Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news) (Read 2381 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
  • 2,979

  • 592

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #400
The world, meaning that big round thing we all live on, is warmer than ever. Some bits of it might be cold sometimes, but overall the whole thing is warmer than ever.
Where do the fuckheads get this bullshit from?  Oh yeah, it's everywhere.
From that source:
Quote
If you think it's been hot this year, you're right. The latest temperature numbers from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration say the first six months of 2016 were the hottest on record around the planet.

Perhaps the headline writer should be taken to task for not including pre-historic temperatures.
But if anyone takes the trouble to read the article, it's not really that complicated.
Except, maybe, for fuckheads.
Mr Show-it-all once again forgets some important bits.  :parrot:
Now I know you're sayin'
why don't he stop beating around the bush
Well I'll get there when I get there
So there ain't no need to push!
Because the point I'm trying to make contains my whole philosophy
So listen to what I tell you and repeat it after me

Truth is out of style (out of style)

  • F X
  • Needs a Life
  • The one and only
  • 890

  • 13

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #401
Quote
Let's look at June. Scientists took temperatures from around the world and got a June average. What they found was a world that was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the average June in the 20th Century. How about January? Hottest ever. Same with February, March, April and May. Every month in 2016 has been warmer than ever, at least since people started keeping reliable records -- that was 1880.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/19/486655867/scientists-report-the-planet-was-hotter-than-ever-in-the-first-half-of-2016

The problem is when you actually check, the "hottest months ever" are not.  It's that simple. 

Even the areas that show warming don't have record Tmin or Tmax for the "hottest ever" months, nor is the annual Tmax or Tmin showing record heat.

"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

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • Curmudgeon
  • 3,793

  • 634

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #402
Quote
Let's look at June. Scientists took temperatures from around the world and got a June average. What they found was a world that was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the average June in the 20th Century. How about January? Hottest ever. Same with February, March, April and May. Every month in 2016 has been warmer than ever, at least since people started keeping reliable records -- that was 1880.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/19/486655867/scientists-report-the-planet-was-hotter-than-ever-in-the-first-half-of-2016

The problem is when you actually check, the "hottest months ever" are not.  It's that simple. 
[citation needed]

  • F X
  • Needs a Life
  • The one and only
  • 890

  • 13

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #403
Perhaps the headline writer should be taken to task for not including pre-historic temperatures.
But if anyone takes the trouble to read the article, it's not really that complicated.
The world, meaning that big round thing we all live on, is warmer than ever. Some bits of it might be cold sometimes, but overall the whole thing is warmer than ever.

Warmer

than

ever

lol
"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

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
  • 2,979

  • 592

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #404
Oh FFS, I'm not including the Hadean because it's not relevant to humans. We're talking about timeframes relevant to us.
Now I know you're sayin'
why don't he stop beating around the bush
Well I'll get there when I get there
So there ain't no need to push!
Because the point I'm trying to make contains my whole philosophy
So listen to what I tell you and repeat it after me

Truth is out of style (out of style)

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • Curmudgeon
  • 3,793

  • 634

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #405
Oh FFS, I'm not including the Hadean because it's not relevant to humans. We're talking about timeframes relevant to us.
More specifically, as the quoted article makes plain, we're talking about
Quote
warmer than ever, at least since people started keeping reliable records -- that was 1880.

  • 507

  • 110

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #406
Using unvalidated model output as evidence is a defining feature of science is it?
As has been pointed out several times now, the models have been validated...
http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2310.epdf?referrer_access_token=yF2NmY3rBs00pQO4AA4yddRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MS4cBFKW7nezYd1ThfKUWDqFTu6KW5QsnoNuJhfCVLI08gjMqXpSkhCymg7_MLArSqJDXLhRlZIZNiUP2DGBnt_4FlGc594nQ_HeumJhaVSMLurylNhyyR1z-gM8RoL-0tZwXD4xRMQhflnb3Rbcxbbf0r2CQ8oT3B6DWO0ZN7H1gUsW06KV-MumPM4GcG2BZxIgJXHL_kh9uQeJX58PwAjJYYCHlFwJ9nESczs87BGPpN-LB1KTxqEoXiO_UolVNC3O9I_Zob-4nK5PNbx5IJLZx7k43qfna-pjZhvewjyQ%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf
http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1788.epdf?referrer_access_token=jkCqEP_LN7GsMdnJvenZLNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N4nNf9op7YNyL2uQfpf5jdfq0Mk3_ky5a9D7PwiK-4nBxKrN0LRYNwpOCUhEyYmgFkmU9j5FkKLtP27A5345oRehWjOtn10URI3GpuvmbumZJNtckttrtlKdgnR7OF_aNGWboqs1dPrJZ6A-cCFxiwkAuTxMKDUjWWLeTlx2MTPcrAofVPNTT9v_1Y6LFnGbLoipHyemGUYhVEJkraaH9_&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com
http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-were-eerily-accurate/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html

You seem to have no reason to call them "unvalidated" other than that you don't want to believe they have been.

I've asked you for some evidence to support the value of co2 climate sensitivity used in the models.
And there is plenty, though I'm sure you'll find some reason to dismiss it out of hand (my guess is you'll simply call them "unvalidated models" even though they are all based on and tested against empirical observations, and I just provided evidence of model validation)...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v518/n7537/full/nature14145.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065911/full
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11574.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2888.html
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9b5a/43d1ae48b205218466e7285bf2f9e869dd37.pdf

  • 507

  • 110

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #407
I'm convinced FX has some sort of learning disability. I don't mean that as an insult. But his obsession over certain out-of-context phrases like "hottest ever," ranting about them being "bullshit" without actually comprehending what they mean in context, really suggests some sort of serious comprehension deficiency.

Or he's just a troll.

  • 507

  • 110

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #408
Another point worth keeping in mind for those "skeptical" of models ("skeptical" in scare quotes because incredulity is not skepticism)...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/02/27/why-skepticism-about-computer-models-is-not-a-good-reason-for-skepticism-about-climate-change/#4cbd31135e00

Quote
Why Skepticism About Computer Models Is Not A Good Reason For Skepticism About Climate Change

A week ago I made the case that human-caused climate change should stop being a political football and that both parties should simply accept it as a reality. One pretty pervasive argument against global warming that I didn't address in that article was this one: that the belief in global warming is based on computer models that are inherently unreliable. I sent two of the most trenchant comments from that piece, from reader gwkimball and my Forbes colleague Daniel Fisher, to Donald Wuebbles, the Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Illinois, who I interviewed for the article. Below is an edited version of the question and of his response.

Update: The short version of this: all sciences use models; you don't need the models to prove that climate change is true.

Quote
All human-caused warming claims - ALL - depend on the computer climate models to back out the 'human' component originating in carbon dioxide. We just learned in the financial crisis, relying too much on mathematical models to predict the behavior of complex systems can be dangerous. Everybody knows it has been getting warmer since the ice age. How can the scientists convince skeptics a) there has been a non-random acceleration in the past 150 years and b) it is due to burning fossil fuels?

Wuebbles responds:
Quote
"The basis for human activities being the primary driver of the recent changes in climate is observation and the physical understanding of the processes that drive our climate system. Models of these physical processes further add to this understanding, especially for the future projections of further changes, but the basic science is based on observation.

"It should be noted that people do depend on models throughout their lives. Airplanes are designed using models, flown using models, and the weather analyses they use are based on the models that are very much akin to our climate models. The models we use in study of the Earth's climate system are basically the integrators of our knowledge of how the atmosphere and Earth's climate work, and they do quite a good job of explaining it.

"We depend heavily on observations in our analyses. The well-measured CO2 increase exactly fits with our understanding of the carbon cycle as being associated with the burning of fossil fuels and land use change. There is NO other explanation for the increase in CO2. You can't just say it is natural cycles when the ice core observations show that CO2 levels haven't been as high as they are now (or even close to as high as they are now) for over 800,000 years.

"Going further, we have observation-based analyses of the past 2000 years that tell us the changes in climate we have seen in the last 50 years are way outside the norm. Plus they fit with our basic understanding of the greenhouse effect that go back nearly two centuries. There are no natural cycles that can explain all of the observed changes we are seeing on Earth -- the atmospheric is warming, the oceans are warming, the land is warming, and the ice is melting. Climate does not change randomly, it changes beyond the normal natural variability due to external forcings. In the past, nature played the major role in those through changes in the solar flux or through large volcanic eruptions. But nature cannot explain what we have seen the last 50 years (the Sun has actually decreased in flux slightly over that time). But the greenhouse effect and the increasing greenhouse gases do fit.

"What we are experiencing is outside of anything humans have seen on our planet and the only explanation that makes any real sense is that it is due to human actions."

  • 507

  • 110

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #409
Quote from: Cephus0 the creationist
Reverts to standard accusations of creationismgeocentrism.  Using unvalidated model output as evidence is a defining feature of science is it?  It is certainly a defining feature of climateevolutionary junk science which is why I'm interested in the theological aspects of it.  I don't recall DarwinGalileo or any other scientist of the glorious past making models of any kind and saying if you don't believe them sans evidence you're a fucking creationistgeocentrist.

  • 169

  • 44

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #410
I'm convinced FX has some sort of learning disability. I don't mean that as an insult. But his obsession over certain out-of-context phrases like "hottest ever," ranting about them being "bullshit" without actually comprehending what they mean in context, really suggests some sort of serious comprehension deficiency.

Or he's just a troll.

Or he had some serious brain trauma or tumor that nearly killed him and ravaged his brain to the point where it is now.

Oh wait. There was just a thread about that on the old TR.

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • Curmudgeon
  • 3,793

  • 634

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #411
I'm convinced FX has some sort of learning disability. I don't mean that as an insult. But his obsession over certain out-of-context phrases like "hottest ever," ranting about them being "bullshit" without actually comprehending what they mean in context, really suggests some sort of serious comprehension deficiency.

Or he's just a troll.

Or he had some serious brain trauma or tumor that nearly killed him and ravaged his brain to the point where it is now.

Oh wait. There was just a thread about that on the old TR.


  • 507

  • 110

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #412
I'm convinced FX has some sort of learning disability. I don't mean that as an insult. But his obsession over certain out-of-context phrases like "hottest ever," ranting about them being "bullshit" without actually comprehending what they mean in context, really suggests some sort of serious comprehension deficiency.

Or he's just a troll.

Or he had some serious brain trauma or tumor that nearly killed him and ravaged his brain to the point where it is now.

Oh wait. There was just a thread about that on the old TR.
Well I guess that was in the back of my mind, but I don't want to make any assumptions.

  • F X
  • Needs a Life
  • The one and only
  • 890

  • 13

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #413
The problem is when you actually check, the "hottest months ever" are not.  It's that simple. 
[citation needed]

No, the person making a claim, as in this case, it was the "hottest ever", is required to show his work, provide the evidence, and defend it against skeptics.

THE RSS sat data shows it certainly was an El Nino year, and matched or exceeded 1998 for ocean/land troposphere temperatures. By .02 degrees C

2016 +0.50 deg. C,
1998 +0.48 deg. C

This of course does not match the NIOAA/GISS nonsense, which is based on non-satellite data.

What is bullshit is the GISS/NOAA data analysis, which shows specific areas of the planet as the warmest ever, when they certainly were not.



  • Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 10:31:55 AM by F X
"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

  • F X
  • Needs a Life
  • The one and only
  • 890

  • 13

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #414
This shows up clearly when you actually check the areas they claim experienced record warmth.  The actual real data shows for the majority of the areas, they have adjusted the temperatures so much, they don't match reality anymore.

It's why they don't show the actual temperature records, but make sweeping pronouncements about the globe, and of course propose the only solution is cutting CO2 emissions.  This is the mark of pseudoscience, or worse.

Even so, using the GISS heavily adjusted data, it's easy to show why CO2 alone can't be causing the temperature changes, and it certainly hasn't led to a water vapor feedback with increasing warming, as the theory predicts.
"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

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • Curmudgeon
  • 3,793

  • 634

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #415
The problem is when you actually check, the "hottest months ever" are not.  It's that simple. 
[citation needed]

No, the person making a claim, as in this case, it was the "hottest ever", is required to show his work, provide the evidence, and defend it against skeptics.

THE RSS sat data shows it certainly was an El Nino year, and matched or exceeded 1998 for ocean/land troposphere temperatures. By .02 degrees C

2016 +0.50 deg. C,
1998 +0.48 deg. C
I accept your apology.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
  • 2,979

  • 592

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #416
:rofl: Oh here we go. The old "you can only trust the satellites" spiel. Climate Science Denial 101.
Now I know you're sayin'
why don't he stop beating around the bush
Well I'll get there when I get there
So there ain't no need to push!
Because the point I'm trying to make contains my whole philosophy
So listen to what I tell you and repeat it after me

Truth is out of style (out of style)

  • 116

  • 3

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #417
:rofl: Oh here we go. The old "you can only trust the satellites which ever evanescently sparse and endlessly *adjusted*TM 'data' sets spliced and combined over different fluid media using laughably variable and unreliable protocols can be mangled into giving the most support to an a priori conclusion determined model spiel". Climate "Science" Denial 101.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
  • 2,979

  • 592

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #418
You tell 'em, Cletus. :cheer:
Now I know you're sayin'
why don't he stop beating around the bush
Well I'll get there when I get there
So there ain't no need to push!
Because the point I'm trying to make contains my whole philosophy
So listen to what I tell you and repeat it after me

Truth is out of style (out of style)

  • F X
  • Needs a Life
  • The one and only
  • 890

  • 13

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #419
I'm convinced FX has some sort of learning disability.


"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

  • F X
  • Needs a Life
  • The one and only
  • 890

  • 13

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #420
The world, meaning that big round thing we all live on, is warmer than ever. Some bits of it might be cold sometimes, but overall the whole thing is warmer than ever.
This sort of bullshit is easily recognized.  When somebody doesn't qualify a statement, and it's a huge claim, you can be sure it's bullshit.  Now if he had said "the estimated global temperature since 1880 is higher than ever before", that is a testable claim.  The person claiming it of course has to provide evidence, and since it's an Extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence.
"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

  • 116

  • 3

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #421
Using unvalidated model output as evidence is a defining feature of science is it?
As has been pointed out several times now, the models have been validated...

You're going to have to point out where these other 'several times now' instances of the models having been 'pointed out' to be validated are.  Perhaps you did but I can't remember now so can you do that for me pls?  And when you say 'pointed out' as if nonchalantly referring to some previous easily demonstrable claim backed up with irrefutable evidence, can you also show where the evidence is pls?  As opposed to some other hysterical unsupported lunatic claims you may or may not have made elsewhere?

And so with heavy heart and v low expectations for this, according to you, new round of 'evidence' of model validation ...

Quote
http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2310.epdf?referrer_access_token=yF2NmY3rBs00pQO4AA4yddRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MS4cBFKW7nezYd1ThfKUWDqFTu6KW5QsnoNuJhfCVLI08gjMqXpSkhCymg7_MLArSqJDXLhRlZIZNiUP2DGBnt_4FlGc594nQ_HeumJhaVSMLurylNhyyR1z-gM8RoL-0tZwXD4xRMQhflnb3Rbcxbbf0r2CQ8oT3B6DWO0ZN7H1gUsW06KV-MumPM4GcG2BZxIgJXHL_kh9uQeJX58PwAjJYYCHlFwJ9nESczs87BGPpN-LB1KTxqEoXiO_UolVNC3O9I_Zob-4nK5PNbx5IJLZx7k43qfna-pjZhvewjyQ%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

An article from Nature Climate Change, "a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Nature Publishing Group covering all aspects of research on global warming, especially its effects".  A whole journal dedicated to pushing a single unsupported hypothesis?  Why would such a thing even be necessary if there was good evidence?  Wouldn't a regular science journal be sufficient?

Anyway, regardless of that bizarre circumstance, in this article the authors disagree with "some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [which] suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998-2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution."  So this disagreement with other studies and the IPCC in an article co-authored by no less of a rabid non-scientist nut job than Naomi Oreskes constitutes - in your mind - validation of the GCM's does it?

Quote
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf

FAQ spiel from the IPCC, a political body with the expressly stated mandate to view everything in terms of human caused climate changes with no references and a chatty and admittedly delightfully comedic word salad of unsupported assertions.  That constitutes model validation for you does it?

Quote
http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1788.epdf?referrer_access_token=jkCqEP_LN7GsMdnJvenZLNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N4nNf9op7YNyL2uQfpf5jdfq0Mk3_ky5a9D7PwiK-4nBxKrN0LRYNwpOCUhEyYmgFkmU9j5FkKLtP27A5345oRehWjOtn10URI3GpuvmbumZJNtckttrtlKdgnR7OF_aNGWboqs1dPrJZ6A-cCFxiwkAuTxMKDUjWWLeTlx2MTPcrAofVPNTT9v_1Y6LFnGbLoipHyemGUYhVEJkraaH9_&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

A letter to the editor of Nature Geoscience in which it is stated "To the Editor -- Early climate forecasts are often claimed to have overestimated recent warming. However, their evaluation is challenging for two reasons."  A challenge in a fucking letter is a model validation to you is it?

Quote
http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-were-eerily-accurate/

A magazine article burbling about a 'rediscovered' old paper of James - the world should be flooded by now - Hansen???  That is a validation of models purporting to accurately predict the climate of this planet into the distant future is it?

Quote
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html

Paywalled but the first sentence of the abstract has this to say "Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus. It is unclear to what extent this mismatch is caused by incorrect model forcing, by incorrect model response to forcing or by random factors."  In what strange universe do you need to exist in order to think that this article, which begins with expressing concerns over mismatches between climate models and observations and the unclear nature of what causes that, is then going to proceed later to a fucking model validation?

Quote
You seem to have no reason to call them "unvalidated" other than that you don't want to believe they have been.

What do you mean by "you don't want to believe"?  I've told you before I have no interest in your belief systems.  In terms of allocating truth probability to hypotheses I only look at evidence.  I honestly don't care how fervently you believe.  You have to provide evidence.  That's how science works.

In your head you appear to be absolutely convinced that what you just presented there represents an irrefutable demonstration of the sublime predictive skill of current climate models and thereby a full validation.  That is absolutely awesome for the observer of cult evolution and thanks very much for it.
  • Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 06:31:05 PM by Cephus0

  • 116

  • 3

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #422
That was the first thing that struck me when I originally started talking with climate science deniers: their approach to argument is indistinguishable from the approach of YEC's. They use exactly the same tactics, presumably because when you're stuck trying to support bullshit those tactics are pretty much the only ones available.

That's interesting.   Anyone who questions the concept that the trace compound carbon dioxide is the ultimate primary driver of climate on this planet is a creationist / moon landing conspiracist / anti-vaxer / denier / YEC / flat earther and so on and so forth.

Oh boy it's like reading the autobiography of one of the immortal greats of science.  When pop sci guru Oz first deigned to lend some of his vast intellect to poor scientists who could not comprehend the complexities of planetary climates like he could he noticed from his lofty eyrie that they seemed YEC-like.  Poor them - they can't help it.  They used exactly the same tactics like inquiring after evidence and suggesting that there might be natural causes for what is observed.  Mighty Oz knows that any suggestion of a natural cause for observed natural phenomena is of course just the same as supernatural explanations and the tactics employed in this deception are just the same.  Fight them for all you're worth and defend the truth!

I love this cult.
  • Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 07:23:06 PM by Cephus0

  • 507

  • 110

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #423
An article from Nature Climate Change, "a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Nature Publishing Group covering all aspects of research on global warming, especially its effects".  A whole journal dedicated to pushing a single unsupported hypothesisa single field of science?  Why would such a thing even be necessary if there was good evidence?  Wouldn't a regular science journal be sufficient?

Presumably for the same reason journals such as the Journal of Evolutionary Biology exist. Because there is much to learn in that field.

Anyway, regardless of that bizarre circumstance, in this article the authors disagree with "some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [which] suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998-2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution."  So this disagreement with other studies and the IPCC ... constitutes - in your mind - validation of the GCM's does it?

It demonstrates that models that take ENSO into account have provided good estimates of 15-year trends. That has nothing to do with my mind. It's simply an objective statement of what the article does.

FAQ spiel from the IPCC, a political body with the expressly stated mandate to view everything in terms of human caused climate changes with no references and a chatty and admittedly delightfully comedic word salad of unsupported assertions.  That constitutes model validation for you does it?

It provides a graph comparing 58 model simulations from 14 models with global mean surface temperature observations and demonstrates that they align with the observations. More information can be found here: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html And again, that's not "for me," it's simply an objective description of what's provided. If it's not evidence of "model validation" "for you," I can't imagine what would be.

A letter to the editor of Nature Geoscience in which it is stated "To the Editor -- Early climate forecasts are often claimed to have overestimated recent warming. However, their evaluation is challenging for two reasons."  A challenge in a fucking letter is a model validation to you is it?

It contains a useful discussion of how these models are and should be evaluated. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say "validation." Your complete out-of-hand rejection of any evidence of accurate model predictions suggests to me that you are using it to mean something like "absolute proof," which is not a concept that exists in science. This letter describes what science actually looks for when evaluating models. It describes the challenges associated with evaluating climate models, but it also notes that the ones the authors evaluated performed better than a random walk. So yes, this is evidence of model validation in the sense scientists mean it. Not proof, if that's what you mean by "validation," but certainly evidence. And again, not "to me." All I'm doing here is objectively describing what the letter does.

A magazine article burbling about a 'rediscovered' old paper of James - the world should be flooded by now - Hansen???  That is a validation of models purporting to accurately predict the climate of this planet into the distant future is it?

The article notes that Hansen's 1981 temperature projections were close (and actually a slight underestimate) to the observed temperatures since then. Again, if that isn't what you mean by "model validation," you'll have to be more clear.

Paywalled but the first sentence of the abstract has this to say "Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus. It is unclear to what extent this mismatch is caused by incorrect model forcing, by incorrect model response to forcing or by random factors."  In what strange universe do you need to exist in order to think that this article, which begins with expressing concerns over mismatches between climate models and observations and the unclear nature of what causes that, is then going to proceed later to a fucking model validation?

Did you just stop reading after the first two sentences? Do you have a very literal version of Morton's Demon that actually prevents you from seeing anything that disagrees with your worldview? The very next sentence says, "Here we analyse simulations and observations of GMST from 1900 to 2012, and show that the distribution of simulated 15-year trends shows no systematic bias against the observations." It goes on to conclude, "The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded." And you can see the figures comparing the model simulations to the observations, again showing observed temperatures within the range of the model predictions. Again, if this is not "validation," you'll have to specify what would be.

Quote
You seem to have no reason to call them "unvalidated" other than that you don't want to believe they have been.
What do you mean by "you don't want to believe"?
That's the only thing I can conclude when you simply dismiss any piece of evidence you disagree with. You have provided no reasons for dismissing the evidence other than incredulity. What else can I conclude but that you don't want to accept the evidence?

I've told you before I have no interest in your belief systems.  In terms of allocating truth probability to hypotheses I only look at evidence.  I honestly don't care how fervently you believe.  You have to provide evidence.  That's how science works.
What do you think I have provided if not evidence?

In your head you appear to be absolutely convinced that what you just presented there represents an irrefutable demonstration of the sublime predictive skill of current climate models and thereby a full validation.  That is absolutely awesome for the observer of cult evolution and thanks very much for it.
No, both in my head, and objectively, I have provided evidence that climate models have made useful predictions. That's all that can be asked for in science. I don't know what you think you mean when you say "irrefutable demonstration" or "full validation." Those don't sound like scientific concepts to me.

I don't know why you think I am some sort of "believer" in a "cult." I suspect it's projection. I don't know how I can assure you of this, but I treat the theory of global warming no differently than I treat the theory of evolution or gravity. It is simply a scientific theory that appears to be solidly supported by evidence. I don't have any personal investment in its truth or falsehood (except in so much as I hope it doesn't result in too much suffering if it is true). I'm not trying to convert you to some sort of cult. All I'm doing is providing you with evidence. All you are doing is sneering at the evidence and ranting about cults. So which of us is approaching the subject scientifically here?

  • 14

  • 1

Re: Why I don't believe the bullshit (climate or even weather news)
Reply #424
the IPCC, a political body with the expressly stated mandate to view everything in terms of human caused climate changes with no references
Where can I find this expressly stated mandate "to view everything in terms of human caused climate changes with no references"?

I can't seem to find it anywhere on any website or institution connected to the IPCC.

But you said it was expressly stated, so I'm sure you can find it for me. You wouldn't just make something like that up for no reason. This is the internet after all. And you're the rational scientific one, and we're just a cult. So you wouldn't just say something nutty like that without having actually read what you say is expressly stated. Right?
  • Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 04:37:30 AM by Rumraket
"At least you can fucking die and leave North Korea." - Christopher Hitchens