Previous  1  2  3  Next

So he's wrong by association?



Happy New Year, buddy! I'll see you in 2017!

   

That's what you think but have a good weekend regardless. wOOt! Almost time to play Beero The Hero!

   

As Dr. Caleb said, there is no evidence that can be presented that will convince the deniers. I met the test posed by Scott Adams, but of course, that isn't good enough. Bait and switch. Move the debate somewhere else: "oh yeah, sure, but what about this." That's exactly how deniers operate.

   

Here we go then. I predict that the average temperature in June 2017 in Canada will be warmer than the average temperature in January 2017. If that is still too "weather" for you, I'll even move it up a year to 2018. Heck I'll move it up to 2027.

I'm fairly confident my model will bear this out.

Also bears pointing out that using a climate sensitivity of one actually does not a bad job of predicting globally averaged temperature increases to date.

The models that predict weather and the models that predict climate are quite similar. Essentially fluid dynamic / thermodynamic models fed by data from sensors such as weather stations and satellites.

Science is fundamentally a modeling phenomenon. The hypothesis itself involves the construction of a model, the experiment design a way to construct the model and the experiment itself a way to test it. The deniers denigration of the use of models really just demonstrates their ignorance of the entire practice of science.

   

Not everything is a lie, but people who claim there's some significant group claiming everything is, are liars.

Well, either that or they're shamefully ignorant on the subject.

   

Yes, and you tell us you're a math guy, right?

Very well, do your projections and tell us when a climate sensitivity of one is going to melt Greenland and the Antarctic?

Isn't it millennia? I heard that somewhere. Fossil fuels are expected to be long gone, I remember that much. And that's provided there are no external feedbacks altering the sensitivity, like there have been throughout geologic history.

   

Bait and switch again. It's all you guys can do. You asked me for a model that can predict the future, I showed you one. You said it didn't count because it was weather, not climate, and I said that models with a climate sensitivity of one (essentially using the Stefan-Boltlzmann equations) and now you're off talking about Greenland.

Deny, deny, deny, with absolute no understanding of the science you're denying.

   

There's been some fun going on at the LHC lately. They've been experimenting with protons and electrons and while I can't remember the specifics of it, what they've been seeing doesn't make sense. They've been doing something where they are altering a proton (or electron, I can't remember which) and not getting the results they expected. They've repeated the experiment a few times now and they're beginning to think that the physics model we've developed might be wrong and that our understanding of physics might need to be rethought.

If that is the case, then all those climate models will have been based on erroneous information.

   

I for one am increasing my carbon footprint in the hopes of eliminating winter here. No colder than southern Oregon is my goal.

   

Actually no. Here's what was asked for:



Now the Climate Science models are what's shown in the graph above.

The models such as the IPCC use to show their hypothetic and politically requested coming catastrophe of warming. Those models require hypothesizing what appear to be non-existent positive feedbacks to drive warming up to a hyper state.

What you're talking about with climate sensitivity of 1 is what's expected in a controlled environment with no feed backs other than the basic 1 degree warming per doubling of CO2. So if there's any bait and switch going on it's coming from your direction.

Even 1 per doubling wasn't happening between 1997 and 2015 by satellite though. There was a pause in warming and that might return if it gets cold now after the El Ninos. But that's another argument.

In any case you know all this. I'm wondering who you're trying to kid.

   

But yeah if you have 50 climate models one might be accurate if you can find the right time period you want to match it to. But now are you ready to gamble your reputation it's going to remain consistent in say the next 10 years.

Well you might, but I believe the guy in the OP is challenging scientists with actual reputations they have to worry about.

   

Just out of curiosity though, how confident are you in the trend of 1 per doubling for say the thirty year trend of 1997 to 2027?

I hope you're right. 1 per doubling is nice weather. Plus there's all that extra C02 to keep things green and make more food.

   

Very easy, in fact.



https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

But that leads to Adams' fallacy. How 'good' is good? How accurate is accurate?

His challenge is still subjective and requires an opinion as a proof.

   

What are you going on about?

   

I always like when somebody links to the misnamed "SkepticalScience.com" - home of the massively debunked 97% consensus study.

It allows me to link to Anthony Watts award winning climate Science blog as a counter. Because even if Alarmists do hate it, fair's fair, right?

So here's a link from WUWT as a counter to SS.c some may enjoy.

Climate Models Don’t Work

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next