Is CAGW a pseudo-science?

[Philip]

There is no such thing as CAGW except in the mind of Mike Davis.

I assume that means that you think CAGW theory is the same thing as AGW theory and that AGW theory therefore implies a large and positive feedback. It's your theory, so if those are the term definitions you want that's fine by me.

The problem with models is that they are not exact and will be correct only in a statistical sense.

Models are not statistical, neither is their output. They are approximate solvers for the mathematical equations used by AGW theory to describe the climate system. You are right that initial conditions need to be specified in order to solve these equations. The problem is that AGW theory assumes that there are no long-term natural changes and that the system therefore starts from a state of energy balance. This is not plausible (see for example viewtopic.php?f=5&t=482), and is one likely reason why the theory makes unphysical predictions.

All realizations of climate models predict future warming given the postive inputs of radiative forcing factors that are expected.

Of course the theory predicts warming given an increase in forcing; the issue is over the amount of warming that is predicted. Given the flaws, if the theory is to be taken seriously it must also predict other effects that can be tested by real world measurements.

I pointed out that Climate Models are falsifiable. All that is needed is calibration data that is distinct from validation data.

I presume that by calibration data you are referring to the years of trial-and-error needed to get the models to successfully hindcast 20th century changes. If you are claiming that "validation data" is what renders the theory falsifiable, then I think you need to be a lot more precise over what you mean by "validation data". To me it just sounds like another cop out. Personally, I don't think there are any known ways to properly validate climate models in the context of AGW theory.

Of course if you assume everyone working on these problems are stupid, fraudsters, purely politically motivated, or are being paid by Maurice Strong, then an argument like this is meaningless from the start.

Shame on you Q! This is exactly the kind of thing you express about every working scientist who holds views different from yours. To be honest, I doubt any except a small minority of professional scientists hold opinions as extreme and closed as yours.

[questioner]

There is no such thing as CAGW except in the mind of Mike Davis.

I assume that means that you think CAGW theory is the same thing as AGW theory and that AGW theory therefore implies a large and positive feedback. It's your theory, so if those are the term definitions you want that's fine by me.

The problem with models is that they are not exact and will be correct only in a statistical sense.

Models are not statistical, neither is their output. They are approximate solvers for the mathematical equations used by AGW theory to describe the climate system. You are right that initial conditions need to be specified in order to solve these equations. The problem is that AGW theory assumes that there are no long-term natural changes and that the system therefore starts from a state of energy balance. This is not plausible (see for example viewtopic.php?f=5&t=482), and is one likely reason why the theory makes unphysical predictions.

The models make no such assumption. They do include natural variation as a consequence of the evolution of climate starting from some initial conditions. What predictions do you call unphysical? How do you define this with respect to predictions made by models.

All realizations of climate models predict future warming given the postive inputs of radiative forcing factors that are expected.

Of course the theory predicts warming given an increase in forcing; the issue is over the amount of warming that is predicted. Given the flaws, if the theory is to be taken seriously it must also predict other effects that can be tested by real world measurements.

I pointed out that Climate Models are falsifiable. All that is needed is calibration data that is distinct from validation data.

I presume that by calibration data you are referring to the years of trial-and-error needed to get the models to successfully hindcast 20th century changes. If you are claiming that "validation data" is what renders the theory falsifiable, then I think you need to be a lot more precise over what you mean by "validation data". To me it just sounds like another cop out. Personally, I don't think there are any known ways to properly validate climate models in the context of AGW theory.
[/quote]
I have pointed out that they do predict phenomena that are testable. That is how they are validated. Here is a better explanation, that may explain this more clearly.
http://www.grist.org/article/Looking-for-validation/

Of course if you assume everyone working on these problems are stupid, fraudsters, purely politically motivated, or are being paid by Maurice Strong, then an argument like this is meaningless from the start.

Shame on you Q! This is exactly the kind of thing you express about every working scientist who holds views different from yours. To be honest, I doubt any except a small minority of professional scientists hold opinions as extreme and closed as yours.[/quote]

I may say disparaging things about some of the contrarian working scientists, but most of my posts are devoted to the scientific fallacies involved in their work. There are some exceptions such as the two Freds - Singer and Seitz, who took used their prestige to make money as flacks for the cigarette industry.
http://www.grist.org/article/from-tobac ... e-science/

[Philip]

The problem is that AGW theory assumes that there are no long-term natural changes and that the system therefore starts from a state of energy balance.

The models make no such assumption. They do include natural variation as a consequence of the evolution of climate starting from some initial conditions.

The models start from a state of energy balance - this is their initial condition. How then could they possibly include the effect of long-term natural changes? AR4 admits that the models do not include such effects.

What predictions do you call unphysical? How do you define this with respect to predictions made by models.

Very high temperature rises. See viewtopic.php?f=5&t=479 for some of my reasons.

I have pointed out that they do predict phenomena that are testable. That is how they are validated. Here is a better explanation, that may explain this more clearly. http://www.grist.org/article/Looking-for-validation/

For the record, please state which testable phenomena (other than catastrophe!) you believe the models predict. Also for the record, I believe there are none.

Shame on you Q! This is exactly the kind of thing you express about every working scientist who holds views different from yours. To be honest, I doubt any except a small minority of professional scientists hold opinions as extreme and closed as yours.

I may say disparaging things about some of the contrarian working scientists, but most of my posts are devoted to the scientific fallacies involved in their work. There are some exceptions such as the two Freds - Singer and Seitz, who took used their prestige to make money as flacks for the cigarette industry.

What more need I say about you Q? You confirm my expectations every single time.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2344

[Mike Davis]

Philip:
Follow the Grist trail to see that Grist is:
Quote:
About Grist

Laugh now -- or the planet gets it.

You know how some people make lemonade out of lemons? At Grist, we're making lemonade out of looming climate apocalypse.

It's more fun than it sounds, trust us!

Grist has been dishing out environmental news and commentary with a wry twist since 1999 -- which, to be frank, was way before most people cared about such things. Now that green is in every headline and on every store shelf (bamboo hair gel, anyone?), Grist is the one site you can count on to help you make sense of it all.

Each day, we use our Clarity-o-Meter to draw out the real meaning behind green stories, and to connect big issues like climate change to daily life. We count on our users to bring their stories to the table, too -- through blogs, photos, and whatever else they care to share. Except Jell-O molds. Those things scare us.

At Grist, we take our work seriously, but we don't take ourselves too seriously. Because of the many things this planet is running out of, sanctimonious tree-huggers ain't one of them.

Now go on and check out our latest stories -- and if you want to get in on all the latest action, sign up for a free user account.

Grist is based in the Emerald City of Seattle, in the Evergreen State of Washington (both green!), with contributors scattered the world 'round. We are a nonprofit organization funded by foundation grants, user contributions, and advertising. For even more delicious details, see our media kit [PDF)

[Mike Davis]

I would place GRIST in the same league with:
http://www.theonion.com/
Quote:
THE ONION
The Onion is a national publication and website that offers award-winning news and views that readers can't get anywhere else. Every week, our attention grabbing headlines and photojournalism paint a unique picture of the world.

More than 3 million people read The Onion each week, online and in print in select cities, making it by far the most popular news organization in its class. A million more listen to Onion Radio News coast to coast. In 2007, The Onion launched Onion News Network, its 24-hour video news network.

[questioner]

The problem is that AGW theory assumes that there are no long-term natural changes and that the system therefore starts from a state of energy balance.

The models make no such assumption. They do include natural variation as a consequence of the evolution of climate starting from some initial conditions.

The models start from a state of energy balance - this is their initial condition. How then could they possibly include the effect of long-term natural changes? AR4 admits that the models do not include such effects.

I am sure you are wrong about this. Please supply a link which shows this. There are some natural forcing factors that cannot be predicted like volcanos and solar radiance, but they do allow climate to evolve naturally given the predicable forcing factors. Retrospective modeling does include volcanoes and solar radiance.

What predictions do you call unphysical? How do you define this with respect to predictions made by models.

Very high temperature rises. See viewtopic.php?f=5&t=479 for some of my reasons.

Your reasons are mere surmise, and not rigorous. There is no calculation of any maximum temperature that arises from them. In addition, climatologists have computed the effects of CO2, albedo, and solar inputs and concluded that the variations in climate in past periods are consistent with the climate sensitivities used in today's GCM's.

Very high temperatures are not unphysical. There is no physical barrier to the achievement of high temperatures on earth if the energy flow out of the planet's atmosphere is reduced. We can see that temperatures on Venus' surface are high enough to melt lead. In addition with very high CO2 concentrations temperatures have been much higher than today 100's of millions of years ago, even while solar radiance was lower than it is today.

[Philip]

The models start from a state of energy balance - this is their initial condition.

I am sure you are wrong about this. Please supply a link which shows this.

Equally, I am sure I am correct. Why should I give you a reference? Every time I do that, you simply add the author to your black list, and as far as you are concerned that is the end of the argument. If you think I am wrong, provide an argument against it.

What predictions do you call unphysical?

Very high temperature rises.

Your reasons are mere surmise, and not rigorous.

My argument is based on simple mathematics and physics, and no such argument is ever rigorous in the mathematical sense. I suppose you could say my argument demonstrates that the very high temperature rises predicted by the models are very likely to be unphysical. You haven't even tried to provide a reasoned counter.

[questioner]

The models start from a state of energy balance - this is their initial condition.

I am sure you are wrong about this. Please supply a link which shows this.

Equally, I am sure I am correct. Why should I give you a reference? Every time I do that, you simply add the author to your black list, and as far as you are concerned that is the end of the argument. If you think I am wrong, provide an argument against it.

The following historical account of the way in which the first computerized models were run proves that you don't know what you are talking about and are making things up as you go along.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm
It is true that the early climate models and calculations of the effects of doubling of CO2, which were done by Manabe, dealt with from equilibrium states. The later calculations, beginning with Hansen's in the 1980's which were enabled by faster computers, looked at the evolution of climate proceeding from non equilibrium states.
As oceanographer Wallace Broecker remarked, the GCMs had been designed to come to equilibrium, giving a stability that might be illusory. As scientists got better at modeling ocean-atmosphere interactions, they might find that the climate system was liable to switch rapidly from one state to another. On the other hand, since the cold oceans would soak up heat for many decades before they reached an equilibrium, a climate that was computed for an atmosphere with doubled CO2 would not show what the planet would look like immediately after a doubling took place, but only what it would look like many decades later. Acknowledging these criticisms, Hansen's group and a few others undertook protracted computer runs to find what would actually happen while the CO2 level rose. Instead of separately computing "before" and "after" states, they computed the entire "transient response," plodding through a century or more simulating from one day to the next. Hansen's coupled ocean-atmosphere model, which incorporated the rise not only of CO2 but also other greenhouse gases, plus volcanic aerosols, turned out a fair approximation to the observed global temperature trend of the previous half century. Pushed into the future, the model showed sustained global warming. By 1988 Hansen had enough confidence to issue a strong public pronouncement, warning of an imminent threat.(67)

What predictions do you call unphysical?

Very high temperature rises.

Your reasons are mere surmise, and not rigorous.

My argument is based on simple mathematics and physics, and no such argument is ever rigorous in the mathematical sense. I suppose you could say my argument demonstrates that the very high temperature rises predicted by the models are very likely to be unphysical. You haven't even tried to provide a reasoned counter.[/quote]

It is your argument that has no reason on its side. You have absolutely no evidence to support it except your opinion. An argument without evidence is not a real argument at all. The calculations by experts are definitely a reasoned counter.

It is pretty clear that simple mathematics and physics cannot simply predict climate change. This is why it took so many years to get climate models that worked as well as they do today, imperfectly,with the aid of powerful computers. You have yet to demonstrate that you have done a single calculation to prove that a 6C is unphysical. Arrhenius who studied the question using pencil and paper and basic physics, came to the conclusion that 6C was a good estimate. He won a Nobel Prize in Physics.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
Your models do not represent global climate because they do not replicate water vapor variations, Cloud variations and effects, or biological variations and effects and the modelers admit this. Hansen's models are among the worst at replicating past history. No one model can replicate regional climate. Using the average of 22 wrongs does not make it right. No matter how much you claim the history falls within the extents of the models the fact that no one can account for regional events falsifies all of them. It is time stop wasting money of fantasies.

[questioner]

Q:
Your models do not represent global climate because they do not replicate water vapor variations, Cloud variations and effects, or biological variations and effects and the modelers admit this. Hansen's models are among the worst at replicating past history. No one model can replicate regional climate. Using the average of 22 wrongs does not make it right. No matter how much you claim the history falls within the extents of the models the fact that no one can account for regional events falsifies all of them. It is time stop wasting money of fantasies.

Blah Blah Blah.
The actual graphs are the best argument against your rant.


Hansen's Scenario B (described as the most likely option and most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures. Hansen overestimated future CO2 levels by 5 to 10% so if his model were given the correct forcing levels, the match would be even closer. There are deviations from year to year but this is to be expected. The chaotic nature of weather will add noise to the signal but the overall trend is predictable.