You didn't bother following that link to the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project, did you - that's exactly what they do.
Article by on climate change by James Lovelock
- Thread starter sandbender
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
You didn't bother following that link to the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project, did you - that's exactly what they do.
I did, actually - Where exactly are the code, the raw data, the parameters, and the specs for anything other than CDAT?
You need to be part of the scientific community first - they don't hand these things out to just anybody. If you can demonstrate that you're working in the area at an accredited institution, you can have all the gory details you like. That's how the scientific community operates in every other discipline - why should climatology be any different? You want to examine people's life's work, they need to be assured your not just going to rip them off.
No, you were talking about reconstruction ("based on things like temperature readings calculated on the size of rings in fossilised tree remains"). Modelling and reconstruction are completely different matters. Modelling is based on basic physics. Reconstruction is based on proxy data.
Try Googling 'open source'. Surely the future of the planet is more important than, say, OpenOffice.
You said "I have much more confidence in climate models than I do in economic models"
I replied to that.
You, and I were therefore talking about climate models.
It's this kind of thing that makes having a discussion very difficult.
!!??
Wow, what arrogance. That's quite dumbfounding.
Bloody hell. Sod them. Sod them all. What twats.
If they want people to follow their agenda, then maybe they should make them publically available. Am I missing something? Because I can't believe anyone would be so conceited and stupid. I must be missing a point, surely?
I'm stunned. Correct me. Please.
And don't give me that 'rip them off' nonsense - copyright and all that. No, that's not it. Not at all. I won't be fobbed off with that excuse. It really sounds like conceited arrogance. I really hope I'm wrong. I work in academia where I publish work and offer my findings to my peers (and anyone else who's remotely interested) and I KNOW it's not about getting 'ripped off' because I know there are measures one can take.
I was talking about climate models. You then stated that these are "based on things like temperature readings calculated on the size of rings in fossilised tree remains". I stated that this is not the case, and that what you were describing was palaeoclimate reconstruction, and that climate modelling is a completely different matter, and is not based in any way on "things like temperature readings calculated on the size of rings in fossilised tree remains", which are technically known as proxy data.
It's not my fault you aren't familiar with even the most basic terminology of the entire scientific discipline you've chosen to disagree with.
It's not my fault you aren't familiar with even the most basic terminology of the entire scientific discipline you've chosen to disagree with.
Yeah, I'm sorry Greg. What with the 'ripping off' and the NASA comment, you are stepping way outside the rational discourse arena. Take a break from this thread for a while to calm down and come back to it. I am genuinely interested in what you say, and want to hear more but passion is getting ahead of you.
I'm with you on that one, mate. I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you on that one (not that I wouldn't on climate change, mind you).
Durulz, compare the two cases... In both instances, we have on one side a huge body of professional scientists armed with veritable mountains of data, and on the other we have a bunch of ideologues with no specialist expertise (perhaps bolstered by a couple of "mavericks") wielding sophistry and confusion. One side presents their arguments in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and the other presents theirs in the op-ed pages of newspapers. And somehow, this creates the impression in the public that there's a real scientific controversy where there really isn't one.
The rhetorical tactics favoured by climate change "sceptics" and creationists are frequently identical.
The rhetorical tactics favoured by climate change "sceptics" and creationists are frequently identical.
Paleoclimatologists use ice sheets, tree rings, and other data to model the climate as it was before. Where is the problem with calling it one aspect of climate modelling?
GCMs don't base everything just on physics: they use trends and events (not just climate, but political and economic) to attempt to predict the future. If they didn't, then they would be useless.
If you are proposing that everyone in the world change their way of life for ever, does it not seem reasonable that you back up your conclusions rather than just present a printout from a black box and expect everyone to trust models which don't have a good track record. 40 years ago we were heading for a new ice-age.
The minute NASA's orbital software is being used to argue for huge social and political upheval at great cost to the individual in order to make the whole world march in step with a long running "environmentalist" agenda held by a minority - I'll insist on it being open to full scrutiny too.
There's a fundamental difference between NASA's orbital software and climate models.
I couldn't care less about orbital software as, except for the possibility they get it so wrong a spacecraft crashes into a town, it has no relevance to my life whatsoever, unless you count Sky TV for my ray Mears re-runs on Dave or the weather satellites.
I couldn't care less how they get them to stay up - they figure out which way to point it, how hard to push it and they stay up - I'm a happy bunny.
That's not what the climatologist's computers do though. Their computers spit out some results a few times and the whole bleedin' world has to change the way they work as a result.
If that kind of thing is going on, I think it's completely reasonable to demand that they show "us" the inside of their magic box in order to have the workings checked so we know that what's coming out is reliable.
Individual climatologist groups comparing notes among themselves doesn't help anything other than making sure they are all singing from the same hymn sheet.
I'm stepping out fully now as others are making arguments along the lines I would be.
Thanks for the discussion, even though some folk are getting unnecessarily heated - zealots aren't all religious.
