22 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyYou are clearly an alarmist who is denying being an alarmist because you have a hard time admitting you were wrong. Your posts on the following thread show that you have been dishonest.
perhaps to Metal Brain; "worried" = "alarmist" ?
So, if you express concern of a rabid bull charging right at you, you're just a stupid ignorant whining "alarmist" who simply doesn't know what he is talking about!
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=162851&page=10
22 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyYou do not speak for sonhouse or anybody else on the forum when you deny they are alarmists. Sonhouse no longer denies being an alarmist.
I/we have no alarmist views. Therefore, I/we have no alarmist views to be rejected by anyone.
You do not even speak honestly about yourself. You clearly expresses alarmist views on the science forum in several threads. Now that I have exposed your dishonesty it will be interesting to see if you keep being a denier.
22 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyIt seems that somebody here chooses to have selective blindness to all my anti-alarmist posts.
Here is another cautiously moderately optimistic research result in addition to my OP one:
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-global-moderate-empirical.html
"...A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on ...[text shortened]... on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,"
..."
24 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainThat's like saying "The classical theory of gasses only takes measurements over aggregates of hundreds of millions of particles. How can we trust such theories until they can model the motion of every single particle."
Sadly, tea leaves are probably just as good at predicting climate as climate models.
Here is an excerpt from the link below:
"Talk about the models. What is a computer model, and what isn't it? What is its purpose in science?
There are many kinds of computer models. But the ones that people mostly talk about these days are the giant models that ...[text shortened]... very difficult to put much faith in them."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
Over the surface of a globe then a spacing of 200 miles may be ok, particularly if the climate is mainly governed by large scale aggregate effects rather than the detail of the shape of every single cloud.
Originally posted by Manchee1974We have all tried again and again to explain to him before the logical flaw in his assertion in god knows how many different ways but he just doesn't get it (or chooses not to? ). What he doesn't get is that climate models, just like so much in science, are probabilistic and merely give their best estimate of what is most likely to happen and therefore are not supposed to infinitely reliably and infinitely accurately predict anything thus it doesn't make sense to say they are unreliable because they don't give and infinitely accurate prediction or the correct prediction.
That's like saying "The classical theory of gasses only takes measurements over aggregates of hundreds of millions of particles. How can we trust such theories until they can model the motion of every single particle."
Over the surface of a globe then a spacing of 200 miles may be ok, particularly if the climate is mainly governed by large scale aggregate effects rather than the detail of the shape of every single cloud.
What he says would be like me saying that your claim that there is only a 1 in 6 chance of a dice throwing a 6 is unreliable because I have just thrown a 6! Or like me saying the weather forecast is unreliable because it predicted 2 inches of rain and we got 2.1 inches of rain!
He apparently doesn't understand the concepts of estimate and probability.....or chooses not to.
24 Apr 15
Originally posted by Manchee1974False inference.
That's like saying "The classical theory of gasses only takes measurements over aggregates of hundreds of millions of particles. How can we trust such theories until they can model the motion of every single particle."
Over the surface of a globe then a spacing of 200 miles may be ok, particularly if the climate is mainly governed by large scale aggregate effects rather than the detail of the shape of every single cloud.
24 Apr 15
Originally posted by humy"What he doesn't get is that climate models, just like so much in science, are probabilistic and merely give their best estimate of what is most likely to happen and therefore are not supposed to infinitely reliably and infinitely accurately predict anything thus it doesn't make sense to say they are unreliable because they don't give and infinitely accurate prediction or the correct prediction."
We have all tried again and again to explain to him before the logical flaw in his assertion in god knows how many different ways but he just doesn't get it (or chooses not to? ). What he doesn't get is that climate models, just like so much in science, are probabilistic and merely give their best estimate of what is most likely to happen a ...[text shortened]... He apparently doesn't understand the concepts of estimate and probability.....or chooses not to.
Another false inference. What is the probability of climate models being reliable after so much proven unreliability?
What is the probability of you being an alarmist after you claim millions of people will die from climate change? The answer is very probable, but you still deny it and nobody believes you but other hardcore alarmists in denial of the facts.
24 Apr 15
5 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe model for the best estimate of how many times I get heads from tossing a coin 100 times is 50 times. But it is unlikely I will get exactly 50 heads each time I toss the coin 100 times. Most of the times when I toss a coin 100 times, I will throw anything anything from 40 to 60 heads but rarely exactly 50. So this best estimate, which is the weighted average of all possible outcomes ("weighed" according to each possible outcome's probability ), is "proven unreliability"? Obviously not. The best estimate is still the best estimate and observing many examples of the best estimate not being infinitely accurate doesn't do anything to prove it is not the best estimate because that just isn't how probability works. Climate models are supposed to give only probabilistic best estimates and nobody here claims nor expects they give absolute-certain infinitely-accurate predictions. Therefore, when they don't, and contrary to what you claim, that proves nothing.
[b] What is the probability of climate models being reliable after so much proven unreliability?
25 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyClimate models will always do poorly. Just because they are the best you have doesn't mean they are good enough. They will likely never gain any credibility. They fail too much and the probability of that changing is very low. If I was a betting man that is where I would put my money.
The model for the best estimate of how many times I get heads from tossing a coin 100 times is 50 times. But it is unlikely I will get exactly 50 heads each time I toss the coin 100 times. Most of the times when I toss a coin 100 times, I will throw anything anything from 40 to 60 heads but rarely exactly 50. So this best estimate, which is the weighted ...[text shortened]... te predictions. Therefore, when they don't, and contrary to what you claim, that proves nothing.