Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
Jasandjules said:
gadgetmac said:
It’s where the smart money is going. Undoubtedly yours will stay in your back pocket.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
Jasandjules said:
gadgetmac said:
It’s where the smart money is going. Undoubtedly yours will stay in your back pocket.https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Although how that will go down with his mystic leader who seems to think engineers are well worth quoting is anyone's guess.
LoonyTunes said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
Jasandjules said:
gadgetmac said:
It’s where the smart money is going. Undoubtedly yours will stay in your back pocket.https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Although how that will go down with his mystic leader who seems to think engineers are well worth quoting is anyone's guess.
LoonyTunes said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
Jasandjules said:
gadgetmac said:
It’s where the smart money is going. Undoubtedly yours will stay in your back pocket.https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Although how that will go down with his mystic leader who seems to think engineers are well worth quoting is anyone's guess.
Jasandjules said:
If they are correct it matters not what they do for a living. Quite a disgusting attitude to have against an entire profession and your prejudice does you no favours at all.
Consistency doesn’t loom large in the cultists handbook it would appear.
Choo chooo......all aboarrddd!
Diderot said:
I’m not talking about the data Doc Jock. Data are data. I specifically questioned the significance of the baseline in my original comment. Durbster et al seem unable to respond to that, instead deploying the usual diversionary tactics.
Well, you failed this simple test so I think we can safely put you in the "nothing to contribute" section. Next troll please.dickymint said:
durbster said:
1. A statement without evidence is an opinion, not a fact. Please provide some.
1. You've already had had it. Read the thread!dickymint said:
durbster said:
2. What do you mean by "wrong".
Did all the models predict a warming trend, and has there been a warming trend? Yes, so not wrong.
Did the models predict every ebb and flow of temperature in between? No, so you can say they are wrong.
2. Consult a dictionary!Did all the models predict a warming trend, and has there been a warming trend? Yes, so not wrong.
Did the models predict every ebb and flow of temperature in between? No, so you can say they are wrong.
I do appreciate the reminder as to why I don't waste time responding to your posts (see: "nothing to contribute" comment above).
durbster said:
A statement without evidence is an opinion, not a fact.
That's at Steve Davis levels of interesting. There's a footnote in an IPCC report Summary for Policymakers where the IPCC admit that their reported % confidence in humans being responsible for global warming (miraculously up from 90% to 95% after The Pause) is simply based on judgement i.e. conjecture. No evidence, just opinion. It's dressed up to look like a statistical 'fact' by means of the % values chosen but it's conjecture with no statistical calculation involved. Naturally the dozen or so political appointees making the attrubution % are 'expert' at guesswork so that makes it OK. Get cracking, they need to be told in no uncertain terms about opinion without evidence.IPCC SPM footnote said:
Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies.
After the shock of 'guessed not assessed' we might also at this point return to the IPCC written policy of making the science in the technical report 'conform' to the politically written SPM rather than vice versa (my emphasis below):IPCC report protocol said:
When changes in the longer report of the Synthesis Report are required either to conform it to the SPM or...
Don't take my word for it, check it out.Phil1 said:
I'm intrigued by the repeated claims that if enough people tell you something that is demonstrably wrong it somehow becomes right! Yeah, but they were all wrong in the same way!
Seriously Loony and gadget, do you really think that logic holds up?
Yes it does when 99% of the world's govts & institutions also think it holds up. Why do you think that might be?Seriously Loony and gadget, do you really think that logic holds up?
Seriously?
Here's why climate models are b
ks, and always will be bks.
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a hurricane in Texas.
Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior IMPOSSIBLE in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them PREDICTABLE. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate
PS Does anyone know if a slight increase in the planets future temperature (whatever that is) is actually a problem.?
ks, and always will be bks.Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a hurricane in Texas.
Small differences in initial conditions, such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation, yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction of their behavior IMPOSSIBLE in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them PREDICTABLE. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate
PS Does anyone know if a slight increase in the planets future temperature (whatever that is) is actually a problem.?
Edited by robinessex on Monday 3rd September 08:48
LoonyTunes said:
Phil1 said:
I'm intrigued by the repeated claims that if enough people tell you something that is demonstrably wrong it somehow becomes right! Yeah, but they were all wrong in the same way!
Seriously Loony and gadget, do you really think that logic holds up?
Yes it does when 99% of the world's govts & institutions also think it holds up. Seriously Loony and gadget, do you really think that logic holds up?
durbster said:
A statement without evidence is opinion, not a fact
In the above case the statement is made-up baloney. LoonyTunes could no more list all the scientific institutions of the world than take the temperature of the world. Then there's the non-scientific institutions.
More % nonsense just like the IPCC.
turbobloke said:
LoonyTunes could no more list all the scientific institutions of the world than take the temperature of the world.
...or than you could correctly state a scientific institutions or individual scientists position on AGW without misrepresenting them or him. Apart from which a rather long list of Institutions has been posted many-many times.
Govts? Only the USA currently disagrees with the consensus. So that's at least 99%
gadgetmac said:
jet_noise said:
Models will do exactly what they have been programmed to do. No more, no less.
Exactly, you feed in what data you do have, run the program and see what pops out. Only it never seems to pop out the result the deniers would like it too which is either a ‘positive influence’ or maybe just a ‘neutral influence’.Climate models have been designed to show an alarmist level of +ve temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentrations.
So they do.
And the world takes these predictions/projections/witchcraft as gospel and continues to do so. Despite being demonstrably wrong when compared to even the, ah, uncertain temperature records being used.
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
I'd substitute observations for experiment here but the Feynman quote is apt.
robinessex said:
Here's why climate models are bks, and always will be bks.
We've done this conversation before. You don't understand chaos theory or modelling. Chaos theory tells you that you can't predict an exact future state from given starting conditions. It doesn't tell you that you can't make useful predictions about a chaotic system. See, as an example, all aerodynamic modelling involving turbulent flow.ks, and always will be bks.hairykrishna said:
robinessex said:
Here's why climate models are bks, and always will be bks.
We've done this conversation before. You don't understand chaos theory or modelling. Chaos theory tells you that you can't predict an exact future state from given starting conditions. It doesn't tell you that you can't make useful predictions about a chaotic system. See, as an example, all aerodynamic modelling involving turbulent flow.ks, and always will be bks.“There is not yet a single, practical turbulence model that can reliably predict all turbulent flows with sufficient accuracy.”
Unless something is predictable, and repeatable, it’s useless. Might as well guess then.
jet_noise said:
Climate models have been designed to show an alarmist level of +ve temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentrations.
So they do.
Can you please demonstrate that what you've just said is true and not just your opinion? There are hundreds of models so I'll take a top 10 of models that have been proven to have been deliberately set-up to show an "alarmist level of temperature sensitivity" (whatever that might be).So they do.
robinessex said:
I just checked this with our ANSYS FLUENT for turbulent flows. The following was stated at the end of the various methodologies for this available
“There is not yet a single, practical turbulence model that can reliably predict all turbulent flows with sufficient accuracy.”
Unless something is predictable, and repeatable, it’s useless. Might as well guess then.
So if ALL models are b“There is not yet a single, practical turbulence model that can reliably predict all turbulent flows with sufficient accuracy.”
Unless something is predictable, and repeatable, it’s useless. Might as well guess then.
ks - and that is so self-evidently true - why do they continue to be used by venerable institutions and Govts?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff