Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 02-21-2018, 05:35 PM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post

It is very interesting because so many feel so strongly there is no chance dangerous man made global warming is not happening because all scientist say otherwise...and it ain't true.
I'm sorry - I've re-read that last statement a few times , maybe the double negative and final conclusion throws me a bit off.

Are you saying that human activity has or has not contributed to climate change?
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-21-2018, 05:37 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimChance View Post
Either climate models are flawed and, therefore, testable or they're untestable and therefore cannot be proven to be flawed.

You can't have it both ways.

Honestly, I find your outright rejection of modelling strange. Is it just climate models or do you reject the use of models in other disciplines too?

Are hydrological models worthless? Population models?



There are very few scientists that outright reject man made climate change. Even your list of 485 papers is mostly made of papers that accept the concept but find flaws in specific models. That's hardly condemning evidence.
You don’t see that the computer models self test and fail everytime. So in the end you don’t need to prove them false.

Problem is each one gets media airtime and adsorbs to human brain assumptions. Then the false mental impression is hard to erase.

Plus they generate new variations constantly so no one can keep up.

As for the later comment. Not a single scientist who wants funding dares to come right out to declare man is safe.

The tight circle of believer peer reviewers also fix that worry.

Yes. Funding is very political and I don’t blame them for adding a last minute comment how they’re a believer.

Do what you need to be paid. Peer bashing and bullying is well documented in this area of study.
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin

Last edited by Sundancefisher; 02-21-2018 at 05:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-21-2018, 05:38 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
The cost heating and gas will impact many sportsmen’s hunting and fishing budgets.

It will be an excuse to shut down rivers to fishing and close areas to hunting.

This is the biggest excuse for forced change with the least say by user groups.
I'm really feeling triggered by your use of 'sportsmen', it's just not very inclusive. Maybe the whole forum needs to be renamed 'Alberta Outdoors Peoplekind'. You know, to be properly sensitive and inclusive. So nobody feels triggered. Maybe I should bring this up with the mods, as a way of increasing the user friendliness of this great forum.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-21-2018, 05:39 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EZM View Post
I'm sorry - I've re-read that last statement a few times , maybe the double negative and final conclusion throws me a bit off.

Are you saying that human activity has or has not contributed to climate change?
Lol. People aren’t saying no warming since the last ice age. People are saying no dangerous man made global warming.

Sorry for the diction. Hard to read this phone screen.

PM one person you feel doesn’t believe in natural warming since the last ice age.
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-21-2018, 05:42 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck View Post
I'm really feeling triggered by your use of 'sportsmen', it's just not very inclusive. Maybe the whole forum needs to be renamed 'Alberta Outdoors Peoplekind'. You know, to be properly sensitive and inclusive. So nobody feels triggered. Maybe I should bring this up with the mods, as a way of increasing the user friendliness of this great forum.
Sorry.

Outdoor enthusiasts


__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-21-2018, 05:49 PM
Twisted Canuck's Avatar
Twisted Canuck Twisted Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: GP AB
Posts: 16,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Sorry.

Outdoor enthusiasts



The peoplekind of the outdoors accept your apology. Now, grow a man bun and balance your chakras. It's good for the environment.
__________________
'Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves a banana, they'll never climb another tree.'. Robert Heinlein

'You can accomplish a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.' Al Capone
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-21-2018, 06:10 PM
BlackHeart's Avatar
BlackHeart BlackHeart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,999
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChickakooKookoo View Post
First thing the link says "From Breitbart"... Sorry, won't read it.
I suspect you love Huffpost though.......
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-21-2018, 06:38 PM
ChickakooKookoo ChickakooKookoo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHeart View Post
I suspect you love Huffpost though.......


LOL not even a little bit. I won't touch CNN either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
I am unique! Just like everybody else.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-21-2018, 08:48 PM
SlimChance SlimChance is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Leduc
Posts: 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
You don’t see that the computer models self test and fail everytime. So in the end you don’t need to prove them false.

Problem is each one gets media airtime and adsorbs to human brain assumptions. Then the false mental impression is hard to erase.

Plus they generate new variations constantly so no one can keep up.

As for the later comment. Not a single scientist who wants funding dares to come right out to declare man is safe.

The tight circle of believer peer reviewers also fix that worry.

Yes. Funding is very political and I don’t blame them for adding a last minute comment how they’re a believer.

Do what you need to be paid. Peer bashing and bullying is well documented in this area of study.
How does a mathematical equation self test?

if I have a (grossly oversimplified) climate model that states the average temperature (T) = Solar radiation (r) / thermal emission potential of the earth (e), how can it fail itself?

That model would allow me to predict changes in temperature based on changes in solar radiation or thermal emissions. the only way I can find out if it's accurate is to calculate it and compare it to actual observed data.

I've only read observational comparison papers on CMIP5, and they tend to broadly support it, though it doesn't seem to do seasonal changes well. (A study of Argentinian rainfall, for example, found that CMIP5 under/over predicited based on season, but predicited average annual rainfall relatively accurately).

As for the fear of publishing dissenting data, I've never really bought that argument. Science can be vicious, and bullying definitely happens. It hasn't, however, stopped funding and publishing of dissenting papers in other branches - it just means that dissenting papers need to have stronger data to weather attacks. A garbage paper could get by a soft peer review, but good data still leaves hostile peer reviewers pretty much helpless.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-21-2018, 09:04 PM
sageone sageone is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 70
Default

https://www.google.ca/search?q=ice+a...z0k0ToM:&isa=y

A picture is worth a thousand words. Which way do you think the blue line will
Go next?

I'm thinking wood stove. Not air conditioner.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 02-21-2018, 09:14 PM
Fish along's Avatar
Fish along Fish along is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Camrose county
Posts: 3,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherpeak View Post
During the Jurrasic period CO2 levels were 5 to 7 times higher than they are now. Put that in your environment pipe and smoke it.
Bahaha
__________________
If people concentrated on the really important things in life,there would be a shortage of fishing poles.Doug larson. Theres a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. Steven Wright.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-22-2018, 02:38 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimChance View Post
How does a mathematical equation self test?

if I have a (grossly oversimplified) climate model that states the average temperature (T) = Solar radiation (r) / thermal emission potential of the earth (e), how can it fail itself?

That model would allow me to predict changes in temperature based on changes in solar radiation or thermal emissions. the only way I can find out if it's accurate is to calculate it and compare it to actual observed data.

I've only read observational comparison papers on CMIP5, and they tend to broadly support it, though it doesn't seem to do seasonal changes well. (A study of Argentinian rainfall, for example, found that CMIP5 under/over predicited based on season, but predicited average annual rainfall relatively accurately).

As for the fear of publishing dissenting data, I've never really bought that argument. Science can be vicious, and bullying definitely happens. It hasn't, however, stopped funding and publishing of dissenting papers in other branches - it just means that dissenting papers need to have stronger data to weather attacks. A garbage paper could get by a soft peer review, but good data still leaves hostile peer reviewers pretty much helpless.
It is called failure. That is the problem. One can run other simulations and cherry pick their preferred outcome as well...however neither is science. So with a model you believe you can only see if true like you said with observation. Which means waiting out the time is takes for the model to runs its course...then at the end when the results should prove the model you ask yourself...did the computer guess right.

So far all are wrong.

Time after time predictive climate doom models have failed..and get rerun...only to fail again.

Hence since computer models are purely guesses the only way to test is to wait for their inevitable failure.

Some have been spectacular failures.

I will let you google failure climate change prediction models.

And yes...I can trump your model with models on solar minima. Simple but why not just as accurate?

https://principia-scientific.org/mod...ooling-coming/

As for bullying out dissenting opinion...when esteemed scientists in the field call people names like denier you can see the difference. Global warming has become big business as well as ingrained religion in north America.

It is not the same as studying in other fields...however even in the field of ancient hominids you still find some very strong voices. Get enough and you want a job...you have to go with the flow. It is sad as that is not what science is all about.
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-22-2018, 04:03 PM
SlimChance SlimChance is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Leduc
Posts: 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
It is called failure. That is the problem. One can run other simulations and cherry pick their preferred outcome as well...however neither is science. So with a model you believe you can only see if true like you said with observation. Which means waiting out the time is takes for the model to runs its course...then at the end when the results should prove the model you ask yourself...did the computer guess right.
Both models would be attempts at systematic study of natural phenomenon through experiement (the creation of the model) and observation (the subsequent correlation to observed real world data).

How is that not science?

Quote:
So far all are wrong.

Time after time predictive climate doom models have failed..and get rerun...only to fail again.

Hence since computer models are purely guesses the only way to test is to wait for their inevitable failure.

Some have been spectacular failures.

I will let you google failure climate change prediction models.
The hindcasting of the CMIP5 showed generally good results, though some models underpredicted warming trends.

All models performed well in predicting trends in clatically stable areas. All struggled to some degree to predict regional trends in highly variable areas.

What is your criteria for failure?

[Quote]
And yes...I can trump your model with models on solar minima. Simple but why not just as accurate?

https://principia-scientific.org/mod...ooling-coming/

My model was the simplest zero dimension model I could find, stripped of all but two variables for ease of articulating a point. I wasn't aware we were having some kind of climate-model-dick measuring contest.

Quote:
As for bullying out dissenting opinion...when esteemed scientists in the field call people names like denier you can see the difference. Global warming has become big business as well as ingrained religion in north America.

It is not the same as studying in other fields...however even in the field of ancient hominids you still find some very strong voices. Get enough and you want a job...you have to go with the flow. It is sad as that is not what science is all about.
You've laid out two scenarios and only one can be true.

Either:

Established climate science muzzles dissenting opinion.
This would mean that climate model failures are not published in reputable journals (in which case who would be publishing them?) or;

Climate model failures are published in reputable journals. This would mean that the climate establishment does not muzzle dissent in amy meaningful way.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-22-2018, 04:36 PM
HalfBreed's Avatar
HalfBreed HalfBreed is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Parkland
Posts: 1,659
Default

This kinda reminds me of the stories where women were getting beaten in the 80's for killing the o-zone.

__________________
I take everything with a grain of pepper, I'm just different that way.

Last edited by HalfBreed; 02-22-2018 at 04:37 PM. Reason: some pretty boys too
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-22-2018, 04:55 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimChance View Post
Both models would be attempts at systematic study of natural phenomenon through experiement (the creation of the model) and observation (the subsequent correlation to observed real world data).

How is that not science?



The hindcasting of the CMIP5 showed generally good results, though some models underpredicted warming trends.

All models performed well in predicting trends in clatically stable areas. All struggled to some degree to predict regional trends in highly variable areas.

What is your criteria for failure?

And yes...I can trump your model with models on solar minima. Simple but why not just as accurate?

https://principia-scientific.org/mod...ooling-coming/

My model was the simplest zero dimension model I could find, stripped of all but two variables for ease of articulating a point. I wasn't aware we were having some kind of climate-model-dick measuring contest.



You've laid out two scenarios and only one can be true.

Either:

Established climate science muzzles dissenting opinion.
This would mean that climate model failures are not published in reputable journals (in which case who would be publishing them?) or;

Climate model failures are published in reputable journals. This would mean that the climate establishment does not muzzle dissent in amy meaningful way.
Models aren’t experiments.

Research scientific process.

Failing models are always replaced with another failure. First failure forgotten. New clock started. New one cannot be tested. Yet many assumption based decisions get pushed by the media and new model treated as a fact. It gets very tiring.
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin

Last edited by Sundancefisher; 02-22-2018 at 05:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-22-2018, 08:23 PM
SlimChance SlimChance is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Leduc
Posts: 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Models aren’t experiments.

Research scientific process.

Failing models are always replaced with another failure. First failure forgotten. New clock started. New one cannot be tested. Yet many assumption based decisions get pushed by the media and new model treated as a fact. It gets very tiring.
Models are fundamental to the experimental process when the phenomenon isn't functionally measurable or observable in a controlled setting. That's pretty basic science.

Climate models are typically tested by hindcasting (Allowing the model to forecast from a date in the past, so that predictions can be compared to observed data).

A review of hindcast results of the 7 models making up the CMIP5 can be found here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...2GL051644/full

Further to that, new climate models tend to not be wholly new. Rather, they're refined versions of previous models, tweaked to change any noted shortcomings of the previous model (which could only be found if they're tested.)

The third generation Canadian model, for example, states that:
The third version of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM3), makes use of the same ocean component as that used in the earlier The Second Generation Coupled Global Climate Model, but it makes use of the substantially updated atmospheric component



You also haven't given any answer as to what defines a failing model.

How far off do predictions have to be before we decide the model has failed?
Does a model fail if it accurately predicts annual rainfall averages, but fails to accurately differentiate seasonal rainfall (this is the result of another hindcast study)?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:31 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimChance View Post
Models are fundamental to the experimental process when the phenomenon isn't functionally measurable or observable in a controlled setting. That's pretty basic science.

Climate models are typically tested by hindcasting (Allowing the model to forecast from a date in the past, so that predictions can be compared to observed data).

A review of hindcast results of the 7 models making up the CMIP5 can be found here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...2GL051644/full

Further to that, new climate models tend to not be wholly new. Rather, they're refined versions of previous models, tweaked to change any noted shortcomings of the previous model (which could only be found if they're tested.)

The third generation Canadian model, for example, states that:
The third version of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM3), makes use of the same ocean component as that used in the earlier The Second Generation Coupled Global Climate Model, but it makes use of the substantially updated atmospheric component



You also haven't given any answer as to what defines a failing model.

How far off do predictions have to be before we decide the model has failed?
Does a model fail if it accurately predicts annual rainfall averages, but fails to accurately differentiate seasonal rainfall (this is the result of another hindcast study)?
Read away.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/...e-predictions/
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 02-22-2018, 09:34 PM
gordfishing gordfishing is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 551
Default

Has no one ever heard of EVOLUTION
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-22-2018, 10:01 PM
SlimChance SlimChance is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Leduc
Posts: 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
#1 Remember when you claimed academics couldn't publish critical or dissenting papers due to intimidation from mainstream peer reviewers?

Now that it's convenient for your argument, you're happy to trot out a list of mainstream academic papers critical of previous predictions. Hell, some of those are authored by the IPCC itself.

Who's wrong? You or the list?

#2 There were about 1100 papers published using climate models in 2017. You've given me a list of 21 "failures". You do the math...
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-23-2018, 08:28 AM
dmcbride dmcbride is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bazeau County East side
Posts: 4,166
Default

I problem with man made Climate change is that the dooms day scenarios never come true.

http://business.financialpost.com/op...ate-do-gooders

Terence Corcoran: Polar bear battle in Toronto! It’s good science vs. climate do-gooders
Two events next week juxtapose two conflicting conclusions on the current health and future for polar bears. Behind the science, there’s also a juicy personal clash


Coming next Tuesday to Toronto’s swanky Yorkville district, it’s the 2018 Polar Bear Showdown, an international display of conflicting views on the state of polar-bear science. Are the great, charismatic creatures, all white, cuddly-looking and dangerous, caught in the death grip of climate change?

At one corner in Yorkville, in the ballroom of the upmarket Four Seasons Hotel, Polar Bears International (PBI) will stage a grand, $15,000-a-table gala to raise funds to protect the allegedly threatened Arctic species from the ravages of our addiction to fossil fuels. Sponsored by a klatch of corporate goody-two-shoes — a couple of Canadian banks, a major accounting outfit, The Globe and Mail — and filled with razzle-dazzle entertainment and good food, the purpose of the event is to mark International Polar Bear Day and draw attention to PBI’s science-based effort to sound a global polar-bear alarm.

At another corner, exactly one block away, in the Founders’ Room at the down-market Toronto Reference Library, the Global Warming Policy Foundation of London, England will launch a new report on the state of polar bears by Susan Crockford, adjunct professor at the University of Victoria. There will be no entertainment, and no food, but the science will be far superior.

As a science showdown, the Yorkville events juxtapose two conflicting conclusions on the current health and future prospects for polar bears amid climate change. Behind the science, there’s also a juicy personal clash.

The chief scientist at Polar Bears International is Steven Amstrup, adjunct professor at the University of Wyoming and a leading purveyor of the theory that climate change could exterminate polar bears from the Arctic regions. In recent months, Amstrup has launched direct attacks on Crockford and joined others in producing what can only be described as junk-science attempts to undermine her polar-bear research. In return, Crockford recently published a critique of Amstrup’s decades-long campaign to portray polar bears as an endangered species and establish them as the poster-species for climate change.

Crockford’s conclusion is that PBI’s chief scientist and prime motivational guide, whose biographic page contains a catalogue of polar-bear alarmism, spent more than a decade creating a media scare that drove many (including Al Gore) to believe in a threat that didn’t exist. As Crockford wrote in a posting on her polarbearscience.com blog last month: “Polar bear experts who falsely predicted that roughly 17,300 polar bears would be dead by now (given sea ice conditions since 2007) have realized their failure has not only kicked their own credibility to the curb, it has taken with it the reputations of their climate change colleagues.”

Crockford’s new paper is aimed at a wide audience of teachers, scientists, students, decision-makers and the general public. It should be required reading for attendees at the Polar Bear Day gala. An executive summary of the report, State of the Polar Bear Report 2017, says that global polar-bear numbers have been stable or have risen since 2005, despite lower summer sea ice levels: “Overly pessimistic media responses to recent polar bear issues have made heartbreaking news out of scientifically insignificant events.”

As of this writing, one of those insignificant heartbreaking events — the video of a lone and apparently starving polar bear — adorns PBI’s website and serves as part of the sales pitch for next Tuesday’s gala in Yorkville. The video went viral in December, but has since been widely criticized. As veteran British environment writer Fred Pearce wrote recently in New Scientist magazine: “Emaciated, it stumbled across a green Arctic landscape without a speck of snow or ice in sight …Media outlets seized on the video as an example of how climate change is killing its poster child. But behind the headlines is an awkward question: have climate change activists chosen the wrong mascot?”

Pearce notes that the theory of looming polar-bear extinction has proved wrong. With rising temperatures in the Arctic and less ice “the polar bear population should have crashed. It hasn’t. If anything, numbers are up compared with 10 years ago.” Population numbers are also up since 1973, when hunting bans were put in place. While Pearce still sees the bears at some risk from a variety of threats, current estimates suggest “the species is not at immediate risk of extinction.”

Another recent commentary makes a similar point. In a release summarizing a recent polar-bear conference in Fairbanks, Alaska, an organization funded by the Russian Geographical Society quotes a Russian conservation official, Yegor Vereshchagin, on the fate of polar bears in Russia’s Chukotka region, across the Bering Sea from Alaska. “Both scientific data and traditional knowledge prove that nothing threatens our bears. During spring counts of dens we often find female bears with three cubs, which proves that the population is in good shape and there is no danger of a decrease in the population.”

Surely the attendees, corporate sponsors and organizers of that big Yorkville gala will find it instructive if they were to download Crockford’s paper when it is released by the Global Warming Policy Foundation next Tuesday, a few hours before their ritzy event. They will no doubt be thrilled by the good news. Maybe one of them will grab the mic that night and propose a toast: “Here’s to the polar bears, who are doing great!”
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 02-24-2018, 10:22 PM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Models aren’t experiments.

Research scientific process.

Failing models are always replaced with another failure. First failure forgotten. New clock started. New one cannot be tested. Yet many assumption based decisions get pushed by the media and new model treated as a fact. It gets very tiring.
In climate science itself, I'd say you are probably right, they are not stand alone experiments - unless you are studying the output of the data itself. I will give you that, however, models are a very important part of science.

There also some models, when I read what they are premised on, are highly suspect to me and seem "weak" (on both sides of the argument).

But there are many others that do seem to address many concerns/variables quite well as far as I can see.

Nevertheless experimental models, predictive models, correlative, split-plot, limit models etc.. can, themselves can be important parts of actual data delivery based experimentation.

You are trained in science, which I assume means qualified (with formal credentials) and likely well as experienced in these areas - so I'm 100% certain you understand how important these can be and also understand that they are commonly used and quite important.

You also know that you can't proclaim these models to be either right or wrong (failed), quite just yet simply because the validation window is measured in dozens if not hundreds of years or more - so hang in there.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-25-2018, 12:03 AM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Some more facts.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...es/#more-32408

Too many graphs to quote the article.

NOAA is irrelevant in my books, has been for a while.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-25-2018, 01:15 AM
drhu22 drhu22 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EZM View Post
In climate science itself, I'd say you are probably right, they are not stand alone experiments - unless you are studying the output of the data itself. I will give you that, however, models are a very important part of science.

There also some models, when I read what they are premised on, are highly suspect to me and seem "weak" (on both sides of the argument).
But there are many others that do seem to address many concerns/variables quite well as far as I can see.
Nevertheless experimental models, predictive models, correlative, split-plot, limit models etc.. can, themselves can be important parts of actual data delivery based experimentation.
You are trained in science, which I assume means qualified (with formal credentials) and likely well as experienced in these areas - so I'm 100% certain you understand how important these can be and also understand that they are commonly used and quite important.
You also know that you can't proclaim these models to be either right or wrong (failed), quite just yet simply because the validation window is measured in dozens if not hundreds of years or more - so hang in there.
EZM, you are just giving misinformation more of a voice by furthering the conversation, ie: dont feed the trolls. In person you can somewhat hold them to account, on the internet not so much.

Last edited by drhu22; 02-25-2018 at 01:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02-25-2018, 06:28 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EZM View Post
In climate science itself, I'd say you are probably right, they are not stand alone experiments - unless you are studying the output of the data itself. I will give you that, however, models are a very important part of science.

There also some models, when I read what they are premised on, are highly suspect to me and seem "weak" (on both sides of the argument).

But there are many others that do seem to address many concerns/variables quite well as far as I can see.

Nevertheless experimental models, predictive models, correlative, split-plot, limit models etc.. can, themselves can be important parts of actual data delivery based experimentation.

You are trained in science, which I assume means qualified (with formal credentials) and likely well as experienced in these areas - so I'm 100% certain you understand how important these can be and also understand that they are commonly used and quite important.

You also know that you can't proclaim these models to be either right or wrong (failed), quite just yet simply because the validation window is measured in dozens if not hundreds of years or more - so hang in there.
If you want to make guesses that look official and get mainstream media to publish as fact then rely on models.

Climate is far to difficult to model.

Models fail time and time again for a reason. Maybe someone can post a list of computer models published as scienrific experiments tha actually proved their guesses to be correct.

All models do to date is prove time and time again that scientists using models don't have a clue about what they believe or hope is true.
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 02-25-2018, 08:38 PM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drhu22 View Post
EZM, you are just giving misinformation more of a voice by furthering the conversation, ie: dont feed the trolls. In person you can somewhat hold them to account, on the internet not so much.
Yeah - you are probably right.

Once some people decide on something even common sense, logic and science can't persuade them to consider another perspective.

Maybe it is time to just move on again ...... these threads keep popping up and ending the same way each time.

Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-25-2018, 09:43 PM
Digger1's Avatar
Digger1 Digger1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 635
Default

Climate has always been changing. Just recently the smart guys figured out how to use it to take money away from us. Who cares if it’s changing or not? Just quit taxing us for it. It doesn’t do any good. See Australia and others.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02-26-2018, 07:35 AM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger1 View Post
Climate has always been changing. Just recently the smart guys figured out how to use it to take money away from us. Who cares if it’s changing or not? Just quit taxing us for it. It doesn’t do any good. See Australia and others.
I won't argue that our government is using climate to dream up and initiate new ways of taxing us ..... but to be realistic and pragmatic ...... there is far more money in saying (or denying) man made warming exists as the corporations who use fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas, etc..) have a much deeper reach into our pockets.

And being held accountable to make changes to emissions is far more costly to them.

This knife cuts both ways.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-26-2018, 07:44 AM
Tigger72's Avatar
Tigger72 Tigger72 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glen moa View Post
The climate change people should figure out a way of reducing the earths population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
Sounds like a good idea. Whose first?
Hmm can we start with the drug addicts - it will save on naloxone kits and injection site cost too..... or is that another thread
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 03-04-2018, 12:14 AM
kujoseto's Avatar
kujoseto kujoseto is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Strathcona County
Posts: 2,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glen moa View Post
The climate change people should figure out a way of reducing the earths population.
Since they're so concerned for all peoplekind, maybe they could start with themselves
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 03-04-2018, 07:34 AM
Digger1's Avatar
Digger1 Digger1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 635
Default

Dr Tim Ball was on Calgary radio a couple weeks ago speaking of ridiculous failed computer models. Incidentally, he just won the lawsuit Andrew Weaver, BC Green man, brought against him. The judge said he’s now free to counter sue for costs and damages. Funny, we didn’t hear about that in the news. Good show.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.