climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[Havre]

its just blah blah blah with no facts , just blah blah blah , get yourself educated on this subject - if you have kids and grandchildren you owe it to them to know the truth , but that's the hard part , talking on a subject because you have said nothing of substance,and you have nothing to say of substance ,and you say I haven't -you are a joke just like the other trolls

I feel sorry to have defended you in the past.

[Havre]

I have the privilege of having insults thrown at me from both you and Matteo V at the same time. If you want to be the reasonable one you might think about that for one second.

The greatest compliment you could pay me would be to point out a flaw in my logic.

The most worthless thing you could do would be to agree with me without a reason or convincing evidence.

Sure. If you only believed that yourself it would be admirable.

You are to me a lot more intelligent than slide, but you are just equally curious as to the "other side's" arguments.

Anyway. I didn't intend to have a long discussion on my views on you (I don't believe that is a very interesting conversation for anyone on this board including you and me). It was just an example to show how ridiculous slide is.

[Trent hink]

How long have we been measuring solar output? What about spectral changes? What devices are we using to measure them? How long have we had them? What is the period between large climate shifts? What was the sun doing around the last one? Who recorded....

Now, these are valid arguments against using the models of global warming to make predictions.

I apologize that I cut a bit off on the end there, and I did not mean to do that.

I am not knowledgeable enough to argue about these questions, even if I wanted to. But I can say that these are questions are valid, these questions should be asked, and it is on the people arguing that the models are good enough to make predictions to explain their answers to those questions.

To me it seems a bit silly to discuss what the models actually mean when we never even came to terms with an agreement about what the definition of a model was.

I was arguing in broad terms earlier, and the definitions I used are universally applied rules to anything that can be called a scientific model.... Any of the models we mentioned. Any model. Even, say, the wave-particle duality of light.

If you look closely to the rules I described, they still leave a tremendous amount of room for skepticism and argument. I can think of some arguments that haven't been mentioned here.

I do tend to side with the scientific consensus. But skepticism is a important part of science. It's good for science.

It is important to point out pure bs, and that is why I felt compelled to comment. I do agree that the media sensationalizes everything. Yet, clearly, there really are people who are working to destroy science and who want nothing more than a return to myth and witchcraft.

[foilholio]

greta has become a hero , among young adults , and she started the stand out side your school on a Friday and protest thing, and I can tell you for sure she is well educated on this subject and has appeared alongside david Attenborough on the bbc many times , that possibly what started the idea of greta having her own series on the bbc , and you still won't watch "the blue planet"...….why won't you learn , you talk like you are educated on this subject and in truth you know nothing , if greta is as you say a marketing tool ,why is she getting her own series on the BBC -tell me that rather than slagg her off , she is right on this subject and very clued up unlike you who is f**k annoying and ignorant on this subject -and another thing you have avoided my questions to you , why , I want to hear your view ,and keep it informative ,but you won't -you just want to moan and moan and moan with no facts , with no truths just moaning and slagging me off but you don't like it back do ya

Interesting fact, there is no proof that saying something is the truth makes it the truth. It can certainly make you more convinced it's the truth, but alas still not the truth.

So slide what is the truth again? So that we may know what you are convinced of. And would you say you are easily convinced of things, like a child, like Greta? Is religion missing in your life? If so is climate drama filling that gap well for you?

I apologize that a cut a bit off on the end there, and I did not mean to do that.

Glad you took the time to abbreviate something, the endless quoting jams things up.^^^^ (I am super guilty of it)\/\/\/\/

To me it seems a bit silly to discuss what the models actually mean when we never even came to terms with an agreement about what the definition of a model was.

I think we largely agree, it's just on the importance of the use. They are certainly used to understand things but that understanding is tested by predictions, those predictions are certainly used as well. In fact many models are used solely for their predictions and those models are often based on previous understandings and models.

If you look closely to the rules I applied, they still leave a tremendous amount of room for skepticism and argument within the context of how modeling is used for climate predictions. The I applied even point out arguments you perhaps have never even considered. I can think of some that have not been mentioned.

Do you want to requote that part for me?

I do tend to side with the scientific consensus. But skepticism is a important part of science. It's good for science.

Yes I agree, but have you looked into what the consensus is on? To me it is on simple things like the planet is warming, CO2 is causing most of it, etc. There is no consensus beyond that, which is evidence by the variation in the modeling.

I do believe it is important to point out pure bs, I agree that the media sensationalizes everything.

Definitely and the media has it's reason's. The market has driven so much competition through the internet that traditional media now struggles to survive. In fact sometimes you can get more up to date relevant material from such trashy places as 4chan. Look at wikileaks for example, it has to be one of the most accurate media outlets in history. traditional media is almost done, their only hope is totalitarian regimes of which the US is fast becoming one. Hurrah!

Yet, clearly, there really are people who are working to destroy science and want nothing more than a return to myth and witchcraft.

That argument is a little strong, while there is people in existence like that, they really are not the ones pushing with money against the climate change agenda. The oil industry has to be the most likely and provable source for platforms against climate change. The motivation is obvious, money. That is not to say we should discount people 100% because they use those platforms but it does certainly taint the credibility. While on the other side climate change proponents use the long built credibility of or academic institutions to really push into the absurd sometimes. The question, do you think our traditional sources for education, reason, logic and advancement, becoming more silly, making claims that are borderline ridiculous which will likely prove wrong will lead us to a society that is less myth and witchcraft? We need to have faith in these places that they really are striving to know the best and most accurate picture of things. At the rate these places are going especially with many "social" en-devours they are fast on a path to irrelevance.

[prop_joe]

Do you know there are sunken ruins in 100m depth in front of Japan and Cuba?
And also in front of Alexandria, maybe in 10m depth?

Did humans cause this as well? Cars? 2000 years ago? 10.000? 50.000?

Antarctis was green before. Sahara had a jungle with oceans, lakes and many rivers.

My point is: we have data from a nano part of earths history, or even way way less.

There are scientists who tell another story (youtube: the CO2 lie).

So I would be respectful to other opinions, until proven wrong, and that's pretty much impossible.

[Matteo V]

How long have we been measuring solar output? What about spectral changes? What devices are we using to measure them? How long have we had them? What is the period between large climate shifts? What was the sun doing around the last one? Who recorded....

Now, these are valid arguments against the models of global warming.

Those things highlight that, given climate modeling is in it's infancy, there are recently discovered variables flooding into the models. And on top of that, the list of known unknowns is also expanding at a high rate. This then leads to the number of unknown unknowns increasing at an even higher rate.

To me it seems a bit silly to discuss what the models actually mean when we never even came to terms with an agreement about what the definition of a model was.

I was arguing in broad terms earlier, and the terms I used are universally applied rules to anything that can be called a scientific model.... Any of the models we mentioned. Any model. Even, say, the wave-particle duality of light.

A scientific model is typically a complex system of equations created in an effort to simulate the workings of a man made or natural process. Models can be tested for accuracy by verifying their predictions with observations of actual occurrence or experiments.

So what accuracy level of the model exists in your particle physics example??????? Hint: really REALLY REALLY high.

Compare that to climate models which can produce ANY result you wish given inputs adjusted within their margin of error. What accuracy level of the model exists in climate modeling????? Hint: you can't really call it low when it can produce any answer you wish!

It is important to point out pure bs, and that is why I felt compelled to comment. I do agree that the media sensationalizes everything. Yet, clearly, there really are people who are working to destroy science and who want nothing more than a return to myth and witchcraft.

Myth and witchcraft were created to explain what was unexplainable at the time. Twisting the truth, suppressing it, and spewing propaganda in an effort to promote an agenda for profit and power, is on a whole other level.

[Trent hink]

Well, to me, this argument that the models are wrong because the models get changed, and every time they get changed they seem to get better,

That's not a valid argument. That is purely a ploy to discredit science. Anyone who makes that argument is probably ignorant about what science is, or they are actively trying to destroy the value of science.

Plenty of other reasons to argue against using to models to make climate predictions. Why choose one that is patently false?

[Matteo V]

Well, to me, this argument that the models are wrong because the models get changed, and every time they get changed they seem to get better,

A MODEL IS WRONG WHEN THE PREDICTION DOES NOT MATCH THE OBSERVATION!

A MODEL IS ESSENTIALLY USELESS WHEN THE RESULT CAN BE ANY RESULT YOU WISH, GIVEN INPUTS WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR FOR FOR THE KNOWN VARIABLES!

Plenty of other reasons to argue against using to models to make climate predictions. Why choose one that is patently false?

Please explain how my above statements are false.

[Pemba]

Well, to me, this argument that the models are wrong because the models get changed, and every time they get changed they seem to get better,

A MODEL IS WRONG WHEN THE PREDICTION DOES NOT MATCH THE OBSERVATION!

A MODEL IS ESSENTIALLY USELESS WHEN THE RESULT CAN BE ANY RESULT YOU WISH, GIVEN INPUTS WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR FOR FOR THE KNOWN VARIABLES!

Plenty of other reasons to argue against using to models to make climate predictions. Why choose one that is patently false?

Please explain how my above statements are false.

"A MODEL IS WRONG WHEN THE PREDICTION DOES NOT MATCH THE OBSERVATION!":
Obviously it will never match unless predictions are really broad, question would be how far off is it. If model is used only as a prediction tool only and it's consistently "really far off" then that would make the model wrong. I agree.

"A MODEL IS ESSENTIALLY USELESS WHEN THE RESULT CAN BE ANY RESULT YOU WISH, GIVEN INPUTS WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR FOR THE KNOWN VARIABLES!":
Again, assuming we are talking about a model as a prediction tool only. I've asked before (no reply) so again, this implies that most of the scientific community is consciously/purposely using biased information/data - something really really unscientific. This I find difficult to digest. But it's not impossible off course. Which "margin of error" are you talking about (%) ? Obviously if you use a large amount of data, each with a degree of uncertainty then obviously the spread becomes really large. I'd be interested to know what the likelihood of the climate staying the same or cooling is according to these models. Just stating that the result can be any result you wish by itself doesn't actually have to mean very much.

Obviously we are continuously trying to learn from the errors and improving the models. By improving a model that is "useless" for predictions today, we might have something that is useful in 10 years which makes it not useless today as well but I guess that wasn't what you were talking about.

[foilholio]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to scale the correctness of a model vs it's accuracy. It may be a little unreasonable to say a model is worthless if it is not near exactly accurate but for somethings that might be an acceptable description. For me if you forecast say 5C change and instead get 1 or 2C that is not a very good model.

Do you know there are sunken ruins in 100m depth in front of Japan and Cuba?
And also in front of Alexandria, maybe in 10m depth?

Did humans cause this as well? Cars? 2000 years ago? 10.000? 50.000?

Antarctis was green before. Sahara had a jungle with oceans, lakes and many rivers.

My point is: we have data from a nano part of earths history, or even way way less.

There are scientists who tell another story (youtube: the CO2 lie).

So I would be respectful to other opinions, until proven wrong, and that's pretty much impossible.

If you are interested in this stuff take a look at the youtube vids I posted here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2402307&start=900 or load them into your podcast app. You are in for a treat! Basically the ocean is currently much higher than it is normally, it can go down to 200m below current and has been quite a bit higher than current even during the current warm period. The normal coastline is the continental shelves which are 20-100m+ under water and way out to sea in some places. The normal condition for the planet IS ice age, with temps way way below current.

Now knowing all that, I am certain that CO2 is not a lie and the planet is warming because of it. The oceans are rising which directly correlates to the planet warming, they have been rising for quite a while now and the rising is accelerating. There are so many things we don't understand or understand well though. We are missing predictions for rates of warming and consequences. We may likely just have the time scales wrong or we may have the figures wrong. One of the least talked about effects from CO2 is biological, it is proven to have and proven it has had a huge effect on plants, which in turn will have huge effects on the ecology. I wouldn't be surprised if the oceans start becoming clogged with seaweed and algae. Hydrofoiling may be impossible in a 100 years LoL