In your face evidence of climate change
Discussion
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
O.K., so you distrust scientists, meaning you can ignore any evidence that you don't like.
Yes, I thought you'd come back with such a comment, but that's not my motive. It's like politicians...one lies and I don't trust the rest. That's the way it is, they've blown it for me, sorry.
Edited by ludo on Monday 4th August 19:09
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
O.K., so you distrust scientists, meaning you can ignore any evidence that you don't like.
Yes, I thought you'd come back with such a comment, but that's not my motive. It's like politicians...one lies and I don't trust the rest. That's the way it is, they've blown it for me, sorry.
Another IPCC Reviewer I quoted earlier in the thread said:
My greatest success as an "expert reviewer" to the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I (WGI) Science Reports was with the first draft of the 1995 Report.
There was a Chapter entitled "Validation of Climate Models"
I commented that this was incorrect. No Climate Model has ever been "validated" in the sense understood by computer engineers, and the Chapter included no discussion on how it should be done, let alone any of the necessary procedure, on any model.
They ageed with me. They changed the words "Validation", or "Validate" to "Evaluation" or "evaluate" no less than fifty times, throughout the Chapter. They have done so ever since. The word "validate" or "validation" does not appear anywhere in their Reports, and, notably, in the recently issued "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers"
One of the major objects of science is to simulate observable phenomena with a mathematical representation which can not only provide an explanation for the phenomena, buit also make it possible to predict future behaviour.
This task has a long history. "Stonehenge Decoded" by Gerald S Hawkins shows how before 1600 BC it was possible to build a system which would enable prediction of the movements of the sun and moon.
Ptolemy in the second century AD published the "Almagest" which predicted the movements of the planets with a system of "epicycles". Newton and Galileo replaced this with a better, simplified theory, and Eistein with a refined version. Nobody would even have heard of these people if there was not abundant positive evidence that their predictions actually work. Without them, we could never have sent rockets to the moon.
Let me spell out what is needed for "validation", the procedure without which no mathematical representation, or computer model, could possibly be capable of future prediction.
First, the model must be capable of simulation of past behaviour to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Computer models of the climate have usually failed to do this. Indeed, their only attempt has been on the so-called "global surface temperature anomaly record":which I showed, in my last Newsletter, to be subject to huge, unknown biases and inaccuracy because it is based on unrepresenrative and statistically flawed data. The claimed successful simulation of this flawed record could only be made by leaving out both consideration of these inaccuracies, and also one of the main "natural" contributors to the temperature record, the recently more frequent sudden warming peaks caused by the El Niño ocean oscillation behaviour.
The models are unable to simulate almost everything else.
They cannot explain why there has been no "warming" for the past eight years, even when measured by the unsatisfactory "surface record".
They cannot explain why there has been no warming at all on the Arctic continent.
They cannot explain why methane concentrations in the atmosphere are falling instead of rising. They even devote learned papers trying to find out why this behaviour is "anomalous".
A recent study by Douglass et al 2006 Geophysical Reserarch Letters 33 L19711 on the climatic effects of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo showed that it could only be expalined by a model iwith very low figures for "climate sensitivity" the basic parameter of the models.
The models therefore fail at the first requirement for "validation". They cannot reliably simulate past climate behaviour.
Suppose for one moment that Newton and Einstein had never lived and they were launching a rocket to the moon from Cape Kennedy. They ask the people who prepared the computer programme to guide the rocket "How reliable is it" Imagine if the reply was ' Our boys think it it is very likey to hit the moon, but we have no idea where"
We are taking all sort of drastic measures to damage our future energy policies based entirely on just such an "opinion" of partisan "experts".
The second important necessity for validation is successful predictioin of future behaviour under a variety of conditions to a satisfactory and measurable level of accuracy.
There has not been even a single attempt to meet this requirement for any computer model of the climate. They do not even discuss how it might be done.
The models are therefore worthless and should be discarded until validation has actually happened.
But why is it that so many people, not only Prime Ministers, US Presidential Candidates, Senior Economists, but also senior scientists and even winners of Nobel Prizes, seem to be convinced that those providing models have even MADE predictions, let alone provide a measures of their reliability.
It is even claimed that a large majority of scientists involved in climate research accept these false assumptions, and this claim might even be true.
Since the IPCC have accepted that no model has ever been validated, they have also accepted that they are unable to make predictions and they have never done so after the First Report (1990) The word "prediction" never appears anywhere in the recent IPCC Reports. The only thing the models can do is to provide "projections". This word implies that the figure obtained is purely a result of assuming that the data, parameters and equations in the model represent reality: but there is no evidence that they actually do.
How have they succeeded in fooling the world?
The answer is, that they have devised a whole series of tricky procedures designed to cover up the truth, and give the impression to casual readers and all but the intensive critic (which I claim to be) that they really have overcome the absence of validation, and provided definite figures which some people can pretend to be "predictions", and even provide what seems at first sight to be some measure of accuracy.
Their main tool is to pretend that they can replace scientific evidence with the opinions of "experts".
Replacing scientific evidence with personal opinion and belief - as per ludo and other True Believers on here.There was a Chapter entitled "Validation of Climate Models"
I commented that this was incorrect. No Climate Model has ever been "validated" in the sense understood by computer engineers, and the Chapter included no discussion on how it should be done, let alone any of the necessary procedure, on any model.
They ageed with me. They changed the words "Validation", or "Validate" to "Evaluation" or "evaluate" no less than fifty times, throughout the Chapter. They have done so ever since. The word "validate" or "validation" does not appear anywhere in their Reports, and, notably, in the recently issued "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers"
One of the major objects of science is to simulate observable phenomena with a mathematical representation which can not only provide an explanation for the phenomena, buit also make it possible to predict future behaviour.
This task has a long history. "Stonehenge Decoded" by Gerald S Hawkins shows how before 1600 BC it was possible to build a system which would enable prediction of the movements of the sun and moon.
Ptolemy in the second century AD published the "Almagest" which predicted the movements of the planets with a system of "epicycles". Newton and Galileo replaced this with a better, simplified theory, and Eistein with a refined version. Nobody would even have heard of these people if there was not abundant positive evidence that their predictions actually work. Without them, we could never have sent rockets to the moon.
Let me spell out what is needed for "validation", the procedure without which no mathematical representation, or computer model, could possibly be capable of future prediction.
First, the model must be capable of simulation of past behaviour to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Computer models of the climate have usually failed to do this. Indeed, their only attempt has been on the so-called "global surface temperature anomaly record":which I showed, in my last Newsletter, to be subject to huge, unknown biases and inaccuracy because it is based on unrepresenrative and statistically flawed data. The claimed successful simulation of this flawed record could only be made by leaving out both consideration of these inaccuracies, and also one of the main "natural" contributors to the temperature record, the recently more frequent sudden warming peaks caused by the El Niño ocean oscillation behaviour.
The models are unable to simulate almost everything else.
They cannot explain why there has been no "warming" for the past eight years, even when measured by the unsatisfactory "surface record".
They cannot explain why there has been no warming at all on the Arctic continent.
They cannot explain why methane concentrations in the atmosphere are falling instead of rising. They even devote learned papers trying to find out why this behaviour is "anomalous".
A recent study by Douglass et al 2006 Geophysical Reserarch Letters 33 L19711 on the climatic effects of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo showed that it could only be expalined by a model iwith very low figures for "climate sensitivity" the basic parameter of the models.
The models therefore fail at the first requirement for "validation". They cannot reliably simulate past climate behaviour.
Suppose for one moment that Newton and Einstein had never lived and they were launching a rocket to the moon from Cape Kennedy. They ask the people who prepared the computer programme to guide the rocket "How reliable is it" Imagine if the reply was ' Our boys think it it is very likey to hit the moon, but we have no idea where"
We are taking all sort of drastic measures to damage our future energy policies based entirely on just such an "opinion" of partisan "experts".
The second important necessity for validation is successful predictioin of future behaviour under a variety of conditions to a satisfactory and measurable level of accuracy.
There has not been even a single attempt to meet this requirement for any computer model of the climate. They do not even discuss how it might be done.
The models are therefore worthless and should be discarded until validation has actually happened.
But why is it that so many people, not only Prime Ministers, US Presidential Candidates, Senior Economists, but also senior scientists and even winners of Nobel Prizes, seem to be convinced that those providing models have even MADE predictions, let alone provide a measures of their reliability.
It is even claimed that a large majority of scientists involved in climate research accept these false assumptions, and this claim might even be true.
Since the IPCC have accepted that no model has ever been validated, they have also accepted that they are unable to make predictions and they have never done so after the First Report (1990) The word "prediction" never appears anywhere in the recent IPCC Reports. The only thing the models can do is to provide "projections". This word implies that the figure obtained is purely a result of assuming that the data, parameters and equations in the model represent reality: but there is no evidence that they actually do.
How have they succeeded in fooling the world?
The answer is, that they have devised a whole series of tricky procedures designed to cover up the truth, and give the impression to casual readers and all but the intensive critic (which I claim to be) that they really have overcome the absence of validation, and provided definite figures which some people can pretend to be "predictions", and even provide what seems at first sight to be some measure of accuracy.
Their main tool is to pretend that they can replace scientific evidence with the opinions of "experts".
ludo said:
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
O.K., so you distrust scientists, meaning you can ignore any evidence that you don't like.
Yes, I thought you'd come back with such a comment, but that's not my motive. It's like politicians...one lies and I don't trust the rest. That's the way it is, they've blown it for me, sorry.
it does make
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
O.K., so you distrust scientists, meaning you can ignore any evidence that you don't like.
Yes, I thought you'd come back with such a comment, but that's not my motive. It's like politicians...one lies and I don't trust the rest. That's the way it is, they've blown it for me, sorry.
it does make
forget the then if that is your attitude 
In comparison with climate models, meteorological forecasting models are tested and refined on the basis of the accuracy of their forecasts. As a result weather forecasting is as scientific as possible. Weather is subject to very large sensitivity to initial conditions so to make useful weather forecasts beyond a week or two is impossible. Our planet's complex non-linear coupled ocean-atmosphere climate system has the same chaotic sensitivity, and similar caution is needed with regard to modelling.
Climate models are not generally subjected to stringent tests of validity as weather models, a poit made by the IPCC reviewer in my previous posts. In an act of faith, climate modellers run models to obtain 'projections' (or 'storylines' but not predicitons) decades or centuries ahead. These projections are not even in principle forecasts as per the met models because the modellers have no way of knowing what sporadic events such as major volcanic eruptions or nearby supernovae might occur.
The IPCC considers validation of its climate models to consist essentially of reproducing the current climate characteristics. That's inadequate. The models are barely OK on some climate characteristics but fail miserably on others as we all know from the continuous alterations and downplaying of 'projected' warming, sea level change, ice mass changes etc. The errors in the models are so large as to make the projections over a century period useless. Yet politicians have been persuaded to base international policy on this GIGO output, something for which both the junk scientists and politicians involved deserve to be condemned.
Climate models are not generally subjected to stringent tests of validity as weather models, a poit made by the IPCC reviewer in my previous posts. In an act of faith, climate modellers run models to obtain 'projections' (or 'storylines' but not predicitons) decades or centuries ahead. These projections are not even in principle forecasts as per the met models because the modellers have no way of knowing what sporadic events such as major volcanic eruptions or nearby supernovae might occur.
The IPCC considers validation of its climate models to consist essentially of reproducing the current climate characteristics. That's inadequate. The models are barely OK on some climate characteristics but fail miserably on others as we all know from the continuous alterations and downplaying of 'projected' warming, sea level change, ice mass changes etc. The errors in the models are so large as to make the projections over a century period useless. Yet politicians have been persuaded to base international policy on this GIGO output, something for which both the junk scientists and politicians involved deserve to be condemned.
Unfortunately even the next administration is seeing things with GW googles on.
In a nut shell, Tim Yeo (Shadow Cabinet) said:
Government plans to increase car tax for "gas-guzzling" vehicles should be bolder to increase the environmental impact, MPs say. The Environmental Audit Committee's official report backs the move as a "step in the right direction". But chairman Tim Yeo said the benefit to the environment would be limited, and called for more ambitious changes.
Full story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7539625.stm
Same old-same old I'm afraid.
In a nut shell, Tim Yeo (Shadow Cabinet) said:
Government plans to increase car tax for "gas-guzzling" vehicles should be bolder to increase the environmental impact, MPs say. The Environmental Audit Committee's official report backs the move as a "step in the right direction". But chairman Tim Yeo said the benefit to the environment would be limited, and called for more ambitious changes.
Full story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7539625.stm
Same old-same old I'm afraid.
I emailed Tim Yeo, though his website, after his little gang's plans for personal carbon rations.
I was a little uncouth and suprised to receive a letter from him last week, albeit a standard reply.
It appears that responsible government must act on the advice of the scientific consensus.
Or we'll all die...
Any minute now, I'm going to reply...
I was a little uncouth and suprised to receive a letter from him last week, albeit a standard reply.
It appears that responsible government must act on the advice of the scientific consensus.
Or we'll all die...
Any minute now, I'm going to reply...
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.
Biased fudge springs to mind here. I was a young man in the seventies and read the hype with interest.
I remember names being named, but can't remember the names.
If there were no consensus, where were the voices of dissent? I heard none. Why was that? In those days, science was not mired in the present day hysterical suppression of dissent.
Odd, don't you think?
Have you checked their sources, old boy..?
My comment stands. Why was there no voice of criticism from the scientific community when the media "invented" the story?
mybrainhurts said:
This is where you and I have different views. Your absolute faith in peer reviewers is lost on me. I simply do not trust any scientist in the light of the mendacious activities of some. How can I trust their integrity?
Stuff
I don't buy it. If I were a climate scientist and saw the media invent a story about an imaginery consensus, I would scream from the rooftops. I'm sure they would have done, too.
MyBrainhurts: you said the first paragraph, then there was some stuff which I've deleted and then the second paragraph. Stuff
I don't buy it. If I were a climate scientist and saw the media invent a story about an imaginery consensus, I would scream from the rooftops. I'm sure they would have done, too.
Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 4th August 18:12
How do you reconcile your view that scientists have no integrity with your expectation that they would scream from the rooftops if misrepresented?
nigelfr said:
mybrainhurts said:
This is where you and I have different views. Your absolute faith in peer reviewers is lost on me. I simply do not trust any scientist in the light of the mendacious activities of some. How can I trust their integrity?
Stuff
I don't buy it. If I were a climate scientist and saw the media invent a story about an imaginery consensus, I would scream from the rooftops. I'm sure they would have done, too.
MyBrainhurts: you said the first paragraph, then there was some stuff which I've deleted and then the second paragraph. Stuff
I don't buy it. If I were a climate scientist and saw the media invent a story about an imaginery consensus, I would scream from the rooftops. I'm sure they would have done, too.
Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 4th August 18:12
How do you reconcile your view that scientists have no integrity with your expectation that they would scream from the rooftops if misrepresented?
nigelfr said:
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.
Biased fudge springs to mind here. I was a young man in the seventies and read the hype with interest.
I remember names being named, but can't remember the names.
If there were no consensus, where were the voices of dissent? I heard none. Why was that? In those days, science was not mired in the present day hysterical suppression of dissent.
Odd, don't you think?
Have you checked their sources, old boy..?
My comment stands. Why was there no voice of criticism from the scientific community when the media "invented" the story?
Guam said:
nigelfr said:
Guam said:
What another poster mentioned above is a reasonable proposition, except where "home" is a constantly moving caravan, then the drunk could never get there because HOME is an unknown constant. To assume that the models can be predictive you would have to know what true ecological balance is. Is it where we are now, is it the climate condition when the Dinosaurs roamed, or is the climatic Norm for Northern Europe the Little Ice Age?
Where is home?
Add that to the factor that the time it takes the drunk to get to "home" wherever that is, will be dependent on the route chosen and the degree of intoxication. So as we cant know the degree of intoxication as well as where Home is, we cannot forecast with certainty when he will get there or whether he will arrive there at all!!
That in a nutshell is the problem with this arguement.
Cheers
Tom
It's an analogy: the time he gets home is supposed to represent the amount of global warming. And the variables are included in the model as, well, variables, Where is home?
Add that to the factor that the time it takes the drunk to get to "home" wherever that is, will be dependent on the route chosen and the degree of intoxication. So as we cant know the degree of intoxication as well as where Home is, we cannot forecast with certainty when he will get there or whether he will arrive there at all!!
That in a nutshell is the problem with this arguement.
Cheers
Tom
that means when you know them you put them in the model.
Let's make this really simple: one variable is the time he leaves the pub, suppose he's always home before 11.30 in the past,because he leaves the pub at 11.00. One night he falls asleep in the loo and wakes up at midnight. This is the data that you put in the model as the variable "time he left pub" and you won't be surprised if the ETA is a lot later than 11.30.
Get it now? Got to dash: if you're still confused about models and analogies, I'll be back later.
The point is over the timescales we are talking about the sample size for fluctuating variables of this complexity would not be sufficiently significant, especially as the starting point is unknown in its effect on the baseline.
The point is that his ETA could be days later than anticipated (or even months) if "home" was moved before he departed.
I have repeatedly made the point that the current position is untenabvle due to the lack of accurate base data to build the model. As an Academic excercise, sure why not, as a basis for fundamental policy shifts absolutely not. Whilst statistically you could return a result he may arrive home twenty years later at the extreme end of the distrubution it wont tell you when to put the kettle on!!!
Cheers
Cheers
You want to model the time a bloke gets back from the pub. You make some assumptions e.g. same pub, same home. You monitor him for a period and note down some variables that you think may be relevant: e.g. time he leaves pub, the amount he's drunk and the time he does get home. After you have done this for a while you start to predict his ETA and compare it with his real time of arrival. To do this you have to put the data appropriate for that day into the model .If the variables that you have chosen are appropriate, you may be able to predict within a certain margin of error his arrival time on a particular, provided you have the necessary data.
If any factors relevant to the model change, then you have to account for that in the model e.g. different pub, different home, different number of legs etc. If you were to find that the model doesn't give accurate predictions, then you would have to change the variables or the assumptions that you make.
Just one point: you don't have to know precisely the mechanism for the effect of alcohol on the brain to build the model: you only need to know, it has an effect.
But you also said "To assume that the models can be predictive you would have to know what true ecological balance is. Is it where we are now, is it the climate condition when the Dinosaurs roamed, or is the climatic Norm for Northern Europe the Little Ice Age?"
What is your basis for this claim? I can choose whatever starting point I like and, given the appropriate data, take it from there. What do you mean by "true ecological balance"?
It's difficult to convey a sense of tone via text like this, but I'm not being hostile.
Cheers,
mybrainhurts said:
nigelfr said:
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.
Biased fudge springs to mind here. I was a young man in the seventies and read the hype with interest.
I remember names being named, but can't remember the names.
If there were no consensus, where were the voices of dissent? I heard none. Why was that? In those days, science was not mired in the present day hysterical suppression of dissent.
Odd, don't you think?
Have you checked their sources, old boy..?
My comment stands. Why was there no voice of criticism from the scientific community when the media "invented" the story?
And regarding "The Cooling World" Newsweek's alarmist article about the ice age in 1975: On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that 'the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."'
Talking about the global warming and CO2 emmisions is ultimately futile regardless of any outcome.
When governments continually wage wars what is the point of neutering an engine to produce less CO2 when worlwide munitions are exploding all over the world and causing fires everywhere. Remember the burning oilfields of Kuwait?
Global warming is OUTSIDE of the control of piffling with car engines or increasing taxes.
The only way to tackle Global warming through reduction of output is to reduce worlwide populations.
I don't think any government dare to tackle the real issue of limiting population increases by controlling births... try that one with all our newly arrived immigrant ghettoes and the burning tyres alone will account for more CO2 than the whole fleet of sales reps from Everest Double glazing.
Pissing about with engines etc does nothing except make the envious eco warriors feel self satisfied about spoiling somebody elses fun in a spiteful way.
Man cannot change the climate.. If another Ice age were to be upon us we could NOT change it whatever we may think.
Firing nuclear bombs at approaching asteroids is just as futile and implausible.
The world is not a Holywood B Movie. If the climate changes then it changes. No point spoiling everyone fun for no good reason so if the eco warriors want to tackle the real issue and all pop off down the clinic for a vasectomy maybe then I will listen more seriously.
When governments continually wage wars what is the point of neutering an engine to produce less CO2 when worlwide munitions are exploding all over the world and causing fires everywhere. Remember the burning oilfields of Kuwait?
Global warming is OUTSIDE of the control of piffling with car engines or increasing taxes.
The only way to tackle Global warming through reduction of output is to reduce worlwide populations.
I don't think any government dare to tackle the real issue of limiting population increases by controlling births... try that one with all our newly arrived immigrant ghettoes and the burning tyres alone will account for more CO2 than the whole fleet of sales reps from Everest Double glazing.
Pissing about with engines etc does nothing except make the envious eco warriors feel self satisfied about spoiling somebody elses fun in a spiteful way.
Man cannot change the climate.. If another Ice age were to be upon us we could NOT change it whatever we may think.
Firing nuclear bombs at approaching asteroids is just as futile and implausible.
The world is not a Holywood B Movie. If the climate changes then it changes. No point spoiling everyone fun for no good reason so if the eco warriors want to tackle the real issue and all pop off down the clinic for a vasectomy maybe then I will listen more seriously.
nigelfr said:
Guam said:
nigelfr said:
Guam said:
What another poster mentioned above is a reasonable proposition, except where "home" is a constantly moving caravan, then the drunk could never get there because HOME is an unknown constant. To assume that the models can be predictive you would have to know what true ecological balance is. Is it where we are now, is it the climate condition when the Dinosaurs roamed, or is the climatic Norm for Northern Europe the Little Ice Age?
Where is home?
Add that to the factor that the time it takes the drunk to get to "home" wherever that is, will be dependent on the route chosen and the degree of intoxication. So as we cant know the degree of intoxication as well as where Home is, we cannot forecast with certainty when he will get there or whether he will arrive there at all!!
That in a nutshell is the problem with this arguement.
Cheers
Tom
It's an analogy: the time he gets home is supposed to represent the amount of global warming. And the variables are included in the model as, well, variables, Where is home?
Add that to the factor that the time it takes the drunk to get to "home" wherever that is, will be dependent on the route chosen and the degree of intoxication. So as we cant know the degree of intoxication as well as where Home is, we cannot forecast with certainty when he will get there or whether he will arrive there at all!!
That in a nutshell is the problem with this arguement.
Cheers
Tom
that means when you know them you put them in the model.
Let's make this really simple: one variable is the time he leaves the pub, suppose he's always home before 11.30 in the past,because he leaves the pub at 11.00. One night he falls asleep in the loo and wakes up at midnight. This is the data that you put in the model as the variable "time he left pub" and you won't be surprised if the ETA is a lot later than 11.30.
Get it now? Got to dash: if you're still confused about models and analogies, I'll be back later.
The point is over the timescales we are talking about the sample size for fluctuating variables of this complexity would not be sufficiently significant, especially as the starting point is unknown in its effect on the baseline.
The point is that his ETA could be days later than anticipated (or even months) if "home" was moved before he departed.
I have repeatedly made the point that the current position is untenabvle due to the lack of accurate base data to build the model. As an Academic excercise, sure why not, as a basis for fundamental policy shifts absolutely not. Whilst statistically you could return a result he may arrive home twenty years later at the extreme end of the distrubution it wont tell you when to put the kettle on!!!
Cheers
Cheers
You want to model the time a bloke gets back from the pub. You make some assumptions e.g. same pub, same home. You monitor him for a period and note down some variables that you think may be relevant: e.g. time he leaves pub, the amount he's drunk and the time he does get home. After you have done this for a while you start to predict his ETA and compare it with his real time of arrival. To do this you have to put the data appropriate for that day into the model .If the variables that you have chosen are appropriate, you may be able to predict within a certain margin of error his arrival time on a particular, provided you have the necessary data.
If any factors relevant to the model change, then you have to account for that in the model e.g. different pub, different home, different number of legs etc. If you were to find that the model doesn't give accurate predictions, then you would have to change the variables or the assumptions that you make.
Just one point: you don't have to know precisely the mechanism for the effect of alcohol on the brain to build the model: you only need to know, it has an effect.
But you also said "To assume that the models can be predictive you would have to know what true ecological balance is. Is it where we are now, is it the climate condition when the Dinosaurs roamed, or is the climatic Norm for Northern Europe the Little Ice Age?"
What is your basis for this claim? I can choose whatever starting point I like and, given the appropriate data, take it from there. What do you mean by "true ecological balance"?
It's difficult to convey a sense of tone via text like this, but I'm not being hostile.
Cheers,
Basically you would be guilty of curve matching, just as the current set of climate models are. Plug in enough variables and tweak accordingly and its always possible to get an apparent match. Right up until the underlying laws/rules/behaviour gets non-linear. Think of phase changes as an example.
nigelfr said:
mybrainhurts said:
nigelfr said:
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
mybrainhurts said:
ludo said:
unlike the paper I posted earlier that debunks the myth of a global cooling concensus in the seventies.
Biased fudge springs to mind here. I was a young man in the seventies and read the hype with interest.
I remember names being named, but can't remember the names.
If there were no consensus, where were the voices of dissent? I heard none. Why was that? In those days, science was not mired in the present day hysterical suppression of dissent.
Odd, don't you think?
Have you checked their sources, old boy..?
My comment stands. Why was there no voice of criticism from the scientific community when the media "invented" the story?
nigelfr said:
And regarding "The Cooling World" Newsweek's alarmist article about the ice age in 1975: On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that 'the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."'
And your point is what...?s2art said:
I disagree. You are making the assumption that you can make theory free accurate models, based AFAICT on Bayesian probabilities. Fine, up to the point that reality doesnt conform to your linear assumptions.
Basically you would be guilty of curve matching, just as the current set of climate models are. Plug in enough variables and tweak accordingly and its always possible to get an apparent match. Right up until the underlying laws/rules/behaviour gets non-linear. Think of phase changes as an example.
Not if it was a Bayesian model, the increased Occam factor due to the added degrees of freedom would reduce the marginal likelihood of the model, so a Bayesian model selection procedure would not allow you to choose it. BTW, I often fit non-linear Bayesian models, they are nothing new in statistics. Basically you would be guilty of curve matching, just as the current set of climate models are. Plug in enough variables and tweak accordingly and its always possible to get an apparent match. Right up until the underlying laws/rules/behaviour gets non-linear. Think of phase changes as an example.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff