5 ms·

>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 th

by 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.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      >You still didn't answer the question, what exactly model you refer to? Good question. Which of the many non-working models would you like to discuss. Why don't we start at the IPCC? >In fact, no one has been able to show a working model of Earth that doesn't show a warming due to CO2. Which isn't surprising at all, given no one has been able to show a working model of Earth. >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. There's no way you can know that. CO2 may be completely dominated by other factors. In any event, I'm not young, so none of this matters to me on a personal level.
      - asgard1024 11y ago
        > Why don't we start at the IPCC? Here are some analyses: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansen... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-u... http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-v... Current climate models are pretty accurate in their predictions. > Which isn't surprising at all, given no one has been able to show a working model of Earth. I am not sure, at this point, if you are just trolling. Every model has a certain limits, but it doesn't mean it is "not working". If you actually knew history (I always recommend https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm) it is a remarkable achievement that we can model climate at all. > There's no way you can know that. CO2 may be completely dominated by other factors. Sorry, this is just trolling. Of course, in the same sense, we cannot predict the path of the Earth around the Sun because what if an unknown dominating factor comes to its path? When creating a model, we simply try to account for every important factor we know of. And given that the predictions are quite accurate (look at Lindzen comparison!), we probably know of all the important ones.

by tsotha 11y ago

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.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >You still didn't answer the question, what exactly model you refer to? Good question. Which of the many non-working models would you like to discuss. Why don't we start at the IPCC? >In fact, no one has been able to show a working model of Earth that doesn't show a warming due to CO2. Which isn't surprising at all, given no one has been able to show a working model of Earth. >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. There's no way you can know that. CO2 may be completely dominated by other factors. In any event, I'm not young, so none of this matters to me on a personal level.
    - asgard1024 11y ago
      > Why don't we start at the IPCC? Here are some analyses: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansen... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-u... http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-v... Current climate models are pretty accurate in their predictions. > Which isn't surprising at all, given no one has been able to show a working model of Earth. I am not sure, at this point, if you are just trolling. Every model has a certain limits, but it doesn't mean it is "not working". If you actually knew history (I always recommend https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm) it is a remarkable achievement that we can model climate at all. > There's no way you can know that. CO2 may be completely dominated by other factors. Sorry, this is just trolling. Of course, in the same sense, we cannot predict the path of the Earth around the Sun because what if an unknown dominating factor comes to its path? When creating a model, we simply try to account for every important factor we know of. And given that the predictions are quite accurate (look at Lindzen comparison!), we probably know of all the important ones.