1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    19 Jan '17 17:25
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Depends what the +/- 24% represents. If it is one standard deviation then the figure is virtually meaningless, but they say with high confidence, so it could be a 99% confidence interval (I don't know, I don't want to register for the sake of looking at one article). The figure they have is an almost doubling of the rate from before 1990. Although the ...[text shortened]... t 45% of the glacier loss is anthropogenic rather than natural variability should be of concern.
    Those figures depend on climate models which have been shown to be wrong most of the time when tested. That makes the article a glorified opinion piece and nothing more. They likely tweeked their numbers they input into the climate models to get the results they wanted as that is what usually happens when they are biased to begin with and they could even be desperate to get results that will increase their chances of getting funding from the government.

    More bunk at the expense of real science. Epic fail!
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    19 Jan '17 17:46
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Those figures depend on climate models which have been shown to be wrong most of the time when tested.
    Nope, they have been shown to be correct most of the time when tested.
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    19 Jan '17 17:54
    Originally posted by humy
    Nope, they have been shown to be correct most of the time when tested.
    Wrong again. Here is an excerpt of the link below:

    "He has criticized the scientific consensus on global climate change, pointing out that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction. He drew an analogy in 1996 between the consensus in the early and mid-twentieth century on eugenics and the current consensus about global warming.[65] In a 2007 interview on The Larry King Show, Lindzen said:[66]

    We're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios – of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.

    I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.

    In a 2009 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen said that the earth was just emerging from the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century and says that it is "not surprising" to see warming after that. He goes on to state that the IPCC claims were[67]

    Based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

    Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

    According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[68] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[68] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[9] and offered more support in a 2009 paper."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

    Here is another link about climate models failing to predict droughts accurately.

    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-models-fail-to-predict-us-droughts-1.12810

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/

    Try to prove me wrong (again, as you have failed multiple times before) if you are willing to risk more embarrassment. What is your source of info? Is it that skepical science link that contains shameless lies as I proved many times?
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    19 Jan '17 18:398 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain

    Here is another link about climate models failing to predict droughts accurately.

    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-models-fail-to-predict-us-droughts-1.12810
    Particular droughts, such as that US drought, are WEATHER events, NOT climate. The function of climate models is not to predict specific whether events but rather CLIMATE.
    Thus it is totally idiotic to say they fail to predict as required because they fail to predict specific whether events, just as it is totally idiotic to say they fail to predict as required because they fail to predict how lions hunt in packs.
    Strangely, the authors of that link don't appear to get that either as I see quotes in that link that very clearly imply they think climate models are supposed to predict specific weather events!
    They say "climate model" where they should say "weather model".
    That is silly of them.
    Weather is not climate.

    Try again.
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    22 Jan '17 17:26
    Originally posted by humy
    Particular droughts, such as that US drought, are WEATHER events, NOT climate. The function of climate models is not to predict specific whether events but rather CLIMATE.
    Thus it is totally idiotic to say they fail to predict as required because they fail to predict specific whether events, just as it is totally idiotic to say they fail to predict as require ...[text shortened]... they should say "weather model".
    That is silly of them.
    Weather is not climate.

    Try again.
    Nope, you ignored the other link at your convenience and evaded my question. What is your source of information?

    Try again.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    22 Jan '17 18:492 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    What is your source of information?
    .
    My source of info is the definition of weather and climate.
    Weather is not climate;
    https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
    Just look it up yourself and learn something just for once.
  7. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    23 Jan '17 21:181 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Those figures depend on climate models which have been shown to be wrong most of the time when tested
    How are you validating this statement? How are you confirming or discounting the accuracy of climate models in the first place? You presented a wikipedia article and an article about drought. If they are wrong, is it that they cannot make global temperature predictions, or they are wrong because they miss anomalous weather events? Your statement reeks of pseudoscientific nonsense.

    Climate models assume that they contain errors and inaccuracies, since it isn't possible to know everything. Therefore, predicted values are presented as a range. As far as I can tell the models have been remarkably accurate. Of course you can point to specific climate events and weather patterns that were not anticipated by a model, but they are still very very good. Your statement "wrong most of the time when tested" is wrong.

    Source: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf
    "The ultimate source of most [climate model] errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). Despite such uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources , such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions."

    Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/27/climate-models-are-accurately-predicting-ocean-and-global-warming
    "What about the next question – how did the models do? Amazingly well.... since 1992, the models have been within 3 % of the measurements. In my mind, this agreement is the strongest vindication of the models ever found, and in fact, in our study we suggest that matches between climate models and ocean warming should be a major test of the models.....Readers should also know that our study isn’t the only one of its kind to make these findings. A paper published before ours by a world-class group of scientists came to similar conclusions. So too does another study found here. When multiple and independent studies come to similar conclusions, it suggests that the conclusions are robust."

    The Marzeion et al. (Science 2014) study we were discussing earlier presented rigorous, controlled science using 12 different climate models, matching to experimental observations, and was unable to offer any alternative explanation other than "anthropogenic causes" to explain recent acceleration of glacial melt. Your alternative explanation for this cannot be "the models are wrong" because the models in the study fit with the actual experimental observations. So what is your alternative explanation for why glacial melt is accelerating?

    Have you thought about the question "What evidence would convince you that global warming was primarily anthropogenic?"
  8. Standard memberapathist
    looking for loot
    western colorado
    Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    9664
    24 Jan '17 01:361 edit
    I'm wondering why people choose to deny the obvious. Ideology? Politics, religion, bank account? Wishful thinking? We are hurting the planet, people. This is scary bad. She can handle ten times our number, if we wise up. A hundred times maybe.

    Don't crap in your bed. Pre-kindergarten. And this evades the deniers.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    24 Jan '17 17:581 edit
    Originally posted by apathist
    I'm wondering why people choose to deny the obvious. Ideology? Politics, religion, bank account? Wishful thinking? We are hurting the planet, people. This is scary bad. She can handle ten times our number, if we wise up. A hundred times maybe.

    Don't crap in your bed. Pre-kindergarten. And this evades the deniers.
    It doesn't matter how wise we are, we are already using up half of Earth's resources, which means we could double the population maybe but never a hundred times and not even ten times.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/mar/30/environment.research

    For instance, we are already using 40% of ALL freshwater sources, lakes, rivers, streams, aquifers.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    24 Jan '17 18:06
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    ...which means we could double the population maybe but never a hundred times and not even ten times....
    fortunately we have good reason to think that population growth will continue to level off as it has been so a doubling of the population within the next 100 years is unlikely I think.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    24 Jan '17 18:25
    Originally posted by humy
    fortunately we have good reason to think that population growth will continue to level off as it has been so a doubling of the population within the next 100 years is unlikely I think.
    The human race is screwed if it does double or triple. It can't happen anyway, there isn't enough water for that many people. If we got cheap nuclear fusion or some such, we could use vast amounts of energy to desalinate sea water but that is unlikely to happen within the next 100 years.
  12. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    26 Jan '17 20:54
    Originally posted by humy
    My source of info is the definition of weather and climate.
    Weather is not climate;
    https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
    Just look it up yourself and learn something just for once.
    You know what I was talking about. You claim climate models are accurate and it is not true. We have been on this topic before and you gave up, now you are making the same false claim. Show us your source of information.
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    26 Jan '17 20:56
    Originally posted by wildgrass
    How are you validating this statement? How are you confirming or discounting the accuracy of climate models in the first place? You presented a wikipedia article and an article about drought. If they are wrong, is it that they cannot make global temperature predictions, or they are wrong because they miss anomalous weather events? Your statement reeks of p ...[text shortened]... the question "What evidence would convince you that global warming was primarily anthropogenic?"
    " As far as I can tell the models have been remarkably accurate."

    Nobody has shown that to be true because it is not.
    What is your source of information?
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    22048
    26 Jan '17 21:131 edit
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/13975-climate-change-computer-models-fail-again-and-again-and-again

    http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/
  15. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    26 Jan '17 21:53
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    " As far as I can tell the models have been remarkably accurate."

    Nobody has shown that to be true because it is not.
    What is your source of information?
    Ha ha funny joke. Or you are responding (again) without reading my post?

    In case of the latter, I will repeat myself again. Your alternative explanation for accelerating glacial melt, other than anthropogenic global warming, cannot be "the models are wrong" because the models in the study we were discussing (Marzeion et al. Science 2014) matched actual experimental observations. In other words, the models were NOT wrong. What other scientific explanation do you have for why glacial melt is accelerating?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree