OT: Speculation about AGW theories

The main evidence for AGW is the strong agreement of many climate models
(most of them in fact) with the last 150 years of recorded global
temperatures.

I have a suspicion that in fact these are not "predictions" of the data, but
in fact the researchers already knew the last 150 years of data before they
created the model, and just tweaked parameters in their models to force them
to agree with known historical data.

This is akin to a stage mentalist or psychic secretly learning some fact
about a person in advance, and then pretending to divine these facts on
stage to prove they actually are psychic. Its easy to predict the past if
you know it already. People seeing a stage mentalist who correctly divined
facts about a person, and then later finding out that the mentalist already
knew the person and the facts before the show would be somewhat less
impressed.

I can't find any of the climate modelers who say that they already knew
global temperatures before they even created the model, and just tweaked the
model to make it agree with the data. But nor can I find any that describe
the operational protocols that were used to quarantine known historical
data.

I know this is a grave allegation; if AGW theorists already knew the correct
answers - like the mentalist on stage who already knew the answers to the
questions - this would mean that the historical data did not provide
independent verification of the model, and AGW is left with no experimental
evidence at all.

Can anybody confirm my suspicion that these predictions of the last 150
years of climate are not predictions at all - the researchers already knew
the answers and just modified their computer programs until they generated
the answers the researchers wanted?

On Jan 22, 2:25 am, "Peter Webb"
<[Registered users can see links. ].au> wrote:

The climate modelers are trying to predict future trends in climate,
not predict the temperature at a specific place and time. One could
look at historical data to see that at a particular location, the temp
was 60 degrees F at 12 noon on Jan 20, 1905, but there is no way to
"predict" that with a model. You might "predict" that is was
generally colder (or warmer) during some period in the past but that
is about it.

However, one would need solid, reliable, accurate, representative,
methodically-collected temperature data going back much more than 150
years before one could say whether any current temperatures or future
predictions of "climate" are due to recent influences, part of a long-
term natural trend, or just plausible, random fluctuations, regardless
of how well one has convinced one's self of the correctness of one's
climate models.

It doesn't help that so many of the pols and celebs who are in favor
of taxing you onto the bus will continue to ride limos and private
jets.

> The main evidence for AGW is the strong agreement of many climate models

Given the overwhelming consensus on the science (including methodology) I
think the most reasonable conclusion is that your "grave allegation" is
whacko. There are plenty of others who can and will confirm your "suspicion"
but, unfortunately, none of them will be any more qualified than you are. I
too am unqualified, so I accept the conclusions of the thousands of trained
climate scientists at colleges, universities, government agencies, etc all
around the world. In my view, for someone who is not a climate scientist and
who hasn't studied the data to do otherwise is whacko. See my point?

I wonder how much of this denial is based on fear? Maybe some folks are so
terrified of the future that it is simply much easier to deny that any
problem exists, and believing in a vast conspiracy is the lesser
psychological threat?

Dennis

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Dennis Woos" <[Registered users can see links. ]>
wrote:


Especially since he has already demonstrated a complete lack of
understanding about how physical models work. These are not produced by
fitting past data to arbitrary functions, but by solving individual
physical equations (each a product of its own theory, with its own body
of evidence). The empirical part of the model comes from adjusting
unknown values in these physical equations until the model output
matches the observed data. Undoubtedly there are errors in these
assumptions, but that doesn't mean the model results are completely
wrong, only that they will show some degree of increasing error as they
attempt to project further into the future. It would be very unlikely
that the researchers could come up with a set of empirical elements to
these physical models that both accurately described the observed data
and totally failed to predict future trends.

There are many fields these days that study complex systems- those that
cannot be described by any single theory. These include the formation of
the Universe, the formation of galaxies, the formation of star systems,
the dynamics of stars, evolution, brain function, epidemiology,
population movement and many others. All are studied using physical
models which allow for empirical selection of unknown (or unmeasurable)
parameters in order to fit observations. Since these areas are largely
unpoliticized, however, one seldom hears the same complaints about the
use of models for studying them. Curious.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
[Registered users can see links. ]

"Chris L Peterson" <[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Registered users can see links. ]...


Curious???

easily explained:

the formation of

it is almost impossible to politicize any of the above and use fear tactics
to generate massive amounts of money. there is no economic benefit for the
falsification of data nor the construction of models that only fit a
preconceived theory. nor skew observations to fit the model...

what's curious is that you refuse to see, at least the possibility, that
that is what has happened in the climate realm...you blindness to the
totality of shenanigans is what's curious...to me

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:46:35 -0600, "David Staup" <[Registered users can see links. ]>
wrote:


There is no financial benefit to the researchers to falsify their data,
and there are powerful disincentives for them to do that (like
destroying their careers).

If you have the necessary intelligence and education, you can simply
study the primary research and it becomes quite obvious that the quality
of climate science is every bit as good as that of other areas of
science. There is not the slightest shred of evidence for your
"shenanigans" in the science itself, only in how that science gets
interpreted by and acted upon by politicians and bureaucrats.

But you can't convince a conspiracy theory nut.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
[Registered users can see links. ]

On Jan 22, 5:23*am, Quadibloc <[Registered users can see links. ].ca> wrote:

You haven't answered how. How many plants? At what cost? How
quickly? All without crippling the economy. How much CO2 will be
reduced? And will this be enough to avert the disasters you listed?

"Chris L Peterson" <[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Registered users can see links. ]...



really:
[Registered users can see links. ]

of course you can't convince a kool ade drinker

[Registered users can see links. ]

of course this guy is a kook

then of course there is climategate, the glacier goof, and the "lost" data
but then kool ade drinkers are not thinkers, so cannot (or refuse to) see
the flaws in their pet theories or the flaws in the system....

anyone can take even good data out of context to show what they want (or
need) for future funding...but it is a truley blind non thinker who accepts
this without question....now that's a nut

"Dennis Woos" <[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:u92dnWkWQc2oVcTWnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@posted.green mountainaccess...

No.

Are you claiming that the people who constructed the climate models did so
without knowledge of the temperature trends over the last 150 years, and
hence the agreement between these models and the climate over the last 150
years is independent verification of AGW ?

That would be nice to believe, but have you any evidence this is true?

"Chris L Peterson" <[Registered users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Registered users can see links. ]...

So you agree with the person you are responding to, and that the AGW
modellers did not know the climactic trends over the last 150 years when
they constructed their models, and hence these truly are predictions?





Every real life physical system involving more than a few atoms, in fact.



No problem with models.

SR, QM, Maxwells eqns, all are models.

All have predictive ability.

But returning to your argument about "politicised", that's got nothing to do
with it. I care because it is an economic argument, not a political one. I
personally don't give a rat's arse about some astrophysicist using dubious
science to prove possibly incorrect facts about galaxy formation. It costs
me nothing. However, climate scientists (unlike all the others you listed)
want the world to spend trillions of dollars on the basis of their
theoretical predictions. So I care. If astrophysicists were trying to drive
world economic activity on the basis of their predictions of galactic
formation, I would suddenly care about galactic formation as well.



Are you going to answer my question?

Did the climate scientists who constructed models which showed the earth
warming over the last 150 years already have an idea of how much warming
their models should predict, and hence the agreement between model and
history is not independent verification?