7 ms·

Even bad models can predict the future by accident. Your statement is no different than a horoscope believer's confirmation bias. Climate models may have predic

Even bad models can predict the future by accident. Your statement is no different than a horoscope believer's confirmation bias. Climate models may have predicted this behavior, but the confidence of this happening in non-anthropogenic CO2 climate is absolutely relevant.

Daishiman 11y ago
When the predicted phenomena are myriad, and the predictions are consistent and keep getting more precise, throughout an ensemble of models. The models are based on explanations of phenomena that are known because they are observed and understood physically. Constrasting that with a horoscope, where there are no underlying physical (or even spiritual) models and no chance of falsifiability. There is no explanation that is barely even close to explaining the enormous cluster of observed global phenomena. For the record, the probability of the current climate being explained by mere chance is ridiculously low, to the point where it is practically irrelevant. I won't provide links here; everyone should be competent in googling that up.
- saosebastiao 11y ago
  > For the record, the probability of the current climate being explained by mere chance is ridiculously low, to the point where it is practically irrelevant. And yet you have a very well known meteorologist who is claiming that it isn't anthropogenic. I totally agree that the general increase in aggregate anomalous events cannot be explained away beyond a reasonable. You can't, however, look at a single event and know without a doubt that it is due to anthropogenic CO2 without some sort of bounds on that claim. > Constrasting that with a horoscope, where there are no underlying physical (or even spiritual) models and no chance of falsifiability. But see, for this specific event, there is a chance of falsifiability. If there is any evidence of two mega El Nino events within a 17 year time span anywhere between 1700 and 1970, you have falsifiable evidence. And that is what is being asked...you made a claim that this specific climate event is without a doubt due to global warming and you were asked to provide some basis for that assertion.

Daishiman 11y ago

When the predicted phenomena are myriad, and the predictions are consistent and keep getting more precise, throughout an ensemble of models. The models are based on explanations of phenomena that are known because they are observed and understood physically. Constrasting that with a horoscope, where there are no underlying physical (or even spiritual) models and no chance of falsifiability. There is no explanation that is barely even close to explaining the enormous cluster of observed global phenomena. For the record, the probability of the current climate being explained by mere chance is ridiculously low, to the point where it is practically irrelevant. I won't provide links here; everyone should be competent in googling that up.

saosebastiao 11y ago
> For the record, the probability of the current climate being explained by mere chance is ridiculously low, to the point where it is practically irrelevant. And yet you have a very well known meteorologist who is claiming that it isn't anthropogenic. I totally agree that the general increase in aggregate anomalous events cannot be explained away beyond a reasonable. You can't, however, look at a single event and know without a doubt that it is due to anthropogenic CO2 without some sort of bounds on that claim. > Constrasting that with a horoscope, where there are no underlying physical (or even spiritual) models and no chance of falsifiability. But see, for this specific event, there is a chance of falsifiability. If there is any evidence of two mega El Nino events within a 17 year time span anywhere between 1700 and 1970, you have falsifiable evidence. And that is what is being asked...you made a claim that this specific climate event is without a doubt due to global warming and you were asked to provide some basis for that assertion.