- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,567
- Reaction score
- 22,189
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
You mean the ones which quite accurately predicted over 30 years ago that we would be living in the warmest decade ever recorded, and coincidentally, we are living in the warmest year and through much of it, the warmest month ever recorded?
You mean those models that missed by so much?
I guarantee that 30 years ago, you were insisting that temperatures would be as likely to decline as rise.
IOW: All weather forecasts are total BS.
:lol:
So the author doesn't know what the word "rational" means ?
You remind me of a homeopathy salesman.
I guess I just deny science if I won't look at this study of 10x echinacea for melanoma!
Your statement implies a connotation of mirth, which I do not think is in evidence.:mrgreen:You remind me of a Jester in the Kings court.
Your statement implies a connotation of mirth, which I do not think is in evidence.:mrgreen:
OMG...
That is such a no-brainer. The aerosols covered the skies until EPA regulations cleared them here in the USA, and other countries followed.
How many times must I point out such simplicity?
If it isn't a simple enough reality of science for you to comprehend, that not my fault. Maybe it's a sign you shouldn't be debating such a topic.You point it out, but I don't see the papers that tell us that's the primary cause of the current warming spike.
Has anyone disagreed?No experts agree either, unless it's in the blogs you read, or maybe a Cornwall Alliance talk.
If it isn't a simple enough reality of science for you to comprehend, that not my fault. Maybe it's a sign you shouldn't be debating such a topic.
Has anyone disagreed?
Climate Models Provide No Rational Basis for Predicting Future Global Average Temperature
An interesting take on modeling.
For those who don't know: Science goes back to the drawing board when a model fails to predict the future situation accurately.
Occam's Razor: When your initial assumption is incorrect it takes more and more complex figures to make your model based on that incorrect assumption work. Back to the drawing board: rethink.
And the models have been pretty good at accurately predicting current warming from 30 years ago. They're probably much better now.
For those who don't know: Science goes back to the drawing board when a model fails to predict the future situation accurately.
Occam's Razor: When your initial assumption is incorrect it takes more and more complex figures to make your model based on that incorrect assumption work. Back to the drawing board: rethink.
But in addition to model not being complex enough to include all the variables, there is also the relative contributionThat's not accurate on either count.
A MODEL is different than a HYPOTHESIS. If you were talking about a hypothesis, you'd be correct. A model always makes a series of assumptions, and a model is only as good as its assumptions. In the case of climate and weather, we simply do not have the information necessary to have a perfect model, and the complexity of the system being modeled is the source of the deviation between the prediction and the subsequent measurement- a small difference in initial conditions can create a monumental difference in outcomes.
That BS again.
What happens if we never started clearing the skies since the 70's?
Any scientist would agree this was due, and predictable, because of our actions concerning aerosols. That is if they studied the facts known then.
What a stupid example.
Why not stick to real Science, instead of a clearly biased blog.
So the 2.88 Wm2 was much smaller in magnitude, than those reported from ground observations.There is a need to be aware of calibration issues regarding both ground-based and satellite
data that might affect the interpretation of long-term observations. The best available approach
to calibration was used to produce the satellite observations used in this study,
and the most comprehensive global coverage achievable by combining geostationary and
polar-orbiting satellites was used. The magnitudes of the observed tendencies in S at a
global scale were much smaller in magnitude than those reported from ground observations.
Why not stick to real Science, instead of a clearly biased blog.
http://tmtfree.hd.free.fr/albums/fi...ect_Trends_in_Surface_Solar_Radiation_850.pdf
While the finding were an increase of solar surface radiation of 2.88 Wm2 between 1992 and 2001, I think the closing paragraph
says a bit more.
So the 2.88 Wm2 was much smaller in magnitude, than those reported from ground observations.
What do you think would be the manifestation of the aerosols clearing from the skies?This is totally irrelevant to the issue.
That's right.
Use those blogs!
You really love those bloggers.
I see you're unable to distinguish a summary of hte data from an opinion piece.
I could spend more time looking for another article at a site you would find acceptable, but you'll dismiss it out of hand too, so why bother?
Coulda... shoulda... woulda...
You are incapable of an intelligent conversation n this silence.
Maybe you would like to prove me wrong?
That's not accurate on either count.
A MODEL is different than a HYPOTHESIS. If you were talking about a hypothesis, you'd be correct. A model always makes a series of assumptions, and a model is only as good as its assumptions. In the case of climate and weather, we simply do not have the information necessary to have a perfect model, and the complexity of the system being modeled is the source of the deviation between the prediction and the subsequent measurement- a small difference in initial conditions can create a monumental difference in outcomes.
Further, occam's razor suggests that making the least number of assumptions provides the most testable theory. It's about falsifiability, not truth. Occam's razor has never been and will never be any sort of legitimate truth test insofar as "solutions must be simple," in fact, quantum theory and general relativity blow that out completely out of the ****ing water.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?