Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2009.
I could be wrong
(though that ain't likely)
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yep. Fortunately, together, they have a very wide field of understanding. Which is why climate predictions, based on those models, have been running fairly close to reality.
Sure, let's just focus on one particular place, in a dynamic ice sheet. And yes, an ice sheet is dynamic, regardless of what might happen on the surface with some (mythical?) planes.
Just more dishonesty and bad character.
Now you're just being silly.
mythical planes with mythical pilots from a mythical war
but, then again
you do know the name of the plane
it is you that are mythical?
You can have a cigar if you like. Up to you.
No model predicts reality perfectly. Not Newtonian mechanics, not Boyle's Law, not the laws of thermodynamics. Still, we use them, because they come pretty close.
that being said,
do you agree that (as stated in #2475 above)
CMIP5 and CMIP3 show a consistent bias toward higher temperatures not supported by observations?
You're still not convinced? Read the literature then watch the weather channel. I might speculate that flood insurance is going to be a thing of the past. There's no question that we're seriously in an extreme weather cycle that's going to get much worse. All over the world. Your no cigar is irrelevant nonsense.
perhaps we could draw some insights from mis 5e or mis 11
based upon what evidence? your opinion? or can you show a blatant disregard for outliers in large numbers of studies?
while you are at it, also demonstrate or provide evidence that demonstrates the "narrow education" of the climate scientists...
but please note: you are talking about the entire planet here - not just one country (or even a couple countries, for that matter)
there is a difference between remaining skeptical and falling for anything that a good con man provides to you
case in point: the electric universe folk
just because they're being led by someone who claims an education doesn't mean the argument is valid any more than owning a set of cast iron frying and bake-ware makes you a blacksmith
so - you think you are correct, but you can't provide evidence to demonstrate this?
you will just make a claim? and then state:
[WRT models? what?]
given that you've actually provided no evidence (this means, by definition, you are making a false claim: http://www.auburn.edu/academic/education/reading_genie/Fact-opinion.html )
given that you aren't demonstrating your argument with any peer reviewed journal studies
given that you are simply stating a personal opinion
your posts can be dismissed as conspiracist ideation * ( http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637 )
*based upon your delusional belief that "a significant percentage of your "pros" do ignore (or are unaware of) the outliers, and are rather narrowly educated"
This statement, by definition as written, infers that there is a worldwide conspiracy to ... to do what exactly?
or is it create a socialist single government?
take away your freedoms?
spank all the naughty deniers?
or is there something more sinister you can demonstrate?
Of whom, exactly, do you speak?
Do you think the people who have been studying the Greenland ice cap for fifty years, estimating its melt rate and so forth, arguing and comparing and combining research and writing each other and so forth, are unaware of various significant sources of evidence involving snow and ice accumulation rates over areas of that cap, that you have discovered on wingnut websites?
Do you think they are ignorant of the snow and ice accumulation on those planes, for example?
Are you presuming that the information from the actual research behind such misrepresentations as this: http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html , is not being seen or included in the evaluations of Greenland ice cover under AGW?
btw, from the article there (a Christian Fundie screed), in reference to some issues above:
Now compare that popular Christian fundie account, including the descriptions of how researchers in the field do things, with the accounts in your links. Notice where your links are dealing in deception and misleading their readers in their own ways. And then quit relying on people who have been lying to you consistently for years, for information.
That's one reason they talk to each other. The IPCC reports are committee projects. Most of the published research is done by teams, analyzed by even more people, reviewed for publication by yet more people.
For an example:
Lets consider the credentials of Ethan Coffel whose dire predictions were linked above.(who extrapolated from cmip 3 and cmip5, which are known to be inaccurate)
What, exactly, do you know of him?
Do you think him a well rounded and well educated climate scientist?
Which brings us back to extrapolations from cmip 3 and cmip 5.
Can you .....(deleted).... and look at the pros you would follow?
Or seriously look at the variance between the models cited and reality?
So... without me even looking up that name... you're gonna cherry-pick one scientist out of 30,000 plus worldwide and claim it is representative of the whole?
you are seeking anything that you think will justify your bias... so you cherry-pick some data you think is relevant
(this is directly tied to your conspiracist ideation * - http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF )
please point out specifics that are wrong with the person and the data
and don't link pseudoscience or biased sites
original source studies only
Once you start pointing to specifics then there can be logical or methodical discussion with evidence...
but only then...
otherwise you are simply making noise and hand-waving your way into a fanatical froth while people are looking at you and wondering who gave you a day-pass
stand up on top of that stump so you can see farther
previously, sculptor said:
If you would defer to the "pros", know to whom you are deferring.
Well, no; they are often pretty close (the CMIP3 predictions have a lot of variability.) So it's not a consistent bias. But on average there is a bias towards higher temperatures. However, it still fits the trend quite well.
Ah... not quite
lets see ... if you will (please) bear with me, Ice is the one who stated that
so... when you said
i guess you were talking about...???
try re-reading the above again.... thanks!
still not sure where you are going with this...
the comments, by definition, are conspiratorial and suggest intentional wrongdoing (and fraud)... except that there was none found with several panels investigating...
so... the point is ambiguous at best - as well as not supported by evidence
Nothing and no opinion. Who linked to him?
Do you have any reason to think he has been studying Greenland's ice cap for many years, playing a role in the official and published estimates of its behavior and fate, playing a role as an authority at IPCC on Greenland ice cap behavior, or the like, without ever becoming aware of the accumulation rates in the inland regions or such common knowledge as the burial of those P38s?
Do you have reason to think his use of the cmip modeling was careless and uninformed regarding its deficiencies and other issues?
oopsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!ok, so the cherry picked dude was for ice---------still valid?)
that being said:
To my mind; bias does not equal fraud
I prefer to not see scientists as having criminal intent. (seriously, how would I know)
Correct me if I am wrong:
It is my understanding that:
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project(s) (cmip) is a peculiar beasty trying to incorporate many different models, some of which are reasonably accurate, & some of which are grossly biased(and just about as worthless as tits on a boar).
If that's accurate:
What I do not understand is why keep the grossly biased models in the mix?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So you have no reason to think your choice of example (of what?) was functioning as any kind of authority or expert or source of official error, and you are going to keep your reasons for believing him careless and and uninformed in his use of cmip models to yourself.
Why would you think that was accurate? If your information is limited to guesswork regarding some third year grad students's internet tossoffs, the first reaction to finding yourself baffled by something like that would reasonably be to seek better understanding of where you had gone wrong.
Were I you, I would start by discarding everything "learned" from your source for the plane information, because it seems to have misled you in certain calculated ways - recall:
The planes were found some three miles from where they had been abandoned. Just one of those little details that can add up to the wrong impression entirely.
The ice is flowing, eventually into the sea - the key being exactly how fast.
Separate names with a comma.