LeafByNiggle:
You have several times stated that you are not an expert on climate science, thereby rendering your opinion of scientific claims as irrelevant as you believe HarryStotle’s to be. The thing is, if you take the position that only accredited scientists can legitimately hold forth on scientific claims then you cannot reasonably make this response:
Exactly so, which is why I said your only valid response is “Because my guys say so”, so while you might say “Dr. Fred says 'Yes it is’” it is not valid to say simply “Yes it is”. That’s not a quote, that’s a scientific opinion…which by your own admission you are not competent to express.
Care to comment on why a great deal of the alarmism cherry-picks the decades after about 1970 when average temperatures in the US had dropped to their lowest since about the turn of the century?
Where experts happen to have completely opposing views on an issue…
Or Euthyphro dilemma…(X → X) = arbitrary assumption
([X → Y] ^ [Y → ∞]) = infinite regress or unjustified premise [i.e., your determination of the expertise of those you declare to be experts]
([X → Y][Y → X]) = circular reasoning
No, you can start any time around the beginning of the industrial age and count forward to now. Warming is undeniable.LeafByNiggle:
Care to comment on why a great deal of the alarmism cherry-picks the decades after about 1970 when average temperatures in the US had dropped to their lowest since about the turn of the century?
Then you look at their fields of expertise and you count them. On both grounds your unconfirmed Gerlich paper is not comparable to the experts whose works have been reviewed by other experts. I do trust the community of mainstream scientists because I trust the scientific method that they use in their work.LeafByNiggle:
Where experts happen to have completely opposing views on an issue…
The analogy would only work if human body temperatures fluctuated by 20 or 30° C on a daily basis but the annual body temperature average over a long term averaging period “like 40 years” didn’t fluctuate by more that 1° C .Theo520:
The purpose of the analogy was very narrow. Don’t read more into it than was intended. The sole purpose of the example was to be a reminder that 1 degree C is not always an inconsequential change. And that point does need to be made because I have seen many people here (not you) pooh-pooh temperature differences of that order in the average temperature of the globe.LeafByNiggle:
How does that fit with the human body, which doesn’t vary??
It’s a cute but inappropriate analogy. Body temp varies at most 0.5C in a day, A fever is actually life threatening if too high.
I see. So now you are punting to “unconfirmed.”
Okay. Let’s do a little experiment.
You are still trying to see some meaning beyond the very narrow meaning that was intended.
The fact that no other scientists have reviewed his paper and confirmed that his conclusions are correct.LeafByNiggle:
I see. So now you are punting to “unconfirmed.”
What, precisely, makes the paper “unconfirmed?”
Exactly. That is the scientific method. Be skeptical. I would think that a climate skeptic such as yourself would be very familiar with being skeptical.
Nope. If someone wrote a complicated paper claiming that the planet Neptune is made of green cheese, would you be inclined to accept it until someone tried to replicate the author’s work?
I can point to hundred’s of papers that do not address Gerlich explicitly, but do establish findings directly contradictory to Gerlich.
You have an over-inflated estimate of the importance of Gerlich in the scientific community today. No one bothers to counter his arguments because no one takes them seriously. They have work to do, unlike us forum posters who seem to have nothing better to do than argue about obscure claims.
Could you explain just how “complicated” a paper would have to be to demonstrate experimentally that Neptune is made of green cheese?
And none of the claims of climate alarmists regarding C02 have been demonstrated by experimental means and replicated. So I remain skeptical about all of those. Touché.
And speaking of the scientific method, you might think about Gerlich’s point…
So different climate models do not replicate each other, nor do they describe reality with any degree of accuracy.
Please recognize the difference between…HarryStotle:
Exactly. That is the scientific method. Be skeptical. I would think that a climate skeptic such as yourself would be very familiar with being skeptical.
And your seeming standard that "… a finding is not considered true if it has not be replicated.
The concept of skepticism toward articles like Gerlich’s remains the same. If I can’t personally verify his argument, I’m going to disbelieve it until others who are capable have verified it.
Which is something I do not have, and unless you have been way too modest, neither do you.
Of course you would guess that. I would guess the opposite.
How do you know Gelich successfully countered Halpern’s comment? Because Halpern admitted his mistake? Or because Gerlich says he countered it? Anyway, a comment on a blog does not amount to an academic challenge. The fact remains that Gerlich remains unconfirmed. You believe it because you want to, not because science compels you to.
Many different climate models have been developed over the years, all based on different parametric assumptions. Even though they all assume the accepted understanding of radiative forcing, they produce different results based on different values of the parameters - one of which is climate sensitivity. That explains why they are different, and therefore why some of them have differed from subsequent measurements. As for all of them completely missing the mark, that is just untrue. Some of them have proven remarkably accurate in predicting global trends.
I understand the distinction you are making here. And if no other paper had ever been written on this subject and Gerlich was the first such paper written, I would have just as much reason to believe him true as to believe him false. But that is not the case. We have years of papers and a plethora of authors whose papers are contradicted by Gerlich. Therefore skepticism falls heavily against Gerlich. The assumption that the rest of the scientific community is right and he is wrong is more reasonable than the assumption that the rest of the scientific community is wrong and he is right.
“imprecise” and “poorly defined” are not scientifically quantifiable terms. It is a matter of degree. We know that our understanding of global climate is not perfect. But most scientists say it is precise enough and well-defined enough for our present purposes.
Which are what, precisely?
For the purposes of establishing what the likely detrimental effects will be on our world in 50 to 100 years. I said nothing about establishing what remedies, if any, are called for. That is a separate discussion from the facts of climate change, which have nothing to do with remedies, like overhauling the economy or energy sector.LeafByNiggle:
Which are what, precisely?
A complete overhaul of the economy and its energy sector? Hardly “well-defined enough.”
Clearly the models are nowhere near accurate and cannot even be shown to account for what has transpired climate-wise in the past so to judge the detriment based upon flawed models is hardly making headway.HarryStotle:
For the purposes of establishing what the likely detrimental effects will be on our world in 50 to 100 years. I said nothing about establishing what remedies, if any, are called for. That is a separate discussion from the facts of climate change, which have nothing to do with remedies, like overhauling the economy or energy sector.LeafByNiggle:
Which are what, precisely?
A complete overhaul of the economy and its energy sector? Hardly “well-defined enough.”
(an unjustified claim - and a false one too.)
It’s not an assumption. It is a carefully considered conclusion. And yes, the winners have been identified too. There will be some.
It already is.
learned years ago climate is not going to be explained by simple physics like “newtons” equation, or even “schrödingers” equation, so the hubris of physicist like Gerlich/Tscheuschner (2009) is they think they can explain, prove and/or disprove CC using a single field of study
actually the best “scientific” CC model metaphor IMHO would be a quantum-mechanical system because what needs to be looked at is, probability of “catastrophic risk”
the symptom side of CC requires a good basic understanding of basic biology (and given this forum, we should keep in mind the reluctance of many catholics to believe in evolution)
as I have tried to point out to @LeafByNiggle and @HarryStotle the conditions necessary to grasp ideas,… like the metaphor why “Earth Has a Fever” has a great number of big obstacles!!phaster:
That is a lame analogy as the average temp varies far more.
&
AND looking at the much bigger picture we see news (just this week alone) about the pope saying