U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-03-2017, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Washington Park, Denver
6,905 posts, read 6,501,326 times
Reputation: 7355

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freewest View Post
The article you linked shows 3 possible scenarios, A, B, and C. Scenario A goes up. Scenario B goes down, then up because it includes the Mt. Pinatubo cooling (he changed his model when the volcano erupted. That's called "cheating"). Scenario C is relatively flat then goes downward. So no matter what direction the global temperatures actually went, one of his scenarios would have been correct. How is that valid? It is just another trick. The model evaluation document linked at the bottom of the article states, "The dominant external influence is incoming solar radiation, but many aspects of the simulated climate play an important role in modulating regional temperature such as the presence of clouds and the complex interactions between the atmosphere and the underlying land, ocean, snow, ice and biosphere." In laymen's terms, that means any model must predict those interactions. This is where the validation falls apart. The evaluation document lays out the many uncertainties, by their own admission.
Changing a model when new information is available is what scientists do. Itís not cheating. Itís how things get more accurate over time. We learn more and adjust accordingly. The willingness to incorporate new information and change a model is what makes something more believable. Itís a stark contrast to the anti global warming, anti science group who have their minds made up, do not look at new information, and continue their ostrich like approach to climate science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-03-2017, 03:33 PM
 
147 posts, read 187,697 times
Reputation: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77 View Post
Changing a model when new information is available is what scientists do. Itís not cheating. Itís how things get more accurate over time. We learn more and adjust accordingly.....
This is somewhat true, SkyDog. However, when you change a model to incorporate something that is completely unpredictable, like a volcanic eruption, then claim the new model is now accurate, that is not validating. More like your comment about "confirmation bias". No model can accurately predict the effects of such large, unpredictable events. The modeler was only able to get a reasonably accurate prediction (Scenario B) by incorporating an completely unpredictable event after it happened. That is cheating, not validation.

That is like predicting in July that Team X is going to win the Super Bowl next February. Then when the starting quarterback for Team X goes down (unpredictable event), you change the model. As the season goes on, and injuries pill up (more unpredictable events), you keep changing the model. Finally, in January, you are down to 2 teams (Y and Z), so you have a 50% chance of being right. How does that validate the model as it existed in July? It is fine if the model is better now. But now use it to predict the next year's Super Bowl winners. See? Good luck with that.

There is no "head in the sand" from us anti-AGW folks. We just want, demand actually, a return to the sound scientific principles that have existed for centuries. For AGW, it is probably too late. This has become a crazy religion with massive amounts of money and power at stake. "Believe or be cast down ye' sinners".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2017, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Washington Park, Denver
6,905 posts, read 6,501,326 times
Reputation: 7355
Quote:
Originally Posted by freewest View Post
This is somewhat true, SkyDog. However, when you change a model to incorporate something that is completely unpredictable, like a volcanic eruption, then claim the new model is now accurate, that is not validating. More like your comment about "confirmation bias". No model can accurately predict the effects of such large, unpredictable events. The modeler was only able to get a reasonably accurate prediction (Scenario B) by incorporating an completely unpredictable event after it happened. That is cheating, not validation.

That is like predicting in July that Team X is going to win the Super Bowl next February. Then when the starting quarterback for Team X goes down (unpredictable event), you change the model. As the season goes on, and injuries pill up (more unpredictable events), you keep changing the model. Finally, in January, you are down to 2 teams (Y and Z), so you have a 50% chance of being right. How does that validate the model as it existed in July? It is fine if the model is better now. But now use it to predict the next year's Super Bowl winners. See? Good luck with that.

There is no "head in the sand" from us anti-AGW folks. We just want, demand actually, a return to the sound scientific principles that have existed for centuries. For AGW, it is probably too late. This has become a crazy religion with massive amounts of money and power at stake. "Believe or be cast down ye' sinners".
The money is on the denier side. Itís upsetting to the fossil fuel economy. Thatís why this is so political.

There is not another topic where the experts in a field are so much on one side and it is not taken as common knowledge.

The deniers are led by scientists who are not climate experts and are funded by corporations with agendas that are hurt by acknowledging that humans cause global warming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2017, 06:27 PM
 
147 posts, read 187,697 times
Reputation: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77 View Post
... The deniers are led by scientists who are not climate experts and are funded by corporations with agendas that are hurt by acknowledging that humans cause global warming.

Again, there is some truth to this - ON BOTH SIDES. Do you know how many corporations are making billions off of AGW? Al Gore himself is one of the biggest profiteers of AGW. If AGW were to be proven wrong, he would lose millions of dollars (look up Generation Investment Management).

But it doesn't matter. The science of climatology has become completely unscientific. Long established principles and processes have been discarded in order to achieve a political goal (more central planning socialism, less individualist capitalism). If bullfrog biologists are skirting the scientific process, like not validating their experiments (or models), then it is incumbent on chemists, physicists, geologists, and yes, other bullfrog biologists to hold them accountable and bring the field of bullfrog biology back into the realm of intellectual objectivity. That needs to happen in climatology. Maybe then we can have an intelligent discussion about AGW. Until then, it is just mysticism disguised as science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2017, 06:45 PM
 
Location: Washington Park, Denver
6,905 posts, read 6,501,326 times
Reputation: 7355
Quote:
Originally Posted by freewest View Post
Again, there is some truth to this - ON BOTH SIDES. Do you know how many corporations are making billions off of AGW? Al Gore himself is one of the biggest profiteers of AGW. If AGW were to be proven wrong, he would lose millions of dollars (look up Generation Investment Management).

But it doesn't matter. The science of climatology has become completely unscientific. Long established principles and processes have been discarded in order to achieve a political goal (more central planning socialism, less individualist capitalism). If bullfrog biologists are skirting the scientific process, like not validating their experiments (or models), then it is incumbent on chemists, physicists, geologists, and yes, other bullfrog biologists to hold them accountable and bring the field of bullfrog biology back into the realm of intellectual objectivity. That needs to happen in climatology. Maybe then we can have an intelligent discussion about AGW. Until then, it is just mysticism disguised as science.
This simply isn’t true. There is plenty of peer reviewed science available. It has nothing to do with socialism.

The national economies that rely on it and trillions of dollars a year that the fossil fuel industry is responsible for are fighting the good scientists and creating doubt where frankly there shouldn’t be any. The money on the side of fossil fuels is so many factors higher than anyone who stands to profit with renewables right now. It’s not even close.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:52 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top