The models are all wrong! [modified]
-
riced wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. :laugh:
Well if you cant find any and I cant find any then really your assertion is baseless. :) As for the FACE experiments I would never accept that they were a valid test for CO2 concentrations because of their inability to control CO2 levels accurately. A closed greenhouse is far more accurate. So really, I cant see how you can think there ever was a conversation in the past where I accpted them. As for the rest, if you want to attck me personaly to back up a weak position then you are at least conforming to type. After all, when it fails to warm, when storms fail to become more frequent, when plants fail to suffer, and wildlife fails to go extinct you can always call those who point this out stupid, deniers, non-scientific and excentrics. I however will call them empiricists. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
As for the FACE experiments I would never accept that they were a valid test for CO2 concentrations because of their inability to control CO2 levels accurately. QED.
fat_boy wrote:
A closed greenhouse is far more accurate.
But a closed greenhouse is a model and we know (from your previous posts) how useless they are. I pointed out that the FACE studies were aware of the problem of keeping CO2 levels constant and that they monitored and regulated the levels automatically. IIRC you accepted this (perhaps I'm wrong and you simply went quiet :laugh: ).
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
As for the FACE experiments I would never accept that they were a valid test for CO2 concentrations because of their inability to control CO2 levels accurately. QED.
fat_boy wrote:
A closed greenhouse is far more accurate.
But a closed greenhouse is a model and we know (from your previous posts) how useless they are. I pointed out that the FACE studies were aware of the problem of keeping CO2 levels constant and that they monitored and regulated the levels automatically. IIRC you accepted this (perhaps I'm wrong and you simply went quiet :laugh: ).
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
As for the FACE experiments I would never accept that they were a valid test for CO2 concentrations because of their inability to control CO2 levels accurately.
QED.No, not QED. You stated I had retracted, I stated I havent, for the reasons given. SInce you have not shown that I retracted its not QED. :) And in fact its obvious. In an open field you cant state that compaerd to a control group a concentration of x CO2 has y effect on growth because you cant maintain the concentration at x due to wind. And not only that if th econtrol group are anywhere near you cant their CO2 level will be affected too. Its rubbish science. An experiement so full of blatant holes no one except a typical AGW alarmist would accept it as valid. And on top of that, the FACE experiements ended up with a 16% increase in yield. So how does this indicate in any way that my statement that CO2 increases croip yields is wrong?
riced wrote:
But a closed greenhouse is a model and we know (from your previous posts) how useless they are.
Its not a model, its the real thing. Real plants, real CO2.
riced wrote:
I pointed out that the FACE studies were aware of the problem of keeping CO2 levels constant and that they monitored and regulated the levels automatically. IIRC you accepted this (perhaps I'm wrong and you simply went quiet :laugh: ).
And even then they showed a 16% increase which even with this bad science supports totally my statement that additional CO2 will increase crop yields globally and alleviate poverty and starvation.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
riced wrote:
As for the FACE experiments I would never accept that they were a valid test for CO2 concentrations because of their inability to control CO2 levels accurately.
QED.No, not QED. You stated I had retracted, I stated I havent, for the reasons given. SInce you have not shown that I retracted its not QED. :) And in fact its obvious. In an open field you cant state that compaerd to a control group a concentration of x CO2 has y effect on growth because you cant maintain the concentration at x due to wind. And not only that if th econtrol group are anywhere near you cant their CO2 level will be affected too. Its rubbish science. An experiement so full of blatant holes no one except a typical AGW alarmist would accept it as valid. And on top of that, the FACE experiements ended up with a 16% increase in yield. So how does this indicate in any way that my statement that CO2 increases croip yields is wrong?
riced wrote:
But a closed greenhouse is a model and we know (from your previous posts) how useless they are.
Its not a model, its the real thing. Real plants, real CO2.
riced wrote:
I pointed out that the FACE studies were aware of the problem of keeping CO2 levels constant and that they monitored and regulated the levels automatically. IIRC you accepted this (perhaps I'm wrong and you simply went quiet :laugh: ).
And even then they showed a 16% increase which even with this bad science supports totally my statement that additional CO2 will increase crop yields globally and alleviate poverty and starvation.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Its not a model, its the real thing. Real plants, real CO2.
It's a model of the effects of C02 on the environment. All experiments are models - they abstract from the real situation. And that's the basis of how sciences progress.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Its not a model, its the real thing. Real plants, real CO2.
It's a model of the effects of C02 on the environment. All experiments are models - they abstract from the real situation. And that's the basis of how sciences progress.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
Whatever. Plants still grow better and are more drought reistant with increased CO2.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Whatever. Plants still grow better and are more drought reistant with increased CO2.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Whatever
And this means? It's the stereotypical response attributed to petulant teenagers when they are shown to be wrong. :) You want to (a) use greenhouse experiments to justify your position and (b) dismiss models as providing no valuable information. You cannot have it both ways since the experiments are attempts to model the behaviour of the environment.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Whatever
And this means? It's the stereotypical response attributed to petulant teenagers when they are shown to be wrong. :) You want to (a) use greenhouse experiments to justify your position and (b) dismiss models as providing no valuable information. You cannot have it both ways since the experiments are attempts to model the behaviour of the environment.
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
And this means? It's the stereotypical response attributed to petulant teenagers when they are shown to be wrong. :)
Or someone who cant be bothered to argue whether a experiment is a model or not when its irrelevant to the discussion.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
riced wrote:
And this means? It's the stereotypical response attributed to petulant teenagers when they are shown to be wrong. :)
Or someone who cant be bothered to argue whether a experiment is a model or not when its irrelevant to the discussion.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
I think it is relevant because if you dismiss models then you dismiss all experiments and therefore you have no grounds for any views that rely on experimental observations. Be they pro ar anti AGW. My QED quip was meant to apply to this quotye: As for the FACE experiments I would never accept that they were a valid test for CO2 concentrations because of their inability to control CO2 levels accurately. Note the bit in bold - it smacks of a dogmatic view and that is thoroughly non-scientific. :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
I think it is relevant because if you dismiss models then you dismiss all experiments and therefore you have no grounds for any views that rely on experimental observations. Be they pro ar anti AGW. My QED quip was meant to apply to this quotye: As for the FACE experiments I would never accept that they were a valid test for CO2 concentrations because of their inability to control CO2 levels accurately. Note the bit in bold - it smacks of a dogmatic view and that is thoroughly non-scientific. :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
I think it is relevant because if you dismiss models then you dismiss all experiments and therefore you have no grounds for any views that rely on experimental observations. Be they pro ar anti AGW.
Not if one defines modesl as computer models, which I do.
riced wrote:
As for the FACE experiments I would never accept that they were a valid test for CO2 concentrations because of their inability to control CO2 levels accurately.
Note the bit in bold - it smacks of a dogmatic view and that is thoroughly non-scientific. :)I consider the testing of CO2 concentrations above those in the atmosphere in an open environemnt inacurate because the slightest breeze can change the concentration thus rendering the experiement almost useless. Especially if that extra CO2 wafts in the direction of a control group, which as you know every good scientific experiment has. But, this was my statement you object to originally: " 1 degree rise and extra CO2 will imcrease crop yields and make plants more drought resistant thus aleviating poverty and starvation globally. Those are the facts. Proved, empirical, known. " Your FACE experiments meerly reinforce that statement since they produced a 16% increase. So really, if you want to refute that statement, the FACE experiments arent usefull.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
riced wrote:
I think it is relevant because if you dismiss models then you dismiss all experiments and therefore you have no grounds for any views that rely on experimental observations. Be they pro ar anti AGW.
Not if one defines modesl as computer models, which I do.
riced wrote:
As for the FACE experiments I would never accept that they were a valid test for CO2 concentrations because of their inability to control CO2 levels accurately.
Note the bit in bold - it smacks of a dogmatic view and that is thoroughly non-scientific. :)I consider the testing of CO2 concentrations above those in the atmosphere in an open environemnt inacurate because the slightest breeze can change the concentration thus rendering the experiement almost useless. Especially if that extra CO2 wafts in the direction of a control group, which as you know every good scientific experiment has. But, this was my statement you object to originally: " 1 degree rise and extra CO2 will imcrease crop yields and make plants more drought resistant thus aleviating poverty and starvation globally. Those are the facts. Proved, empirical, known. " Your FACE experiments meerly reinforce that statement since they produced a 16% increase. So really, if you want to refute that statement, the FACE experiments arent usefull.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
1 degree rise and extra CO2 will imcrease crop yields and make plants more drought resistant thus aleviating poverty and starvation globally. Those are the facts. Proved, empirical, known. "
This is the result of experiments carried out in closed greenhouses (under laboratory conditions if you like). Now please demonstrate that these results will carry over to the actual environment rather than being observations that need to be considered. For the FACE results, demonstrate that they will not be carried over to the actual environment. Also demonstrate that a 1 degree rise in temperature will not remove an equal or greater offsetting amount of crops from production. Now I don't think you can demonstrate these effects (and before you ask I can't demonstrate they won't occur). You have to accept that experimental results are provisional. They indicate how things may go but once out of the lab don't be surprised if things turn out differently. Just think of the number of drugs that have been tested, both in labs and clinical trials, that have either proved ineffective or produced unexpected side effects e.g. Thalidomide. As to models, it really does not matter whether the model is a mathematical one (perhaps run on a computer) or involves tangible items like test tubes, flasks, greenhouses or bits of old rope. The results of any experiment are provisional and when different experiments give different outcomes the likelihood is that both are wrong (i.e. neither correctly predicts what will happen). That's why I think the bold bit is indicative of a dogmatic and hence non-scientific stance (aka religious one). :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
1 degree rise and extra CO2 will imcrease crop yields and make plants more drought resistant thus aleviating poverty and starvation globally. Those are the facts. Proved, empirical, known. "
This is the result of experiments carried out in closed greenhouses (under laboratory conditions if you like). Now please demonstrate that these results will carry over to the actual environment rather than being observations that need to be considered. For the FACE results, demonstrate that they will not be carried over to the actual environment. Also demonstrate that a 1 degree rise in temperature will not remove an equal or greater offsetting amount of crops from production. Now I don't think you can demonstrate these effects (and before you ask I can't demonstrate they won't occur). You have to accept that experimental results are provisional. They indicate how things may go but once out of the lab don't be surprised if things turn out differently. Just think of the number of drugs that have been tested, both in labs and clinical trials, that have either proved ineffective or produced unexpected side effects e.g. Thalidomide. As to models, it really does not matter whether the model is a mathematical one (perhaps run on a computer) or involves tangible items like test tubes, flasks, greenhouses or bits of old rope. The results of any experiment are provisional and when different experiments give different outcomes the likelihood is that both are wrong (i.e. neither correctly predicts what will happen). That's why I think the bold bit is indicative of a dogmatic and hence non-scientific stance (aka religious one). :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
riced wrote:
For the FACE results, demonstrate that they will not be carried over to the actual environment.
Wrong. The FACE experiments got a 16% increase in yield. Farmers have ben using CO2 enrichment, recomended as 1000 PPM by at least one government, to increase crop yields for decades.
riced wrote:
Also demonstrate that a 1 degree rise in temperature will not remove an equal or greater offsetting amount of crops from production.
Due only to temperature? Easy, farmers have been using greenhouses to grow plants for centuries.
riced wrote:
Now I don't think you can demonstrate these effects
Just did.
riced wrote:
Just think of the number of drugs that have been tested, both in labs and clinical trials, that have either proved ineffective or produced unexpected side effects e.g. Thalidomide.
If it had been tested for as long as Farmers have been using greenhouses and CO2 enrichment they would have come across its side effects. Like I said, Farmers have been using greenhouses and CO2 enrichment for a vey long time to increase crop yields. Those are the facts. Proved, empirical, known. :) Sure, you are going to say that in the 'real world', which is according to you is somehow different to the thousands of square kilometers of greenhouses used globally things will be different. But do you have any kind of evidence that that is so?
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost