5 ms·

Except if you go back twenty years you'll see their predictions haven't even come close to panning out on "the averages". The data set is crap, and there's no

by tsotha 11y ago

Except if you go back twenty years you'll see their predictions haven't even come close to panning out on "the averages". The data set is crap, and there's no way to validate the models. Normally in science when your model turns out to be wrong you realize you don't really understand what's going on. Not these people, though. There's too much hubris, money, and professional standing at stake for anyone to admit he doesn't know any more than a five year old extrapolating historical data with a crayon.

asgard1024 11y ago
These are different objections. I get the feeling the problem is you, you don't want to understand the science. And I can't help you if you don't state more precisely what your objection is. For example, you say "data and model are wrong" - which data and what model? Predicting rate of change is a tricky problem, because it's nonlinear transition phenomenon. We can easily predict the resulting steady state, though. So for instance, in some areas, scientists grossly underestimated the rate of change - for example Arctic sea ice. But that doesn't mean they don't understand what's going on - the resulting steady state (what amount of warming are we going to get, called climate sensitivity) is actually quite well understood both from history and models.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >These are different objections. I get the feeling the problem is you, you don't want to understand the science. I'm well equipped by training to understand the science. No, the problem is you don't like it when people tell you your emperor has no clothes. Look, when your model doesn't agree with reality that doesn't mean it's mostly right. It means you don't understand the system. You say you can predict the steady state, but you have no way to validate that assertion. It's all based on speculative modeling.
  - asgard1024 11y ago
    All models eventually make predictions to the future that are difficult to validate; that's the whole point of having the model of something. We have plenty of evidence what the steady state (based on historical data and our understanding of physics) will be; I suspect you are not familiar with it (you still didn't tell me what exactly is the thing that you find in a disagreement).
    - tsotha 11y ago
      >We have plenty of evidence what the steady state (based on historical data and our understanding of physics) will be; I suspect you are not familiar with it (you still didn't tell me what exactly is the thing that you find in a disagreement). I suspect you and I have far different thresholds regarding what consists of "evidence", and I'd like to point out there's a difference between the words "difficult" and "impossible". In any event the "difficulty" of validating predictions hasn't stopped people who ought to know better from spouting off like it all came from a burning bush. So far this is what we've seen: * "We have a model showing the earth is warming catastropically, and CO2 is the culprit. Look, in ten years average global surface temperatures will be $today_guess warmer. * (ten years later) "Well, sure, what we've measured isn't anything like what we predicted. Of course, we have a new model that agrees 100% with the historical record." * (ten years later) "Huh. Well, look, it's really hard to figure out what the temperature is gonna be in ten years, so let me tell you what the temperature is going to be in a hundred years, long after it matters to anyone alive today. There must be tens of thousands of people who've gone broke trading on stock market models that match previous data.
      - asgard1024 11y ago
        > Well, sure, what we've measured isn't anything like what we predicted. You still didn't answer the question, what exactly model you refer to? Even if you look at work of Plass in 1950s, you will find very close estimates to climate sensitivity that we have today. And that's just from simple equilibrium models that include water vapor (his model is in fact wrong in several ways that pretty much cancel out). In fact, no one has been able to show a working model of Earth that doesn't show a warming due to CO2. (Critics are trying to poke some holes but to have an alternate theory is a whole different ballgame.) The models are tested on historical data; they are not just statistical extrapolation of the current trend. If you're young, I think eventually you're going to find that whether the rate of warming is 0.1 degree per decade or 0.2 degree per decade doesn't matter too much. Either way, it's too fast so it will cause mass extinction (and problems for agriculture), and either way, the new steady state temperature is driven by the amount of CO2 we emit.

by tsotha 11y ago

asgard1024 11y ago

These are different objections. I get the feeling the problem is you, you don't want to understand the science. And I can't help you if you don't state more precisely what your objection is. For example, you say "data and model are wrong" - which data and what model? Predicting rate of change is a tricky problem, because it's nonlinear transition phenomenon. We can easily predict the resulting steady state, though. So for instance, in some areas, scientists grossly underestimated the rate of change - for example Arctic sea ice. But that doesn't mean they don't understand what's going on - the resulting steady state (what amount of warming are we going to get, called climate sensitivity) is actually quite well understood both from history and models.

tsotha 11y ago
>These are different objections. I get the feeling the problem is you, you don't want to understand the science. I'm well equipped by training to understand the science. No, the problem is you don't like it when people tell you your emperor has no clothes. Look, when your model doesn't agree with reality that doesn't mean it's mostly right. It means you don't understand the system. You say you can predict the steady state, but you have no way to validate that assertion. It's all based on speculative modeling.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  All models eventually make predictions to the future that are difficult to validate; that's the whole point of having the model of something. We have plenty of evidence what the steady state (based on historical data and our understanding of physics) will be; I suspect you are not familiar with it (you still didn't tell me what exactly is the thing that you find in a disagreement).
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >We have plenty of evidence what the steady state (based on historical data and our understanding of physics) will be; I suspect you are not familiar with it (you still didn't tell me what exactly is the thing that you find in a disagreement). I suspect you and I have far different thresholds regarding what consists of "evidence", and I'd like to point out there's a difference between the words "difficult" and "impossible". In any event the "difficulty" of validating predictions hasn't stopped people who ought to know better from spouting off like it all came from a burning bush. So far this is what we've seen: * "We have a model showing the earth is warming catastropically, and CO2 is the culprit. Look, in ten years average global surface temperatures will be $today_guess warmer. * (ten years later) "Well, sure, what we've measured isn't anything like what we predicted. Of course, we have a new model that agrees 100% with the historical record." * (ten years later) "Huh. Well, look, it's really hard to figure out what the temperature is gonna be in ten years, so let me tell you what the temperature is going to be in a hundred years, long after it matters to anyone alive today. There must be tens of thousands of people who've gone broke trading on stock market models that match previous data.
    - asgard1024 11y ago
      > Well, sure, what we've measured isn't anything like what we predicted. You still didn't answer the question, what exactly model you refer to? Even if you look at work of Plass in 1950s, you will find very close estimates to climate sensitivity that we have today. And that's just from simple equilibrium models that include water vapor (his model is in fact wrong in several ways that pretty much cancel out). In fact, no one has been able to show a working model of Earth that doesn't show a warming due to CO2. (Critics are trying to poke some holes but to have an alternate theory is a whole different ballgame.) The models are tested on historical data; they are not just statistical extrapolation of the current trend. If you're young, I think eventually you're going to find that whether the rate of warming is 0.1 degree per decade or 0.2 degree per decade doesn't matter too much. Either way, it's too fast so it will cause mass extinction (and problems for agriculture), and either way, the new steady state temperature is driven by the amount of CO2 we emit.