Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16521 - 16540 of total 21605 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 11, 2014 - 04:37pm PT
Just mankind.


You and the others here just do not get that.




Even if this were fiction I wouldn't believe it!
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 11, 2014 - 04:44pm PT
Lets take Ed's favorite; hansen's scenario C compared to the maladjusted temperature record ,which looks pretty good till you realize it is based on his lower CO2 output while in the real world we've exceeded even his highest CO2 ouput. This invalidates the models the scenarios were built on. Then lets look at the mid tropospheric hotspot that all the models project, sorry all the satellite data shows it actually cooling. Next is the atmospheric water vapor that was ptojected to increase while it is actually decreasing. How about all the increased, and now record ,antarctic ice which is contrary to projections. And who can forget the now 15+/- year pause in temps. There are too many other examples to belabor the point that the models have no utility in predicting multi decadal climate change. So what kind of fool would willingly wreak havoc on todays economy ,and turn societies upside down , based upon centennial projections from already failed models? I mean other than greedy government/corporate Interests and rabid enviro idiots.
raymond phule

climber
Aug 11, 2014 - 10:49pm PT
Your only utility here is msking sure you collect my five canucks from Raymond Fool once he comes out on the losing end of our arctic ice extent bet.

I don't remember agreeing about a bet with you.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 12, 2014 - 08:04am PT
JEleazarian, upthread, comments on a recent paper by Shaun Lovejoy in the journal Climate Dynamics. It's an interesting paper in which Lovejoy takes a new approach (statistical, as JE notes) to address what past temperatures suggest about the likelihood that recent warming is natural. Lovejoy uses three different multiproxy reconstructions (including borehole temperature measurements, which require no calibration; but also an update of the most recent Mann index) to estimate the statistical distribution of preindustrial temperature variations, then test where recent change falls in that distribution. It falls way out in the right-hand tail (very low probability), hence the conclusion that the probability is "slim to none" (1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000) that modern warming is natural.

Along the way, Lovejoy estimates the equilibrium climate sensitivity (temperature effect from doubling CO2) as 2.5 to 3.66 C, well within the IPCC AR5 range of 2 to 4.5 C -- but from totally different methods.

Like JE, I find these thoughtful but black-box statistical analyses (an earlier and much different example being Foster & Rahmstorf 2012) complement the much more sophisticated but complex physical models such as those emphasized by the IPCC, showing that you can make much different assumptions yet converge on the same place.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 12, 2014 - 08:17am PT
Hey, I was just making a joke The Chief, splicing lines from two different posts. Why all the hate?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 12, 2014 - 10:38am PT
Pleading alzheimer's is no excuse Raymond. Convert enough of your local currency to canucks, then get with Bruce, the paymaster, for transfer instructions. Arctic ice extent minimum is set to hit bottom a little early this year, perhaps in less than a month. Your guesstimate of the third or fourth lowest historical Ice cover area is rapidly and convincingly disappearing along with the height of the Arctic sun's transit .
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Aug 12, 2014 - 10:59am PT
just when It seemed the thread could be dumbed no further down...
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 12, 2014 - 11:24am PT
This entire climate modeling deal is based on "assumptions".

I'd actually go farther. Every statistical analysis in any field uses assumption. To "assume" something means to proceed as if it is true. We then see if the parameters the model estimates lead to results consistent with the assumptions.

Let me give you an example from a totally unrelated area. In 1973, the Nixon Administration and Congress agreed to impose a national speed limit of 55 miles per hour. There was no previous limit, and many California freeways had a 70 mph limit. Fatality rates per vehicle mile dropped sharply after that, causing many to claim that the reduced speed limit caused the drop. Like anthropogenic climate change, there were sound scientific and statistical reasons for thinking the lower limit could improve safety. Physics tells us that the lower the speed of a crash, the less severe its impact. Also, the more uniform the speed of traffic, the fewer accidents per vehicle mile. Many thought that the lower speed limit would cause the actual speed of traffic to be more uniform.

I thought the raltionship between speed and fatalities was a hypothesis worth testing, so I constructed various models of fatality rates per vehicle mile on rural highways. I used that particular segment because the new limit should have affected all of it. I estimated models using the speed limit as one explanatory variable. I also estimated models using measured speed as an explanatory variable. Both types of models assumed that the lower the speed (whether represented by the speed limit or the measured speed of vehicles), the lower the fatality rate, all other things being equal (or as we economists like to say, ceteris paribus).

When I ran the regressions to estimate the equations showing the relationship of speed (however measured) to fatalities, I found that one model actually estimated a negative value for speed. That meant the faster you went, the safer you were (sort of like climbing the Eigerwand). What was really telling, however, was that the t-statistic for the speed coefficient was not statistically significant at any generally accepted level. Put into English, it meant the model's results contradicted the assumption that slower speed led to safer driving.

As one of the checks I ran on my results, I examined changes in fatality rates on other kinds of highways. I found the largest drop occurred on urban surface streets -- where the 55-mph limit had no relevance. This (among several other tests) was a bit of evidence confirming the results of my statistical modeling. Based on all of this, I concluded that my assumption that the 55 mph speed limit resulted in fewer fatalities had a rather serious defect -- because reality differed significantly!

Incidentally, although the models dismissed speed as a safety factor, they found the real price of fuel highly important. In general, the higher the fuel cost, the safer the driving. I rationalized this by viewing fuel prices as a proxy for relative fuel avilability. When fuel supplies get tight, people cut back on discretionary driving, but still drive to work. Discretionary driving tends, statistically, to be the least safe.

While this example has little to do with climate change (except to suggest that if we impose cap and trade on fuel prices, we may get safer driving as a byproduct), I hope, Bruce, that it illustrate some of the ways modelers go about our business.

John
raymond phule

climber
Aug 12, 2014 - 11:25am PT

Pleading alzheimer's is no excuse Raymond. Convert enough of your local currency to canucks, then get with Bruce, the paymaster, for transfer instructions. Arctic ice extent minimum is set to hit bottom a little early this year, perhaps in less than a month. Your guesstimate of the third or fourth lowest historical Ice cover area is rapidly and convincingly disappearing along with the height of the Arctic sun's transit .

Show me the post were I agreed to bet with you or shut up.

Like your prediction of the most sea ice in 10 years is likely to happen...

What did I agree on in your dream world? That you win if not my guess did came true independent of your own prediction?



Shack

Big Wall climber
Reno NV
Aug 12, 2014 - 05:15pm PT
The Best Post Award goes to Rick Sumner:

Lets take Ed's favorite; hansen's scenario C compared to the maladjusted temperature record ,which looks pretty good till you realize it is based on his lower CO2 output while in the real world we've exceeded even his highest CO2 ouput. This invalidates the models the scenarios were built on. Then lets look at the mid tropospheric hotspot that all the models project, sorry all the satellite data shows it actually cooling. Next is the atmospheric water vapor that was ptojected to increase while it is actually decreasing. How about all the increased, and now record ,antarctic ice which is contrary to projections. And who can forget the now 15+/- year pause in temps. There are too many other examples to belabor the point that the models have no utility in predicting multi decadal climate change. So what kind of fool would willingly wreak havoc on todays economy ,and turn societies upside down , based upon centennial projections from already failed models? I mean other than greedy government/corporate Interests and rabid enviro idiots.

k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 12, 2014 - 05:36pm PT
Thanks for finally letting us know that this thread is all a joke.

Your reading comprehension could use some work, The Chief.












But we knew that.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 12, 2014 - 05:40pm PT
That's a lie.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Aug 12, 2014 - 05:48pm PT
Chief, there's absolutely no need for a comma in your third sentance. It is uncalled for.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Aug 12, 2014 - 05:51pm PT
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2014/08/11/if-all-you-see-1218/
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 12, 2014 - 06:11pm PT
That's a lie.


Prove it... KMAN!





I'm having a hard time figuring out which makes The Chief look more a fool; him not understanding my joke was about what I quoted or the fact that he's arguing that he told a lie.


The Chief, if your statement isn't a lie, then you are one dumb muthurf*#ker.
And by you arguing that it's not a lie, you are still one dumb muthurf*#ker.

Either way you look at it, you're dumb as a box of bait. And now I understand why you are so filled with hate.
I'd hate too if God made me so stupid.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 12, 2014 - 06:57pm PT
The Chief's typo with a comma is is understandable. What isn't understandable is the constant annoying blithering coming from the coma basket cases posting thinly veiled propaganda and programmed talking points. Icey.

Not saying you definitely have lost with a prediction farther from the endpoint than mine Raymond. But, if I hear you correctly you are signalling your intention to welch on your gambling debt in the event of your loss. Out here in the "wild west" we don't take kindly to "europeon welchers". Capiche, pardner.
crunch

Social climber
CO
Aug 12, 2014 - 09:23pm PT
the probability is "slim to none" (1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000) that modern warming is natural

Thanks Chiloe and JEleazarian.

raymond phule

climber
Aug 12, 2014 - 11:23pm PT

Not saying you definitely have lost with a prediction farther from the endpoint than mine Raymond. But, if I hear you correctly you are signalling your intention to welch on your gambling debt in the event of your loss. Out here in the "wild west" we don't take kindly to "europeon welchers". Capiche, pardner.

Rick, try to understand this. I have not agreed to bet with you. Do you understand that? I really didn't think that it was worth the hassle with payment to get 5 dollars from you.

If I wanted to bet with you I would of course have made a safe bet instead of my best guess at the time, i.e. that this year would be the ninth in the order so that I would win when your prediction failed.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 12, 2014 - 11:32pm PT
Like the invasion and then ensuing war in Iraq, JEL?

Respectfully, Chief, no. The invasion of Iraq was acting on assumptions. The climate models, like my econometric models, test assumptions.

We all act on assumptions. As just one example, I assume that the gas gauge in my car accurately reflects the amount of fuel I have in the tank, and rely on it to determine when to fill the tank. If, however, the gauge doesn't measure fuel level at all, but something unrelated, I will get in trouble real soon if I rely on it to determine when to buy gas.

When we criticize the climate models (and modelers) we're doing the equivalent of saying that the gas gauge doesn't display the fuel level accurately. That assertion, even if true, may not matter. If the inaccuracy means that a reading of 1/2 full on the gauge is really just .49 full, who cares? I can still rely on the gauge to fill the tank. If, in contrast, the gauge doesn't measure fuel level at all, I do (or at least should) care.

My main criticism of the models' critics is their lack of any statistical models suggesting a different mechanism. If, for instance, anthropogenic climate effects are unimportant determinants of world climate, the critics should be able to construct a model that predicts future climate without using, say, human activities causing increases in CO2 concentrations. Where are those models, so I can examine them and compare their forecasts with those of the conventional wisdom?

I still think most critics of the climate data analysis really object to the actions proposed rather than to the models themselves. If so, that's a fair objection. As I've argued many times, what to do about climate is an economic question, not a scientific one. Determining what climate is doing, however, is a scientific question, and -- to me -- the debate has been intellectually rather one-sided. Those who conclude that the earth's climate is changing, and that human activity is largely responsible for that change, have put forth proper statistical evidence to support their positions. Those who criticize them have not propounded alternative statistical models.

John
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 13, 2014 - 06:13am PT
the debate has been intellectually rather one-sided
there's a good reason for that ...
most deniers are math & science morons
Messages 16521 - 16540 of total 21605 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews