patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

1 - checkout https://www.skepticalscience.com/ and look at the most used climate myths from deniers on the Internet. All debunked.
2 - It's a projection range of what will happen based on what is known. I can also say where the earth will be 1 year from now based on known physics. This is not blind speculation.
3 - journalists are not scientists. Show me a scientific paper announcing alarmist scenario by 1990.
4 - The theory is the general fact that CO2 generated by humans changes the climate. There are many models that differ on how they represent different phenomenons and the assumptions made. They are matched against known historic reality and adjusted. Not sure what's confusing about that.

1 I get that it is a religion to you. Journalists were reporting on the science. All of the predictions failed to materialize. ie, no climate refugees, plenty of polar bears. It is your side that has been debunked and I have many videos made by former colleagues who are disgusted by how the science has been hijacked because it is a "gravy train".
2 Like I have said to many others, predictive theory is the way to prove science, this predictive theory has failed, therefore I reject your future predictions.
3 I can assure you that I am not confused.

Forgot one of your points. You don't want to go there, there are tons of articles listing the early predictions.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

Malcolm says

3 I can assure you that I am not confused.

I can see that you think you are not confused.

Malcolm says

theory is the way to prove science, this predictive theory has failed, therefore I reject your future predictions.

Seriously? Have you looked at the temp/ice levels graphs posted above on this thread? I guess not.
If you don't see a trend, you are either very dishonest or you need new glasses.

You are not certainly not doing predictive science yourself. The "no warming" crowd failed, and is failing ever more as years go by.

Malcolm says

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

This is not an industry and science is generally not making predictions, it models reality. And models get refined.
United Nations... Pentagon.... seriously? Again show me specific scientific papers making crazy predictions.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's a projection range of what will happen based on what is known

You do know that chaotic systems like weather are almost impossible to model ?
Don't you?

Heraclitusstudent says

Seriously? Have you looked at the temp/ice levels graphs posted above on this thread?

2 degrees and a foot are NOT catastrophic and alarmist models do NOT predict the future.

Heraclitusstudent says

show me specific scientific papers making crazy predictions.

Michael Mann s hockey stick.

According to his theory the temp should be several degrees hotter and asymptotically heading for hell!
But instead the temp is going down.

Onvacation says

You do know that chaotic systems

Weather is chaotic. Climate is not necessarily. Equating the two is a basic misunderstanding of some of the deniers. When they make such claims, they betray massive ignorance.


Onvacation says

2 degrees and a foot are NOT catastrophic

Two degrees and a foot are quantifiable measures that scientists use. Catastrophic is a rhetorical term that you use either because you are too lazy to quantify things or you are purposefully making vague statements so that you can shift around according to the argument at hand.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Weather is chaotic. Climate is not necessarily. Equating the two is a basic misunderstanding of some of the deniers. When they make such claims, they betray massive ignorance.

Are You not aware of the butterfly in China theory?
Climate is the history of weather and is as chaotic as weather.
Religious people call anyone that won't accept their dogma "ignorant deniers". Malcolm is right.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Catastrophic is a rhetorical term that you use either because you are too lazy to quantify things or you are purposefully making vague statements so that you can shift around according to the argument at hand.

No. Catastrophe is what the alarmist tell children will happen if they don't worship at the alter of global warming.
I am just injecting some reality into the message of doom.

Onvacation says

Are You not aware of the butterfly in China theory?

I've been aware of it since the early 90s, when I read Gleick's book. I also encountered it in a few graduate level courses. That is in reference to weather, not climate. Chaos theory can be seen from only a few nonlinear equations, so I'm sure that some climate models are chaotic. However, a simple one does not have to be. That is why I wrote that climate models are not necessarily chaotic. The longer the modeling term is, the less relevant the chaotic terms are. Trying to be accurate in the short term requires better modelling chaotic things like how many forest fires are their going to be next year or what year is a specific glacier going to melt.
Year to year variations are not predictable by climate models. That is why the whole argument about 0.04 degrees from one year to the next not being significant was meaningless. Even a decade is harder to predict for various reasons. This is all explained here: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

That is why I wrote that climate models are not necessarily chaotic.

Not necessarily?
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Chaos theory can be seen from only a few nonlinear equations, so I'm sure that some climate models are chaotic. However, a simple one does not have to be.

Do you really think a chaotic non linear system like climate can really be predicted with a "simple" model?
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Even a decade is harder to predict for various reasons. This is all explained here: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

So why did the temp stop rising even though the models predicted exponential rise?

Onvacation says

Do you really think a chaotic non linear system like climate can really be predicted with a "simple" model?

It depends on what the goals of the model are. Do you still insist that climate and weather are the same? If not, what do you think the difference is?
Onvacation says

So why did the temp stop rising even though the models predicted exponential rise?

It's covered in the article. Sometimes it's easier to predict short term (weather) and sometimes it's easier to predict longer term and trends (climate). I believe that quantifying longer term change is complicated more so by predicting emissions than response, but that's an educated guess and not backed by experience or data.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Do you still insist that climate and weather are the same? If not, what do you think the difference is?

Weather is what we have every day. Climate is the history of weather. Both are constantly changing.
Do you have a better definition?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Onvacation says

So why did the temp stop rising even though the models predicted exponential rise?

It's covered in the article.

Condense it for me.FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

that's an educated guess and not backed by experience or data.

I see.

Onvacation says

Weather is what we have every day. Climate is the history of weather.

Climate is a statistical characterization of weather over time. By analogy, if you flip a coin 1000 times, climate tells you that you will get about 500 heads. Weather tells you what each flip is. Yes, the history of weather can be used to calculate climate, but if you know climate, you can not calculate weather. Same holds for coin flips.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Climate is a statistical characterization of weather over time.

Are you saying that climate is the history of weather?

Onvacation says

Are you saying that climate is the history of weather?

No. A history of weather is a history of weather.

Climate is a statistical characterization of weather. This isn't hard. I gave you a coin flip analogy. Here is a stock analogy. You can predict roughly that stocks values increase roughly exponentially with a long term annual return of 6-8%. Over a very long period, you can predict what the average of a bunch of stocks will return. This allows for things like planning for retirement. Being able to plan for retirement does not mean that you can predict the daily returns on stocks over a 30 yr period. Similarly, any given year might return something far outside of that range. Do you understand that?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Over a very long period, you can predict what the average of a bunch of stocks will return. This allows for things like planning for retirement. Being able to plan for retirement does not mean that you can predict the daily returns on stocks over a 30 yr period. Similarly, any given year might return something far outside of that range. Do you understand that?

According to climate "scientist", the hundreds of billions they wanted for the Paris Accords would not have done anything anyway. According to them by 2100 we get less than 2/10 of ONE degree "cooling" at the cost of TRILLIONS over a century, if we kept up with the accords.

Seems like if climate scientist are correct, we really can't change much with our current technology.

Deniers are typically conspiracy theorists. They believe that climate change due to CO2 is a government conspiracy.

Most deniers also believe in other conspiracies, such as 9-11 was an inside job, Sandy Hook was faked, etc. It's a waste of time trying to change the mind of someone who doesn't think rationally.

anon_13e7f says

Deniers are typically conspiracy theorists. They believe that climate change due to CO2 is a government conspiracy.

Most people aren't deniers, but there are a large category of skeptics who ask very good questions that for some reason get ignored by the Climate Change cult.

Onvacation says

2 degrees and a foot are NOT catastrophic and alarmist models do NOT predict the future.

Why are you talking of 2 degrees?
We will get 3, 4, 5...10 degrees... etc... it doesn't stop until WE stop.

Onvacation says

Michael Mann s hockey stick.

Did he mention this in a scientific paper? Or while trying to convey the point that this is serious shit that ought to be taken seriously?
And btw it looks more and more hockey-sticky.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

I gave you a coin flip analogy.

a coin flip is simple to model. The climate is virtually impossible to model. Too many variables, chaotic, and too many unquantified feedback mechanisms.

Onvacation says

You do know that chaotic systems like weather are almost impossible to model ?
Don't you?

Now you show how far out of your depth you really are.
Do you know that a 3 bodies system in the gravity theory is already a chaotic system?
By your argument, we can't predict the path of this planet or a satellite in the solar system.
The reality is of course that this is described down to the picosecond by the equations of gravity.

Now if you take the climate, which is supposed to stay constant (quite a chaotic system) at human time scale, and you add large quantities of heat year after year after year, what is the result? You can't tell because "it's chaotic"? What kind of moronic argument is that?

This is the typical type of specious argument that we get from the new obscurantists. "You can't possibly know anything" they tell us. "It's too complex!"
The reality of course is that they don't WANT to know. They want to keep their heads deep in the sand and they want everyone to do the same.
Because - My God - following that train of thoughts is way to painful to contemplate.

Heraclitusstudent says

Because - My God - following that train of thoughts is way to painful to contemplate.

thanks for making the point that even believers of God like you can still be caught up in the global warming alarmist cult.

Back to the original questions:Onvacation says

What is the ideal temp for human habitation?

I think a little warmer (1 or 2 degrees like during the Roman warming period)and a little more co2 would be good for life on earth. Unfortunately it looks like the current warming is peaking out and the world is heading into a cooling trend.

Time will show whether we are getting warmer or colder.

I have faith in humanity and think we will adapt to whatever the ever changing climate throws at us.

What do you think the ideal temp for human habitation on earth is?

Onvacation says

What do you think the ideal temp for human habitation on earth is?

Already answered. Repeating the same questions over and over does nothing to reassure us about your mental health.
Since we have proven the greenhouse effect takes place, where do you think the energy is going and what will make it miraculously go away?

Onvacation says

a coin flip is simple to model.

Really? Why don't you predict the outcome of 20 coin flips. Tell us the sequence of heads and tails that will result. Then do the experiment and let us know how you do.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Why don't you predict the outcome of 20 coin flips.

That's easy. They will not all be heads. And not all be tails. Except one time out of 1,048,576, on average.

Onvacation says

What do you think the ideal temp for human habitation on earth is?

Holy crap lol

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Really? Why don't you predict the outcome of 20 coin flips. Tell us the sequence of heads and tails that will result. Then do the experiment and let us know how you do.

I said a coin toss was simple to model. I didn't say the model could predict.
The climate is extremely difficult to model, some would say impossible, and to predict accurately based on an inaccurate model; the best you can hope for is a toss of the coin.

errc says

Onvacation says

What do you think the ideal temp for human habitation on earth is?

Holy crap lol

How hot is "holy crap"?

Onvacation says

I said a coin toss was simple to model. I didn't say the model could predict.

Do you admit that it is very difficult to accurately predict the sequence, but easier to predict the number of heads for a given number of tosses? In fact over the long term, the prediction becomes very accurate.

Goran_K says

anon_13e7f says

Deniers are typically conspiracy theorists. They believe that climate change due to CO2 is a government conspiracy.

Most people aren't deniers, but there are a large category of skeptics who ask very good questions that for some reason get ignored by the Climate Change cult.

Exactly..

Skeptics don't drink the kool-aid and question statements not supported by true data, and don't rely on fudged models that are designed with a specific endpoint in mind.

Heraclitusstudent says

Since we have proven the greenhouse effect takes place,

How will the "alarmists" stop water vapor from being created? Is there a model for that?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Do you admit that it is very difficult to accurately predict the sequence, but easier to predict the number of heads for a given number of tosses? In fact over the long term, the prediction becomes very accurate.

How does flipping a coin have anything to do with predicting the future?
Never mind, I get it. The future can't be predicted.

We can hope for the best and prepare for the worst but we have a much better chance of predicting the weather 2 weeks from now than the climate 2 decades from now. Any predictions on February 1 weather? You're guessing.

Now why wont anyone, besides dan from Florida, make a statement on what earth's ideal temp should be?

I say a couple of degrees warmer like the Roman warming period.

If you can't say what would be good how can you say warming is bad?

Flipping a coin illustrates the difference between a statistical characterization of results and a sequence of events.
The number of heads in a group of coin flips and the average weather (climate) represent a statistical characterization of a series of events. The actual sequence, which is a list of coin flips or a series of daily weather events is the sequence. The statistical characterization is easier to predict than the sequence. If you don't understand this, then neither of us will learn anything from each other, so I'm pulling the plug on my half of this conversation. If you do understand it, then you will have to admit that failure to predict weather does not mean that we cannot predict climate. It is simply easier to predict climate than weather.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Flipping a coin illustrates the difference between a statistical characterization of results and a sequence of events.

Flip a coin, heads. Flip it again, tails. It's still a flip of a coin. Can you say a thousand coin flips will turn out to be evenly distributed? How many coins do you have to flip before FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

The statistical characterization is easier to predict than the sequence.

Ultimately it's a flip of the coin. Easy to model as there is one binary variable. Heads or tails.
The weather, and thus the climate, has countless multi-valued variables, and unknown feedback effects.

Would you say someone was naive to think they could accurately predict how many heads they will turn out of 1,000,000 flips of a coin? What makes you think anyone can create a model to predict climate a century, a decade, or even 5 years from now?

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

But saying that you cannot predict all of the coin flip results does not mean you cannot predict the number of heads. Same goes for the climate.

Onvacation says

What makes you think anyone can create a model to predict climate a century, a decade, or even 5 years from now?

It's nothing real world like flipping a coin
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

You still don't see to understand statistics,

Just because you are on the steep part of some natural cycle does not mean it's the asymptote of an exponential phenomenon. Hope you get the reference.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

have a nice day.

Thank you very much. You too.