08 Mar 17
I created this thread because of humy and his assertion that climate models that predict the past are accurate. Here is a humy quote:
"Why "only future predictions"? The proof is that the best models have made all the necessary correct predictions in the past, moron."
The irony is that "predicting the past" is an oxymoron. Only a fool would endorse such non-predictions as accurate. After all, if it takes 20 failures to adjusting the input to where it finally matches up does anybody really think that should be considered a success?
A future prediction (real prediction) has to be right the first time. There is no trial and error until you stumble onto it. Who in their right mind would consider past predictions proof of climate model accuracy?
08 Mar 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainPredictions of the future, stock market, reliability of atomic weapons over time, climate studies, NONE of them get it right the first time. There is this process called 'refinement' that starts fine tuning predictions till they match what we actully see. After that we start to consider the predictions as valid within some window of error. There will ALWAYS be a window of error. You can't predict the stock market with any kind of accuracy or the future path of hurricanes you see on weather reports which uses several different models and it is only after a few hundred of those go by can we say with any accuracy which way a hurricane will travel.
I created this thread because of humy and his assertion that climate models that predict the past are accurate. Here is a humy quote:
"Why "only future predictions"? The proof is that the best models have made all the necessary correct predictions in the past, moron."
The irony is that "predicting the past" is an oxymoron. Only a fool would endorse ...[text shortened]... nto it. Who in their right mind would consider past predictions proof of climate model accuracy?
08 Mar 17
8 edits
"predicting the past" is an oxymoron.
Nope.
Logically, ALL predictions once made of the future that have been confirmed to be correct via observation in that once future are now predictions of the past.
A prediction can start as predicting the future of what is going to happen at some specified point in time T in the future. But then eventually later in time that specified point in time T is no longer in the future but becomes a point in time in the past therefore all verified predictions that start off as "predicting the future" eventually become "predicting the past" from immediately after point of time T onwards.
All past predictions that where once made of future elapses to occur before year 2017, just like past predictions that where once made of global warming to occur before year 2017, are now predictions of the past (and neither is invalid as a result).
THAT is what I meant by "predicting the past"; comprehend?
I just said that in 3 different ways above to allow you maximum opportunity to comprehend; now we wait and see.
And Please Please just for once THINK this through before shouting your mouth off and embarrassing yourself yet again.
08 Mar 17
7 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseOne of his many problems is that he doesn't understand how science works; just thinks he does. The fact you and I and many other scientists here find ourselves repeatedly (and that "repeatedly" indicates yet another problem he has; doesn't ever learn anything new) explaining to him how science works (like you just did above) is a symptom of that.
Predictions of the future, stock market, reliability of atomic weapons over time, climate studies, NONE of them get it right the first time. There is this process called 'refinement' that starts fine tuning predictions till they match what we actully see. After that we start to consider the predictions as valid within some window of error. There will ALWAY ...[text shortened]... ter a few hundred of those go by can we say with any accuracy which way a hurricane will travel.
09 Mar 17
Originally posted by humyThat is a transparently fake spin job. I'll let your words do your own damage. They are here for all to see."predicting the past" is an oxymoron.
Nope.
Logically, ALL predictions once made of the future that have been confirmed to be correct via observation in that once future are now predictions of the past.
A prediction can start as predicting the future of what is going to happen at some specified point in time T in the future. But the ...[text shortened]... for once THINK this through before shouting your mouth off and embarrassing yourself yet again.
09 Mar 17
Originally posted by sonhouse"NONE of them get it right the first time."
Predictions of the future, stock market, reliability of atomic weapons over time, climate studies, NONE of them get it right the first time. There is this process called 'refinement' that starts fine tuning predictions till they match what we actully see. After that we start to consider the predictions as valid within some window of error. There will ALWAY ...[text shortened]... ter a few hundred of those go by can we say with any accuracy which way a hurricane will travel.
A future prediction is not trial and error. There are only multiple predictions to try better and every one has an accuracy rate. Climate models have a poor accuracy rate when predicting the future. When used for past only estimates (meaning never being used as a future prediction once) it is a trial and error debacle not worth grouping in with a future prediction only.
09 Mar 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainDo you have a reliable source (in other words not a climate skeptic website) for your assertion that climate models repeatedly fail to predict future climate? When I say future climate I mean that the prediction period is after the time of the simulation is run, clearly these would be shortish term predictions.
"NONE of them get it right the first time."
A future prediction is not trial and error. There are only multiple predictions to try better and every one has an accuracy rate. Climate models have a poor accuracy rate when predicting the future. When used for past only estimates (meaning never being used as a future prediction once) it is a trial and error debacle not worth grouping in with a future prediction only.
10 Mar 17
8 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHe doesn't. He dishonestly just makes stuff up and then hypocritically repeatedly asks US for our source of info, were our source of info is the science.
Do you have a reliable source (in other words not a climate skeptic website) for your assertion that climate models repeatedly fail to predict future climate? ....
You will not get a straight answer from him and this shows what kind of person he is. He, a none-scientist who apparently either thinks or pretends (don't know which) he understands science better than us scientists, never contributes anything intelligent or meaningful to any scientific debate and just wastes our time with his usual endless moronic rhetoric for spite just because we don't agree with his moronic arrogant delusional baseless unscientific opinion (sorry, but I just cannot see any other credible motive).
12 Mar 17
Originally posted by DeepThoughtFred Singer and Richard Lindzen have both been saying they are unreliable for years. Other climate scientists have said it too.
Do you have a reliable source (in other words not a climate skeptic website) for your assertion that climate models repeatedly fail to predict future climate? When I say future climate I mean that the prediction period is after the time of the simulation is run, clearly these would be shortish term predictions.
Do you have a source of information showing otherwise? Humy is just a liar. Since I have exposed him for that many times in the past,he likes to make the same claim of me even though he knows it is false. It is a symptom of a bruised ego.
12 Mar 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou still picked out the same two you tout all the time. He asked for non-climate change denier paper.
Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen have both been saying they are unreliable for years. Other climate scientists have said it too.
Do you have a source of information showing otherwise? Humy is just a liar. Since I have exposed him for that many times in the past,he likes to make the same claim of me even though he knows it is false. It is a symptom of a bruised ego.
12 Mar 17
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, you are wrong. He said no climate skeptic WEBSITE. I didn't.
You still picked out the same two you tout all the time. He asked for non-climate change denier paper.
Provide a source of information showing otherwise or stop claiming falsehoods.
12 Mar 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat I wanted to avoid was a site with biased evidence. So I ruled out a Climate skepic website more to avoid "expert opinion" rather than the sites themselves. Ideally a paper where they use historical data to predict historical climate (reasonable as a bug check, but not proof of anything much), or a clear statement from one of your experts of what they're basing their claims on.
No, you are wrong. He said no climate skeptic WEBSITE. I didn't.
Provide a source of information showing otherwise or stop claiming falsehoods.
16 Mar 17
Originally posted by DeepThoughthttp://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17
What I wanted to avoid was a site with biased evidence. So I ruled out a Climate skepic website more to avoid "expert opinion" rather than the sites themselves. Ideally a paper where they use historical data to predict historical climate (reasonable as a bug check, but not proof of anything much), or a clear statement from one of your experts of what they're basing their claims on.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html