Aliens cause global warming

[Reaper]

It is almost ironic. People like iNow are ignoring what I am saying and accuse me of ignoring what they are saying.

 

I guess putting quote boxes around every single one of your claims and answering them is ignoring what you said.

 

 

Re clouds.

Clouds are ONE uncertainty in computer models. There are lots of unknowns. What I am saying is that this demonstrates that models are not completely reliable. Clouds are an unknown that has received some publicity. Other sources of uncertainty are still too poorly understood to even get much publicity. Such as biological effects on climate.

 

Ok:

 

1) Here is information on what we know about the clouds and their connection with global warming in a nutshell: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/warming_clouds_albedo_feedback.html

 

2) Biological effects have been accounted for. We know EXACTLY how much is being absorbed back into the carbon cycle. In fact, we do know the biological impact on other gases such as methane.

 

3) Once again, name an uncertainty that has NOT BEEN DEBUNKED. As far as we know, they have already been shown to have negligible effect, or are not adequate to account for what we observe.

 

And, no. I do not need to quantify the uncertainty.That is why it is called uncertainty. Because it can't be quantified. Once it is understood well enough to be quantified, it will no longer be an uncertainty.

 

:eek::eek:

 

Wait just a minute! Let me pinch myself to see if I am dreaming or hallucinating. No, I'm not. Ok, lets repeat that quote again, with emphasis added:

 

And, no. I do not need to quantify the uncertainty.That is why it is called uncertainty. Because it can't be quantified. Once it is understood well enough to be quantified, it will no longer be an uncertainty.

 

Did I just read what I thought I read? How could someone, especially one who is a microbiologist and presumably had some training in science, possibly be this far misled and misinformed?

 

Are you kidding me? One of the very basic things you learn in introductory science and experimentation is that you ALWAYS have to include the uncertainty The uncertainty has to be quantified. And why, because of the instruments you are using. All instruments and measurements have some sort of uncertainty because they are limited to some degree. Thats why we have something called "significant figures", so that you can ACCOUNT FOR THE UNCERTAINTY. All climate models do this! In fact, every single science experiment, prediction, and measurement that has EVER been done since Galileo does this! The uncertainty is even included in the graphs and data we have provided for you to review over, and it tells exactly how much! To say that uncertainty cannot be quantified in science, well, you aren't doing any science, your just either denying something, preaching, or at the very least misleading other people about the quality of your measurements.

 

Ok, maybe I'll get over this once I go walk around outside and take a deep breath.

I gave a good reference to the fact that uncertainties over cloud formation generate uncertainties in computer models. iNow is repeating history. Because he does not like the fact that there is evidence against his assertions, he is just riding over it - essential ignoring the evidence.

 

Yes, and they have already been addressed. Reread all the posts.

 

And this is quite ironic given the number of references we've provided, and yet you still refuse to acknowledge it. You on the other hand are quite happy picking data plots (READ: data plots) that correspond to your argument.

 

The whole point is that it is not possible to accurately predict the future. We can talk about probabilities. But that is all. Anyone who thinks that they can do more is engaged in intellectual auto-eroticism.

 

But this isn't about predicting the future in general. This is about prediction what may happen if things continue the way they are. And there is every reason to believe that the models are more or less accurate. Especially since some of these models made in the past (and note, they were LESS ACCURATE before) have actually been right about how the climate would change over a couple of decades!!

iNow said ;

 

 

 

"So, how is it, precisely, that you feel the climate models fail?"

 

Do you remember the graphs bascule posted? I should have kept them to post again, but didn't. They showed a good correspondence within acceptable error levels with warming over the past 30 years. However, their simulation of the years before that were not good. In some places, they were way out. I would personally be very surprized if the last 30 years could not be reasonable well modelled, since the pattern was so straight forward. When things got complex, the models failed to simulate them with any accuracy at all.

 

And can you point to where they failed? Because, I can show a bunch of climate predictions that have been correct, albeit off by a very tiny amount.

 

Lockheed is demanding evidence.

I have given evidence of uncertainty in the impact of cloud formation. However, because it cannot be quantified, it cannot be 'proven'. On the other hand, if you have a reliable and accurate technique, it can be quantified, and therefore generate evidence. The onus is on you to produce that evidence.

 

No you have not. All you've done was cherry picked data, and without providing a reference so we could validate, and then used that little subset of what was actually presented to support your views. Among that you've ignored just about everything else we've presented! In short, it was a major strawman. Pretty much, your argument basically is "We don't know what may end up actually happening, therefore the climate models are wrong", and that's invalid. It's an argument from ignorance.

 

And I've (and everyone else) have provided plenty of evidence to back my claims. I've provided data tables, graphs, and above all, links that demonstrate how climate models actually work. Not just in this thread too where this debate has been taking place. You on the other hand have provide little, if any! And the references you did provide do not support your argument. Therefore, we are going to ask you again: Do you have any genuine evidence that supports your position, one that hasn't been debunked, one that we can check for its reliability, and above all one that is peer reviewed.

 

If you don't or can't find any, then why on Earth do you insist on continuing this pointless argument, and denying the data and measurements despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of it

[iNow]

iNow is repeating history. Because he does not like the fact that there is evidence against his assertions, he is just riding over it - essential ignoring the evidence.

 

Please explain to all of us how the below is evidence against ANY of my assertions:

 

 

The problem of cloud formation is not one that I have invented. It was a major topic of discussion in the international conference on climate modelling about 3 years ago, as reported in New Scientist. Australian printed edition. 24 July 2004 page 45.

 

I quote :

 

"While clouds have always been regarded as one of the biggest uncertainties in calculations of global warming, they are turning out to be more of a wild card than anyone imagined. The fear is that global warming will either reduce how cloudy the planet is, or significantly change the type of clouds in the sky, and their influence of the planet's radiation budget."

 

Also

 

" Clouds are clearly linked to water vapour. A lot of water vapour in the air eventually forms clouds. During their short lives clouds produce both positive and negative feedbacks."

 

And so on.

 

 

Here is a link to the story from which you cherry-picked (I notice you left out the portion I bolded...hmmm):

 

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18324575.600.html

 

While clouds have always been regarded as one of the biggest uncertainties in calculations of global warming, they are turning out to be far more of a wild card than anyone imagined. The fear is that global warming will either reduce how cloudy the planet is, or significantly change the type of clouds in the sky, and their influence of the planet's radiation budget. This could amplify global warming more than so far anticipated.

Water vapour, like CO₂, is a potent greenhouse gas. Without it our planet would freeze. But what will happen to water vapour as the world warms is not as clear-cut as with ice. A warmer surface will certainly cause more water to evaporate. And, though some sceptics disagree, this will probably increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. That again will amplify warming.

 

In the standard climate models extra water vapour in the air will at least double the direct warming effect of CO₂. Add the impacts of water vapour and ice together and we are close to climate scientists' central prediction - a warming of about 3 °C for a doubling of CO₂.

 

But it's when we come to the third feedback mechanism that things get really sticky. Clouds are clearly linked to water vapour. A lot of water vapour in the air eventually forms clouds. During their short lives, clouds produce both positive and negative feedbacks. We all know that during the day, they can keep us cool by reflecting the sun's harsh rays. And at night they keep us warm, acting like a blanket that traps heat rising from the ground. But which of these effects wins out depends a lot on the height at which the clouds form, their depth, colour and density.

 

 

 

This thread should be closed. The logical fallacies, the misrepresentation of facts, and lack of evidence to support your claims is ridiculous. You can call me dick all you want, but I expect more from a science discussion than a bunch of hand waving.

[SkepticLance]

None of you has managed to refute the main point I made. That is ; climate modellers still are not able to accurately model the effects of cloud formation, and this leads to inaccuracies in models.

 

Even Lockheeds posted reference actually says :

 

"Predicting the net influences these feedback loops produce is possibly the greatest challenge facing modern climate scientists who are trying to determine our future climate."

 

That is : feedbacks from cloud formation are NOT currently accounted for in climate models.

 

Here is another reference.

 

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/umwelt_naturschutz/bericht-37677.html

 

I quote :

 

"Of all the components of climate change, the aerosol indirect effect has the greatest potential cooling effect, yet quantitative estimates are highly uncertain," said Nenes, who holds dual appointments in the Georgia Tech School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. "We need to get more rigorous and accurate representation of how particles modify cloud properties. Until the aerosol indirect effect is well understood, society is incapable of assessing its impact on future climate."

 

 

"Current computer climate models can’t accurately predict cloud formation, which, in turn, hinders their ability to forecast climate change from human activities. "Because of their coarse resolution, computer models produce values on large spatial scales (hundreds of kilometers) and can only represent large cloud systems," Nenes said."

 

The belief that GCM's can simulate climate change 100 years into the future with accuracy remains naive.

[iNow]

More handwaving and logical fallacies.

[Reaper]

Alright, perhaps a new thread is in order here. I'll make a thread specifically designed to address and debunk all of SkepticLance's claims. He clearly is just cherry-picking quotes BTW....

 

Hopefully, this will keep all of this crap from the other threads on the ecology/environmental subsection.

[SkepticLance]

To Lockheed and iNow

 

These posts of yours are just hot air.

How about addressing the issue. I have stated that the lack of ability by climate modellers to adequately model the effects of variable cloud formation is a significant detrement to the accuracy of predictions based on those models.

 

I have also supplied evidence to back this statement. In response you call it hand waving. You gotta do better than that.

 

iNow said earlier

 

"Here is a link to the story from which you cherry-picked (I notice you left out the portion I bolded...hmmm):"

 

Yes, I deliberately left out the statement that the inability to predict the effects of clouds could result in the coming situation being worse. The reason I left it out is because it is meaningless. It is a 'glass half full or glass half empty' situation. If you don't know what's going to happen, then you don't know whether what will happen is better or worse than your prediction. Not very helpful.

 

The point of my argument is that climate models are unreliable. It is anyone's guess as to whether they are in error in a positive or negative way. And that is not the point I was making. My point is simply that they are not reliable or accurate.

[iNow]

More handwaving.

[Reaper]

You want to argue over this SkepticLance, then take your handwaving over here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30362

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

Saying 'more handwaving' is just a way of avoiding a reply.

 

You did this before. When I posted the rate of warming over the past 30 years, you asked for a reference. I posted references twice, which you must have found inconvenient, since they showed you were wrong.

 

This time, I have told you that climate models are unable to account for cloud formation, and this is a problem with their reliability and accuracy. Again, you cannot rebut the statement. There is a damn good reason you cannot, because it is true. If I spent the time on google, I could find lots of references to this problem, which modellers are still working to correct.

 

Why don't you just get honest and concede the point. Climate models are not able to account for cloud formation, and this is a serious weakness. The modellers themselves know it.

[iNow]

Which models specifically?

 

 

After 10 pages, I realize that it doesn't matter what I say nor how thoroughly I support my assertions. You carry on as if the data was not presented, you are not specific about your assertions of inaccuracy, and you don't support your contentions. Once evidence is found, your contentions are shown false, and yet you continue making the same points...

[SkepticLance]

iNow

The issue we were discussing was clouds. How about talking about that if you have a point to make, and not just waffling.

[iNow]

What is the scope of the impact cloud formation models have on climate models?

[Reaper]

Skeptic........

 

After 10 pages it has become obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Especially when you made that comment about uncertainty. We have shown you again and again and again how and why your analysis was flawed, and yet you seem to have the magic ability to continue no matter how ludicrous your argument became.

 

Just face it, you are a denier. And I don't care if the mods give me infraction points for that statement, because after what I observed here I think it is valid description.

 

 

I will ask you again, even though I know you probably won't do it, SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS WITH MORE THAN JUST HAND WAVING AND ANSWER OUR DAMNED QUESTIONS THE RIGHT WAY. AND YES, YOU KNOW THE PROPER WAY TO DO IT (e.g. credible sources, valid data, etc)

 

And stop trying to avoid the counter-arguments, its now just starting to get really annoying.

[SkepticLance]

Lockheed

 

What counter-argument?

[swansont]

Oh, good grief. Spend the day away froom the board (with the relatives) and look what happens.

 

Time to close the thread.