|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
BURNING forests and the talk goes on
On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:42:37 -0700, Snidely wrote:
Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday: On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote: Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit : Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions: http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/ CFACT CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret. :-) Now to the content of that link They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that says that quote we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming end quote Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper... Mr Spencer just SAYS SO. Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right. You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you? Who is that guy? So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong. See: Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization So? All you have is ad hom? Are you going to show those 73 models to be right? It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the displacement input is too large. Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate research. Which says something about the relevance of the "research" to the real world, doesn't it? Why not? Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right. Do you agree they are wrong? If so, what are you whingeing about? All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being perfect is asinine. So is looking to models instead of reality. Reality: no warming for 18+ years. The models told us the sky was falling and we were all gonna die. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
BURNING forests and the talk goes on
On Saturday, Wally W. pointed out that ...
On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:42:37 -0700, Snidely wrote: Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday: On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote: Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit : Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions: http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/ CFACT CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret. :-) Now to the content of that link They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that says that quote we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming end quote Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper... Mr Spencer just SAYS SO. Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right. You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you? Who is that guy? So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong. See: Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization So? All you have is ad hom? Are you going to show those 73 models to be right? It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the displacement input is too large. Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate research. Which says something about the relevance of the "research" to the real world, doesn't it? Why not? Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right. Do you agree they are wrong? If so, what are you whingeing about? All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being perfect is asinine. So is looking to models instead of reality. Reality: no warming for 18+ years. The models told us the sky was falling and we were all gonna die. As you walk across the sinkholes in the tundra, just keep saying "it's still frozen, it's still frozen". /dps -- There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
BURNING forests and the talk goes on
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:22:50 -0700, Snidely wrote:
On Saturday, Wally W. pointed out that ... On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:42:37 -0700, Snidely wrote: Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday: On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote: Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit : Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions: http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/ CFACT CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret. :-) Now to the content of that link They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that says that quote we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming end quote Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper... Mr Spencer just SAYS SO. Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right. You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you? Who is that guy? So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong. See: Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization So? All you have is ad hom? Are you going to show those 73 models to be right? It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the displacement input is too large. Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate research. Which says something about the relevance of the "research" to the real world, doesn't it? Why not? Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right. Do you agree they are wrong? If so, what are you whingeing about? All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being perfect is asinine. So is looking to models instead of reality. Reality: no warming for 18+ years. The models told us the sky was falling and we were all gonna die. As you walk across the sinkholes in the tundra, just keep saying "it's still frozen, it's still frozen". There were times in the past when it wasn't frozen. Was it a problem then? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
BURNING forests and the talk goes on
On 08/10/2015 09:34 AM, Wally W. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:22:50 -0700, Snidely wrote: On Saturday, Wally W. pointed out that ... On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:42:37 -0700, Snidely wrote: Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday: On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote: Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit : Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions: http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/ CFACT CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret. :-) Now to the content of that link They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that says that quote we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming end quote Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper... Mr Spencer just SAYS SO. Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right. You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you? Who is that guy? So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong. See: Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization So? All you have is ad hom? Are you going to show those 73 models to be right? It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the displacement input is too large. Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate research. Which says something about the relevance of the "research" to the real world, doesn't it? Why not? Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right. Do you agree they are wrong? If so, what are you whingeing about? All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being perfect is asinine. So is looking to models instead of reality. Reality: no warming for 18+ years. The models told us the sky was falling and we were all gonna die. As you walk across the sinkholes in the tundra, just keep saying "it's still frozen, it's still frozen". There were times in the past when it wasn't frozen. Was it a problem then? You just don't get it Wally. Even though the one universally accepted rule of History is "The Certainty of Change", All those who believe in "global warming" have the idea that somehow all change must be STOPPED! Seas must be stopped from rising, glaciers stopped from receding, and tundra stopped from ever thawing. If only they could get that mile of ice back over top of my house! Maybe stopping all use of fossil fuels could help? It's worth a try, right? And HVAC calls ME the "kook"! -- ___ ___ ___ ___ /\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \ /::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\ /::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/ /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ / \:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ / \:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/ \:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ / \_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ / \/__/ \/__/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
BURNING forests and the talk goes on
Remember Monday, when Wally W. asked plainitively:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:22:50 -0700, Snidely wrote: On Saturday, Wally W. pointed out that ... On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:42:37 -0700, Snidely wrote: Wally W. submitted this gripping article, maybe on Wednesday: On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:23:47 +0200, jacob navia wrote: Le 05/08/2015 14:51, Wally W. a écrit : Or look at their wildly conflicting predictions: http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/ CFACT CFACT is an organization financed indirectly by the... Koch brothers through the "Donors Trust". They refuse to disclose their financing because... because they have VERY GOOD REASONS to keep it secret. :-) Now to the content of that link They cite (as the sole source of information) a certain Roy Spencer that says that quote we have compared 73 of these global warming computer models to real world temperatures, and every single model produces too much warming end quote Note that there isn't a citation of any scientific paper... Mr Spencer just SAYS SO. Well, all you have to do is show those 73 models to be right. You *can* show that they *all* got it right, can't you? Who is that guy? So far, he is someone you haven't proven to be wrong. See: Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_arg.htm Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization So? All you have is ad hom? Are you going to show those 73 models to be right? It is not necessary that all 73 models be correct for all inputs. All models are simplifications, and different simplifications can be expected to break down in different ways when the simplification is inappropriate. The classical model for a pendulum, with a couple of hundred years of understanding behind it, breaks down when the displacement input is too large. Comparing the models, and determining how the different inputs affect the predictions, helps to determine which inputs we most need to understand. And comparing the models is a very active part of climate research. Which says something about the relevance of the "research" to the real world, doesn't it? Why not? Because it is a fallacy to insist that they all be right. Do you agree they are wrong? If so, what are you whingeing about? All models are wrong under some conditions. Knowing when the model is right, or knowing what is causing it to be wrong, is as important as the actual predictions it makes. Bitching about models never being perfect is asinine. So is looking to models instead of reality. Reality: no warming for 18+ years. The models told us the sky was falling and we were all gonna die. As you walk across the sinkholes in the tundra, just keep saying "it's still frozen, it's still frozen". There were times in the past when it wasn't frozen. Was it a problem then? Depends on point of view, doesn't it? If you're a plant or animal adapted to living in the cold, warm is bad for you, just like cold is bad for plants and animals adapted to living in the warm. Drastic changes in climate have tended to be accompanied by large-scale die-offs. /dps -- But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason to 'be happy.'" Viktor Frankl |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
BURNING forests and the talk goes on
Le 12/08/2015 10:05, Snidely a écrit :
Drastic changes in climate have tended to be accompanied by large-scale die-offs. Never mind. Deniers work always by the same principle: 1) Do not go into the facts presented by the adversary 2) Invoke some very general principle that is a truism: always right. In this case they argue that change is always there. We know that, it is true, then... that gives the impression of having answered when, in fact, you haven't say anything of value. Another example in this discussion was when they say that we do not want to return to the Ice Age. Of course everyone agrees. And they give the impression of answering when, in fact, they don't. How could they? Yes, everything changes and humans could go extinct. That would be a great change isn't it? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
BURNING forests and the talk goes on
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:17:44 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
Le 12/08/2015 10:05, Snidely a écrit : Drastic changes in climate have tended to be accompanied by large-scale die-offs. Never mind. Deniers work always by the same principle: 1) Do not go into the facts presented by the adversary Which facts? 2) Invoke some very general principle that is a truism: always right. Actually, that is a tactic used often by greenies: fear the tautology (sometimes inverting cause and effect). For example: "Climate change causes greater frequency in extreme weather." Consider: 1. "Extreme weather" is weather that is not normal for the current climate. 2. If the climate is changing, its "normal" weather is changing. 3. The climate *can't* change unless there is a progression of what would have previously been perceived of as "extreme weather" for the region. QED as FUD. In this case they argue that change is always there. We know that, it is true, then... that gives the impression of having answered when, in fact, you haven't say anything of value. Other than to shine a light on the FUD. Another example in this discussion was when they say that we do not want to return to the Ice Age. Of course everyone agrees. And they give the impression of answering when, in fact, they don't. How could they? Which is to say warming from current conditions is generally better than cooling from current conditions. So warming is not the catastrophe that greenies paint it to be. Yes, everything changes and humans could go extinct. That would be a great change isn't it? Actually, misanthropic greenies would be delighted if 90+ percent of *other* people died off. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
BURNING forests and the talk goes on
On 8/12/15 4:44 AM, Wally W. wrote:
Climate change causes greater frequency in extreme weather. That, Wally, is a statistical fact--increasing global temperature does increase occurrences of extreme weather events. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
BURNING forests and the talk goes on
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:05:11 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 8/12/15 4:44 AM, Wally W. wrote: Climate change causes greater frequency in extreme weather. That, Wally, is a statistical fact--increasing global temperature does increase occurrences of extreme weather events. Do you mean we saw that happen last millennium? Because there hasn't been any warming this millennium. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BURNING forests and the talk goes on | jacob navia | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 7th 15 12:23 PM |
Kepler spacecraft shows way to tell difference between hydrogen-burning(old) vs. helium-burning (very old) red giant stars | Yousuf Khan | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | April 8th 11 02:58 AM |
forests on orbit | [email protected] | Policy | 109 | February 27th 08 05:31 PM |
Let's Talk About Extraterrestrials -- The Final Word Any New Topics or Ideas to Talk About ? | Double-A | Misc | 5 | June 12th 06 06:44 PM |
Let's Talk About Extraterrestrials -- The Final Word Any New Topics or Ideas to Talk About ? | Saul Levy | Misc | 0 | June 11th 06 05:43 AM |