Vacation Deniers



  • Global Climate Model defenders like to claim that the models are just simulating basic and uncontroversial physics. I think that's an oversimplification, and if it were really true, then they're not worth a whole lot. But that assumes that they're actually getting stuff correct.

    A new paper says that they're getting some stuff wrong:

    However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations.

    However:

    The alleged radiative forcing from all man-made CO2 generated since 1750 is claimed by the IPCC to be 1.68 W/m2

    Yikes. That's some serious WTF.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Too early?


  • sockdevs

    @Onyx said:

    Too early?


    Nope.
    *copies*



  • Hey...this is a genuine IT related WTF!


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Onyx said:

    @Onyx said:

    Too early?


    Nope.
    *copies*

    +1, or I'm going to make @boomzilla angry again. And he's a mod, after all. ;-)



  • @asdf said:

    And he's a mod, after all.

    Hey, I don't punish people for being wrong (aside from mocking them, of course). Just ask @Polygeekery!


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said:

    I don't punish people for being wrong

    Me neither. Lucky you!


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @boomzilla said:

    Hey, I don't punish people for being wrong (aside from mocking them, of course). Just ask @Polygeekery!

    And I don't hold grudges against those who are unable or unwilling to read a dictionary definition. It works out well. Yin and Yang and all that stuff.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I don't punish people for being wrong

    Just the rest of us who have to read it.



  • For future reference, my position on anything related to climate change (and my response to any post regarding it) is "I agree with the scientists, because they know more than me or you".

    This way I don't have to actually think about stuff, and I still get to be right.



  • I'm always not quite sure why it's so important to argue against this issue.

    First of all, we humans have already been shown that we're quite capable of altering or outright destroying whole ecologies - e.g. desertification of land, eradication of a multitude of species, terraforming on quite huge scales. So, is it actually such a big stretch to at least think that several billion humans might just be able to change Earth's ecosphere on a grand scale?

    Secondly, the resources of Earth are indeed limited. Sooner or later we'll have to change quite a few things and as has been shown repeatedly, the sooner you prepare for an event, the cheaper and less problematic changeover will be.

    Thirdly, there's a hole in the logic of "deniers": They usually claim that, due to the imperfectness of the models, we can't really know what will happen. Okay, that may be.
    But here's the problem with that particular argument: A system like Earth's may very well be stable. It may also be quite unstable, with the results being maybe even worse than the predictions.

    If we're combining points 2 and 3 and then add in the potentially catastrophic results, why don't we simply err on the side of caution and begin to prepare now?

    Because even if we're wrong and there is no man-made climate change: What exactly will we have lost?



  • @anonymous234 said:

    For future reference, my position on anything related to climate change (and my response to any post regarding it) is "I agree with the scientists, because they know more than me or you".

    Me, too. Of course, we may be agreeing with different scientists.

    @Rhywden said:

    I'm always not quite sure why it's so important to argue against this issue.

    "This issue" being untruths?

    @Rhywden said:

    Thirdly, there's a hole on the logic of "deniers": They usually claim that, due to the imperfectness of the models, we can't really know what will happen. Okay, that may be.But here's the problem with that particular argument: A system like Earth's may very well be stable. It may also be quite unstable, with the results being even worse than the predictions.

    This is a stupid philosophy to follow. We shouldn't do anything and should just kill ourselves, if we're serious about it.

    @Rhywden said:

    If we're combining points 2 and 3 and then add in the potentially catastrophic results, why don't we simply err on the side of caution and begin to prepare now?

    Point 2 (limited resources) has merit, and no one is seriously arguing against more efficient use of them, or finding better / more plentiful alternatives. The precautionary principle (3) is just ridiculous.

    @Rhywden said:

    Because even if we're wrong and there is no man-made climate change: What exactly will we have lost?

    Depends on what we do. Stigmatizing fossil fuels (and all the plant food we create by burning them) before we have anything reasonable leaves us less wealthy and less able to adapt to changes (whatever they and their causes may be). If you have good reasons as to why we need to take a particular course, that might argue in favor of some of the drastic things that are proposed. But since we don't have anything close to that, I'd rather not try to make the world a worse place.



  • Naw, the precautionary principle is not ridiculous - it's merely a different philosophy, one which you're obviously incapable of comprehending. Again, we have to change our ways anyway, so let's head off any additional problems by changing over early.

    And less wealthy? Yeah, reducing dependencies and costs is a sure way to be less wealthy in the long-term.

    That last part was sarcasm, just in case you might not catch it.

    Oh, well. Since you're labelling my arguments as ridiculous I won't bother continuing to watch this thread.



  • @Rhywden said:

    Naw, the precautionary principle is not ridiculous - it's merely a different philosophy, one which you're obviously incapable of comprehending.

    No, it's pretty ridiculous.

    @Rhywden said:

    Again, we have to change our ways anyway, so let's head off any additional problems by changing over early.

    Why do we need to change our ways? How do you know there won't be advantages?

    @Rhywden said:

    And less wealthy? Yeah, reducing dependencies and costs is a sure way to be less wealthy in the long-term.

    No one is talking about reducing costs. No one serious, that is. When you don't have anything to replace the dependency with, it's recklessness and irresponsibility, not prudence.

    @Rhywden said:

    That last part was sarcasm, just in case you might not catch it.

    Oh, well. Since you're labelling my arguments as ridiculous I won't bother continuing to watch this thread.

    You have much bigger problems if you think it's rational to run society on the precautionary principle.



  • @Rhywden said:

    Since you're labelling my arguments as ridiculous I won't bother continuing to watch this thread.

    I should also add that even though you aren't arguing that there's any good reason to think all this bad stuff is happening, we should do some stuff to prevent the stuff that doesn't seem like it's going to happen. If that doesn't strike you as ridiculous, I don't know what would.



  • @boomzilla said:

    we may be agreeing with different scientists.

    :+1:


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    So I poked my head in here while cleaning up my badge notifications and thought it actually just died a silent death. That was about an hour ago.

    You guys have some great timing there...



  • Well...what can you say about such a big error?

    It's like Office Space, when they try to Superman III the bank and get the decimal place wrong.



  • @boomzilla said:

    The precautionary principle (3) is just ridiculous.

    How often do you wear a seatbelt? How often do you end up in a car wreck? More analogous, how often do you know you'll be in a car wreck?

    I'll preemptively concede that this analogy does not properly address any concepts of cost, only the concept of risk and precaution.



  • @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    How often do you wear a seatbelt?

    When I'm riding in a car or plane.

    @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    How often do you end up in a car wreck? More analogous, how often do you know you'll be in a car wreck?

    So, there's no good reason to think a seatbelt helps in a car wreck? Because that's the analogy to the precautionary principle.

    @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    I'll preemptively concede that this analogy does not properly address any concepts of cost, only the concept of risk and precaution.

    No, it's a pretty bad analogy, because we know a lot about car accidents and how wearing a seat belt improves outcomes.



  • @boomzilla said:

    So, there's no good reason to think a seatbelt helps in a car wreck? Because that's the analogy to the precautionary principle.

    Uh, no? The analogy is that a seatbelt is a precaution against an outcome that won't happen for most people. Likewise, you have no evidence a wreck will happen when you get into a car or plane, yet you consistently wear one anyway.

    However, the high cost of that outcome is what drives (pun intended) most sane people to wear a seatbelt even if the possibility of a wreck is low.

    In the same way, while we may not know for sure that what we are doing to the environment is permanently bad (you may never experience a car wreck), the cost of destroying our planet is high (the cost of crashing is high), therefore we should do things that comparatively carry less risk such as reduce greenhouse gas emissions (wear a seatbelt).


  • :belt_onion:

    The problem isn't just when people deny global warming or climate change happens, it's the people that equate yesterday's snowstorm in a small geographic location with proof that the climate can't be getting warmer.

    I'd say there's plenty of room to debate WHY the climate changes, or who/what specifically causes changes (or more correctly, differences in the rate of change?) to occur. But the climate IS changing... it has always been changing. And last week's blizzard in the Southest US doesnt mean jack shit in any argument about climate change (to point out a specific idiotic local news assertion I heard last week).



  • @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    The analogy is that a seatbelt is a precaution against an outcome that won't happen for most people.

    It's still a bad analogy because it's about something that's rare (though it happens multiple times pretty much every day) but also very well understood. OTOH, the greenhouse gas emissions panic is like rushing out to completely change your diet because of a speculative observational medical study with a statistically suspect P-value for a conclusion that you saw on the local morning show.

    @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    ...therefore we should do things that comparatively carry less risk such as reduce greenhouse gas emissions...

    What about the positive consequences of those emissions? What about the certainty of reduced quality of life if we get "serious" about reducing them right now?

    @darkmatter said:

    The problem isn't just when people deny global warming or climate change happens, it's the people that equate yesterday's snowstorm in a small geographic location with proof that the climate can't be getting warmer.

    I'm sure that a lot of people say stuff like that because similar events (or dissimilar) are always provided as confirmation that we're causing catastrophic changes. I'm equally sure that others are just as ignorant as a lot of the silly people from the first sentence.

    It's hard to argue with people who look at the actual evidence and decide it doesn't matter, and then when you tell them they're being silly (and in the process betraying their mistress, Science) they tell you that you just don't care enough.


  • :belt_onion:

    I don't know that I've ever heard a specific heat-based weather event held as proof of global warming, at least not by any serious news agency. I am sure there are people conflate it all together in both directions though; I'd bet that the majority of Americans couldn't tell you what the difference between climate and weather is, even in simplistic terms. Anyone blaming a specific local drought or heat wave on global warming is just as ignorant as the reverse case.

    I'm also curious about the logic when people point out the newer stuff showing that average global temperatures have more or less stabilized since about 1998 and say that this proves there's no such thing as man-made global warming. Except... that's right around that time before 1998 when the world went on the environmentally-friendly crusade to try to stop global warming, so couldn't the cessation of rising temperatures just as easily be proof that we were what was causing the warming? I think most people that assert one way or the other on this are just making shit up as they go, because there's only a handful of people in the world that truly understand how most of it works together (it's like hearing random people that watched Cosmos debate quantum mechanics with each other).

    Now for my personal noob-view on this quantum mechani... err... ClimateChange? (null values allowed) topic - for @boomzilla's sake, since I know he loves when I stay personally neutral in opinion on a hotbed topic. I think that man can(that's CAN, not do) cause global warming because I have yet to see evidence that can 100% prove that we can't, but we may or may not actually be the cause currently. But I do think it's stupid to just blindly flout environmentally-friendly policies just because we might not have been the cause of the last warming cycle. It seems stupid to trash the planet before we've figured out a way to get ourselves self-sufficient on a location other than Earth.


    Filed Under: That's a lot of emphasisesi


  • On mobile, too hard to quote.

    Getting from driving -> car wreck/plane crash is just as predictable as emissions -> destroying the planet.

    However, there is a mechanism in both that can cause the respective effects.

    In the former, it is the reliable ability of humans to err. In the latter, it is the ability of greenhouse gases to increase global temp (See Venus).

    In the precautionary sense, it does not matter if the human errors you encounter on road are enough to kill you today or our greenhouse gas emissions are enough to destroy our planet. In both cases, it only matters if they could be enough.

    Regarding your points about quality of life and economic costs, I agree that appropriate pro/con analysis should be made. Certainly any precautions we take should not be irrational. But just like wearing a seatbelt does not cost you much, there are things we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that don't cost us much (e.g. turning lights off when you leave a room)


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    Hey, I don't punish people for being wrong

    How would we know, we've never been wrong on a topic that you disagreed with us about :trollface:

    In all seriousness though, @boomzilla delivered on $25 tdwtfmugfunds despite what seems to be a complete disagreement between us on pretty much every topic that isn't code. Them's good folk.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Jaloopa, none of that will happen in a nation starved of energy by "green" policies.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @lolwhat said:

    @Jaloopa, none of that will happen in a nation starved of energy by "green" policies.

    Boosting energy efficiency is often a good idea. It reduces carbon emissions, sure, but it also means you can do more with the energy that you buy. Of course, some ways of saving make more sense than others (short version: almost anything you do to reduce the amount of energy required to heat and cool things will be a much better investment than nearly anything else you could spend on; heating and cooling is relatively expensive) but the detail of what it is best to invest in here depends on things like payback times, etc.

    If you're living somewhere hot and use a lot of AC, running a few degrees warmer and keeping doors and windows shut during the hottest parts of the day are two simple ways of saving a load of money. They're also common sense. (Rare commodity, I know.) Solar power may make a lot of sense in such situations too; there's a good correlation between that being effective and AC being desirable, and the time of day for peak power generation isn't too far off the time of day with maximum demand, so that's a good fit.

    Now, I happen to live in a part of the world where AC is less important than heating: improving home insulation can make a big difference in the UK, and it has a pretty quick payback time. On the other hand, solar power isn't a great investment here, especially where I live, as the part of the year with peak power demand has the worst insolation (combination of high latitude and lots of cloud cover).

    Boosting efficiency doesn't mean you get all the benefit as savings, as it also triggers changes in usage patterns. I believe there have been studies that show the real efficiency gains average out to about 2/3 of the figure calculated from the thermodynamics because of the behaviour changes.



  • @darkmatter said:

    Except... that's right around that time before 1998 when the world went on the environmentally-friendly crusade to try to stop global warming, so couldn't the cessation of rising temperatures just as easily be proof that we were what was causing the warming?

    We've put out a lot more CO2 since then, too.

    @darkmatter said:

    I think most people that assert one way or the other on this are just making shit up as they go, because there's only a handful of people in the world that truly understand how most of it works together

    There are major parts of it that we really don't understand. For instance, clouds. As far as their effect on temperature, no one is even sure of the sign of the effect.

    @darkmatter said:

    I think that man can...

    Certainly. We're definitely part of the system and doing things in it.



  • @boomzilla said:

    clouds

    and Belgium magnets, how do they work?



  • @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    In the former, it is the reliable ability of humans to err. In the latter, it is the ability of greenhouse gases to increase global temp (See Venus).

    Really? How about Mars, then? It's mostly CO2. Venus is hot because of pressure. The atmosphere is a lot thicker. And Mars' is a lot thinner. Yes, greenhouse gasses raise temperature. That's not controversial (unless you're a Skydragon nutter). The theory of CAGW isn't based on the direct effect of CO2, but positive feedbacks that it creates in concert with (especially) water vapor, our main GHG.

    And what's the evidence for this runaway heating? Computer models. The models that do a terrible job of predicting (and not a great job at hindcasting, either) global climate. If I were a modeler, I might breathe a sigh of relief at the findings above, since it points a way towards fixing my models to be closer to reality.

    @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    But just like wearing a seatbelt does not cost you much, there are things we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that don't cost us much (e.g. turning lights off when you leave a room)

    I'm fine with people turning off lights or other such things. Research is a good thing, too. Boondoggles with public money on immature technologies or reworking major parts of our economies by fiat based on irrational fears are what I'm against.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Venus is hot because of pressure.

    This is nonsense. The bottom of our oceans are under way more pressure than the surface of Venus, yet range in temperature from 32 F to 37 F. If by pressure, you meant overall amount of CO2 and how it's not really comparable to earth because there is simply so much more, then that makes more sense. But the mechanism by which this raises the planet's temperature is still called the greenhouse effect. Also, you agree with me:

    @boomzilla said:

    Yes, greenhouse gasses raise temperature. That's not controversial

    If greenhouse gasses raise temperature, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing, and the global temperature is rising, then it is at least possible that there is causation or could be causation in the future. There's is definitely a discrete point between the composition and volume of our atmosphere and the composition and volume of Venus' atmosphere at which we would all die because of a resulting runaway greenhouse effect, and the composition of our atmosphere is moving in the direction of Venus, not Mars.

    The precautionary argument only needs a sound hypothesis to be considered valid. OTOH, it is not a strong argument, so it shouldn't (unfortunately, it does) inspire governments or individuals to go crazy with anti-global warming initiatives. Instead, it should encourage sound and continuing research into the state of our planet and our effect on it.

    @boomzilla said:

    And what's the evidence for this runaway heating?

    I never used the term "runaway" or appealed to computer models. I focused on the greenhouse effect existing an plausibly/possibly having an effect. Don't build yourself a strawman.

    @boomzilla said:

    Boondoggles with public money on immature technologies or reworking major parts of our economies by fiat based on irrational fears are what I'm against.

    I can agree with that.

    My position boils down to being good stewards of the resources we have, whether that's fossil fuels, food, water, air, or money. That doesn't mean stop using materials/fuels that have negative side effects, it just means finding moderation that makes sense, and, hopefully, one day finding things that have fewer side effects.

    And putting global warming aside, there are a few other issues with the major causes of greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuels are both nonrenewable (whether that's 50 or 500 years) and cause a lot of immediate pollution which does have a marked effect on health. These two issues by themselves should justify some investment into different fuel sources, modes of transportation, and dirty industry innovation.



  • @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    This is nonsense. The bottom of our oceans are under way more pressure than the surface of Venus, yet range in temperature from 32 F to 37 F. If by pressure, you meant overall amount of CO2 and how it's not really comparable to earth because there is simply so much more, then that makes more sense. But the mechanism by which this raises the planet's temperature is still called the greenhouse effect.

    Are you trolling me? Why do you think Death Valley is the hottest place? Why do you think it gets so cold up on a mountain top, even though you get more solar radiation up there? Yeah, yeah, there's more CO2 on Venus. Their atmosphere at the surface is over 90 times what it is here.

    There's a very basic and very key difference between an ocean and the troposphere. Unless you're trying to say that liquids are just like gasses.

    @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    If greenhouse gasses raise temperature, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing, and the global temperature is rising, then it is at least possible that there is causation or could be causation in the future.

    I totally agree that there's a change. The problem is the mechanism by which you get a very large change in the system from such a small change. And we are talking about very small changes. The runaway isn't actually about CO2, it's about the CO2 triggering water vapor into a positive feedback loop (but...remember the thing above about clouds?):

    However, water vapor can provide a strong positive feedback to global warming initiated by perturbation of another greenhouse gas. Consider a situation in which a rise in CO2 causes a small increase in surface temperatures. This increase will enhance the evaporation of water from the oceans. The greenhouse effect from the added water vapor will exacerbate the warming, evaporating more water from the oceans.

    @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    I never used the term "runaway" or appealed to computer models.

    I know. But that's what their creators and the people who rely on them tell us that the models are showing. The models is what this topic was created about, and without the models there's no scientific case for CAGW.

    @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    I focused on the greenhouse effect existing an plausibly/possibly having an effect. Don't build yourself a strawman.

    I'm trying to stick to the mainstream arguments in mainstream climate science. If you want to propose alternate theories of your own, I'm not going to stop you.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Why do you think Death Valley is the hottest place?

    It can also get to below freezing in the winter months. Sure pressure makes it hotter, but it doesn't keep it hot. At night, the heat from the day is radiated out into space. You know another place where heat is radiated out into space at night allowing the temperature to drop? Not Venus! You know why the dark side of Venus is 1000 degrees F hotter than the dark side of Mercury? Magnets The greenhouse effect.

    @boomzilla said:

    I know. But that's what their creators and the people who rely on them tell us that the models are showing.

    But it's not related to my minimalistic and moderate claims. Maybe someone needs to make a StrawmanBot, so you can use your arguments in a debate that better suits them.

    @boomzilla said:

    I'm trying to stick to the mainstream arguments in mainstream climate science. If you want to propose alternate theories of your own, I'm not going to stop you.

    Once again, I'm not, and I don't want to. I'm trying to be reasonable here. Heck, if you forced me to take a side, I'd probably take yours because I'm generally a skeptic and haven't done enough research myself. However, I felt the need to defend the "precautionary argument" as I thought it had some merit.



  • @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    But it's not related to my minimalistic and moderate claims.

    @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    I'm trying to be reasonable here.

    I'll accept this, given that the things you've proposed have mostly been low cost sorts of things and not the drastic sort of stuff that I claim would really suck.

    @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    However, I felt the need to defend the "precautionary argument" as I thought it had some merit.

    I think it does, for stuff like researching alternatives. But I think other arguments (like scarcity) are far stronger than any climate related thing.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    Fossil fuels are both nonrenewable (whether that's 50 or 500 years)

    LFTR would provide more than enough energy to convert anything organic into fossil fuels. That blows that number out to thousands of years - plenty of time to figure out something else. This ain't no pie in the sky shit, neither; we already had a working prototype LFTR in the States several decades ago. Oh, and China has figured out that this is the way forward, so now we get to play catch-up - yay.

    cause a lot of immediate pollution which does have a marked effect on health
    Well, yes, but the energy density of fossil fuels - at least, the liquid kind - is unbeaten by anything else today. Even the latest generation of electric-car batteries doesn't come close, nor will they absent some seriously revolutionary breakthrough. Oh, and we already have plenty of technology built into vehicles and other things, at least in the First World, to reduce such pollution drastically.
    So, it comes down, once again, to the following: *If we need to do something Before It's Too Late, then we need to have viable alternatives in place.* And no, energy efficiency simply can't do it all - *especially* for the large part of the world that currently lives in mud huts but wishes to improve their lot in life.


  • @boomzilla said:

    I think it does, for stuff like researching alternatives. But I think other arguments (like scarcity) are far stronger than any climate related thing.

    @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    The precautionary argument only needs a sound hypothesis to be considered valid. OTOH, it is not a strong argument, so it shouldn't (unfortunately, it does) inspire governments or individuals to go crazy with anti-global warming initiatives. Instead, it should encourage sound and continuing research into the state of our planet and our effect on it.

    @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    And putting global warming aside, there are a few other issues with the major causes of greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuels are both nonrenewable (whether that's 50 or 500 years) and cause a lot of immediate pollution which does have a marked effect on health. These two issues by themselves should justify some investment into different fuel sources, modes of transportation, and dirty industry innovation.

    I think we are in agreement then?



  • @IngenieurLogiciel said:

    I think we are in agreement then?

    For this place? Pretty much. At least, we get to about the same place. I think we get there a bit differently.



  • @lolwhat said:

    LFTR

    @blakeyrat said:

    gibberish

    I've stayed up 24 hrs., need sleep, and can't be bothered to look this up.



  • Had to look it up myself.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    A key point from @boomzilla's link:

    It can achieve high operating temperatures at atmospheric pressure
    ... which, unlike most nuclear reactors today, allows many (if not all) LFTR's to shut down extremely safely - Chernobyl is extremely unlikely to occur with these things. And since coal contains a shit-ton of thorium... well... we don't have to burn coal anymore. Just liquefy it and extract the thorium, or get thorium out of the ash piles at coal-fired plants.


  • @lolwhat said:

    get thorium out of the ash piles at coal-fired plants.

    Recycling at its finest. In a few decades, landfills will be sought after investments for all the easily recoverable stuff in there.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Yes, if people can get their heads out of their asses.



  • @lolwhat said:

    Yes, if people can get their heads out of their asses.

    But it's warm up in here!



  • @mott555 said:

    But it's warm up in here!

    Well of course it is. Methane is a very powerful GHG!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @mott555 said:

    But it's warm up in here!

    All the more reason to do it. :rimshot:


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @anonymous234 said:

    This way I don't have to actually think about stuff, and I still get to be right.

    At least you're honest about it.

    @boomzilla said:

    And what's the evidence for this runaway heating? Computer models. The models that do a terrible job of predicting (and not a great job at hindcasting, either) global climate. If I were a modeler, I might breathe a sigh of relief at the findings above, since it points a way towards fixing my models to be closer to reality.

    It wouldn't be evidence even if the models were better. Computer models can't actually prove anything, they can only give you more data points based on the rules used by the model. The rules are what the model is supposed to be proving, so that's essentially begging the question. Given what most of us here do for a living, we should know that.



  • @antiquarian said:

    It wouldn't be evidence even if the models were better.

    That's true. But if they showed predictive skill it wouldn't be irrational to use that skill to form policy.

    @antiquarian said:

    The rules are what the model is supposed to be proving, so that's essentially begging the question.

    Sort of. Yes and no. Depends on who and when you ask. I mean...you could possibly show some skill just by guessing. Fortunately, the models have tons of data points by which we can evaluate them and compare their predictions to reality.

    So even if they get one or two right, if tens or thousands of others are obviously wrong, we might conclude that the models got the right answer for something by accident, such as accidental correlation of CO2 and something like the PDO / AMO.



  • Why is that woman's head on backwards?

    Like I totally can't get over that. The message of the cartoon is completely lost, because I'm sitting here going, what the fuck? Is she a robot? Did the guy in the dumb hat just murder her by breaking her neck and she hasn't realized it yet? WHAT!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.