Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tecoyah
So...again a change of subject rather than answering the post I spent the energy to create. I see no point in beating this horse, as you will look at only those things you wish to see.
Oh, and I agree there are many possible problems with the models used, but they are not taken alone when consensus is built.
I am done here I think...Im getting dizzy as the endless circle tightens, but thanks for the fun.
|
I am only human. There is only so much time in the day. I read the link you provided and now you accuse me of changing the subject. I have not forgotten the other points in your post, but your assumption based on the fact that I did not immediately respond, is wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tecoyah
1)
I would imagine, that as with most study the focus was on a certain aspect of the conditions that come into play for a climate model. Othere scientists have most certainly researched the variables you bring up, but it seems you are asking one man to study every aspect of a complex system, which is physically impossible for a human brain....and likely for a computer model as well.
|
No I am not. But as an expert on the issue of global warming and as a person who has been involved in the study of this issue for approximately 40 years, I expect he has given thought to all of these issues.
Quote:
|
2)Then I am confused I think. From what I have read I get the issue you are bringing up as inconsistencies in the Ideas put forward by Mr Hansen. I have spent the better part of this page trying to explain that he did not put the Ice Age Idea on tha table, as I believed you expressed he had. If this is not the case, then it seems you are simply stating that by virtue of his research being used by another scientist to create a hypothesis, he must then also believe in said hypothesis. Is that correct?
|
I stated that I thought Hansen's involvement in the '71 report was more involved than you do. I never stated I had any other information than what was reported. In the early 70's I found nothing stating what Hansen's position was on global climate change. However, I did ask several questions that i think he could answer easily to put the issue to rest.
Regardless, my key point is that the science and models evolve and improve over time. I would think our climate models today are better than they were 40 years ago, and that 40 years from now they will even be better. I think when people suggest the question has been settled, that is a pretty "dark ages" kind of response. We know what we think we know today, tomorrow - we may know better or what we know today may prove true. I am open to both possibilities. My mind is not closed on the subject.
Quote:
3)If the model used only one parameter, it would not only me a very poor model, but would also fit the criteria you just explained. All climate models take into consideration far more variables, and thus require computers to extrapolate usable data. Though I dont know the details of the hypothesis, it is likely the focus was on cloud cover changes vs. CO2 concentrations as in Earth based models of today.
Yet you still attribute the Ice Age hypothesis to the wrong individual, and refuse to address the simple issue of "Why", other than to say you "think" he was involved more deeply than documentation dictates. Then when asked to back up what you think.....you cannot do so.
|
Again, we are communicating on different planes. I pretty much don't care about the '71 report of a pending Ice Age. The report was wrong. I am interested in how we come to conclusions that current models are not wrong.
Quote:
|
Why should we then, take your assumption seriously?
|
What assumption are you talking about? My focus has been on my questions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
This exchange is a nice example of typical debate behavior of global warming denialists (there are many examples). A global warming denialist is one who cannot be convinced that global warming is a fact, by any argument.
|
Did you read this quote?:
Quote:
|
It is not the average 20th century warmth, but the magnitude of warming during the 20th century, and the level of warmth observed during the past few decades, which appear to be anomalous in a long-term context. Studies such as those of Soon and associates (Soon and Baliunas, 2003; Soon et al, 2003) that consider only ‘20th century’ conditions, or interpret past temperature changes using evidence incapable of resolving trends in recent decades , cannot meaningfully address the question of whether late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term and large-scale context.
|
The first question is the globe is warming relative to what? Then we find, based on the link given from Tecoyah it seem that the source believes it may not be so much about current average temperatures as opposed to the more recent acceleration in the temperatures. Grant the difference between the above and what is commonly communicated may be subtle but there is a difference.
Quote:
The most common logical fallacy is the straw man, which is inevitable if one doesn’t bother to learn the science: if all you have is a distorted view of the scientific arguments, then all you can attack is that distorted view, and you have accomplished nothing. Some examples here: “9 year prediction of doom”, “error in the Mie function”, “no analysis of interacting variables”, “the new science says unequivocal means 90%” all of which are utter nonsense, hilarious to read for anybody actually familiar with the science.
The other major fallacy is the red herring, otherwise known as changing the subject, misdirection, or just wild goose chase. So, for example, we begin with a clever insinuation that one’s hated opponent made an embarrassing public gaffe, and therefore he needs to “come forward” and explain himself. When it is pointed out that he did no such thing, then we get the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to explain why he wrote an erroneous climate model. When this claim is refuted (he wrote no climate model, rather contributed a bit of trivial code), the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is he needs to come forward and explain why he endorsed the falsehood that was concluded from his trivial code. When it is explained that his publications show he never endorsed the falsehood, another switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to come forward and explain why the trivial code he contributed was in error. When it is pointed out that it was not in error, the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to come forward and explain why his correct code was misused. When it is pointed out the code was not misused and had nothing to do with the falsehood, the switcheroo: he needs to come forward and explain his “9 year prediction of doom”, or some other nonsense, which brings us back to the previous fallacy, the straw man. And so the Christmas goose hops and hops around the barnyard, always just out of reach.
In reality the REAL ISSUE is that the denialist will not be convinced that global warming is a fact. That’s what he is really asserting, and of course that is true, there’s nothing that can be done to refute it. That’s because he is a global warming denialist.
Q.E.D.
|
No matter my response it will be inadequate, and can be taken out of context. But, I will ask you a question, since you suggest I am a "global warming denialist". What is my stated opinion on "global warming"? If you can find a quote where you have been able to determine my position on "global warming", please share it with me. If you can't, what does that say about your "straw man?"