A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

BURNING forests and the talk goes on



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 8th 15, 02:25 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.space.policy
Wally W.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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  
Old August 10th 15, 10:22 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.space.policy
snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,303
Default 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  
Old August 10th 15, 02:34 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.space.policy
Wally W.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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  
Old August 10th 15, 03:37 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.space.policy
benj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default 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  
Old August 12th 15, 09:05 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.space.policy
snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,303
Default 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  
Old August 12th 15, 10:17 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.space.policy
jacob navia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 341
Default 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  
Old August 12th 15, 10:44 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.space.policy
Wally W.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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  
Old August 12th 15, 02:05 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default 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  
Old August 13th 15, 07:34 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Wally W.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.