Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

I've stated categorically that there is no question the earth is warming.

I've also stated categorically that humans do influence the climate.

The difference between my view and the Anthropogenic-CO2-Catastrophe view - i.e. Global Warming - is that I disagree that anthropogenic CO2 is the majority and/or primary driver of global warming. The evidence is poor at best, and the empirical performance with respect to accuracy literally since the beginning of climate modeling has been unquestionably bad.

My view is much closer to the warmist view: that the sum of all human impacts on the climate are due to multiple factors such as land use effects on albedo, irrigation effects on water cycles, CO2 intake/consumption effects from habitat destruction/conversion to farmland, fossil fuel CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions, etc.

Of course, the corollary to this view is that you cannot fix all problems just be demonizing CO2.

I don't disagree with much in this post. Humans cause warming. Additional CO2, humans. Land use, humans. Albedo, CO2 and humans. Habitat destruction, humans. Other GHG, humans. Of course all of these activities increase CO2. When we burn fossil fuel, we increase CO2. When we cut down forests to create additional farmland, we increase CO2. When albedo decreases we reflect more sunlight as heat. CO2 is the core output issue. If you're suggesting we curtail the inputs to additional CO2, that might be a productive conversation.

[c1ue]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

I don't disagree with much in this post. Humans cause warming. Additional CO2, humans. Land use, humans. Albedo, CO2 and humans. Habitat destruction, humans. Other GHG, humans. Of course all of these activities increase CO2. When we burn fossil fuel, we increase CO2. When we cut down forests to create additional farmland, we increase CO2. When albedo decreases we reflect more sunlight as heat. CO2 is the core output issue. If you're suggesting we curtail the inputs to additional CO2, that might be a productive conversation.

Actually, they don't all increase CO2.

You notably left out irrigation and its effects on the water cycle - water being the largest greenhouse gas both by volume and effect.

You're also assuming that all of the above changes are net contributors to CO2 in the atmosphere, and furthermore that a CO2 tax would in any way impact CO2 emissions in these other categories irrespective of net contribution.

CO2 is not the core output issue - the core output issue is quality/standard of living of humans vs. other concerns. As I've noted many times before, energy consumption is directly correlated to standard of living even as energy taxes are the most regressive imaginable.

This core output issue is a political and social one, not a scientific one.

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

Actually, they don't all increase CO2.

Hence the reason I did not include the water cycle in that list. Interesting that you wish to keep the focus away from 5 out of 6 issues.

You notably left out irrigation and its effects on the water cycle - water being the largest greenhouse gas both by volume and effect.

You notably focused on irrigation. Since the balance of water remains fairly constant, maybe you’re referring to irrigation to bring up the fact that it causes additional evaporation…which has a cooling effect. Or possibly it was simply to toss out the old ‘largest greenhouse gas’ red herring.

You're also assuming that all of the above changes are net contributors to CO2 in the atmosphere, and furthermore that a CO2 tax would in any way impact CO2 emissions in these other categories irrespective of net contribution.

Um…humans, check. Land use, check. Albedo, check. Habitat destruction, check. Other GHG, check.
Whoa cowboy, I don’t think we were talking about taxes.

CO2 is not the core output issue - the core output issue is quality/standard of living of humans vs. other concerns. As I've noted many times before, energy consumption is directly correlated to standard of living even as energy taxes are the most regressive imaginable.

I’m not sure I’m following this portion of your statement. Is it human lifestyle over all else? And you’re back on taxes again. I can imagine more regressive taxes than energy taxes.

This core output issue is a political and social one, not a scientific one.

We'll just have to disagree.

[c1ue]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

Hence the reason I did not include the water cycle in that list. Interesting that you wish to keep the focus away from 5 out of 6 issues.

Hardly, I'm pointing out that you left out water - the largest and strongest greenhouse gas component.

Equally you assume that CO2 taxes can control any of the other 5 - which is a gigantic assumption not borne out by fact.

You notably focused on irrigation. Since the balance of water remains fairly constant, maybe you’re referring to irrigation to bring up the fact that it causes additional evaporation…which has a cooling effect. Or possibly it was simply to toss out the old ‘largest greenhouse gas’ red herring.

Nope. Irrigation causes water cycles to change both from the areas where water is taken from and in areas where water is taken to.

The net effect of this is absolutely unclear - because the water cycles changes can affect not just evaporation, but cloud formation. And cloud formation, among other things, can be either positive or negative amplification for greenhouse effect.

Or in other words - the science isn't settled.

Um…humans, check. Land use, check. Albedo, check. Habitat destruction, check. Other GHG, check.
Whoa cowboy, I don’t think we were talking about taxes.

Not clear what you're checking. Not clear how CO2 taxes affect all of these other effects.

And most importantly - not clear at all that CO2 is the primary driver for climate change. This is what the IPCC says, this is what the climate models are based on, and this is why the anthropogenic CO2 catastrophe view is hurting badly under nearly 2 decades of failed projections.

I’m not sure I’m following this portion of your statement. Is it human lifestyle over all else? And you’re back on taxes again. I can imagine more regressive taxes than energy taxes.

You aren't following because you refuse to.

CO2 controls as being propounded by the anthropogenic CO2 Catastrophe crowd consist almost exclusively of energy taxes.

Energy taxes affect everything - because everything is a function of energy in some way: food, transport, lighting, heating, cooling, manufacturing, communication, etc etc.

As for your imagination - frankly it is irrelevant.

Are energy taxes extremely regressive or not? It seems the answer is yes, which you attempt to deflect by positing other, imaginary, more regressive taxes.

We'll just have to disagree.

And we do.

[aaron]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

santafe2... How do you explain the relative non-warming of the past ten/twenty years, while CO2 has gone up?

[BadJuju]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

All of the last decade has been warmer on average annually than at any point previous.

[aaron]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

can you provide data references. Because, c1ue has presented quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. nobody has provided anything to contradict it.

thanks

[reggie]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

I won't attempt to read your mind or understand your idea that rogues, (of science I assume), want "to make fools of others". In science one cannot always recreate reality, one must model it. Models are not as robust as reality but they are built from real observations. The Einstein Principle and Occam's Razor drive much scientific modeling. The model has to be as simple as possible but not too simple. Scientists struggle with the midpoint of these ideas. That you see fools and rogues where I see brilliance and struggles for truth informs me more than anything you've posted previously.

I just spit out all over this stupid computer screen...."Models are not as robust as reality but they are built from real observations"... are you actually being serious here? Since when? Models are SIMULATIONS at best, but typically SIMULACRA, and rarely have any basis in reality unless the media tells the public that the model is reality, which is SOP (standard operating proceedure) in today's world.

For those that get it, the entire Global Information Grid (aka "Internet") is a model built on algorthms, which can only be complete and consistent through a mathemetical slight-of-hand.

Moreover, why is it that we still have to disucss the Global Warming charade initiated by the Club of Rome in their First Global Revolution report of 1989?

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

can you provide data references. Because, c1ue has presented quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. nobody has provided anything to contradict it.

thanks

Those of us who have taken the time to understand the issues, mostly take our lives too seriously to respond to c1ue's nonsense regarding global warming. You will have to do your own research outside of iTulip. With regard to your question you might look into these ideas.

- You can't cherry pick a record breaking year as your start point and then observe that there's little atmospheric warming, on average, after that time. If you want to look at individual years, then look at average temperature for every year over the last 50 years and report back to us which 10 years were the most warm. You might find a trend.

- It's global warming, not atmospheric warming. A curious person would be trying to understand how the earth is managing its energy budget given the fact that the atmospheric temperature has been relatively flat for 15 years. A propagandist would just beat on this issue until they found a new one.

- Atmospheric temperature rise is a long term trend. It hasn't reversed and we've added about 10% additional CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 15 years. It's simple physics, the earth is warming somewhere.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

Those of us who have taken the time to understand the issues, mostly take our lives too seriously to respond to c1ue's nonsense regarding global warming. You will have to do your own research outside of iTulip. With regard to your question you might look into these ideas.

- You can't cherry pick a record breaking year as your start point and then observe that there's little atmospheric warming, on average, after that time. If you want to look at individual years, then look at average temperature for every year over the last 50 years and report back to us which 10 years were the most warm. You might find a trend.

- It's global warming, not atmospheric warming. A curious person would be trying to understand how the earth is managing its energy budget given the fact that the atmospheric temperature has been relatively flat for 15 years. A propagandist would just beat on this issue until they found a new one.

- Atmospheric temperature rise is a long term trend. It hasn't reversed and we've added about 10% additional CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 15 years. It's simple physics, the earth is warming somewhere.

You have never ever contradicted in detail anything that C1ue has said over the past 3 or 4 years. He has provided a tremendous amount of data that shows that we really have no idea what is going on. You believe what you believe because you want to, not because of any facts you have presented.

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

You have never ever contradicted in detail anything that C1ue has said over the past 3 or 4 years. He has provided a tremendous amount of data that shows that we really have no idea what is going on. You believe what you believe because you want to, not because of any facts you have presented.

OK, I get your understanding of this. But you have to understand that it's a fools errand to discuss this issue with c1ue in his little iTulip corner of the global warming debate. Please don't ask me to answer 3-4 years of c1ues nonsense as a test of worthiness. I'm sure I've not asked you to meet this sort of test before I'd ever consider your ideas. Review my questions for Aaron and send me your answers if you'd like to engage in a discussion. You might be surprised what you find.

[c1ue]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

You can't cherry pick a record breaking year as your start point and then observe that there's little atmospheric warming, on average, after that time. If you want to look at individual years, then look at average temperature for every year over the last 50 years and report back to us which 10 years were the most warm. You might find a trend.

How amusing - you chide me for 'cherry picking', yet yourself choose a convenient 50 year period. One which excludes the 1930s era of heat waves.

It's global warming, not atmospheric warming. A curious person would be trying to understand how the earth is managing its energy budget given the fact that the atmospheric temperature has been relatively flat for 15 years. A propagandist would just beat on this issue until they found a new one.

A curious person would wonder why Anthropogenic CO2 Catastrophe, combined with increasing levels of CO2, fails to bear out model outputs.

Also why these increased levels of CO2 plus an overall increase in temperature fails to manifest itself in a tropospheric hot spot - supposedly the most obvious sign of CO2 greenhouse effect.

Atmospheric temperature rise is a long term trend. It hasn't reversed and we've added about 10% additional CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 15 years. It's simple physics, the earth is warming somewhere.

A scientist understands that correlation isn't causation. In addition to CO2 levels going up, so are the numbers of human beings, the square miles of city, the miles of road, the acres of farmland, etc etc.

Simple physics dictates a doubling of CO2 levels yields 1.2 degrees C of temperature increase by 2100 - the rest is pure guesswork which thus far has not been corroborated by reality.

The sad fact is that the 'consensus' is built on sand - because its proponents think this way:

https://medium.com/editors-picks/46243f9e6b02

“Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science,” Mann says. “Science works in evidence through best explanations, most credible theories, and so in a sense we’re at a disadvantage because we have to play by the rules, the other side doesn’t… They’re not offering up credible alternatives or explanations. In most cases they’re trying to pick holes. Not real holes, just things that the public will think are holes, in the science. We are at a disadvantage.”

Michael Mann is an idiot because the statement above is the modern scientific equivalent of phlogiston. Phlogiston was all the rage in science at one period under the exact same arguments: consensus and TINA (There Is No Alternative).

But there is.

Real science does not assume that everything is known - especially if reality diverges from theory. For Michael Mann, apparently science is about rationalization as opposed to skepticism and proof.

Equally to say that skepticism over his claims requires an alternate theory - wrong completely. Mann's hockey sticks have been crushed by purely operational criticisms - his failure (deliberate or otherwise) to understand statistics, his manipulation of data to achieve a pre-conceived notion, etc etc.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

How amusing - you chide me for 'cherry picking', yet yourself choose a convenient 50 year period. One which excludes the 1930s era of heat waves.



A curious person would wonder why Anthropogenic CO2 Catastrophe, combined with increasing levels of CO2, fails to bear out model outputs.

Also why these increased levels of CO2 plus an overall increase in temperature fails to manifest itself in a tropospheric hot spot - supposedly the most obvious sign of CO2 greenhouse effect.



A scientist understands that correlation isn't causation. In addition to CO2 levels going up, so are the numbers of human beings, the square miles of city, the miles of road, the acres of farmland, etc etc.

Simple physics dictates a doubling of CO2 levels yields 1.2 degrees C of temperature increase by 2100 - the rest is pure guesswork which thus far has not been corroborated by reality.

The sad fact is that the 'consensus' is built on sand - because its proponents think this way:

https://medium.com/editors-picks/46243f9e6b02



Michael Mann is an idiot because the statement above is the modern scientific equivalent of phlogiston. Phlogiston was all the rage in science at one period under the exact same arguments: consensus and TINA (There Is No Alternative).

But there is.

Real science does not assume that everything is known - especially if reality diverges from theory. For Michael Mann, apparently science is about rationalization as opposed to skepticism and proof.

Equally to say that skepticism over his claims requires an alternate theory - wrong completely. Mann's hockey sticks have been crushed by purely operational criticisms - his failure (deliberate or otherwise) to understand statistics, his manipulation of data to achieve a pre-conceived notion, etc etc.

Mann was on MSNBC the other night attacking the guy running for VA governor because he was a "global warming skeptic" and he didn't understand the science behind it. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ar-on-science/

The left as well as the right loves to frame the debates but the left does a fantastic job of it. "The war on women," "Science vs anti-science" etc etc. Now it is the "War on science"

You can fool most of the people most of the time, especially when emotion is involved.

[shiny!]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

You can fool most of the people most of the time, especially when emotion is involved.

This reminds me of an interesting article on how we make decisions.

8 things you don't know are affecting our decisions every day: The science of decision making.

[c1ue]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

This reminds me of an interesting article on how we make decisions.

8 things you don't know are affecting our decisions every day: The science of decision making.

Interesting link. A few of these, I have read about before - although the bladder one is new to me.

I was particularly piqued by this portion:

A study of CO2 levels in a working space found that as CO2 is increased, even when it’s still below the recommended safe levels, our cognitive ability decrease. The higher the CO2 in the room, the more sharply our mental abilities decline.

The work assessed decision-making in 22 healthy young adults. Their performance on six of nine tests dropped notably when researchers raised indoor carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 parts per million from a baseline of 600 ppm. On seven tests, performance fell substantially more when the room’s CO2 was boosted to 2,500 ppm

The researchers suggested adequate ventilation to decrease CO2 levels, particularly in rooms with lots of people, like big offices or classrooms.

The next CO2 panic?