Philip wrote:Questioner wrote:The deniers who scoff at him are not fit to lick his boots.
Is licking people's boots the way you think physics should be conducted? I'm afraid I can't agree with you on that point either. IMO physics should be conducted based upon open discussion and mutual respect.
Hansen has been called a liar and a charlatan by AGW deniers. They clearly are disrespecting his achievements.
Philip wrote:Questioner wrote:If accurate non equilibrium conditions could be established by measurement, the models would work just as well, because they do handle transient conditions.
I remind you that the paper itself states, "Our results could be significantly modified by a different assumption". You originally asserted that Hansen's 1988 paper “says specifically that he starts his simulations with actual climatological conditions for the year 1958". This is quite plainly not the case.
Atmospheric concentrations and temperatures were real. The state of the oceans was not measurable but believed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere. In fact the simulations looked very much like the real case, which is evidence that the initial conditions were close to reality.
Questioner wrote:Philip wrote:I also note (with some amusement) that even in 1988 this author was already talking of his computer simulations as "experiments". Another joke perhaps?
Hardly a joke. Simulation is the only way we can "experiment" with the future to look at the effects of different courses of action.The point is that "experiment" means making measurements in the real world in order to test theory. The idea that theory itself can be used to test theory is anti-scientific and corrupt. The idea discredits the pseudo-scientists that support it and damages the credibility of climate science as a whole.
The purpose of the experiments is not to test the models as you claim. That is a straw man. It is to determine what the effects of different actions regrading GHG emissions are going to be. One can't do experiments like that on a real earth and compare results.Questioner wrote:Philip wrote:On the contrary, my argument is based on well-established and uncontroversial physics, physics that is even mentioned by the IPCC in AR4.
I couldn't find where you made an argument based on well established and non controversial physics. At least provide a pointer to a specific post that and the page in the particular IPCC AR4 where your argument appears.
This is the precise post where I make the argument, viewtopic.php?f=5&t=479#p7740. Reading through that thread again, I see you were unable to provide a reasonable repost to the argument.
I didn't get around to it. You will see a reply shortly.