On Jan 27, 10:23*pm, "obonz" wrote:
snip

QUOTE: In summary, I think there are two main reasons climate models fail:

1. water vapour causes a negative feedback, not a large positive feedback,

2. clouds cause a negative feedback, not a positive feedback.

snip

before a climate model is used to predict the future it is run on
historical data to predict known climate. you'd think during these
tests the erroneous feedbacks above would have been detected. how do
you suppose they missed that?

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:58:52 -0800, ACAR wrote:

On Jan 27, 10:23Â*pm, "obonz" wrote: snip

QUOTE: In summary, I think there are two main reasons climate models
fail:

1. water vapour causes a negative feedback, not a large positive
feedback,

2. clouds cause a negative feedback, not a positive feedback.

snip

before a climate model is used to predict the future it is run on
historical data to predict known climate. you'd think during these tests
the erroneous feedbacks above would have been detected. how do you suppose
they missed that?

Because the model assumed positive feedbacks before it was tuned to
match historical data. There are any number of models that can be tuned
to predict the past. There are none that can be tuned to predict the
future, because the climate is chaotic.

To understand the feedback, you have to understand the actual physical
mechanisms involved, not arbitrary model assumptions.

Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:58:52 -0800, ACAR wrote:

On Jan 27, 10:23 pm, "obonz" wrote: snip

QUOTE: In summary, I think there are two main reasons climate models
fail:

1. water vapour causes a negative feedback, not a large positive
feedback,

2. clouds cause a negative feedback, not a positive feedback.

snip

before a climate model is used to predict the future it is run on
historical data to predict known climate. you'd think during these
tests the erroneous feedbacks above would have been detected. how do
you suppose they missed that?

Because the model assumed positive feedbacks before it was tuned to
match historical data. There are any number of models that can be
tuned to predict the past. There are none that can be tuned to
predict the future, because the climate is chaotic.

To understand the feedback, you have to understand the actual physical
mechanisms involved, not arbitrary model assumptions.

Made-up crap.

On Jan 30, 6:28*am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:58:52 -0800, ACAR wrote:
On Jan 27, 10:23*pm, "obonz" wrote: snip

QUOTE: In summary, I think there are two main reasons climate models
fail:

1. water vapour causes a negative feedback, not a large positive
feedback,

2. clouds cause a negative feedback, not a positive feedback.

snip

before a climate model is used to predict the future it is run on
historical data to predict known climate. you'd think during these tests
the erroneous feedbacks above would have been detected. how do you suppose
they missed that?

Because the model assumed positive feedbacks before it was tuned to
match historical data. *There are any number of models that can be tuned
to predict the past. *There are none that can be tuned to predict the
future, because the climate is chaotic.

To understand the feedback, you have to understand the actual physical
mechanisms involved, not arbitrary model assumptions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It all comes back to the same issue - how to distinguish weather from
climate rather than having weather shade off into climate.

The dismal fact is that scientists do not know what causes
hemispherical weather patterns ( otherwise known as the seasons) .They
attribute the cause to an unspecified 'tilt' of the Earth and ignore
the orbital specifics which are required to explain why locations
North and South of the Equator experience daylight/darkness variations
while none exist at the Equator.

The danger now is that politicians are acting in accordance with
proposals by scientists who do not even have the basics right,not that
the intentions of politicians are bad but they are giving validity to
approaches to climate which do not take into account if the climate
variations are due to astronomical influences or arise from human
influences.

Ask a scientist how they take into account of orbital variations in
speed over the course of an annual orbit from direct observations and
they will run a mile and although I know why,it says more about the
scientists themselves and the standard of investigation where
astronomy and climate mesh.

Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:58:52 -0800, ACAR wrote:

On Jan 27, 10:23 pm, "obonz" wrote: snip
QUOTE: In summary, I think there are two main reasons climate models
fail:

1. water vapour causes a negative feedback, not a large positive
feedback,

2. clouds cause a negative feedback, not a positive feedback.

snip
before a climate model is used to predict the future it is run on
historical data to predict known climate. you'd think during these tests
the erroneous feedbacks above would have been detected. how do you suppose
they missed that?

Because the model assumed positive feedbacks before it was tuned to
match historical data. There are any number of models that can be tuned
to predict the past. There are none that can be tuned to predict the
future, because the climate is chaotic.

To understand the feedback, you have to understand the actual physical
mechanisms involved, not arbitrary model assumptions.


Yes, and have you ever computed the changes in the climate model
forcings to convince us that you're talking about significant effects?

Q

On Jan 30, 1:28*am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:58:52 -0800, ACAR wrote:
On Jan 27, 10:23*pm, "obonz" wrote: snip

QUOTE: In summary, I think there are two main reasons climate models
fail:

1. water vapour causes a negative feedback, not a large positive
feedback,

2. clouds cause a negative feedback, not a positive feedback.

snip

before a climate model is used to predict the future it is run on
historical data to predict known climate. you'd think during these tests
the erroneous feedbacks above would have been detected. how do you suppose
they missed that?

Because the model assumed positive feedbacks before it was tuned to
match historical data.

that models are tuned to fit observational data is not in question. if
observational data show the feedback is positive, what's your problem?
if you claim the feedback is not represented by observational data,
prove it.

*There are any number of models that can be tuned
to predict the past. *There are none that can be tuned to predict the
future, because the climate is chaotic.

so weather and climate forecasting are wastes of money because the
atmosphere is chaotic?


To understand the feedback, you have to understand the actual physical
mechanisms involved, not arbitrary model assumptions.

if the feedback mechanisms are modeled, correctly or incorrectly, you
can't claim the physics are unknown and only parameterized.

On Jan 31, 1:50*pm, ACAR wrote:
On Jan 30, 1:28*am, Bill Ward wrote:



On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:58:52 -0800, ACAR wrote:
On Jan 27, 10:23*pm, "obonz" wrote: snip

QUOTE: In summary, I think there are two main reasons climate models
fail:

1. water vapour causes a negative feedback, not a large positive
feedback,

2. clouds cause a negative feedback, not a positive feedback.

snip

before a climate model is used to predict the future it is run on
historical data to predict known climate. you'd think during these tests
the erroneous feedbacks above would have been detected. how do you suppose
they missed that?

Because the model assumed positive feedbacks before it was tuned to
match historical data.

that models are tuned to fit observational data is not in question. if
observational data show the feedback is positive, what's your problem?
if you claim the feedback is not represented by observational data,
prove it.

**There are any number of models that can be tuned

to predict the past. *There are none that can be tuned to predict the
future, because the climate is chaotic.

so weather and climate forecasting are wastes of money because the
atmosphere is chaotic?



To understand the feedback, you have to understand the actual physical
mechanisms involved, not arbitrary model assumptions.

if the feedback mechanisms are modeled, correctly or incorrectly, you
can't claim the physics are unknown and only parameterized.

Wild assed guesses=science to lib-turds.

On 1/30/09 10:48 AM, in article , "marcodbeast"
wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:58:52 -0800, ACAR wrote:

On Jan 27, 10:23 pm, "obonz" wrote: snip

QUOTE: In summary, I think there are two main reasons climate models
fail:

1. water vapour causes a negative feedback, not a large positive
feedback,

2. clouds cause a negative feedback, not a positive feedback.

snip

before a climate model is used to predict the future it is run on
historical data to predict known climate. you'd think during these
tests the erroneous feedbacks above would have been detected. how do
you suppose they missed that?

Because the model assumed positive feedbacks before it was tuned to
match historical data. There are any number of models that can be
tuned to predict the past. There are none that can be tuned to
predict the future, because the climate is chaotic.

To understand the feedback, you have to understand the actual physical
mechanisms involved, not arbitrary model assumptions.


** Indeed, Sir Beastly, you are
Made-up crap.

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always
on the proposer, never on the sceptics