patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

Let's all bet the future of mankind that models happen to be wrong

It's not a bet. The model's that have been represented have been provably wrong. Al Gore has been provably wrong, over and over and over again.

Which model/scientist/estimates would you suggest I look at? I have never found an intellectually honest representation of the problem. As I mentioned earlier, this includes 3 advanced college courses on the subject (albeit from 18 years ago).

Right wing doublespeak.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah. Let's all bet the future of mankind that models happen to be wrong in the way you hope for.

Or according to environmentalist eschatonics.

Let me know of a complex model on climate that made a roughly accurate prediction.

If the climate isn't the weather, and we are bad at predicting the weather 3 days out...
www.youtube.com/embed/8oJzfmWO3CU

We're always 3 minutes to midnight according to some learned people somewhere.

CBOEtrader says

The model's that have been represented have been provably wrong.

BS they have been mostly correct. The predictions of warming have been realized as proved by the many graphs in this thread. Just saying "provably wrong" doesn't make it so.
Plus the models have been refined constantly over decades, so that it is hard to find of BIG effects that they are missing. Which is why it is preposterous to dismiss the threat from the back of the hand.

CBOEtrader says

source?

Start by all the graphs posted on this thread.
If you don't see a trend, you either need new glasses or a new moral compass.

Do any of true believers donate to any foundations dedicated to AGW-abating activities? If not, why not?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Let me know of a complex model on climate that made a roughly accurate prediction.

Models are not made to make predictions. Models are made to project a set of concurrent effects over time and analyses the dependencies between vars.
Models certainly don't NEED to be exactly accurate.
A range from 2-5 degrees in 100 years already claims eloquently the need for action.
A range of 4-10 degrees in 200 years describes catastrophic events.

Keep in mind 200 years is an instant in the history of mankind.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Let me know of a complex model on climate that made a roughly accurate prediction.

They cant. However, even if they could do this in hindsight, this wouldn't be good enough. From hundreds of models, at least one would have accidentally guessed correctly. The reasoning and forward predictions of the model would also have to be accurate.

The only scientific approach is first to separate what we know from what we don't know.

We DONT KNOW the effects of CO2 increases on past temperature, MUSH LESS its precise effects on future temperatures. We do know CO2 is increasing.

We DONT KNOW how many fossil fuels we will burn in the future, nor can we accurately model the specific correlation between burning fossil fuels and the increase in CO2. We do know there is a correlation, but we cant precisely measure it.

We DO KNOW that humans, en masse, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere will have unnatural consequences on the earth. We DO KNOW there is finite reserves of fossil fuels. We can therefore conclude that we need to allow the free market to develop a sustainable solution to this problem.

We also know that the politicians who suggest they know more than they actually know, are doing so for power and control purposes.

Pulling out of the Paris accords was absolutely the right move.

Another Ice Age? - Time Magazine, 1974

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have...

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
It was the same shit, in reverse. "Decades of Cooling" resulted in "more extreme weather", blamed for both floods and drought! And shucks, "Decades of Warming" are predicted to result in both floods and drought. Not mentioned is the huge areas of the Canadian Shield and Siberia open for agriculture, and the tree line retreating.

Climate Alarmists, regardless of Hot or Cold, seem to think sometime 1850-1900 was the magical perfect stasis moment, and any difference in "Global Temperature Averages" will be like Emperor Ming the Merciless playing with his disaster gun.



Believe the Modellers! Believe extrapolations!

TwoScoopsPlissken says

If the climate isn't the weather, and we are bad at predicting the weather 3 days out...

Quite frankly a trollish statement I would expect from Piggy more than you.
Aggregates are obviously far easier to predict as you smooth out local irregularities. You can predict the climate next year over the planet to be the same as this year within a few percents.

Global Warming will also cause Hot Hail and Unpredicted Solar Eclipses.
www.youtube.com/embed/Xfc_CrwiE4Y

Heraclitusstudent says

BS they have been mostly correct.

Total nonsense. You, sir, are just plain wrong.

anon_4480e says

Its a legit question. If the average of temp change is less than the average precision of the device, the obvious conclusion is the temperature change isn't statistically significant.

You've got to be kidding.

Say a measure is imprecise. The measurements are going to be a normal distribution of imprecise values over a large number of measurements. And guess what ? The average of all those imprecise measurements is going to work out to be the actual true average.

(if you don't get this - it's because the imprecise high measurements offset the imprecise low measurements)

anon_4480e says

If the average of temp change is less than the average precision of the device, the obvious conclusion is the temperature change isn't statistically significant.

It's pretty clear that you don't know the difference between precision and accuracy. In addition to that, the accuracy of a mean is better than the average accuracy of each measurement device. Finally, whether or not 2016 was warmer than 2015 has no bearing on whether the earth is on a long term warming trend. There are so many holes with this argument, it is absurd.

anon_08dee says

(if you don't get this - it's because the imprecise high measurements offset the imprecise low measurements)

You are missing the point of what a RANGE of accuracy within statistics means. I'd suggest not commenting when you are obviously weak at statistics.

anon_61c8a says

There are so many holes with this argument, it is absurd.

Then why are you making it? The point is that suggesting a .4 degrees warming over a period that has a .8 degree variation of accuracy IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

It is fully within the range of possible errors, and therefore you CAN NOT SUGGEST THAT THE CONCLUSION IS STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

But yes, this doesn't even count the absurdity of measuring worldwide temperatures, or even annual temperatures changes at a specific location over a timeframe that matters to our earth. Our technology and scientific prowess hasnt been there long enough to make this statement.

I'd love for you to SHOW ME how scientists actually measure worldwide temperatures in a way that makes me wrong.

I am not pretending to be a scientist. I am however, quite experienced with statistical modeling and the errors of human hubris.

anon_61c8a says

In addition to that, the accuracy of a mean is better than the average accuracy of each measurement device.

In fact, if N is large enough, that is as N (the number of measurements) increases, the mean approaches the true average regardless of the precision, unless the precision is skewed. But even that probably wouldn't matter because we are talking about change in temperature. That is, last years measurements would have been skewed too.

CBOEtrader says

I am not pretending to be a scientist. I am however, quite experienced with statistical modeling and the errors of human hubris.

Are you saying something to the effect, "I'm sometimes an idiot, so therefore all of the scientists must be idiots ?"


CBOEtrader says

this doesn't even count the absurdity of measuring worldwide temperatures

IT just means they have a tremendous amount of data. You must understand that the larger the sample size, the more accurate the average measurement will be. Especially when you're talking about change. Quantifying a change. It's really very simple.

CBOEtrader says

It is fully within the range of possible errors, and therefore you CAN NOT SUGGEST THAT THE CONCLUSION IS STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

You're not taking in to account N, the number of measurements. The larger N is, the smaller the possible range of possible error (for the overall average). This is regardless of the precision of the measurements.

It's okay, statistics is a difficult subject for a lot of people. anon_08dee did a superb job of explaining it above.

CO2 increased by 50%, from ~270ppm to 400ppm in a century, and the temp increased a lousy ~1C (not even going into the sensitivity of measurement debate).

Why then are these modelers feeling justified that a 25% increase from 400ppm to 500pm is going to make temperatures jump several degrees Celsius?

Heraclitusstudent says

Models are not made to make predictions.

Do you really believe this?

Heraclitusstudent says

Aggregates are obviously far easier to predict as you smooth out local irregularities. You can predict the climate next year over the planet to be the same as this year within a few percents.

What would you use to predict with?

anon_7c0c9 says

Earth's volume of unbound carbon isn't too difficult to look up. Neither is the approximate volume of free oxygen in the atmosphere

So you believe that all the oxygen in the air CAN combine with carbon to eliminate all of the atmosphere's oxygen? Please share how the chemical reaction would work?

anon_7c0c9 says

Except for the fact there is already an exponential increase in CO2 and Temperature and Ice loss.

No there is not. Last years temp was lower than the year before which was "the hottest year ever", by 0.04 degrees. By noaa's own data the temperature is NOT rising at all. It's falling.

marcus says

CBOEtrader says

It is fully within the range of possible errors, and therefore you CAN NOT SUGGEST THAT THE CONCLUSION IS STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

You're not taking in to account N, the number of measurements. The larger N is, the smaller the possible range of possible error (for the overall average). This is regardless of the precision of the measurements.

It's okay, statistics is a difficult subject for a lot of people. anon_08dee did a superb job of explaining it above.

You are complete missing the point but I expect that of a troll like yourself.

anon_08dee says

Say a measure is imprecise. The measurements are going to be a normal distribution of imprecise values over a large number of measurements. And guess what ? The average of all those imprecise measurements is going to work out to be the actual true average.

(if you don't get this - it's because the imprecise high measurements offset the imprecise low measurements)

Only when you are measuring the same thing over and over. Like the length of an individual earthworm. Take enough measurements and your average will be the true length of the earhworm.
A bunch of temp readings made by sailors with buckets and thermometers in diverse places at diverse times is not going to average out to the correct worldwide average temperature within a couple of hundredths of one degree.
(I know sailors no longer use buckets they now measure cooling water intake temps which is much more accurate. )

I'll be back soon for a summary of answers to my questions.

Onvacation says

No there is not. Last years temp was lower than the year before which was "the hottest year ever", by 0.04 degrees. By noaa's own data the temperature is NOT rising at all. It's falling.

The value of stocks grows exponentially. If the value falls year over year, it does not mean that stocks are not rising exponentially over the long term. It just means that there is a short term fluctuation that was greater than the long term trend. This is a very simple concept. It applies to the global temperature too. Stop obsessing over each year over year change. There will be some years that are colder than the previous year. That does not disprove a long term trend of temperature increases. It is expected. It is consistent with AGW theory. You keep pretending that it is inconsistent. Every time you do so, you betray your own ignorance and make people wonder if you are serious and ignorant or just happily trolling away.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

CO2 increased by 50%, from ~270ppm to 400ppm in a century, and the temp increased a lousy ~1C (not even going into the sensitivity of measurement debate).

Do you think that we are at steady state? Higher CO2 concentrations increase the net heat flux. Heat flux is not proportional to temperature. One has to integrate heat flux over time to get an increase in temperature.
To do a very simple estimation, you could assume that the CO2 was the average of 270 and 400 for a year, and this increase led to a 1 oC rise. So, you get an average increase of 65 ppm over 100 yrs leading to a rise of 1 oC. Now, if it rises to 500 over the next 100 yrs, we can assume a level of 450, which is 180 ppm over the baseline. This is 3 times as high as 65 ppm, so one might estimate another 3oC rise if we are far from steady state.

First, I don't believe the Earth has a "Steady State", it fluctuates between being an iceball and a totally (inc. Poles) ice-free world. And then there are fluctuations, and cycles within cycles. We don't have any direct measurements for any other time than the past ~130 years or so, and proxies are not a direct measurement (as the Northern Hemisphere Tree Ring problem demonstrates, among others).

I could also assume that CO2 has a logarithmic effect, that it takes ever larger and larger doses of CO2 to produce temperature changes. Assuming 270ppm as a base and an increase of 50% = ~1C change. It could be that going from 400ppm to 600ppm might only bring a ~0.50C change.

Meanwhile, snowing in Florida for the first time in 28 years.
http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/01/03/nws-freezing-rain-could-transition-into-light-snow/998935001/

TwoScoopsPlissken says

First, I don't believe the Earth has a "Steady State",

The real question is 'How long would it take to achieve a new steady state if their was a sudden change to the CO2 level'? Turns out that the answer is about 5 yrs. We went through this a while ago. I was surprised it was that short. Here's a PDF summary of an article by the same author showing that calculation: http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pres/Heat_capacityAGUfm06W.pdf
You know that snowing in FL is irrelevant, right? A search for heat wave promptly resulted in various news stories of record heat in Alaska, SoCal, and Australia:
http://juneauempire.com/local/news/2017-12-08/december-heat-wave-warmest-73-years-juneau https://www.scpr.org/news/2017/12/29/79371/socal-s-winter-heat-wave-breaks-records/ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-19/nsw-hot-weather-boils-with-penrith-record/9273888 http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/story/5121110/heat-beaters-flock-to-the-flicks-as-record-run-sets-in/
Note that there were no self congratulatory smug posts from people who believe in AGW based on these heat events. It's ridiculous, just like your post about FL.



TwoScoopsPlissken says

I could also assume that CO2 has a logarithmic effect

Please explain why this would be a good assumption.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Meanwhile, snowing in Florida for the first time in 28 years.

Wind on earth is driven by a heat engine. A hotter earth will create a stronger jet stream which will move polar weather further south.

This has been explained to the denialists about a billion times yet for the next billion years they will continue to point to cold weather as some sort of disproof of global warming.

CBOEtrader says

You are complete missing the point but I expect that of a troll like yourself.

My intent is not to troll, although I will admit some unnecessary condescension - which I heard you doing to others higher up in the thread.

I might be wrong that you're making a silly mistake in your thinking, but if so, can you explain it please ? Exactly what does the .8 degree variation in measurement mean. What does the range of accuracy mean ? Can you explain it to me broken down all the way so I can please understand what I'm missing.

What it seems like, is that you're making an argument like this. "It's ridiculous to say that the average family has 2.4 children, because every family has an integer number of children and therefore the we can not state an average that has an accuracy of less than plus or minus 1." Of course it's true that nobody has 2.4 children, but that does not mean that it's not an extremely accurate average.

Not a perfect analogy, but the point is, that we didn't need people having 2.39 and 2.41 children in order to get a very accurate average of 2.4. In fact the closet readings we got were 2 and 3, and some of our readings were farther way, like 0 and 7, and yet the 2.4, to the nearest tenth is very accurate.

If every family somehow had 2.4 children each, there would be the same number of children out there !

As for significance testing, whether an increase is significant at say a 5 percent level, is all about what the probability is that a sample of size N would have a mean that is that much above the previous years mean. The larger N is, the narrower the distribution of mean values will be, that is the the distribution of all theoretical sample means for samples of size N has a narrower distribution when N is large.

Btw, is it not safe to assume that for measurements of temperature, say if you measured temperatures thousands of times, that the amount you are off from the true measure each time would form a normal distribution, with a mean of zero ?

The earth is currently getting colder due to a cyclic solar minimum. Sun spots are at an epic low.

Deal with it.

Not ridiculous, as life starts at conception. With abortions factored in, there is infinite fractional combinations of children possible.

marcus says

It's ridiculous to say that the average family has 2.4 children, because every family has an integer number of children

BlueSardine says

With abortions factored in, there is infinite fractional combinations of children possible.

Way to add confusion to the conversation. Few people can do it as well.

anon_25c83 says

A hotter earth will create a stronger jet stream which will move polar weather further south.

This has been explained to the denialists about a billion times yet for the next billion years they will continue to point to cold weather as some sort of disproof of global warming.

Silly denialists! There is no evidence, event, observation or experiment that would disprove Global Warming. Why do you even try?

So 2 sentences, 19 words, one simple concept, confuses you.
Well judging from your handle I can see you have spelling issues...

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Way to add confusion to the conversation.

Quigley says

The earth is currently getting colder due to a cyclic solar minimum.

Not only that, but now the Alarmists are blaming the record COLD temps and the Blizzard on the East Coast on Global Warming, nope Climate Change and CO2.

LOL