Definitely not my intention to mislead. I think there is not enough detail to say either way. Discussions like these aren't scientific discussions, not even close. In general I can see both of your point of views.Matteo V wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:14 pm
Thank you for responding as it helps to have a scientist's viewpoint. But by you referencing one of my posts, but quoting another of my posts, you are at least confusing, or at most intentionally misdirecting.
Please let me know if, from the view of a scientist (you), my below response to Greenturtle is in error, or if you agree with my statement.
In a non-scientific debate Green could argue that by looking at the overwhelming evidence presented by scientists it is plain to see that we have an impact, and for us who aren't specialists at climatology it makes little sense to discuss details. Obviously part of the issue is that a climatologist does work in details and provide part of the overall picture. If one of those parts fail, it MAY (not necessarily) falsify the model. The most common path is that the model is adjusted as most of these details aren't significant enough to fully invalidate the model.
A model is a simplified version of reality that does a job of predicting. If I say given all the variables the model predicts a future value of 10 and the future value ends up being 9, then it does not mean my model is wrong it means we need to look at how the model was inaccurate, and how we can improve. The way climatology works is that our models improve radically with available data, and maturation of models. This development is has been radical in the last decade.
When that is said, our perception usually is the big picture as the models are refined the predictions improve and our overall big picture becomes more correct. Not sure if that explains how I think you both are right? I do agree with Green makes little sense for us to argue details on the models because neither of us are climatologists, because MM's "evidence" / of points of contention supplied are usually nonsense and really not worth anyone's time. I do agree that a climate scientist would normally not argue just big picture. On the other side one of the first checks you put on a project is face validity which is basically a heuristic sense to see if the model is measuring what it is supposed to measure.
I guess that was a pretty long answer to your question.