snafu Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Are you insinuating that you think the majority of the 97% are falsifying their data? And I'd like to suggest a topic, too (and yes, I'm sure it's been discussed already somewhere in these 140 pages. That doesn't make it any less pertinent to the discussion): The ten hottest years on record. What do we suppose this data means? Was it, too, falsified? Nothing a good volcano can't fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 To be fair, I don't see much scientific value in talking about how snowstorms mean climate change is a hoax, either, but that's what the last page and a half were loaded with. In fact, you'd expect global warming to result in more snow in the mid-Atlantic states, since global warming would weaken (on average) the seasonal high pressure dome that squats over the center of the continent during the winter. Weaker Arctic high-pressure ridges in the midwest mean nor'easters track further west, and hit the mid-Atlantic rather than New England and the Maritimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Sure. So long as we also get to remove the billions of dollars that oil companies spend to pump out misinformation and denial reports. Happy to do it if it were in my power. Perhaps they wouldn't have to spend all that money if they didn't have to defend themselves from wealthy groups stupid enough to push a false narrative that 97% of an unknown group agree on something they can't prove. And with regard to convincing you...what say you to the fact that the 10 hottest years in modern history all came within the past 15 years? I'd say that would be pretty impressive if the planet was created, y'know, 20 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 I appreciate the link and the further explanation. What I'd like to know is this: What evidence exists that the "theory" of climate change, as you put it, was found to be false? What peer-reviewed (or at least reasonably unbiased and fact-based) reports exist claiming that the science on global warming has been disproven? If I have missed it in this thread, forgive me. I admittedly have not read all 140 pages of discussion and am genuinely curious to know why several people here are of this opinion. Thanks. Peer review only means somebody else looked it. It doesn't mean it is right. Einstein published over 300 papers of which only 1 was peer reviewed. Claude Shannon, the father of information theory, published in the Bell system journal (not peer reviewed). His paper, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, would not get published in any journal today due to its length. You would be hard pressed to find 5 papers in the last century that have had as profound an effect. I posted this a few pages back. In true Popper fashion it compares the prediction(s) with what has happened. Reality. Please note the important thing is the rate of change. The models are warming 2 to 3 times faster than reality. This isn't the only thing wrong, it just happens to be one of the more obvious. If the model fails to match reality then the theory is wrong. It is that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 If the model fails to match reality then the theory is wrong. It is that simple. If the model fails to match reality then the model is wrong. The main problem of taking models at face value is that they're models...which means that, by definition, they don't replicate reality, merely approximate it. Models are best used to investigate the behavior of certain, specific aspects of a system over a limited domain. They are worst-used to predict long-term overall behavior over the entirety of a domain, as is done with climate models. That may not mean the theory is wrong - it may mean the model doesn't accurately represent the theory, or the theory is simply incomplete. Outside climate change, an excellent example of the failure of models is the 2008 financial collapse: not one financial model predicted it accurately, because not one of the models could comfortably handle the "black swan" confluence of edge cases that ended up causing the crisis. The weird thing is that people who accept the inexact nature of the financial models inherent in their complexity swear by the exactness of climate models despite their complexity. That's probably the biggest problem with climate science right now - not that the models are bad, but that they are so egregiously misused and misrepresented that they're no longer scientific tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 The main problem of taking models at face value is that they're models...which means that, by definition, they don't replicate reality, merely approximate it. That is what error bars are for. If your model is useful reality will fall inside the error bars. Models are best used to investigate the behavior of certain, specific aspects of a system over a limited domain. They are worst-used to predict long-term overall behavior over the entirety of a domain, as is done with climate models. Tom ... this is just meaningless. That may not mean the theory is wrong - it may mean the model doesn't accurately represent the theory, or the theory is simply incomplete. Doesn't matter. Concerning climate models, even if the theory were perfect there is no way to calculate the results from first principles (see Navier–Stokes). On top of that climate is nonlinear and chaotic. Therefore the output is highly sensitive to small changes in initial conditions. Since climate data is so sparse we can't even get the initial conditions correct. If you can't make a prediction you can't test the theory. Outside climate change, an excellent example of the failure of models is the 2008 financial collapse: not one financial model predicted it accurately, because not one of the models could comfortably handle the "black swan" confluence of edge cases that ended up causing the crisis. The financial models are very much like climate models. They are nothing more that sophisticated curve fit models. IOW, they are statistical models that have no predictive power for out of sample data. Therefore "black swan" (out of sample data) always produces unpredictable results. The weird thing is that people who accept the inexact nature of the financial models inherent in their complexity swear by the exactness of climate models despite their complexity. That's probably the biggest problem with climate science right now - not that the models are bad, but that they are so egregiously misused and misrepresented that they're no longer scientific tools. It isn't the complexity, semiconductor manufacturers have very complex physical models based on first principles that work very well. They also have tons of data to validate their models. The climate models are primarily statistical models. They are tuned (curve fit) to mimic past climate. Various tuning’s include aerosols, clouds, water vapor, and albedo. The reality is that we have little to no data to start with. For example, we have no idea the volume or distribution of aerosols from the 70’s. Clouds, even if we had detailed data, are too small to model due to model grid size. Another issue which Dr. Pat Frank expands on is error propagation which is well worth a listen. (43 minutes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Tom ... this is just meaningless. No, it's not. The best use of a model is to investigate specific properties of a system. The worst use is to investigate an ENTIRE system. That derives directly from models being approximations of reality. How is that meaningless? Doesn't matter. Concerning climate models, even if the theory were perfect there is no way to calculate the results from first principles (see Navier–Stokes). On top of that climate is nonlinear and chaotic. Therefore the output is highly sensitive to small changes in initial conditions. Since climate data is so sparse we can't even get the initial conditions correct. If you can't make a prediction you can't test the theory. That's just bull ****. A valid model isn't required to be analytical (I've written a few), nor are they required to specifically be deterministic. One fine example is the models the Navy uses for mission planning: they don't calculate from first principles (radar geometry, for example, is heavily abstracted), and they're highly sensitive to initial conditions and chaotic and nonlinear factors (which is why they run the models as a Monte Carlo simulation). Another good example: Navier-Stokes equation, which I've helped write models for in grad school. Another example: the three-body problem, which is non-linear, chaotic, and can be modeled by any competent high-schooler. Another example: the dispersal of chemical weapons (google SCIPUFF.) The real problems with climate models are, again, in usage: people insist on treating them as deterministic when they're not, and people insist on choosing the most convenient baseline for their a priori assumptions. That doesn't mean the models suck, or the theory behind them is wrong, or that they're useless because of a paucity of baseline data. What it does mean is that their usage is limited to investigating the climate only in a limited sense - exactly what I said above that you insist makes no sense. It isn't the complexity, semiconductor manufacturers have very complex physical models based on first principles that work very well. They also have tons of data to validate their models. We're just using "complexity" in different senses. Fact is, we're pretty much saying the same thing: climate models abstract the complexity of the system away, and in doing so become non-deterministic (as opposed to semiconductor models, which are deterministic.) I was inexact; I should have specified the complexity of the system, rather than the model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 AND YET, ENVIRONMENTALISTS OPPOSE IT: Thanks to Shale, America Is the Global Green Leader. Makes you question their real motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 HE’S BAAACK! You may have heard that Gore is coming out soon with a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth, and The Independent reports that on a recent visit to London Gore blamed climate change for. . . Brexit! Now if this is true it would be one more reason to be in favor of global warming, but this is just another example of the non-falsifiability of climate change, and a measure of the desperation of the climatistas. The article has a number of Gore-howls that deserve a little commentary: Mr Gore, whose new film An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power is due out in the UK in August, told an audience at the Advertising Week Europe event in London: “This collision between the power of industrial civilization and the surprising fragility of the Earth’s ecosystem now poses a great danger that could even threaten the future of human civilization itself. Now, you can count me among the people who think “industrial civilization” is the greatest achievement of humanity, as it has enabled a vast increase in lifespan, and empowered billions of people to emerge from abject poverty. And the use of hydrocarbon energy on a mass scale was the key ingredient in this progress. Even if you credit the climate change hypothesis, the tradeoffs are, and will remain overwhelmingly positive. But from here Gore repeats the claim that climate change is responsible for the civil war in Syria (as though everyone in the Middle East got along just fine before climate change showed up an started shouting “allahu akbar!”). This claim is especially fun: “One of the lines of investigation [scientists] have been pursuing has led them to the conclusion that significant areas of the Middle East and North Africa are in danger of becoming uninhabitable.” Funny how Israel is never mentioned as one of the areas at risk of becoming “uninhabitable.” Wonder why that might be? I’m really starting to think that the electoral college is not merely a clever invention of the founders, but most likely an act of Divine Providence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 on a recent visit to London Gore blamed climate change for. . . Brexit! ...da !@#$? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 (edited) One of the lines of investigation [scientists] have been pursuing has led them to the conclusion that significant areas of the Middle East and North Africa are in danger of becoming uninhabitable.” Uh....does he mean like they have been for the last several million years? Show me the data behind the 97%, please. He's seen that written in headlines at least 97 times in the past ten years, therefore it is scientific truth. Edited March 28, 2017 by KD in CA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Uh....does he mean like they have been for the last several million years? He's seen that written in headlines at least 97 times in the past ten years, therefore it is scientific truth. SICK BURNS!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richstadiumowner Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 There's really no sense in trying to debate someone over a topic about which 97% of scientists are in agreement. I simply don't understand how it can be so easy for so many people to completely disavow a near 100% consensus by scientists that something is a fact. Sounds like: 97% chance Hillary wins 99.97 % voter turnout in 2014 North Korea election Kim Jung Un wins 100% of vote Kim Jung Il wins 100% of the vote https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES: Trump moves decisively to wipe out Obama’s climate-change record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 There's really no sense in trying to debate someone over a topic about which 97% of 75 scientists are in agreement. fixed based on the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 Nothing a good volcano can't fix. Absolutely! They're Mother Nature's natural sun screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES: Trump moves decisively to wipe out Obama’s climate-change record. I love the hysterics people are in over Trump overturning crap Obama enacted 7 years into his Presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Claim: “Trump may have just signed a death warrant for our planet” People on the left frequently mock conservatives for being people of faith and believing in God. Yet if you listen to leading voices from the Progressive community, you would think we’re living in the end times. Trump recently rolled back some of Obama’s policies on climate change and has also taken action to roll back regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. In response, Van Jones wrote this for CNN: Van Jones: Trump may have signed Earth’s death warrant As usual, Donald Trump is completely upside down on the facts. In 2015, President Barack Obama created the Clean Power Plan to slow climate disruption. It was the first action ever taken by the US government to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants. (more…) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richstadiumowner Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 The Climate Alarmists would be chucking virgins into volcanoes if the guy that invented the internet told them to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 No, it's not. The best use of a model is to investigate specific properties of a system. The worst use is to investigate an ENTIRE system. That derives directly from models being approximations of reality. How is that meaningless? The best use of a model is to take pictures of them with little to nothing on and make a "swimsuit" issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts