Climate change broke houston weather again. (The official everyone gets a h[w]oosh thread)
-
irrelevant since it's a single year and anyone that's not stupid or blind can see that any given year is a crapshoot on whether it will end up above or below average. Not even mentioning that 2015 isn't over yet....
So...how bad does the trend need to be before you'll reject the model projections?
-
-
Damnit....I've been doing it again, haven't I?
-
how bad does the trend need to be before you'll reject the model projections?
not sure how far your monitor is tilted... but i'm pretty sure that every single line on that chart is trending UP over the full length of it.
-
-
-
you filled in the orange? Congratulations on cherrypicking the start point AND the best-fit algorithm used to make a flat line?
Not sure if trolling or... you know.
-
Have fun using linear extrapolation on a statistical curve.
And my start point is no more random than theirs. There could be 30 more little humps before their start point.
And remember the hockeypuck.
Even their models look linear.
-
-
Are you people serious? A 20 year log curve for best fit on climate change trends? Really. I just... seriously? You HAVE to be trolling.
And i thought it was a hockeystick on the other thing, not a puck. As entertainimg as a puck-shaped line chart would be.
-
Are you people serious? A 20 year log curve for best fit on climate change trends?
That's just it.
We don't know.
The trend is just fudged data from previous trends, and the expectations given the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere.
All based on conclusions about the net effect of feedback effects, that's not even been vetted.
-
scientists, the most rational people on the planet
ROFL!
(Also, I CBA to read this thread, so I'm muting it.)
-
Are you people serious?
About what?
A 20 year log curve for best fit on climate change trends?
Oh...I have no idea about why @xaade did that. I just posted the graphic to show people interested in such things how awful climate models are for predicting temperature.
-
Oh...I have no idea about why @xaade did that
Because it would be funny as hell if that happened. And if it does happen, I can grab that picture and say, told you so.
-
Thanks Bill.
-
-
-
Congratulations on picking 1 spot on earth for average temperatures?
gasp check it out, this random spot in canada proves that it's actually GLOBAL COOLING!!!
-
- I selected the range from 1970 to today, which is usually the range used for the hockey stick. And it coincides with the hockey stick graph too. So, double win.
- I think it demostrates well enough that cherry picking data is how you get bad results. Which is what IPCC has done as well, with all of their data massaging. They won't show us a chart of the original data. And why would they, the original data has a margin of error that increases as you go back in time.
- It's fucking satire. Good gods man.
-
I selected the range from 1970 to today, which is usually the range used for the hockey stick. And it coincides with the hockey stick graph too. So, double win.
Sort of close to the hockey stick, but my graph for the same period looks nothing like it, because none of those charts of small areas on that site mean jack shit because they're not global averages.I think it demostrates well enough that cherry picking data is how you get bad results. Which is what IPCC has done as well, with all of their data massaging. They won't show us a chart of the original data. And
Yes, it does demonstrate that you cherry picking your data can make it look like whatever you want. What it doesn't do is prove that anyone else cherry picked their data. If you think they did, then that's your prerogative, but so far you've given no actual proof of it.
It's fucking satire. Good gods man.
So is mine? Good gods man.
*I'm not championing global warming, I'm pointing out how irritatingly piss poor is the science/satire being used to disprove it.
-
For fuck's sake, what's with all these global warming deniers? Why aren't we past this yet?
-
global warming deniers?
trigger warning.
they prefer to be called climate skeptics.
or something.
-
-
*I'm not championing global warming
I should hope not. The science behind it is abysmal.
-
For fuck's sake, what's with all these global warming deniers? Why aren't we past this yet?
Yes, we do indeed seem to be past global warming.
Filed Under: The Pause Lives!
-
Riiiight.
So I guess a few more years of warmer and warmer climate, perhaps with ice caps melting, before we can move on from "it isn't happening" to "it's a good thing / it's not our fault".
Great.
-
The science
behind itas reported by the mainstream media is abysmal.
The actual science is fairly sound, or at least as sound as current climate models allow it to be; it's definitely one of the less precise fields of study.
-
I guess that depends on how much you believe the ever changing temperature adjustments from the past, eh?
Look, if you want to believe the predictions of models that have never successfully predicted anything, that's fine, but don't pretend that your faith is justified by sound scientific practice.
The actual science is fairly sound, or at least as sound as current climate models allow it to be; it's definitely one of the less precise fields of study.
It's not sound in the sense that it can make useful predictions.
-
- I don't think the argument has ever been, it isn't happening. It's been, it's been this warm in the past, so it isn't human's fault.
- I don't think that taking extreme measures to counteract warming is such a good idea, when the idea is that we got here because of extreme measures.
- I wonder what the decreasing margin of error does to the old data.
-
it's definitely one of the less precise fields of study.
If it's anywhere near as precise as hurricane predictions, I don't want it setting economic policies.
-
It's been, it's been this warm in the past, so it isn't human's fault.
Until you point out the flaws in how they arrived at that conclusion. Then you get told that the history of temperatures really has nothing to do with the predictions. It's just a big part of how you scare people into action.
-
It's been, it's been this warm in the past, so it isn't human's fault.
one of the dumbest reasons ever suggested (i can't tell if xaade thinks that or if he's posting that other people think that)
-
one of the dumbest reasons ever posted
I think it was just incomplete. Because if it's been this warm in the past, now you've lost your "Sky is falling / Extreme climate!" card. Which is certainly part of the public sales job.
-
It may be dumb, but it's not as dumb as claiming that every skeptic is disagreeing that the earth is experiencing changes in the climates.
-
Even more data gathering fudge factors added.
They've had to fudge data because of all the various margins of errors due to the various methods. There's no consistency.
When they used a new algorithm to update old data to conform to new data, did they go back to the original data and apply both methods in sequence preserving data accuracy, or did they just use the new method on the last fudge?
That's what I think @boomzilla is referring to be dismal.
All these iterations of fudging, if they aren't done on original data but done iteratively on new data, creates an ever increasing margin of error, increasing the chances that we haven't warmed up as much as they think, but rather became more accurate at measuring temperature.
And the answer is:
I don't know. But what I do know, is that there are so many transitions through a network of sharing data, that the data becomes less trustworthy over time.
Like, do we know there are more hurricanes now, or do we have a wider network of surveillance. I'm sure we can just go to Haiti and ask them if they had any hurricanes in the 1800s.
-
Because if it's been this warm in the past, now you've lost your "Sky is falling / Extreme climate!" card. Which is certainly part of the public sales job.
Media are morons.
Despite it being "this warm in the past" that past, there was not the kind of mega-agricultural/technological society we have now. It is anticipated that it could be a problem for us if the earth returns to those high temperatures. Much like it would be a problem if the earth froze over and glaciers came back down into Minnesota again.
If there's a way we can prevent either of those things from happening, I think those are better plans than throwing our hands up and saying "eh, whatever, earth does what it does"
-
Media are morons.
I wasn't even referring to those morons.
Despite it being "this warm in the past" that past, there was not the kind of mega-agricultural/technological society we have now.
Nevertheless, modern climate science can't explain how it could have been that warm naturally. Which takes a bit of the wind out of their sails when they say, "We can't find natural reasons why the temperature would be this high now."
It is anticipated that it could be a problem for us if the earth returns to those high temperatures.
I think a lot of that is utter bullshit for a variety of reasons. But your theory explains why no one wants to live in warm places or anything.
Much like it would be a problem if the earth froze over and glaciers came back down into Minnesota again.
Except an ice age would be unquestionably bad.
If there's a way we can prevent either of those things from happening, I think those are better plans than throwing our hands up and saying "eh, whatever, earth does what it does"
I'd rather we warmed up a bit. The calendar says we're about overdue for an ice. But if you can figure out why the temperature is going up, maybe we can figure out how to prevent it. We aren't there yet, no matter how scared you or anyone else is about this particular strain of eschatology.
-
That's what I think @boomzilla is referring to be dismal.
I think the dismal part is that the climate models are effectively non-falsifiable.
-
Nevertheless, modern climate science can't explain how it could have been that warm naturally.
It may not have determined a single cause, but it has identified many contributing factors; it's most likely a mix of those factors that is the real arbiter of global temperatures during the Earth's history
-
It is anticipated that it could be a problem for us if the earth returns to those high temperatures.
I've read all that.
The articles make the assumption that there will be no change in current behavior from now, until the time when the drastic change has completed in taking place.
$ Hey look, by the time temp jumps up 5 degrees, it will be really bad with our current behavior.
= Yeah, that would be idiotic to wait until then to change behavior. Good thing we started crop rotation before we destroyed the ground.
$ But dust bowl
= Was in response to a drastic change in demand.
Much like it would be a problem if the earth froze over and glaciers came back down into Minnesota again.
Because +5 degrees is the same as -50 degrees.
-
I think a lot of that is utter bullshit for a variety of reasons. But your theory explains why no one wants to live in warm places or anything.
I think the GLOBAL temperature going up has a bit more of a GLOBAL impact than living in a random hot city as it is now.
-
Because +5 degrees is the same as -50 degrees
So now we're just arguing about how bad the +5 degrees is going to be?
All we have to do is live another 50 years to see! Dischorse is only made for the next 20 years, so unfortunately one of us will have to do our "i told you so" on some other forum software.
-
@xaade said:
That's what I think @boomzilla is referring to be dismal.
I think the dismal part is that the climate models are effectively non-falsifiable.
They keep
with them. But we worship falsifiability a bit too much. When we're talking about predictions, there is a thing called predictive skill. The climate models do not have this. They are not useful for making predictions about the future climate.I think they are currently useful as tools for us to try to understand the climate and how it all interacts. What they are currently showing is that we have a very incomplete knowledge about that, at least as far as predicting the future. It's possible that such a feat is simply impossible. Our skill in predicting weather certainly humbles model producers all the time.
It may not have determined a single cause, but it has identified many contributing factors; it's most likely a mix of those factors that is the real arbiter of global temperatures during the Earth's history
Yes, we understand a lot about the system. But like I said, we're currently unable to make predictions about the future that are skillful. Look, I'm the guy arguing that there's not a single cause of stuff like rising temperatures and that there's no good case right now for there being a single cause of a catastrophic future.
-
@boomzilla said:
I think a lot of that is utter bullshit for a variety of reasons. But your theory explains why no one wants to live in warm places or anything.
I think the GLOBAL temperature going up has a bit more of a GLOBAL impact than living in a random hot city as it is now.
OK? OTOH, when so many of the GLOBAL records have been CHANGED to make the past look cooler and the present look WARMER, I'm not sure that it matters very much.
-
there's not a single cause of stuff like rising temperatures and that there's no good case right now for there being a single cause of a catastrophic future.
QFT
-
I didn't look at your graphs and arguments. And I'm not planning to.
You're not qualified. Neither are the pundits who are feeding you this bullshit. And neither am I.
This is hard science. People spend their whole lives researching this shit. They gather raw data, they do the math, they publish study after study. They argue against detractors, and refine their thoughts based on new evidence. Eventually, the better arguments win and they come to a 99% agreed on scientific consensus.
So what, you're gonna come in with some half-formed opinions fed by pundits and backed by highly massaged google results, and argue facts against them? I bet from the scientists' perspective, you guys are like that boss who read all about agile development and NoSQL on a shitter and is now spewing out all his half-remembered phrases and buzzwords, thinking he's super smart and informed.
Unless you actually spent years learning climate science and statistics and reading through hundreds of studies and talking with other people in the field, the best you can do is look at the scientific consensus and accept it as the best understanding of reality we have at the moment. Especially in a natural science field.
The reality is too complex for anything else.
-
All we have to do is live another 50 years to see!
We will adjust, just like we always have.
Look, we could reduce emissions, only for the sun to go overdrive and bring us there anyway.
Drastic measures to combat drastic measures is dumb, no matter the science.
there's not a single cause of stuff like rising temperatures and that there's no good case right now for there being a single cause of a catastrophic future
That's what I keep saying, but I don't think anyone's getting it.
The problem with the science and the predictions and whether we can change it, is not one big thing. It's the accumulation of a great number of small problems.
-
They keep with them. But we worship falsifiability a bit too much. When we're talking about predictions, there is a thing called predictive skill. The climate models do not have this. They are not useful for making predictions about the future climate.
True, but that doesn't stop the people who have the models from making predictions, and it doesn't stop others from taking the predictions as gospel truth. And I suspect that no amount of future inaccurate predictions will change that. That's where I was going with the falsifiability thing.
-
when so many of the GLOBAL records have been CHANGED to make the past look cooler and the present look WARMER, I'm not sure that it matters very much.
if that's what you believe, there's little point to having a scientific argument. More FOX news FUD. If one has to say they "believe" something, then science just flew out the window. I'm sure that most of the climate scientists in the world are on the take and adjusting the numbers for cash.
I've read the articles (more MEDIA half-science) about "adjusting temperatures" and how the raw data shows one thing but the scientists translate it to another. Never do the media articles even attempt to explain why it should or shouldn't be translated. They're just playing on people that want to believe what they want to believe.
You're not qualified. Neither are the pundits who are feeding you this bullshit. And neither am I.
effing exactly.
-
You're not qualified. Neither are the pundits who are feeding you this bullshit.
Uh huh. Which pundits? Look, I'm qualified to look at model output and determine whether it's being skillful. I know enough about statistics to understand why stuff like the hockey stick is bogus.
This is hard science. People spend their whole lives researching this shit.
Indeed. And the guys standing athwart yelling "Stop!" have the best of it right now.
Eventually, the better arguments win and they come to a 99% agreed on scientific consensus.
We're far from that. The actual consensus on this stuff isn't very interesting interesting and in now way predicts catastrophe.
So what, you're gonna come in with some half-formed opinions fed by pundits and backed by highly massaged google results, and argue facts against them?
No.
Unless you actually spent years learning climate science and statistics and reading through hundreds of studies and talking with other people in the field, the best you can do is look at the scientific consensus and accept it as the best understanding of reality we have at the moment.
Bullshit. I can read stuff and come to an informed opinion about it. At minimum I can recognize that there is no actual consensus for catastrophe. You're free to outsource your critical thinking on this topic to someone else, but if they disagree with me, they're wrong.
