.

The simple fact that 30 years ago they could predict, based on the carbon dioxide model, the temperature development (as I have shown in another thread here with a paper I posted for Marabod-- who for some funny reason decided to ignore it) the existing temperature range must show, even to the most dense, that they are up to something. Whether these models are sustainable in the future or whether there is a mechanism that at a certain point could counteract the temperature increase is not the point of debate now.

The end of the line remains that if there is little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the climate is cold, if there is more it is warmer and if there is a whole lot its damn hot.

[Moon Monkey]

How inaccurate, 10%, 20%, 100%?

Naturally incomplete empirical data (and with climate you can never have complete data until a full warming/cooling cycle has been observed) will have incomplete results. So far they have been pretty much on target with their temperature raise prediction.

The simple fact that 30 years ago they could predict, based on the carbon dioxide model, the temperature development (as I have shown in another thread here with a paper I posted for Marabod-- who for some funny reason decided to ignore it) the existing temperature range must show, even to the most dense, that they are up to something. Whether these models are sustainable in the future or whether there is a mechanism that at a certain point could counteract the temperature increase is not the point of debate now.

The end of the line remains that if there is little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the climate is cold, if there is more it is warmer and if there is a whole lot its damn hot.

I don't know how inaccurate Q, all I ever get to see are ugly plots....no data. I am sure the models that are compared with observations up to yesterday can be made pretty accurate by hook or by crook but these 100 year ahead predictions are laughable. As I keep saying to the other fella I don't trust anything that I haven't seen the data for myself. I downloaded all that Vostok ice-core data a year or 2 back and my analysis of it was very different from what I was told in at least one paper.

I just had a look at that paper you posted for marabod. It is a bit late for a full read now but I will get round to it. One thing I did notice was from the figures. When showing model/past observations the models seem to do ok but as soon as they talk about future predictions there are so many ifs and buts (and probably thousands more they didn't discuss) that the number of models they give and the wide range of possible predictions means that the actual future observations will probably be in there somewhere.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[MARAB0D]

I don't know how inaccurate Q, all I ever get to see are ugly plots....no data. I am sure the models that are compared with observations up to yesterday can be made pretty accurate by hook or by crook but these 100 year ahead predictions are laughable. As I keep saying to the other fella I don't trust anything that I haven't seen the data for myself. I downloaded all that Vostok ice-core data a year or 2 back and my analysis of it was very different from what I was told in at least one paper.

I just had a look at that paper you posted for marabod. It is a bit late for a full read now but I will get round to it. One thing I did notice was from the figures. When showing model/past observations the models seem to do ok but as soon as they talk about future predictions there are so many ifs and buts (and probably thousands more they didn't discuss) that the number of models they give and the wide range of possible predictions means that the actual future observations will probably be in there somewhere.

When you be reading it take a note that the premise is that the heat, generated by the Earth itself is not taken into account at all...

[ninjadude]

The only claim I am making is that the climate models will be inaccurate in prediction, but then again even most of the guys who proposed and work with those models admit that.

That's not really the point though is it? ALL predictions of ANY kind are inaccurate. That is a truism of forecasting. A basic FACT, if you will. It's the degree of accuracy that is important in this case. It is my understanding that predicted rises in CO2, tempurature and other atmospherics, as well as ice and glacier melting and sea level rise, are completely within a small variation of the predicted values to this point.

[ninjadude]

When showing model/past observations the models seem to do ok but as soon as they talk about future predictions there are so many ifs and buts (and probably thousands more they didn't discuss) that the number of models they give and the wide range of possible predictions means that the actual future observations will probably be in there somewhere.

IF you're wanting certainty then you clearly do not understand science at all. Something I would have thought you covered getting a PHd. ALL predictions have ifs and buts and conditions. IF you are wanting certainty, I suggest you go in with the creationists. They know for a fact that the earth will end in 2000 or 1000 or whatever they can predict to get your money.

[Moon Monkey]

That's not really the point though is it? ALL predictions of ANY kind are inaccurate. That is a truism of forecasting. A basic FACT, if you will. It's the degree of accuracy that is important in this case. It is my understanding that predicted rises in CO2, tempurature and other atmospherics, as well as ice and glacier melting and sea level rise, are completely within a small variation of the predicted values to this point.

Of course there will be inaccuracies as the authors themselves admit but I have no way of validating how big those inaccuracies are and when the range of prediction models is so wide that the observations must be in there somewhere it is kinda hard to take them seriously. Making models fit historical observations in one thing, can you link me to models proposed in say 2000 that described the data well to 2000 that have closely mapped the last 9 years ?

IF you're wanting certainty then you clearly do not understand science at all. Something I would have thought you covered getting a PHd. ALL predictions have ifs and buts and conditions. IF you are wanting certainty, I suggest you go in with the creationists. They know for a fact that the earth will end in 2000 or 1000 or whatever they can predict to get your money.

No but I want certainty guaranteed statistically to within well defined (hopefully small) error bars on future observations using some of the usual statistical measures. One paper I read the other day talked about a predicted 0.4 deg rise in temperatures with a 0.7 deg error bar....

When I do my own predictions it is the unknowns and disturbances to the model that provide most inaccuracies but I can tell you what those are to within statistical bounds a priori and use them in the model. I would like to know what are the bounds on uncertainties in the climate models ? A simple norm, anything...the only model I have seen provided by Q used 'approximately equals to' but never put any information about the approximation errors.

The main thing I want is to be able to judge for myself, 2 columns of data...actual and predicted, and possibly the mathematicl model and parameters used in the algorithm.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[MARAB0D]

IF you're wanting certainty then you clearly do not understand science at all. Something I would have thought you covered getting a PHd. ALL predictions have ifs and buts and conditions. IF you are wanting certainty, I suggest you go in with the creationists. They know for a fact that the earth will end in 2000 or 1000 or whatever they can predict to get your money.

You still do not get it? They want money (billions of $$$) NOW for the predictions made with these approximate models for 100 years ahead. This is precisely why people remind that the present day models do not even allow to predict tomorrow's weather. And those who want money now say, that "climate is not weather".

[danielost]

So you think thing spouting off how much atmospheric CO2 is in Mars' atmosphere is relevant to increasing CO2 levels on Earth? It isn't.

Get lost Daniel, unlike you I have bothered to look at evidence and actually presented some from scientific sources. You are the one who is coming from the political side.

No you said models were wrong and NEVER answered why instead you went off and said you won't acknowledge scientific papers. I told you why those links aren't reliable. I have asked you to tell me why the papers I posted are inaccurate. I can only presume you don't understand them.

But just to make you feel less left out I'll give you a direct reply to the NIPCC from NASA's Gavin Schmidt and Penn States Michael Mann.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/

Scientific papers aren't blind faith, if you understood them you could critique them, I'll be waiting on the

the only thing you have looked at is anything that agrees with you. you agree with the democrats no matter what they say.

i don't care what your educational background is. the votes that count are the people, not the government. the government is doing what they have to to come up with excuses to raise taxes. just as they are here in the usa with healthcare.

[Mattshark]

the only thing you have looked at is anything that agrees with you. you agree with the democrats no matter what they say.

i don't care what your educational background is. the votes that count are the people, not the government. the government is doing what they have to to come up with excuses to raise taxes. just as they are here in the usa with healthcare.

There, there daniel. You are talking utter rubbish, but what ever makes you happy.