Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor | Page 3 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
More&Les
LSU Fan
Asheville, NC
Member since Nov 2012
271 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


I'm no Dyson or anything but how are we laymen supposed to believe you Einsteins have a clue when you say stuff like:

quote:

There are a few very complicated climate models that do quite well in predicting temperatures and variations in climate over timescales of thousands to millions of years.


Yet

quote:

Simulation of shorter timescales can be difficult


So these super scientificated models that you have can't really tell us at what point us evil right guard spraying man demons are going to drown all the polar bears but we can say for certain that 2.456 gazillion years ago it was pretty cool in the tropics...?

Seems like arrogance and stupidity combined to me, but again, I'm no Dyson...






Back to top
  Replies (0)
LSUnKaty
LSU Fan
Katy, TX
Member since Dec 2008
3705 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

What matters is that you incorporate the most pertinent factors with a high enough degree of accuracy so that the simulation is able to accurately reproduce what's observed.
Thats the point. They don't






Back to top
inadaze
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2010
1724 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

the heart of many movements

i don't think there is a movement that shows this more than the "organic food" movement

that is second only to the alternative medicine/therapy movement

funny enough, both are typically found with progressives, and both movements involve rejecting science

those knuckledraggers


You're reaching too far to invalidate people you don't agree with by pretending to truly understand their psychological motivation.

So, let's set aside the methods for a moment and just focus on motivation.

Do you really think that most people in the "organic food" & "alternative medicine/therapy" movements are just fulfilling their need to feel holier-than-thou?

OR

Do you think these people are legitimately concerned about the skyrocketing rates of obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc., the use of gmo, bpa, msg, aspartame, etc. in the food supply, and the rampant corruption in the pharmaceutical industry?

In my experience, I'd go with the latter.

Now, there are going to be some power-tripping numskulls in just about every group. But I don't think those are the types making up the majority of the two movements you mention. The cause for concern in these areas is overwhelmingly justifiable.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
90proofprofessional
LSU Fan
Member since Mar 2004
9185 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

Thats the point. They don't






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22907 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:


Second Law of Thermodynamics meets AGW Mythology.
That "law" was passed by corporatists at Exxon.

Signed,
Phil Jones.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22907 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

Complaining about cloud simulation in multi kyr climate model is stupid, there's no way to simulate long time scales with THAT degree of resolution.
A model that doesn't reflect reality is not predictive.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22907 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

I feel like many are unable to accept that perfectly good science is being done in this field.


LINK

I think many are unable to accept they've been duped.

quote:

No simulations perfectly keep track of all variables with the highest accuracy, that's computationally impossible.
Right. That's what sensitivity and residual analyses are for. Now go ask for those from a climate "scientist" and see what happens. Papers are routinely submitted "peer reviewed" and declared gospel for the acolytes without any of this data. In fact... If you require it for peer review, the Priesthood will boycott your journal. They will threaten your editor. And if that doesn't work, they'll try to get the editorial board fired. You should look into these things before you declare all this "good science in the field". Go read the emails. It's all there.

You seem to believe that if we can't model an input then the input doesn't contribute. That's bassackwards. We didn't have workable models for nuclear physics 1000 years ago. But the sun still shined did it not?

quote:

What matters is that you incorporate the most pertinent factors with a high enough degree of accuracy so that the simulation is able to accurately reproduce what's observed.
Would you consider energy balance "pertinent factor"? Do you not believe that clouds have a direct effect on energy into and out of the climate system? It's pretty obvious they do.

But who cares? Right? Several IPCC models don't balance heat correctly. So they have a bit more heat coming in than leaving. Does that sound like good modeling of a thermodynamic system to you?

quote:

There are a few very complicated climate models that do quite well in predicting temperatures and variations in climate over timescales of thousands to millions of years.
Huh? How do we know they "predict" temperatures thousands to millions of years in the future? Or do you mean they calibrate to a dataset of manipulated proxy data that is both sparse and extremely low resolution, and is often based on single trees to guess at an average temperature of the entire globe? Google Yamal.

And before you even make that claim they calibrate to those datasets correctly... you should read the HarryRead.Me file that was recovered in the Climategate I data dump.

quote:

Simulation of shorter timescales can be difficult, because more factors that affect variations come into play that are generally washed out over longer periods.
NNNOOOOOOOO! NO. No. NO.

Just because you don't have the resolution to capture events... does NOT mean the events don't happen. NOR does it mean they don't have an effect. It just means you're ignorant of them happening, and you're unaware of any contribution they provide.

Ignorance of a state variable is the most basic of all modeling errors. Not a "feature" of long time steps.

You're assuming that since we only have low resolution data, that only low resolution events contribute. That's silly. Not to mention arrogant.

Clearly short term discrete events have played a VERY significant role in our climate. The dinosaurs didn't die off over billions of years. They died damn quick. And we know the climate changed even quicker.

There are extremely fast transients to our climate. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. Take a look at historical datasets? Do they have a sampling period low to satisfy the Nyquist theorem? Not even a fraction!

quote:

However, we can be fairly confident in the predictions of long term trends that will occur due to the input of greenhouse gases.
Really? How so? Based on models that show increasing temperatures even when the CO2 inputs were negative? Look into MacEntyer's work. After he started his verification projects, all of the leaders in the field (UEA-CRU, UCAR, PENN) stopped releasing their methodologies, data, residual analyses. That's not science. That hiding.

quote:

How quickly these changes will manifest is not entirely known, though.
If a broker told you "I predict the stock market will go up by 5%. I'm just not sure when." would you give him your money?



This post was edited on 4/7 at 1:55 am


Back to top
AlaTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2006
13604 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


I am just going to throw this in, but it is interesting that Theists with a strong belief in a Creator God as revealed in the Bible pretty much rejected AGW a long time ago as being theologically impossible on the grounds that mankind is not capable of so severely altering the planet in this way. It seems that many Theists had more confidence in Nature and the Earth in being able to replenish itself than the AGW faithful did, many of whom reject God's role.

This would make an interesting study, though, because it represents something of a flip in position from the Copernican Revolution. The big argument against the Church at that time was that they saw man/earth as at the center of everything. Copernicus, Galileo, etc. proved that not to be the case and the Church struggled with it. Now, we see a 180 degree turn with the Theists saying that man IS NOT at the center of everything and is not all-powerful to be able to destroy the planet in this way and that Nature/Earth is stronger than we think because God created it for His purposes. It is the Humanists who have largely bought into the myth that Man can control everything and can either save or destroy the planet based on what laws we pass.

Interesting to watch two religions effectively collide here. Of course the AGW proponents are far more influenced by monism and Hinduism than anyone wants to admit (see the Gaia Hypothesis) and it is no real accident that AGW really began to take off after the influx of Eastern religions into the West. The religious argument is significant, I think.






Back to top
Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
55476 posts
 Online 

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

Interesting to watch two religions effectively collide here. Of course the AGW proponents are far more influenced by monism and Hinduism than anyone wants to admit (see the Gaia Hypothesis) and it is no real accident that AGW really began to take off after the influx of Eastern religions into the West.

What a load of hooey.
quote:

The religious argument is significant, I think.

Think less.






Back to top
ItNeverRains
LSU Fan
Franklin, TN
Member since Oct 2007
6583 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

Think less


Lead by example






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22907 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

Interesting to watch two religions effectively collide here.

Indeed. AGW is the secular equivalent of religion. It has all of the elements:

Priests (Al Gore, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, James Hnasen)... Heretics (Macentyre, Munkton)... congregations (liberals)... pagans (anyone who doesn't 'believe').... Original sin (carbon footprint).... salvation (pay more in taxes and redistribute wealth!)... and threat of eternal damnation (temperatures are going to rise unless you repent of you Sins (capitalism) and seek salvation!






Back to top
Ace Midnight
LSU Fan
Currently asymptomatic
Member since Dec 2006
31287 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

Heretics (Macentyre, Munkton)


We have to include Coleman - he's the guy that allowed me to let go of any residual guilt I may have had about my potential role in AGW (which is, at it turns out, an infinitesimal effect, compared to the power of Sol and Mother Nature in general).







Back to top
  Replies (0)
AlaTiger
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2006
13604 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

What a load of hooey.


Wow, Rex. What an insightful retort.

Actually, I think I am spot on. You have done nothing to dissuade me.






Back to top
Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
55476 posts
 Online 

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

Wow, Rex. What an insightful retort. Actually, I think I am spot on. You have done nothing to dissuade me.

I believe that the earth is warming because of human industrial, commercial, and agricultural activities. I wish it weren't, I hope I'm wrong, and I'm sure that's true of the vast majority of people who believe as I do. I have no psychological or spiritual or emotional or transcendental need to believe in manmade global warming. It doesn't take "religion" to follow the evidence and be alarmed, and I think you're projecting.








Back to top
Patrick O Rly
New Orleans Saints Fan
y u do dis?
Member since Aug 2011
38223 posts

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

and I'm sure that's true of the vast majority of people who believe as I do.


You sure? I mean I know a lot of people do but I haven't seen polling on it; at least not that I can remember.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
moneyg
LSU Fan
Member since Jun 2006
19290 posts
 Online 

re: Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor


quote:

No simulations perfectly keep track of all variables with the highest accuracy


You are being intellectually dishonest. The models have failed miserably over the last 10 year period...not simply fallen short of the "highest accuracy"






Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top