[tuccillo]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but don't try to pass off your opinion as fact. You have no subject matter expertise so your opinion was apparently formed by reading one-sided material. Again, you should refrain from slandering people, who you don't know, in your rants. My opinion is inconsequential and I certainly don't try to pass it off as fact. Further research is needed and continues. To suggest that there is a wide spread conspiracy borders on paranoia.

Originally Posted by outlaw

I didn't say there weren't AGW impacts. I merely stated the AGW movement is a scam. CO2 is now classified as a pollutant by our government! This is what every human EXHALES in each breath. This is what plants REQUIRE to thrive. I wonder how many people on the anti fossil fuel train think that CO2 is the black sooty stuff that comes out of the 18 wheeler exhaust stack, or think that the "smoke" rising out of the infamous power plant cooling towers is CO2? Although I am familiar with the scientific method, I don't think it takes a "scientist" to understand the corruption and deception that has permeated this Global Climate Warming/Change/Disruption scheme. But at least you are leaning toward minor AGW impacts.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

You really should try to limit your posting to things you know something about. You are wrong on both accounts.

OK. Simulations DO produce data...but the AGW simulations have failed miserably in their catastrophic predictions. Raw empirical data continues to disagree with the simulation projections (data sets, results...). Bottom line is that the simulations do not seem to represent the real world. The models' "data" does not agree with the real world data. So whatever you want to call the ones and zeros the simulations are pumping out, it should not be influencing policy.

[tuccillo]

If you were to go back and actually read my posts you will see that I already expressed the opinion that climate simulation modelling is still an area of research and is not ready for use as a tool for setting public policy. Again, that is just my opinion. Others feel differently and I would never suggest they are wrong or, as in the case of your rants, dishonest and unscrupulous.

This does not mean that there is not a significant anthropogenic perturbation on the natural climate trend or that such a perturbation will send our climate into a regime that would never have occurred naturally. Fortunately, the physics of radiative transfer will prevent a run away scenario. Regarding the fidelity of climate models to reproduce the past, depending on what you read they have done fairly well. Certain features, such as ENSO, are not simulated well but it may not matter since the effect may average out over a long simulation. To suggest that the models have "failed miserably" is amateurish as you don't understand the process. You apparently see everything as black or white when in reality it is grey. Progress comes in small steps, especially when you are trying to solve non-linear systems with literally millions of lines of source code. The degree of difficulty is something you most likely cannot fathom.

I have indulged your rants in apparently a futile effort to bring some sanity to yet another inane thread. No more. I am done exchanging thoughts with closed minded people as it is a waste of my time. Believe what you will, I really couldn't care less.

Originally Posted by outlaw

OK. Simulations DO produce data...but the AGW simulations have failed miserably in their catastrophic predictions. Raw empirical data continues to disagree with the simulation projections (data sets, results...). Bottom line is that the simulations do not seem to represent the real world. The models' "data" does not agree with the real world data. So whatever you want to call the ones and zeros the simulations are pumping out, it should not be influencing policy.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

If you were to go back and actually read my posts you will see that I already expressed the opinion that climate simulation modelling is still an area of research and is not ready for use as a tool for setting public policy. Again, that is just my opinion. Others feel differently and I would never suggest they are wrong or, as in the case of your rants, dishonest and unscrupulous.

This does not mean that there is not a significant anthropogenic perturbation on the natural climate trend or that such a perturbation will send our climate into a regime that would never have occurred naturally. Fortunately, the physics of radiative transfer will prevent a run away scenario. Regarding the fidelity of climate models to reproduce the past, depending on what you read they have done fairly well. Certain features, such as ENSO, are not simulated well but it may not matter since the effect may average out over a long simulation. To suggest that the models have "failed miserably" is amateurish as you don't understand the process. You apparently see everything as black or white when in reality it is grey. Progress comes in small steps, especially when you are trying to solve non-linear systems with literally millions of lines of source code. The degree of difficulty is something you most likely cannot fathom.

I have indulged your rants in apparently a futile effort to bring some sanity to yet another inane thread. No more. I am done exchanging thoughts with closed minded people as it is a waste of my time. Believe what you will, I really couldn't care less.

Can we just agree to disagree?

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

You really should try to limit your posting to things you know something about. You are wrong on both accounts.

Can't agree with you here, tuccillo. Model simulations do produce data sets. But a model simulation in and of itself is does not automatically constitute a scientific experiment.

Anybody can sit down and write a formula (model) that they claim simulates world temperature (or anything else). It would be a model, but it certainly wouldn't be a valid scientific experiment.

[tuccillo]

Sure it does. Modelling is used in a whole host of disciples including industrial design. Many of the climate experiments early on were made by doubling the CO2 concentration of the model. I was a model developer.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Can't agree with you here, tuccillo. A model simulation in and of itself is does not constitute a scientific experiment.

[mtdjed]

Thank God it is over! All this because someone posted a note about someone's prediction.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

Sure it does. Modelling is used in a whole host of disciples including industrial design. Many of the climate experiments early on were made by doubling the CO2 concentration of the model. I was a model developer.

Yes. Modeling is used in a whole host of desciples (disciplines?) including industrial design. What's your point? That does not mean every model ever written down on a piece of paper or typed onto a computer screen is a valid scientific experiment. You've made a lot of good points here, but I can't believe you're trying to say that.

All models = valid scientific experiment? That's the point I'm disagreeing with.

[tuccillo]

And you are the judge of what constitutes a valid scientific experiment because of what? Current models are much more than a formula. The foundation is a set of PDEs solved via numerical methods for the atm and ocean plus treatments of turbulence, radiation, liquid phase change, surface exchange, aerosols, etc.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Can't agree with you here, tuccillo. Model simulations do produce data sets. But a model simulation in and of itself is does not automatically constitute a scientific experiment.

Anybody can sit down and write a formula (model) that they claim simulates world temperature (or anything else). It would be a model, but it certainly wouldn't be a valid scientific experiment.

[tuccillo]

Those are your words, not mine. I only stated that running models constitutes a valid experiment. Not sure what your point is here. You are not a subject matter expert so your opinion on what is valid is really not meaningful. Sorry to be so blunt but it is what it is.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Yes. Modeling is used in a whole host of desciples (disciplines?) including industrial design. What's your point? That does not mean every model ever written down on a piece of paper or typed onto a computer screen is a valid scientific experiment. You've made a lot of good points here, but I can't believe you're trying to say that.

All models = valid scientific experiment? That's the point I'm disagreeing with.

[tuccillo]

Some people just like to argue a point of view devoid of knowledge. Attempts to shed some light on reality is often met with attacks.

Originally Posted by mtdjed

Thank God it is over! All this because someone posted a note about someone's prediction.

[Justus]

Tuccillo,
You keep saying you are through with this argument. Outlaw even asked if you could agree to disagree...yet still here you are. Is it possible that any dissenting opinion is not acceptable in your universe?

[tuccillo]

I only said I wouldn't respond to outlaw's posts. So the posts have taken two positions: "anthropogenic climate change is real" and "anthropogenic climate change is a scam". The only position I have taken is we don't know the extent of it yet. So I am only arguing against extremist positions. I am the only one saying I don't know. Everyone else seems to believe their opinion is fact. Think about that for a minute.

Originally Posted by Justus

Tuccillo,
You keep saying you are through with this argument. Outlaw even asked if you could agree to disagree...yet still here you are. Is it possible that any dissenting opinion is not acceptable in your universe?

[Justus]

Yawn...

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

Those are your words, not mine. I only stated that running models constitutes a valid experiment. Not sure what your point is here. You are not a subject matter expert so your opinion on what is valid is really not meaningful. Sorry to be so blunt but it is what it is.

"Model simulations are not scientific experiments" (not your words). You said that statement is "wrong" (your words). Your reply was wrong because all model simulations are not scientific experiments. Your later posts are still defending that statement.

you said to me "And you are the judge of what constitutes a valid scientific experiment because of what?" I made no such claim. I simply stated what should be obvious to anybody trained in modeling and/or the scientific method. All models are not scientific experiments.

Finally, I am much a subject matter expert in this discussion as you are. I'm a professional engineer trained in modeling and the scientific method. I think you feel the weakness of your rebuttal and have resorted to personal attack.

How long ago did you declare your participation in this thread over?

Sorry to be blunt, but...well you get the gist.