4 ms·

I like the part where they say that actual observed data is unreliable so they'll use a made up model instead to prove their claims. > "Satellite observations

I like the part where they say that actual observed data is unreliable so they'll use a made up model instead to prove their claims. > "Satellite observations of clouds are sketchy, and contain errors."

dmlorenzetti 14y ago
they say that actual observed data is unreliable so they'll use a made up model instead to prove their claims. A better paraphrase would be "they say that accurate data on one part of the system are hard to get, so they compared several models using another, correlated, part of the system, for which better data are readily available." Also, since their claims relate to which of 16 models match "actual observed data" best, it's incorrect to characterize their work as using a model to prove their claims. The models are the subject of their claims, not tools used to prove them.
justsee 14y ago
I think you're misrepresenting the facts with your response, as the article actually states they decided to use humidity data rather than satellite data of clouds, because "conveniently, high-quality relative humidity data is readily available from satellites". I'm not sure how you can determine whether their approach is good or bad from that article.
jws 14y ago
You mean the part where they built their model off the accurately measurable water vapor content instead of building it off of the ambiguous reflectivity? [Edit: ok, let's not all pile on.]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
guscost 14y ago
Looks like the climate police don't appreciate your objection. Figures.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Don't you understand that it's silly to characterize global warming science like that, and even worse that it makes you look ignorant and dismissive when you do that?
  - guscost 14y ago
    Don't you realize how reprehensible it is to exploit fear after a natural disaster for political gain? The article alludes to Sandy in the first sentence even though nobody (except Bloomberg) is saying that global warming is to blame. What I see is disaster-chasing nonsense intended to manipulate energy policy. There is nothing scientific (falsifiable) about this argument, and you seem plenty ignorant and dismissive to me.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      Your posts in this thread are blanket dismissals of any science or person supporting global warming. You offer no counter position and you resort to accusations and name calling - I'm a zealot for a simple mention of the volume of global warming evidence.
      - guscost 14y ago
        We're both zealots, but at least I'm not trying to spend your money on a problem that only exists if you believe me: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49751113/ns/us_news-environment/#.UJyR0vOe9BU http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49751113/ns/us_news-environment/... Disregard if you're not American.
  - IanDrake 14y ago
    Sorry if this gets lengthy: Models predicting GW are completely unproven. The fact that any number of models say the earth will warm is not further proof that these models are correct. I have witnessed attempts to model some really complicated activity. This is typically done with massive amounts of data, we're talking millions of precise observations per day. These models are back tested with decades of daily data available. Most importantly, almost all of these models fail to produce and accurate prediction of the future. Now, these climate scientists, with models that are based on mostly extrapolated data, want me to believe that their models accurately predict the future. To prove it we just have to wait 50 years to see if their predictions come true... Along the way, they seem to take every opportunity to use current events as further evidence that their models are correct. If there's a hurricane, then it's GW, if there's an earthquake[1] it's global warming, if it's a cold winter[2] it's global warming. As if none of these things happened before we started burning coal and oil. Here is how the models can be proved correct though: Produce a single, completely objective method for measuring the earth's temperature using the exact same hardware, locations, and environments. No recalibrations, no changes to the equipment or its environment at all. Then take the current measurement, use their models to predict the next 10 years, use the exact same hardware to recalculate that measurement every year for the next 10 years. Then we'll really see how good these models are. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/15972840.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/15972840.h... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1341388/Global-warming-Britain-longer-colder-winters-melting-sea-ice-plays-havoc-weather-patterns.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1341388/Globa...

dmlorenzetti 14y ago

they say that actual observed data is unreliable so they'll use a made up model instead to prove their claims. A better paraphrase would be "they say that accurate data on one part of the system are hard to get, so they compared several models using another, correlated, part of the system, for which better data are readily available." Also, since their claims relate to which of 16 models match "actual observed data" best, it's incorrect to characterize their work as using a model to prove their claims. The models are the subject of their claims, not tools used to prove them.

justsee 14y ago

I think you're misrepresenting the facts with your response, as the article actually states they decided to use humidity data rather than satellite data of clouds, because "conveniently, high-quality relative humidity data is readily available from satellites". I'm not sure how you can determine whether their approach is good or bad from that article.

jws 14y ago

You mean the part where they built their model off the accurately measurable water vapor content instead of building it off of the ambiguous reflectivity? [Edit: ok, let's not all pile on.]

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

guscost 14y ago

Looks like the climate police don't appreciate your objection. Figures.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
Don't you understand that it's silly to characterize global warming science like that, and even worse that it makes you look ignorant and dismissive when you do that?
- guscost 14y ago
  Don't you realize how reprehensible it is to exploit fear after a natural disaster for political gain? The article alludes to Sandy in the first sentence even though nobody (except Bloomberg) is saying that global warming is to blame. What I see is disaster-chasing nonsense intended to manipulate energy policy. There is nothing scientific (falsifiable) about this argument, and you seem plenty ignorant and dismissive to me.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Your posts in this thread are blanket dismissals of any science or person supporting global warming. You offer no counter position and you resort to accusations and name calling - I'm a zealot for a simple mention of the volume of global warming evidence.
    - guscost 14y ago
      We're both zealots, but at least I'm not trying to spend your money on a problem that only exists if you believe me: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49751113/ns/us_news-environment/#.UJyR0vOe9BU http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49751113/ns/us_news-environment/... Disregard if you're not American.
- IanDrake 14y ago
  Sorry if this gets lengthy: Models predicting GW are completely unproven. The fact that any number of models say the earth will warm is not further proof that these models are correct. I have witnessed attempts to model some really complicated activity. This is typically done with massive amounts of data, we're talking millions of precise observations per day. These models are back tested with decades of daily data available. Most importantly, almost all of these models fail to produce and accurate prediction of the future. Now, these climate scientists, with models that are based on mostly extrapolated data, want me to believe that their models accurately predict the future. To prove it we just have to wait 50 years to see if their predictions come true... Along the way, they seem to take every opportunity to use current events as further evidence that their models are correct. If there's a hurricane, then it's GW, if there's an earthquake[1] it's global warming, if it's a cold winter[2] it's global warming. As if none of these things happened before we started burning coal and oil. Here is how the models can be proved correct though: Produce a single, completely objective method for measuring the earth's temperature using the exact same hardware, locations, and environments. No recalibrations, no changes to the equipment or its environment at all. Then take the current measurement, use their models to predict the next 10 years, use the exact same hardware to recalculate that measurement every year for the next 10 years. Then we'll really see how good these models are. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/15972840.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/15972840.h... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1341388/Global-warming-Britain-longer-colder-winters-melting-sea-ice-plays-havoc-weather-patterns.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1341388/Globa...