[PluggyRug]

Thanos Thanos:

and hamburgers eat people. Cool!

Some burgers eat you from the inside out.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Nope. Fiddly's gone Full Fiddly again, only days after Sharyl Attkisson warned him about looking out for Astroturfers and he posts an opinion piece from the biggest Astroturfer on the Internet and claims it refutes a science study that doesn't say what he'd like it to say.

And I showed you why you were wrong about that, but I'm not going to dedicate my life to proving the same thing every day all day on every post. Find the post where you were proved wrong and argue it there. Don't ignore it and pretend you haven't already been shown to be incorrect.

As to you being all about the science. Computer modeled prophecies of catastrophes born out of confirmation bias are not science.

Especially when those modeled prophecies keep being shown to be wrong.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, the denialists are those who misquote what science is telling them is likely to happen in the future. They believe NASA has sent people to the Moon, and photographed Saturn, Ceres and Pluto, but won't believe it when they are told of certain other equally valid measurements.

You mean like the satellite data showing no warming in over 18 years.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Nope. Fiddly's gone Full Fiddly again, only days after Sharyl Attkisson warned him about looking out for Astroturfers and he posts an opinion piece from the biggest Astroturfer on the Internet and claims it refutes a science study that doesn't say what he'd like it to say.

And I showed you why you were wrong about that, but I'm not going to dedicate my life to proving the same thing every day all day on every post. Find the post where you were proved wrong and argue it there. Don't ignore it and pretend you haven't already been shown to be incorrect.

The post where I was proved wrong? Doesn't ring a bell. And such a thing would be a great event, you'd think I'd remember it.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

As to you being all about the science. Computer modeled prophecies of catastrophes born out of confirmation bias are not science.

Especially when those modeled prophecies keep being shown to be wrong.

Computer models can't have confirmation bias. And how can a computer model showing what is likely in 100 years, be shown to be wrong in less than 100 years?

Now, as to your hero Mr. Watt:

$1:

Sadly the full study is paywalled, but I think we get the idea – the abstract is essentially arguing that global warming is being suppressed by other forcings.

Grammar aside, since it's his job to show us where these studies fall down, we are to believe that he doesn't have a subscription to 'Nature'?? A subscription that can be a 'professional expenses' tax writeoff?

$1:

The issue I have with this kind of theory is that it postulates an improbably exact balance between all the different forcings.

I was unaware of the law of nature requiring that laws of nature must conform to his vision of them. And that word is starting to bug me.

$1:

If you start with zero or near zero warming, you can crank up the other forcings to anything you want, as long as everything sums to zero, as long as everything cancels out. The problem is that an observed random balance between powerful forcings is implausible. The stronger you make the forcings, the more improbable it is, that the terms will exactly balance. Why should CO2 exactly balance pollution? Why shouldn’t one term be much stronger than the other? Out of the near infinity of possible sums, suggesting an extended period of perfect balance is due to blind luck stretches credibility.

Again, assumes the universe conforms to his vision of it. Pretty sure that it's 'appeal from authority' though.

$1:

To me this is the climate equivalent of the Cosmic Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle suggests that the universe is well adjusted for life, because if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be here to observe it.

And yet, the CAP theory is quite true. For example, if the charge on an electron were slightly higher or lower, Stars would not fuse or the Universe would have become a giant black hole instead of the way we see it.

And again, the Universe has no requirement to please him.

$1:

But as a scientific theory the anthropic principle is pretty nearly useless, because it shuts down further questions. Accepting life friendly cosmic constants as simply being due to a lucky throw of the dice, rejects the possibility that there is more to discover.

Mmm, no it does no such thing. It simply defines a set of parameters the universe must exhibit for us to exist and observe them. But it's also completely irrelevant to a study by NASA that does not say what he wants it to say.

$1:

A much simpler theory as to why our climate is so balanced, despite the release of allegedly dangerous amounts of anthropogenic CO2, is that either the various forcings are actually quite small, in which case any imbalances will be barely noticeable, or that an as yet unacknowledged dynamic mechanism, such as Willis’ emergent tropical heat pump, is compensating for any imbalance we are causing, and keeping the climate stable.

And yet, he offers no proof as to his theory. The kind of theory that should be published int he journal that he mysteriously doesn't have a subscription to.

$1:

The choice then is either to believe that our current climate stability is an improbable streak of good luck, or to search for evidence of an emergent dynamic mechanism which is suppressing radical change. NASA seems to want us to blindly embrace the theory that we’ve simply been very lucky, which is a shame, because there is a lot of evidence that the Earth’s climate contains powerful dynamic compensation mechanisms, which can easily adjust to counter any imbalance we are likely to cause.

Assumes facts not in evidence. There is no 'stability', there is no such thing as 'luck' and there is no evidence of any 'compensation mechanisms'. Quite the opposite.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, the denialists are those who misquote what science is telling them is likely to happen in the future. They believe NASA has sent people to the Moon, and photographed Saturn, Ceres and Pluto, but won't believe it when they are told of certain other equally valid measurements.

You mean like the satellite data showing no warming in over 18 years.

Yes, exactly like that! It completely ignores all the other data that does show a trend over the last 800,000 years, with a big spike in the last 100 years.

Great example!

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bunch of stuff

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I don't even know why I bother.

Figured it out yet?

[Thanos]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Thanos Thanos:

and hamburgers eat people. Cool!

Some burgers eat you from the inside out.

The new Mexican pepper burger. Keeps you cleaner inside than a Roto Rooter!

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bunch of stuff

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I don't even know why I bother.

Figured it out yet?

Long time ago. Sometimes my paperclip dispenser doesn't need re-organization, and I get bored.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bunch of stuff

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I don't even know why I bother.

Figured it out yet?

Long time ago. Sometimes my paperclip dispenser doesn't need re-organization, and I get bored.

As a swivel servant, surely there are lots of unproductive things you could be doing instead of poking a stick at rabid dogs. That's just animal cruelty.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Figured it out yet?

Long time ago. Sometimes my paperclip dispenser doesn't need re-organization, and I get bored.

As a swivel servant, surely there are lots of unproductive things you could be doing instead of poking a stick at rabid dogs. That's just animal cruelty.

I tried counting snowflakes as they fall, sort of a census, but another person is doing that today.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Computer models can't have confirmation bias. And how can a computer model showing what is likely in 100 years, be shown to be wrong in less than 100 years?

Unless there's an inherent bias (perhaps due to commonly shared assumptions on the part of climate researchers) then why is it that ALL of these climate models show up considerably warmer than reality?

Not even ONE of them is accurate and, glaringly, not even ONE of them projected cooler than actual temperatures. The law of averages would suggest that at least some of these models should be close to reality and that at least one or two would err on the cooler side.

That all of them erred on the warmer side is statistically improbable and it's suggestive of bias.

As en example of bias being written into what's supposed to be an unbiased program there's this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/21/pr ... kpots.html

So if a bias can be written into a highly secure system like a random number generator for a lottery then it's obviously not all that hard to code a bias into climate models.

Given the improbable results of all of the climate models it's a fair bit of logic to conclude that there's a bias in them.

[N_Fiddledog]

I think I can digest Doc's post down to this.

$1:

Computer models can't have confirmation bias.

Of course computer models can have confirmation bias. In fact you appear to be the only one who doesn't know that.

Seriously...have you never heard the term GIGO? Garbage In Garbage Out. If you do a CBC and only put the data that favors your bias into your model you get confirmation bias. I mean "Duh..."

The problem with the climate is it's what they call a chaotic system. You can't know all the data or the comparative value of what you do have. But you can select what you like.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Computer models can't have confirmation bias. And how can a computer model showing what is likely in 100 years, be shown to be wrong in less than 100 years?

Unless there's an inherent bias (perhaps due to commonly shared assumptions on the part of climate researchers) then why is it that ALL of these climate models show up considerably warmer than reality?

Not even ONE of them is accurate and, glaringly, not even ONE of them projected cooler than actual temperatures. The law of averages would suggest that at least some of these models should be close to reality and that at least one or two would err on the cooler side.

There could be bias in which models are chosen, or what parameters are set to. But anyone with a computer can run a simulation and get garbage.



http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ ... gspm-4.htm

These ones agree with reality.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That all of them erred on the warmer side is statistically improbable and it's suggestive of bias.

People are people, computers are computers. People give computers biased information, that doesn't mean the computer is biased.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

As en example of bias being written into what's supposed to be an unbiased program there's this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/21/pr ... kpots.html

So if a bias can be written into a highly secure system like a random number generator for a lottery then it's obviously not all that hard to code a bias into climate models.

Yes, it's drastically harder. Computers are incapable of 'random'. People have been bypassing encryption based on that fact since computers started coming with 'locks'. That's a different animal than a climate model. Like DOS 3.23 is to Windows 10.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Given the improbable results of all of the climate models it's a fair bit of logic to conclude that there's a bias in them.

Yes, assuming 'all' models have been giving improbable results. But they haven't. Some have been very accurate. The bias can also be in what model is chosen for simulation.

$1:

Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for 100% certainty, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of development to include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be a process of refinement and improvement. The main point is we now know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climat ... ediate.htm

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I think I can digest Doc's post down to this.

But you give Mr. Watt a pass on pulling his own science theories out his ass?

Way to play the game!

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climat ... ediate.htm

Somebody who disses Watts loses his right to post Cook as his unimpeachable prophet.

Basically John Cook has an opinion about what models he considers science. I care about his opinion about as much as you do Watts'.

If you parse out what your Jeremiah is saying though, he's agreeing climate is chaotic. He thinks he can select studies that say what he wants others to believe about how close they're coming to predictability though. Good for you John Cook now try to come up with a study yourself that the scientific community doesn't laugh off the internet like they did last time.