DENNY! Make $10,000 FAST!

[Denny Crane]

The Big Bang is a scientific theory. I'd be open to alternative explanations, but it fits what we observe.

Global Warming is a theory as well. It is well supported by observable and measurable evidence.

AGW is a hypothesis.

I don't contradict myself.

 

[jlprk]

There is no control for any possible experiment. You can't go back in time, exterminate humanity, then measure to see if the current temperature would be different.

The models are bullshit. GIGO, and it is garbage in. The atmosphere does not operate on some limited number of equations. Only a little chaos invalidates it all.

You cannot accurately simulate the outcome of a basketball game. In reality, a guy might stub his toe in the shower which causes him to miss a few shots he normally makes. That's chaos. You can program in that player stubbing his toe at his house, but what about at the stadium? Now you have two cases to model. There are soooo many more than two. Chaos.

If you could model a basketball game accurately, why risk injury to the players when you can use the model's results?

Basketball is many many many many orders of magnitude easier to model and get right (but we never will, chaos) than the climate.

I don't justify inaction because of unknowns. I justify minimal action because of what I do know.

Wow, you disappoint me. Testing simplified models is how science works. I didn't know you're a science rube.

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow, you disappoint me. Testing simplified models is how science works. I didn't know you're a science rube.

Computer models are subject to human bias and human error, as well as issues with computers in general (like rounding errors).

A computer model cannot be a satisfactory replacement for the real thing. Ever.

I didn't know you were so gullible to believe that they could be.

 

[jlprk]

The legs supporting science are theory, hypothesis (model if complex) based upon the theory, experiment, confirm or disprove theory, evolve theory, repeat.

I thought you were smart enough to understand that scientists begin with an imperfect model and evolve it. Your requirement that their models be perfect from the start would stop all science.

If Thomas Edison had started with a perfect model for the light bulb, he wouldn't have tried hundreds of materials before getting it right.

 

[MarAzul]

The legs supporting science are theory, hypothesis (model if complex) based upon the theory, experiment, confirm or disprove theory, evolve theory, repeat.

I thought you were smart enough to understand that scientists begin with an imperfect model and evolve it. Your requirement that their models be perfect from the start would stop all science.

If Thomas Edison had started with a perfect model for the light bulb, he wouldn't have tried hundreds of materials before getting it right.

Then come the fucking Democrats and ban the bulb after 101 works.

 

[jlprk]

http://www.definitions.net/definition/scientific model

1.scientific model (Noun)
An approximation or simulation of a real system that omits all but the most essential variables of the system.

A scientific model is a representation/replica of a complicated system which leaves out all details except a few (maybe only one) variables. If the real world has 500 variables, and an experiment can handle only 5, then the science team designs hundreds of overlapping experiments, each with 5 variables, which crosscheck each other.

If you don't believe in science, why are you on a computer at this moment? All scientific studies you see in the paper (disease cures, vitamins, Kepler satellite discovering 1500 planets around other stars, etc.) were done using complex models.

All I'm asking for is a study to find an estimate of cost & benefit for each global warming option (e.g. the expensive, middle, and cheap options). As I said, if cost exceeds benefits, then I oppose that option. But Denny opposes even this simple cost-benefit analysis.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If you don't believe in science, why are you on a computer at this moment? All scientific studies you see in the paper (disease cures, vitamins, Kepler satellite discovering 1500 planets around other stars, etc.) were done using complex models.

Computer?!? I post on this forum via fax machine.

20yrs now and I still have never gotten a virus!

 

[barfo]

A computer model cannot be a satisfactory replacement for the real thing. Ever.

Who said it has to replace the real thing? That seems like a gigantic and bizarre strawman you've built there.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

And here I thought Denny was a smart guy. He's a science rube! Well I won't be hard on myself, we can all be wrong a couple of times in life, I guess it's okay, just don't make a habit of it, predictions should always be right from the get-go.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.definitions.net/definition/scientific model

1.scientific model (Noun)
An approximation or simulation of a real system that omits all but the most essential variables of the system.

A scientific model is a representation/replica of a complicated system which leaves out all details except a few (maybe only one) variables. If the real world has 500 variables, and an experiment can handle only 5, then the science team designs hundreds of overlapping experiments, each with 5 variables, which crosscheck each other.

If you don't believe in science, why are you on a computer at this moment? All scientific studies you see in the paper (disease cures, vitamins, Kepler satellite discovering 1500 planets around other stars, etc.) were done using complex models.

All I'm asking for is a study to find an estimate of cost & benefit for each global warming option (e.g. the expensive, middle, and cheap options). As I said, if cost exceeds benefits, then I oppose that option. But Denny opposes even this simple cost-benefit analysis.

The real world climate has 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 variables. I may be understating the number. It can't be modeled accurately, or even close.

 

[Denny Crane]

Who said it has to replace the real thing? That seems like a gigantic and bizarre strawman you've built there.

barfo

It's no evidence at all of anything then, eh? Nobody should point to their results and say they predict anything at all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-earths-surface-has-decelerated-viewpoint/

To be sure, both sets of data points show an mean annual change of +0.01C during the 2000s. But, if current trends continue for just a few more years, then the mean change for the 2000s will shift to negative; in other words, the warming would really stop. The current +.01C mean increase in temperatures is insufficient to verify the climate change projections for major warming (even the low end +1-2C) by mid-to-late century. A peer reviewed study in Nature Climate Change published in 2013 drew the same conclusion: “Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models,” it says.

 

[jlprk]

The real world climate has 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 variables. I may be understating the number. It can't be modeled accurately, or even close.

You already said that. So I said that you're against all science (since all its methods are nonlocal, i.e. usable anywhere in the universe, to which you object). Then I asked why you use a computer. In oother threads, you strangely have no trouble linking to science articles when you like the conclusions.

 

[Denny Crane]

You already said that. So I said that you're against all science (since all its methods are nonlocal, i.e. usable anywhere in the universe, to which you object). Then I asked why you use a computer. In oother threads, you strangely have no trouble linking to science articles when you like the conclusions.

I'm not against all science. Now you're being silly.

I'm against bogus science, and misusing models like the alarmists do is bogus science.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

A scientific model seeks to represent empirical objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a logical and objective way. All models are in simulacra, that is, simplified reflections of reality, but, despite their inherent falsity, they are nevertheless extremely useful. Building and disputing models is fundamental to the scientific enterprise. Complete and true representation may be impossible (see non-representational theory), but scientific debate often concerns which is the better model for a given task, e.g., which is the more accurate climate model for seasonal forecasting.

There is no reason to assume any climate model is accurate enough. They never will be.

Attempts to formalize the principles of the empirical sciences use an interpretation to model reality, in the same way logicians axiomatize the principles of logic. The aim of these attempts is to construct a formal system that will not produce theoretical consequences that are contrary to what is found in reality.

They are contrary to what is found in reality:

 

[barfo]

It's no evidence at all of anything then, eh? Nobody should point to their results and say they predict anything at all.

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make.

barfo

Nobody should point to their results and say they predict anything at all.

Does reading it twice help you get the point?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

They are contrary to what is found in reality:

That's a very interesting website. http://alfinnextlevel.wordpress.com/

The first article about how the US is going to get dumber because we're allowing Mexicans to breed too much in our country is very enlightening.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's a very interesting website. http://alfinnextlevel.wordpress.com/

The first article about how the US is going to get dumber because we're allowing Mexicans to breed too much in our country is very enlightening.

What makes you think the Washington Post would publish that graph?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

http://judithcurry.com/2013/02/22/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison/

 

[Denny Crane]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...rong-and-valuable/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I’m overdue to draw your attention to two fresh, and very different, discussions of climate science by Gavin Schmidt, the longtime climate modeler at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

...

Here’s an excerpt from the transcript, which can be explored in full here:

…Models are not right or wrong; they’re always wrong. They’re always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells you more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it’s skillful….

I could go through a dozen…examples: the skill associated with solar cycles, changing the ozone in the stratosphere; the skill associated with orbital changes over 6,000 years. We can look at that too, and the models are skillful. The models are skillful in response to the ice sheets 20,000 years ago. The models are skillful when it comes to the 20th-century trends over the decades. Models are successful at modeling lake outbursts into the North Atlantic 8,000 years ago. And we can get a good match to the data.

Each of these different targets, each of these different evaluations, leads us to add more scope to these models, and leads us to more and more complex situations that we can ask more and more interesting questions, like, how does dust from the Sahara, that you can see in the orange, interact with tropical cyclones in the Atlantic? How do organic aerosols from biomass burning, which you can see in the red dots, intersect with clouds and rainfall patterns? How does pollution, which you can see in the white wisps of sulfate pollution in Europe, how does that affect the temperatures at the surface and the sunlight that you get at the surface?

…

 

[barfo]

Nobody should point to their results and say they predict anything at all.

Does reading it twice help you get the point?

Not really. Are you literally arguing that computer modeling is entirely useless? That is obviously incorrect, so I assume that's not what you mean, but it does seem to be what you are saying.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Not really. Are you literally arguing that computer modeling is entirely useless? That is obviously incorrect, so I assume that's not what you mean, but it does seem to be what you are saying.

barfo

They are all there is that predicts future warming at alarming levels.

I can create a model of how many stupid responses I'll get from you about this subject.

8n

Where n is my number of posts.

I'd be happy to have it peer reviewed, too. Hey MarAzul, you agree?

I'm probably making a poor assumption. Maybe it's 2n. But 8n is the result I want!

Or maybe, to you, it's 0n.

 

[barfo]

They are all there is that predicts future warming at alarming levels.

They are all there is, huh?

Translation: computer models are useless because I disagree with the conclusion.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

They are all there is, huh?

Translation: computer models are useless because I disagree with the conclusion.

barfo

Translation: they're wrong all the time. The NASA modeler affirms it.

So if they're wrong, why trust them?

Because they wrongly predict a desired outcome.

Chicken Little.

 

[barfo]

Translation: they're wrong all the time. The NASA modeler affirms it.

Your selective reading skills are really quite impressive.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Your selective reading skills are really quite impressive.

barfo

He said they're always wrong . In this case very wrong.

 

[jlprk]

I'm not against all science. Now you're being silly.

There is no reason to assume any climate model is accurate enough. They never will be. They are contrary to what is found in reality

Make up your mind. You keep saying you believe in science, but don't believe in one of its central methodologies, simplistic modeling. You and I have now gone around this circle about 3 times.

 

[Denny Crane]

Make up your mind. You keep saying you believe in science, but don't believe in one of its central methodologies, simplistic modeling. You and I have now gone around this circle about 3 times.

Climate models are one of the central methodologies of all science? Wow, that's big news. Write a paper, and maybe you can get it peer reviewed or something.

Guess what? In science, Models don't need to be anything to do with computers.

Simplistic models are great. Climate can't be modeled with a simplistic model, or any other kind of model. Accurately, that is.

 

[Further]

The models are wrong, but so are all models. But they still provide our best scientific estimation. Perhaps the scientists aren't accounting for some input or are over characterizing the effect of inputs they are using. But that doesn't mean there isn't tremendous benefit and information to glean from these modelings. And it certainly doesn't meant the general trends that almost every single model concludes is wrong. This past May was the warmest May on record, that's not prediction, that's fact. And the more of those data points that align with the modeling shows that although the models aren't correct, they do show important trends.

Denny, I understand not buying into every new finding and every model, and it makes sense to view new data with a critical eye. But what doesn't make sense are your assumptions that many thousands of scientists are in cahoots to dupe the public. What doesn't make sense is your conclusion without evidence that none of the greenhouse gasses will make a difference because it's just a drop in the pond.

The truth of this situation is likely somewhere in between the doomsday sayers and deniers. But even if the results are coming slower than predicted, that still means that mankind is affecting our climate. All it means is that all is not lost, we still have time to actually curb our poisonous practices, we still have time to affect changes needed to keep this earth providing over the long haul.

I have used hyperbole in many threads, but I have used none in this post. I'm not making some extremest statement, I am not pointing to some model showing Nevada as new beachfront. I am simple saying the vast majority of these scientists agree for a reason, and it's not to get NIH grants, it's because to the best of our knowledge, from the people who's job it is to study these issues, man is affecting climate change, and that change is likely to increase.

 

[Denny Crane]

Show me the trick to hide the decline.

The models are nothing to base policy upon or to base prediction upon.

You have to stop with the Warmest May in History bullshit. It's no evidence of climate change AT ALL.

The experts claimed we'd have worse hurricanes. In the years since those predictions, it's been the opposite. I mean they cannot be more wrong. Why listen to them at all until they can make a real compelling case that's grounded in something more than the equivalent of astrology. You know, astrology makes predictions, too.

 

[Further]

Show me the trick to hide the decline.

The models are nothing to base policy upon or to base prediction upon.

You have to stop with the Warmest May in History bullshit. It's no evidence of climate change AT ALL.

The experts claimed we'd have worse hurricanes. In the years since those predictions, it's been the opposite. I mean they cannot be more wrong. Why listen to them at all until they can make a real compelling case that's grounded in something more than the equivalent of astrology. You know, astrology makes predictions, too.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

I haven't read this yet, but its a 20+ page booklet put out by the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences about climate change. I'm going to read it today and I hope you do too. Afterward we can discuss what does and does not make sense. You can research what aspects of this are challenged and what evidence they have that it's bs. But this is a pretty comprehensive breakdown of the current evidence, what we know and what we don't know.

The publication makes clear what is well established, where consensus is growing, and where there is still uncertainty