Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

You have serious issues Raz. I hope you work them out. I won't respond to anything else you say so have at it.

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

You give a perfect example of how "scientific consensus" is often the result of greed and corruption, not actual science. Having cured myself of cancer by so-called medical quackery and "unproven" cancer treatments, this is something of which I have personal experience.

In a pattern eerily similar to the consensus building on "climate change", the established allopathic medical system has done everything in its power to ban competition from other medical systems. Any treatment that cannot be patented will not be studied because there is no money in it for Big Pharma. There is intense pressure among the scientific community to not study alternative cancer treatments, then the treatments either languish or are forced underground or out of the country because they carry the stigma of being "unproven".

If you want to see how money and special interests shape so-called consesus and brainwash the public, I highly recommend you watch an award-winning documentary called Hoxsey: The Quack Who Cured Cancer.

To learn about the origins of the AMA and how we lost medical choice in this country, read a book called Reclaiming our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing the Source of True Healing.

This is not off-topic. It is a parallel example of the current discussion.

Shiny, we're just talking about CO2. Either it increases warming or it doesn't. Raz just went psycho stalker on me again so I'm not sure I'm ready for another of c1ue's followers to crazy talk. Sorry to be judgmental, I try to be respectful with your posts because you always do the same but none of this has any relationship to the science of global warming. It's not a conspiracy, it's a problem we need to address.

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

In your own mind, clearly so.

In many others' minds, clearly not.



I don't post on Real Climate because they physically bar all people who disagree with their notions. This marks a severe lack of intellectual self esteem - not being able to adequately defend their work even to laymen.

This is in marked contrast with both warmist and skeptic sites where a huge range of opinion is expressed. Idiotic notions from all camps are equally analyzed, and the objective is to teach and learn rather than to enforce a consensus.



Over and over you keep saying science, but over and over you fail to actually involve science. All of your science consists of repeating what other people have said - that's not science.

That's puppetry.

You edited out my challenge, of course because you have nothing but empty sock puppet rhetoric to stand upon. As they are published, let's review peer reviewed papers by scientists working in fields related to climate science. You say Michael Mann is an "idiot". I say your friend Moncton is an SOB. He's not an idiot, just an awful human who has never published anything of value and has no credentials. You don't report on Real Science because you have no real science to report. You only have sock puppet propaganda on your side. Knock yourself out. If you want real debate, let's review real issues. Let's start with average earth temperature over the last 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years. Don't cherry pick one group of years, talk about all of them. Then go back 100 year and compare and contrast those temperatures and the ones we see today. I'm sure your minions await.

[c1ue]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

You edited out my challenge, of course because you have nothing but empty sock puppet rhetoric to stand upon.

What challenge? Your ongoing attempt to brandish the consensus?

As I've clearly delineated - the consensus you speak of refers only to the fact that pretty much everyone agrees the world is warming. I personally then belong to this 'consensus'. However, this isn't the theory which is driving actual policy prescriptions.

That theory is the one that CO2 is the primary cause, and that man is the primary source of this CO2 - and there is no consensus there.

As for your ongoing lame attempts to reassert physics - you have continuously failed to explain why the earth has not warmed for nearly 2 decades now despite a more than 10% increase of the CO2 level. 'Pure Physics' coupled with Anthropogenic-CO2-Catastrophe theory diktats that there should be large and detectable temperature increases, and there have not been.

Clearly then the thesis that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature has serious issues due to this inconvenient fact. A fact which real scientists - even ones which do believe in the Anthropogenic-CO2-primary driver thesis - acknowledge.

But of course, you continue to deride, insult and avoid discussion - choosing instead to beat on a dead horse which any individual of integrity would acknowledge to be irrelevant to the actual discussion.

I'll repeat yet again the questions which I raise - that you still refuse to even discuss:

1) What form of validation exists that there are large positive amplification effects such that the 'base' global temperature increase due to CO2 levels will be more than the straight CO2 effect of 1.2 degrees C per 100 years?

2) What evidence exists that a 1.2 degrees C increase over 100 years is going to have a significant impact - outside of other impacts, such as the increase in human population, which would occur anyway? And given that global temperatures have increased 0.8 degrees in the previous 100 years - including decades before the majority of fossil fuel use?

3) What previous evidence exists that runaway events in climate occur - outside of such effects as gigantic meteors striking the earth?

4) What evidence is there that alternative energy in the form of existing policies - despite literally hundreds of billions of dollars of spending - has any prospect whatsoever of preventing increases in the level of atmospheric CO2 for the next 20 years?

[shiny!]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

Shiny, we're just talking about CO2. Either it increases warming or it doesn't. Raz just went psycho stalker on me again so I'm not sure I'm ready for another of c1ue's followers to crazy talk. Sorry to be judgmental, I try to be respectful with your posts because you always do the same but none of this has any relationship to the science of global warming. It's not a conspiracy, it's a problem we need to address.

I'm not one of c1ue's followers. Not anyone's follower. Mooncliff here at iTulip once wrote:

All I am interested in is ideas, not whether I like or dislike who is saying it or whether I like or dislike what is being said. Very painful, but less painful than denial and running into a brick wall...

So maybe that makes me Mooncliff's follower.

If I believe anything, if I have any guiding philosophy in my life, it's that "Belief is the enemy of Truth."

You're the one who brought up cancer treatments to bolster your argument in favor of consensus following. Now you say we're only talking about CO2. You can have it either way, but with all due respect, you can't have it both ways.

I'm signing out of this discussion. We're either going to burn up or freeze to death or continue slogging on as we are, but after everything I've been through already, I just don't care enough about this issue to get into an argument with you about it.

[Raz]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

You have serious issues Raz. I hope you work them out. I won't respond to anything else you say so have at it.

Whatsa matter - don't like being exposed? Don't like it when someone serves back your own cooking?

I have always had "serious issues" with jerks like you.

You are the one with "serious issues"; ask around and see how many others on this website consider you an arrogant asshole.

[Raz]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

... Raz just went psycho stalker on me again so I'm not sure I'm ready for another of c1ue's followers to crazy talk.

Responding to your insults makes one a psycho. Serving your own cooking back to you makes one a stalker.


"c1ue's follower"? I'm sure c1ue will find that rich after the knock-down, drag out arguments he and I have had!

[reggie]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

I'm not a physicist, meterologist or climatologist. I'm open to learn from others who know something about the matter under discussion.
Unlike you, who know NOTHING of ecclesiastical history and offer only insults to someone you don't know about a subject of which you know NOTHING.

When one creates a mathematical model, of the sophistication required to model a climate, the outputs are staggeringly complicated. Trying to graph such output can result in dozens, if not hundreds, of dimensions with a dizzarying array of peaks and valleys of data points, with each peak & valley suggesting a different outcome. Just imagine a mountain range of data, but instead of the range being in 3-dimensions, which is what we'd imagine in physical space, the range is in hundreds of dimensions. Adjust 1 input variable and the entire landscape of this mountain range of output data can change dramatically.

Of course, one would need to address the vast geographicallarea across the globe, and the fact that this analysis would need to be created and repeated for each region. So, for each area one selected one would create a staggering number of dimensions of output data representing an infinite number of mountain ranges, or possible outcomes.

Beyond this, we'd need to factor in time as another variable, which would produce new sets of mountain ranges for each region over each change in time.

Given the vast array of input data, and the guess-work in model development, it is infinitely improbable that anyone could declare a given output is a final destiny. It would be like selecting one moutain, out of thousands or millions of them, and categorically stating that this mountain is the destiny for the entire globe.

Hence, the sheer complexity of such an effort and the unimagineable array of output possibilieis, more than any other reason, is why this entire debate is certifiable insanity. To engage in the debate is to participate in the insanity. Only a propagandist with an agenda would put forward such material.

[c1ue]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

I'm not a physicist, meterologist or climatologist.

Physics and meteorology have a track record of theories panning out into validated predictions.

Climatology has no such track record.

More importantly, a basic concept which climatologists and their 'consensus' disciples have failed to grasp can be had from simple algebra.

a+bx+cx^2 is a simply polynomial equation, and it can be used to approximate almost anything.

Now expand that above to 12 terms - the degree of approximation becomes ever more fine.

The point? The more complex a set of formulas, the easier it is to switch from modeling to tuning. That's why in the real world of modeling, you normally have a large number of test cases by which you validate that you haven't gone over the line.

This is why the open advocacy of many so called climate scientists is very worrisome - because there is a distinct lack of test cases and a gigantic sum of variables.

Another point of interest: Does having more correlation variables in statistical analysis lead to better results?

Answer: no. In fact, the danger of worse results increases as you increase the number of variables correlated. This is because the more so called random data sets, the more likely you're going to get a correlation which has no basis in fact - but exists purely as a result of comparing many sets of data vs. each other.

"c1ue's follower"? I'm sure c1ue will find that rich after the knock-down, drag out arguments he and I have had!

+1

santafe2 assumes that anyone who disagrees with him must be stupid, a blind follower, and/or in the pay of Big Oil - when in fact the description is far more apt pointing the other way.

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

What challenge? Your ongoing attempt to brandish the consensus?

Of course it matters. There are scientists working their entire lives to understand climate change. They publish papers reviewed by other scientists who've done the same. When you publish like this you sound like a crackpot.

That theory is the one that CO2 is the primary cause, and that man is the primary source of this CO2 - and there is no consensus there

As I offered, let's talk about peer reviewed papers as they are published. Since they are running about 1000:1 at this point all you can do cackle. You toss anything you can against the wall but you will never debate the science as it's published. As I said before, you're a propagandist. You want to frame the debate with your goofy questions. I think it's about time you admit you won't debate based on current scientific understanding because no one with a brain would ever do that. Instead, you hope to obfuscate this issue by bringing up other real issues like population and alternative energy. You can cackle all you want but CO2 is increasing each year and it's effects are well understood. As you tilt at your own personal windmills, the real problem gets worse.

[santafe2]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

+1

I guess it's a gang so you win without ideas. When you're ready to debate the science as published by the scientists, let me know. If you just want to high five with your buds, have at it.

[c1ue]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

Of course it matters. There are scientists working their entire lives to understand climate change. They publish papers reviewed by other scientists who've done the same. When you publish like this you sound like a crackpot.

Just because their work all their lives at it doesn't mean their work is right. In fact, many of these so-called peer reviewed papers have been shown to be shoddy work in any number of ways.

Furthermore the peer review process has been revealed time and time again to be influenced by politics, thus the credibility of asserting peer review is largely absent.

What ultimately matters is the core work - and the core work is precisely what I and others have been looking at, and have found the work wanting.

You seem to just glance at 'peer reviewed' and stop.

Equally, to say that there are not those who have spent their entire lives studying the climate and who disagree with the consensus - this is an outright lie.

Lindzen, Gray, Easterbrook, Tisdale, Christy, and many others are equally lifelong climate scientists - and equally have peer reviewed papers. Yet somehow their lifelong climate science views and peer reviewed science isn't sufficient to jar your rock solid faith in the consensus.

As I offered, let's talk about peer reviewed papers as they are published. Since they are running about 1000:1 at this point all you can do cackle. You toss anything you can against the wall but you will never debate the science as it's published. As I said before, you're a propagandist. You want to frame the debate with your goofy questions. I think it's about time you admit you won't debate based on current scientific understanding because no one with a brain would ever do that. Instead, you hope to obfuscate this issue by bringing up other real issues like population and alternative energy. You can cackle all you want but CO2 is increasing each year and it's effects are well understood. As you tilt at your own personal windmills, the real problem gets worse.

How about showing me a peer reviewed paper which predicted that we would see a nearly 2 decade long hiatus in global temperature increases?

Because that's what the facts on the ground are.

Any number of irrelevant and more importantly unverifiable peer reviewed conclusions is worthless.

I guess it's a gang so you win without ideas. When you're ready to debate the science as published by the scientists, let me know. If you just want to high five with your buds, have at it.

Sorry, but the only one without an original idea is you.

So far you've managed to stir up an entire clade of people who think you are rude, opinionated, and have ideas on climate that have no merit.

Thanks for the excellent PR job you're doing for the consensus - nicely on par with your compatriots of like mind.

[vt]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-cooling-trend

More facts to show the climate scamsters.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-cooling-trend

More facts to show the climate scamsters.

Thanks VT, but I am sure SF will not respond to any of the details in the article.

[c1ue]

Re: Hutchinson on models: The Mathematical Menace

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-cooling-trend

More facts to show the climate scamsters.

The general trend over the last 100 years is still that of warming - but that isn't the issue.

The general trend in the last 15 or 17 years,depending on data set, is flat or cooling - but that isn't the issue.

The issue is: the fundamental basis of the IPCC's credibility is that global temperatures are primarily a function of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The last 2 decades has seen an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels above midrange IPCC projections; equally anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been above midrange IPCC projections:



If in fact the climate models are useful in any way, then the fact that overall GHGs are above midrange predictions meshes very poorly with the actual temperature behavior vs. projections:

Note the vertical line - before this line, the models are tuned so the 'accuracy' apparently shown there is false.

The point, which Hans Storch has acknowledged but which the consensus prefers to ignore, is that the CMIP5 climate models - the supposed beez kneez of cutting edge climate science at the moment - are failing to match actual temperature behavior even for the 95% scenario. Or in other words, there should be a 5% or less chance for each given point in time that this should occur based on 30 different climate models and scenarios.

As time goes on and temperature continues to not match at the 95% or worse confidence, then the likelihood that the models are fundamentally flawed becomes pretty much guaranteed.

An analogy would be like a model that predicts the chance of getting heads when flipping a coin. Any given number of flips, the model can be wrong. However, as the number of flips increases, the likelihood of the normal 50/50 model continuing to be wrong approaches zero very quickly.

If you've flipped the coin 20 times, and every time it was heads, then chances are the coin is 2 headed (the actual chance that this occurs for a specific sequence of 20 flips is over 1 in a million, though if you make 1 million coin flips, the actual chance of it occurring is something like 40%).