Re: National Geographic on global warming

From: charliew2 (charliew2_at_ev1.net)
Date: 09/20/04 

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:29:58 -0500

Joshua Halpernn <vze23qvd@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:lzq3d.2084$Co1.1948@trnddc02...
> charliew2 wrote:
> > Hasta wrote:
> >
> >>>And, by the way, for the normal way that the scientific method is
> >>>applied, a contrarian is not under any obligation to prove that
> >>>nothing will happen, as this amounts to proving a negative, which is
> >>>a scientific impossibility. You can't prove that global warming
> >>>doesn't exist, because the first measured instance of it means that
> >>>you are wrong.
> >>
> >>Well, leaving aside the word "proof", your obligations depend
> >>on your stance, I think... Are you
> >>
> >>1. just skeptic ? That's your absolute right and you have no
> >>obligation.
> >>
> >>2. trying to falsify the existing models ? Then you have an obligation
> >>to exhibit some data which show them wrong.
> >>
> >>3. holding the view that global warming has (perhaps) no anthropogenic
> >>contribution ? Then you have the obligation to exhibit a falsifiable
> >>model explaining why, which others may try to falsify.
> >>
> >>May I know which stance you are taking ?
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >
> >
> > Attribution clipped: charliew2 wrote the statements denoted by ">>".
> >
> > My answer:
> >
> > I'm a curious skeptic. I don't believe in "falsifying the models"
because
> > all models are incomplete, inacurrate, and incorrect, to one degree or
> > another.
>
> One generally falsifies models by
>
> a. Pointing out that they contain false assumptions
> b. Showing that they neglect an important feature
> c. Doing sensitivity ananlysis to show that a or b lead to major
> errors, etc.

I don't see this as a question of falsifying climate models. I see it as a
question of knowing when the models are good enough to do the job that they
were designed to do.

>
> Also, I believe that global warming may well have an anthropogenic
> > contribution. What I really want to know is how significant the
> > anthropogenic contribution is, as I definitely do not believe that any
and
> > all small and positive anthropogenic contributions to increasing global
> > temperatures are automatically "bad".
>
> See the IPCC TAR for a recent estimate. Also wmc periodically points to
> the updated Hadley center model estimates.
>
> In addition, I would like to add one
> > qualifier to my "wish list": I would like to see actual measurements
rather
> > than model predictions, which characterize the degree of anthropogenic
> > warming.
>
> The problem is that the "measurements" themselves are model constructs.
> Other than that all you have is a thermometer in a field, or a
> satellite measurement of microwave emission at a particular wavelength.
>

Then I may be wanting to see something which does not exist. Or, to put it
in the form of a question, in your opinion, is it possible to develop a
measurement or set of measurements which can characterize the degree of
anthropogenic warming?

> > In my opinion, model output in and of itself is not valid data.
>
> In which case you have no data.
>

Then it's getting obvious why my postings rub many posters in this NG the
wrong way.

> > There should be real world measurements which verify model predictions.
In
> > other words, from a modeling standpoint, various model parameters,
> > predictions, and variables, should be forced to meet boundary conditions
> > that exist in the real world, and are measureable in the real world.
>
> In the future?? You have already been shown that the predictions are
> pretty good over the past ~100 years.
> >
> > So, which category do you think I fit into? Also, have I answered your
> > question?
>
> A strong element of denial.
>
> josh halpern
>
> >
> >

Relevant Pages

  • Accuracy vs. Relevance
    ... >> measurement outcomes and viceversa, which might be relevant to discuss ... >> theory of GR can make meaningful statements and predictions at all. ... > This is certainly a major issue in quantum gravity. ... To compare GR ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... first you have to say carefully what you mean by the measurement. ... particles are physically existing and "show up" at two separate locations. ... prevailing theory predicts, under some conditions. ... When you have quantitative predictions from ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mass and Point
    ... first you have to say carefully what you mean by the measurement. ... particles are physically existing and "show up" at two separate locations. ... prevailing theory predicts, under some conditions. ... When you have quantitative predictions from ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The relationship between meter, speed of light and c
    ... SR's frequency predictions for this scenario are as follows; ... In IRT relative velocity is predicted as follows: ... standard light source in A's frame as measured by A". ... f_ab = "the instantaneous frequency measurement of a standard ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is temporal sign ambiguity inherent in Einsteins general relativistic field equation?
    ... to understand some of Charles' claims, ... which leads to most of the verifiable predictions. ... In a sense that is not a question in RQM. ... measurement of position is somehow more fundamental than other ...
    (sci.physics.research)