Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational. It's grammatically incorrect.

Topic: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI (Read 1431 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #50
Yes, I know that it's not a prediction.  And it's obvious to the meanest intelligence why the models didn't predict Pinatubo and its effects. Do you understand why? Yes, I know it's a retrodiction. Which is not quite as good as a prediction but is still a strong indication of the accuracy of the model.

There is no fixing this level of thick.

  • JonF
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #51
Yes, I know that it's not a prediction.  And it's obvious to the meanest intelligence why the models didn't predict Pinatubo and its effects. Do you understand why? Yes, I know it's a retrodiction. Which is not quite as good as a prediction but is still a strong indication of the accuracy of the model.

There is no fixing this level of thick.
Still incapable of defending the 300 or your other claims.

Thanks for playing.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #52
The only thing worse than a climate loon, is spending years arguing with them
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #53
Yes, I know that it's not a prediction.  And it's obvious to the meanest intelligence why the models didn't predict Pinatubo and its effects. Do you understand why? Yes, I know it's a retrodiction. Which is not quite as good as a prediction but is still a strong indication of the accuracy of the model.

There is no fixing this level of thick.

:ironicat: Seriously, if you don't understand why retrodiction is a useful test of scientific models, then you definitely don't have the understanding needed to participate in an argument about scientific models.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #54
The problem is none of the models actually can actually backcast with accuracy.  If any model was actually able to do this, then that is the model we would use to try and predict the future. 

https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #55
That would be a problem for someone who expected some arbitrary level of accuracy from any single model. I'm sure everyone would love to have a single perfectly accurate climate model, but it's ridiculous to expect such a thing. Fortunately, there is no reason to. The confidence in the models comes from the accuracy of the range of their predictions in aggregate.

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #56
:facepalm:

Now it's the genius of fucking hindcasting.  It's like dealing with exceptionally retarded witch doctors. 

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #57
Well, sensitivity testing is a typical process in developing computer models of nonlinear systems.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #58
Still incapable of defending the 300 or your other claims.

Thanks for playing.

Jon, what is it you want me to defend exactly - or even vaguely come to that?  What is it makes you think that anyone holding an opinion different from yours is automatically on some sort of back foot and must needs be defended.  I don't personally know all of those people on the list you presented you understand?  Contact them and question their views if you feel strongly about them.  You present yourself like some sort of oracle and anyone who does not accept your received wisdom has a 'bad attitude' and is obliged to be defended. 

I'm truly sorry that all of those profs and phd's and whatever guys have an opinion which is at odds with your own clearly stupendous intellect.  However, what is it you are looking for from me?  Do you want me to go through the list and stoutly defend the right of professors a thru z to hold an opinion on climate science?  Because you know that isn't going to happen - don't you.  If you wish you might be able to do some research of your own and eventually link them all with Big something or other related to hydrocarbons or even paw around in their underwear drawers and uncover some damning evidence that way.  Either way, the way I see it is that it is an action on you - not myself.

You are a most bizarre character though and apparently have a very strange kind of megalomania which is interesting from my perspective of cult research.

  • JonF
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #59
:facepalm:

Now it's the genius of fucking hindcasting.  It's like dealing with exceptionally retarded witch doctors. 
You dump the initial data into the model, the model tells you its analysis of that data, you compare that to reality, the correspondence is extremely good.

Why is that not impressive if the reality has already happened?

(Everybody who thinks he's going to respond substantively raise your hand. Bueller? Bueller?)
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #60
Well, sensitivity testing is a typical process in developing computer models of nonlinear systems.

I do hindcast testing in my own nonlinear models - but that's just for my own info.  I don't then proceed and tell people I have a reliable future solution on the basis of that because they would probably say "how do we know you didn't just manipulate your model to suit what you already know?".  And that would be a fair question wouldn't it.  It is indeed a fundamental tenet of the scientific method and is the reason why we place so much emphasis on double blind testing.  Sadly humans are fallible creatures and much as I'd love to have faith in the extrapolation of hindcasts to forecasts in deeply nonlinear systems there's always some horribly cynical part of me which can't quite get there.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #61
Question for you, Cletus: what exactly is wrong with moving to renewables for power generation? Even if you assume there's nothing wrong with pumping atmospheric CO2 levels sky high[1] surely there are other drawbacks to using coal-fired power stations. Mercury, for example, or various other forms of environmental degradation.
(notice superbly subtle wit there)
Truth is out of style

  • JonF
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #62
Still incapable of defending the 300 or your other claims.

Thanks for playing.

Jon, what is it you want me to defend exactly - or even vaguely come to that? 

The qualifications of the list signers. They certainly can say whatever they want (within the law). We would be remiss if we didn't evaluate whether we should pay any attention to them. One part of the evaluation is asking "Do any of them know anything about the field on which they are commenting"?

Well, do they?
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #63
:facepalm:

Now it's the genius of fucking hindcasting.  It's like dealing with exceptionally retarded witch doctors. 
You dump the initial data into the model, the model tells you its analysis of that data, you compare that to reality, the correspondence is extremely good.

Why is that not impressive if the reality has already happened?


Because you already knew the outcome in advance you fucking halfwit.

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #64
Question for you, Cletus: what exactly is wrong with moving to renewables for power generation

Nothing at all - if they are economically viable.  The trouble is they cannot even remotely compete at this technological stage with the available power density in hydrocarbons and nuclear.   If all of the developing world agreed that we should go that way then fine - but they don't - so economic suicide is not a sensible option.

Quote
Even if you assume there's nothing wrong with pumping atmospheric CO2 levels sky high[1]

It's unlikely we could ever get much beyond 600 ppm atmospheric co2 even if we wanted to do and I haven't seen any evidence that such concentration would be anything other than beneficial.

Quote
surely there are other drawbacks to using coal-fired power stations. Mercury, for example, or various other forms of environmental degradation.

Agree entirely.  The known pollutants from fossil fuel use need to be scrubbed out and eliminated as much as possible.  The overwhelming waste products of burning hydrocarbons of course are co2 and water vapour and neither of these is any kind of remotely conceivable pollutant.  Current philosophy has the west terminating fossil fuel use but exporting all of the industry required to support a western lifestyle to places where there is no intention whatsoever to make fossil fuel burning clean.
(notice superbly subtle wit there)

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #65
Question for you, Cletus: what exactly is wrong with moving to renewables for power generation

Nothing at all - if they are economically viable.  The trouble is they cannot even remotely compete at this technological stage with the available power density in hydrocarbons and nuclear.   If all of the developing world agreed that we should go that way then fine - but they don't - so economic suicide is not a sensible option.
Well funny you should mention that. We've been having quite the debate about it all over here in Australia. Short version is that for this country at least, renewables make a lot of economic sense. This is without any carbon pricing too, since there's none here at the moment.

Sure, they can't compete on energy density, but that's not necessarily of overriding importance.

 
Quote
Even if you assume there's nothing wrong with pumping atmospheric CO2 levels sky high[1]

It's unlikely we could ever get much beyond 600 ppm atmospheric co2 even if we wanted to do and I haven't seen any evidence that such concentration would be anything other than beneficial.
Yes, I have noticed that you seem remarkable in your ability to avoid seeing evidence.

Quote
surely there are other drawbacks to using coal-fired power stations. Mercury, for example, or various other forms of environmental degradation.
Agree entirely.  The known pollutants from fossil fuel use need to be scrubbed out and eliminated as much as possible.
Which costs money, and increases fuel consumption, both of which reduce the competitiveness of coal.
(notice superbly subtle wit there)
Truth is out of style

  • JonF
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #66
:facepalm:

Now it's the genius of fucking hindcasting.  It's like dealing with exceptionally retarded witch doctors. 
You dump the initial data into the model, the model tells you its analysis of that data, you compare that to reality, the correspondence is extremely good.

Why is that not impressive if the reality has already happened?


Because you already knew the outcome in advance you fucking halfwit.
I knew you would say that.

The model didn't know the outcome in advance. It derived it from the starting data which did not contain any hint of what actually happened.

Duh.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #67
Still incapable of defending the 300 or your other claims.

Thanks for playing.

Jon, what is it you want me to defend exactly - or even vaguely come to that? 

The qualifications of the list signers. They certainly can say whatever they want (within the law). We would be remiss if we didn't evaluate whether we should pay any attention to them. One part of the evaluation is asking "Do any of them know anything about the field on which they are commenting"?

Well, do they?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #68
Well, sensitivity testing is a typical process in developing computer models of nonlinear systems.

I do hindcast testing in my own nonlinear models - but that's just for my own info.  I don't then proceed and tell people I have a reliable future solution on the basis of that because they would probably say "how do we know you didn't just manipulate your model to suit what you already know?".  And that would be a fair question wouldn't it.  It is indeed a fundamental tenet of the scientific method and is the reason why we place so much emphasis on double blind testing.  Sadly humans are fallible creatures and much as I'd love to have faith in the extrapolation of hindcasts to forecasts in deeply nonlinear systems there's always some horribly cynical part of me which can't quite get there.
what are your models for if not predictive utility?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • JonF
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #69
Well, sensitivity testing is a typical process in developing computer models of nonlinear systems.
I don't then proceed and tell people I have a reliable future solution on the basis of that because they would probably say "how do we know you didn't just manipulate your model to suit what you already know?".  And that would be a fair question wouldn't it.
I've been programming computers in a variety of languages for over fifty years.  I've written simulation programs and finite element programs and people all over the world have used my LISP code to connect AutoCAD to database.

It would be impossible to slant the output to what you want unless the program were written from the start to allow that.  Which would be dishonest and unethical.

Double-blind testing is used where it's possible to inadvertantly affect the test.  That is not possible in this case.  The only possibility for your scenario is outright purposeful fraud.

Got any evidence of such?
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #70
:facepalm:

Now it's the genius of fucking hindcasting.  It's like dealing with exceptionally retarded witch doctors. 
You dump the initial data into the model, the model tells you its analysis of that data, you compare that to reality, the correspondence is extremely good.

Why is that not impressive if the reality has already happened?


Because you already knew the outcome in advance you fucking halfwit.
No, you know the output the model will produce if it is accurate, which is why it's a useful test. You do not know beforehand what the outcome of that test will be.

Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #71
I'm thinking Cepheus may not understand sensitivity testing.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • JonF
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #72
Nah. He thinks it's physically possible for a dedicated liar to expend great effort to fake the results, so therefore that's what happened.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #73
Yup. Typical climate science denier. Anything he doesn't like the sound of must be fraud.
Truth is out of style

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Climate loonies borrow a page from the DI
Reply #74
With a list of dissenters, almost none of which are qualified to have an opinion:
By your own reasoning, you are not qualified to have an opinion.  It's recursive idiot shit like this that just leads to mockery of alarmists.

Please stop it.  Think of the children.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭