Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

Silly comment on your part. One does not have to produce a climate model that does better to falsify the current one. Actual data is doing a good job of that, and it is those models that all of the fear mongering is based on.

 

Risbey did 2 things. The first was he looked at an ensemble of all models over a 15 year increment to remove the "noise", he claims good results. That contradicts Zeng who has plots showing data over 15 years is poor, and 30 is the minimum (the data starts getting good at 25+ in some plots). Those 2 conclusions do not agree.

The second thing Risbey did was to extend his first test - the 15 year ensemble - by dropping the models from the ensemble that did not agree with the observed data. In other words, he has past data so he knew the correct answer and dropped the models that gave the incorrect answer for each particular 15 year period. Obviously that gives good results - but its cheating. And it does nothing to predict future climate because it does not improve the models or identify why some are accurate during one 15 year period and inaccurate in the next 15 year period.

 

Based on what we know is true, that the Earth is warming. I'm not going to argue this point with you because nothing I say is going to change your mind.

 

As it has since the end of the Little Ice Age. Right now it isn't warming this century. It has been warmer before. Your point?

 

I believe we are done here...the addition of contrails in any serious discussion kills it.

Buh Bye.

 

In other words, you are not interested in fact but only the meme of alarmism.

 

Sure...works for me.

 

Not surprised.

 

You still don't understand that scientific theories, and the models that represent them, are not about truth. They are simply the best explanation for a given phenomena. Every computer model is false at some level because they can only approximate the system they are modeling. Data does not prove or disprove a theory, it only tells us how accurate the theory is. AGW is the best theory that explains current trends in climate change, and until you can produce an alternate theory that explains the data better, you haven't done anything.

 

I wish silly words/accusations such as "denialism" would go away. I don't like it being used against people who raise legitimate doubts about certain claims that are allegedly scientific and are therefore ostensibly undeniable, as if science is the final arbiter of absolute truth.

 

Zeng evaluates climate models as a whole to see how they perform at different time scales. Risbey knows that climate models do poorly at 15 year intervals and is trying to determine why that is. These papers are looking at two different aspects of climate models, and not only don't contradict each other, they are in fact quite complimentary.

When their objective is to see how individual models perform when they match observed ENSO data, why would you fault them for dropping models that do not agree with observed data?

 

I agree, which is why I only use the word when people raise illegitimate arguments.

 

Which, of course, means any fact that counters the true belief.

 

I have yet to hear a legitimate doubt from Denierstan. All I hear is nonsense: hockey stick blah blah ... Al Gore blah blah ... emails blah blah. If you have a legitimate doubt, backed up by legitimate data and peer-reviewed analysis, let's hear it. Otherwise, "denialism" is a perfectly adequate descriptive word.

"Undeniable" is a loaded word in this discussion. Science is always open to new data, therefore nothing in science is final. Having said that, there are some things in science that are so well tested it makes no sense to waste one's time on them. The greenhouse effect is in that category.

That's logically impossible, since there is no such thing as absolute truth in science. Science is simply the best method yet devised to separate truth from non-truth.

 

Because Risbey is not looking at how a model did with old data to improve the model, all he is doing is taking a 15 year segment in time, comparing the models performance to the observed data for that 15 years, and drops the poor performing models from his ensemble. Then he goes to the next 15 year segment, and drops the poor performing models for that 15 year slice in time - but they are not necessarily the same models as the previous 15 year segment. He might use models A,B,C for the first 15 years, then D,E,F for the next 15 years, then A,C,F for the next 15 years. He is not looking at why the models work one period and not the next, he is not trying to improve the models. He is just hand selecting whatever data that gives the known right answer.

That process is completely unusable for predictions.

 

If the deniers were raising legitimate doubts, they would be publishing them in legitimate science publications instead of on political blogs such as that managed by Anthony Watt, who is a former dj and doesn't have a degree or a certification in climate science.

 

But, of course, John Cook, the cartoonist, is totally legit. LOL

 

I rest my case.

 

Since climate models cannot predict changes in ENSO yet, those that incorporate it have to make assumptions about it that may be valid for one 15 year segment but not for the next. When your objective is to see how models perform when they accurately represent ENSO, there is no need to keep the segments where the models don't match observed ENSO data. By determining how much effect ENSO has on the short term accuracy of climate models, they are trying to improve the models.

Yes, but it is quite effective for identifying why the models are less accurate at these time scales.

 

That's not what Risbey was doing. Nothing he did allows an improvement in predicting the climate. If someone presented that Risbey paper to me but in my field, it would have been not only rejected but laughed away, its graduate assistant work at best.

 

When they can't predict ENSO and then say if they could it would be better, that is curve fitting, something they have to do to make the models fit past changes since they can't hind cast very well either.

 

Does it really matter, since forcing changes from ocean oscillations over the long term are zero?

 

And that "agent of change" for billions of years was caused by natural factors, not humans. If you want to really study this topic you need to look at both sides. Not just government backed reports by IPCC but also reports and studies published by NIPCC, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/reports.html)

These Scientists are just as educated as those members of IPCC but are not biased by Government.

 

It appears you are making the assumption that CO2 warming is as much as the alarmists claims. Observation do not support their contention, neither do newer studies.

Most of the people that activists, and lemmings that parrot the activists, call deniers, are not. deniers are those who do not believe any of the warming is caused by man. Most of us here agree that mankind has influence. on the temperature and environment.

Do you really think someone who misrepresents a position should be listened to?

Do you want to be listened to or ignored?

It is also expensive.

The price of solar is decreasing, and unless thorium reactors become a reality, solar is likely the way to go. However, the best places are remote desert locations. This mean building an expensive HVDC infrastructure.

I'm all for doing this, but not until the prices drop even more than they have.

 

What a shame that the holocaust deniers are always trying to use this expression to
demean people that disagree with their big government fascist policies.

The Milankovitch Cycles are the primary drivers of climate change. That's science.
Life begins at conception. That's science.
The Cambrian explosion cannot be explained by evolution. That's science.
We don't know what caused the Big Bang, yet we believe it happened on faith. That's science.

People are not anti-global warming...they are skeptical that man has contributed to it significantly.
We don't know, That's science.