Or, he understands that the last war we entered was strictly to secure the country's oil resources. Or, he understands all the subsidies and tax breaks that exist for oil and coal companies. I'm guessing you're a tea partier?
You clearly don't understand what a model is and how important scope is to the accuracy of a model. I can only reiterate what I said earlier: if you don't understand the scope of a model - any model, whether it's climate models, gravity or dynamic stresses - you are not qualified to use it.
You don't know much about General Relativity and quantum mechanics, do you? They're incompatible. In other words, there is no path that leads from one to the other, and in fact, trying to do that leads to contradictory results. Models are models - you ALWAYS have to know their scope of application. If you don't, you're not qualified to use them.
As for the bridge - yes, it could be done, but no sane civil engineer does that. I'm sure your studies showed you why, right? Maybe even exposed you to a few professional engineers who have told you in no uncertain terms why doing something like that would get you fired?
With enough sub-models, I can thus model anything, without any one of the models (or an aggregate!) ever being useful for the actual question I want to answer. Is that science?
Sure is. Ever tried to calculate the electron orbit of the Hydrogen atom by starting with General Relativity? Or tried to calculate the max load of a suspension bridge with nothing but mechanics?
As someone else said, all models are wrong. Some are just more useful than others.
If you want to determine the global temperature change, use a global temperature change model. If you want to determine the evolution of ENSO, use a model that targets that. Global climate change models were never, and will not for a very, very long time (probably not until we get warp drives) be able to accurately predict local weather patterns. And ENSO is just a local weather pattern, even if it is a very significant one.
Finally, the blog you linked makes two very fundamental mistakes in its analysis. Number one, it segments the overall data into two arbitrary points, and makes comparisons between the two. There is absolutely no physical reason to compare the line generated by splitting the data into segments based on the publication of IPCC AR4. You might as well pick any other two segments, and make extrapolations based on that. It's a completely retarded way to draw conclusions on underlying trends. Number two, it compares two fitted line graphs. Really? We're going to all the trouble to model a complex phenomenon, and we're fitting a line to the graphs? What is this, 1900? It's a completely useless comparison.
But that's the thing - even the models they point at as wrong really aren't. At worst, they don't march in lock-step with every yearly average - which would be an absurdly, and quite frankly, suspiciously good model.
Really? You're calling a model from 1988 a failure where the only major deviations are the 1998 outlier and 2008-2009? Where the median estimate has gotten the overall trend and magnitude right? For a model that is 23 years old, I'd call that pretty damn good.
As for the IPCC prediction, the 1.5 and 4.5 degree of climate sensitivity are the generally accepted boundaries for climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing. The data collected so far seems to run in and out of those boundaries, with major differences traceable to exceptional events that are outside the climate model.
This is the best you have? That one of the very first global climate models isn't 100% accurate, and that a somewhat more recent model doesn't account properly for events that are outside its modeling parameters? Seems that these people might know what they're doing after all.
By the way, where's your model that calculates future temperatures more accurately?
Prove to me that you really believe the theory and go live in a fucking hit in Kenya. Until then, you are %100 pure bullshit.
Ah yes, the argument that either you're hypocrite and I don't have to listen to you, or you want to destroy the American way of life and I don't have to listen to you. It's nice to create a rhetorical structure where no matter what the reality of the situation, you are allowed to ignore it. Not to mention that you get to either have your lifestyle subsidized by the other person, or you are actually entitled to shoot them. Nice work.
Please point out where in that letter Chris Landsea says that the data used to write the IPCC reports is incorrect, or even that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are wrong. Furthermore, please point out the peer-reviewed studies that showed that the IPCC reports are incorrect, and where. If you're good, you'll actually come about with about a half dozen studies correcting some details. If not.... well, things about fools and talking come to mind.
I'm sorry, but #1, you had about 20 years to educate yourself on this issue. #2, there are plenty of rational discussions around this that are polite, fact-based and available online. IPCC reports are one. The NOAA studies are another. Those are just two samples out of a good dozen. There's a huge host of information available if you want to learn.
If you are still complaining that you don't understand the topic at at least a basic level, it's because you haven't been trying. And quite frankly, I'm tired of lazy people complaining that they don't know what's going on, and then voting based on sound bites they heard on CBS. You don't know what's going on? STFU and look it up.
Really, you're equating the CO2 released by Chinese river dolphins with the global burning of million-year old carbon-stores? I'm sorry, you have no clue about how the climate works.
Problem is we have so little understanding of how the earth reacts to these changes over time.
No, YOU don't. Climate scientists have a pretty damn good idea.
The earth has sustained itself through *much* more drastic changes than anything man has introduced.
Note how man wasn't present through those much more drastic changes? And how those changes led to mass extinctions? Do you really want to try your hand at surviving something like the PETM event?
Believe models that have never predicted anything correctly.
You mean like the models that predict ocean currents, pacific oscillation, jet stream, gulf stream, and whose decadal temperature predictions are, if anything, a bit on the conservative side?
Trust data that is manually manipulated, incomplete, inaccurate, disparate, and only goes back a blink of the eye in terms of the planet's history.
Yes, every data set has been manipulated. Weird that no one seems to come up with a data set that is clean, or without statistical error. I mean, they'd get their names into the annales of science pretty much immediately. I'm sure Exxon has a few billion lying around with which to sponsor such a study. Weird that they don't... they must know something we don't. Wait, they just know something you don't. And how much data do you need? Are you going to be happy when climate data goes back to when the earth was a loose amalgam of space dust?
Trust politicians whose only concerns are money and power, and whose only "solutions" involve shifting money and power, and not reducing consumption or pollution, or building things that are actually green, like nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.
Al Gore might be a convenient whipping boy, but no climate scientist is quoting Al Gore. Not to mention that you'd crucify him if he weren't putting his money where his mouth is. Nice straw man, but no win.
Believe that man is the cause of the current trend, and that man can do something to stop it.
There's no need to believe when you have a physical model for how man influences the current trend, data that supports the existence of the physical model and data that disproves the assumption that CO2 emitted by man does not influence the global temperature.
Believe that the Earth will be doomed if temperatures rise closer to points in Earth's past, despite the fact that throughout all of Earth's history, higher temperatures are when life flourished.
One straw man, one lie through omission and one lie through commission in one sentence. Nice going. 1) No one is arguing that the earth is doomed, outside of people like you. Climate scientists are arguing that life is going to get mighty uncomfortable for a large swath of humanity, costing everyone on earth a nice chunk of change to adapt to. 2) Humans weren't around when temperatures and CO2 concentrations were much higher than now. 3) Mass extinctions are tied to high temperatures and high CO2 contents. Look up PETM extinction event.
Man, whatever it takes to continue living your own life, and screw whoever comes after you, right? Nice going. The last guy who made this his official motto caused massive international bloodshed.
That might be true, but lottery doesn't work that way. It's either get the massive payout, or get nothing. There is no "Here's a million, now flip the coin again for double or nothing". Furthermore, the concept of marginal utility ignores the fact that people aren't fully rational beings. People don't spend a dollar on the optimal food source that will sustain them the best through the day, they spend a dollar to feel good about starting the day. Whether that's a cup of coffee from Starbucks (ok, $8) or a lottery ticket, it really doesn't matter that much.
What is true, however, is that you should never, ever buy a lottery ticket with survival funds. The lottery isn't an investment strategy (well, except in some specific cases, apparently). Instead, it should be regarded as fun money. Whether you spend $5 on a movie or on a lottery ticket is pretty irrelevant. It's entertainment; go have fun. If that's how you want to spend your surplus money, be my guest. Just don't think you'll get out of a debt hole with that.
This depends on successful (as in, successfully targeted) creation to meet a market demand.
I see - you subscribe to the work for hire approach. Any reason you're completely discounting the approach taken by millions of freelancers of "I love doing this, I'll see if I can get paid for it"?
Because life is different. People and their immediate heirs are living decades longer than they used to.
I'm sorry, but that calls for the fucking moron of the year award. In the last twenty years, People have not started to live decades longer. Not to mention that extending copyright to protect heirs is the ultimate idiocy, because the government protected monopoly of copyright will at that point not get the original author to create more. The only thing it does is create trust fund babies and people clamoring for longer copyright terms.
Meh. Show me one thing that the German or French government can do without batting eye that the American can't do. I'll show you two things that the American government can do that will be unthinkable in Germany or France. Governments in all three countries are dysfunctional. The difference I see is that there are two fairly large groups in the US that want diametrically opposed things from government, and one of them is willing to sell the country down the shitter to achieve their goal.
Yep. The old adage about young communists and old conservatives has nothing to do with heart and brains, and everything with stuff. It's amazing how bad communism sounds to you when you finally earned enough money to purchase a house, a nice TV and are looking at retiring with some nice toys.
No, creating content for distribution is the business model.
If that were true, the business model would pay out based on how much is created. Instead, it is based on how much is distributed. Or, put more simply: nobody makes money creating something. The only time that you make money on content is if you distribute it to someone.
Why do you think copyright keeps getting extended? Once you get past a certain point, longer copyright protection reduces the incentive to create something.
Gah. If ever there's something that deserves +5, Informative, it is this. The only thing worse than the people who think some 5 year old kid running around during recess has ADHD are the people who think that everyone is exactly like they are, and ADHD is just a made-up "disease".
You're correct. Neutrino chirality is not the same as neutrino type. Sigh. That's why I shouldn't wade into these types of discussions. I end up screwing up another detail altogether.
Dismissal is the decision that further looking into something is not worth the time that could be spent looking into something else. It is based on doubt and skepticism that the question at hand is worth more work. Furthermore, dismissing an idea once is not the same as dismissing it forever. Based on changing data, a question can be revisited that was dismissed earlier.
But it is utter foolishness to require that every issue gets looked with the same intensity. If that would be the case, nothing would ever get done. Or do you spend as much time disproving leprechauns, the timecube and homeopathy as you do dark energy and the space elevator?
Slashdot Mirror
Or, he understands that the last war we entered was strictly to secure the country's oil resources. Or, he understands all the subsidies and tax breaks that exist for oil and coal companies. I'm guessing you're a tea partier?
You clearly don't understand what a model is and how important scope is to the accuracy of a model. I can only reiterate what I said earlier: if you don't understand the scope of a model - any model, whether it's climate models, gravity or dynamic stresses - you are not qualified to use it.
You don't know much about General Relativity and quantum mechanics, do you? They're incompatible. In other words, there is no path that leads from one to the other, and in fact, trying to do that leads to contradictory results. Models are models - you ALWAYS have to know their scope of application. If you don't, you're not qualified to use them.
As for the bridge - yes, it could be done, but no sane civil engineer does that. I'm sure your studies showed you why, right? Maybe even exposed you to a few professional engineers who have told you in no uncertain terms why doing something like that would get you fired?
With enough sub-models, I can thus model anything, without any one of the models (or an aggregate!) ever being useful for the actual question I want to answer. Is that science?
Sure is. Ever tried to calculate the electron orbit of the Hydrogen atom by starting with General Relativity? Or tried to calculate the max load of a suspension bridge with nothing but mechanics?
As someone else said, all models are wrong. Some are just more useful than others.
If you want to determine the global temperature change, use a global temperature change model. If you want to determine the evolution of ENSO, use a model that targets that. Global climate change models were never, and will not for a very, very long time (probably not until we get warp drives) be able to accurately predict local weather patterns. And ENSO is just a local weather pattern, even if it is a very significant one.
Finally, the blog you linked makes two very fundamental mistakes in its analysis. Number one, it segments the overall data into two arbitrary points, and makes comparisons between the two. There is absolutely no physical reason to compare the line generated by splitting the data into segments based on the publication of IPCC AR4. You might as well pick any other two segments, and make extrapolations based on that. It's a completely retarded way to draw conclusions on underlying trends. Number two, it compares two fitted line graphs. Really? We're going to all the trouble to model a complex phenomenon, and we're fitting a line to the graphs? What is this, 1900? It's a completely useless comparison.
But that's the thing - even the models they point at as wrong really aren't. At worst, they don't march in lock-step with every yearly average - which would be an absurdly, and quite frankly, suspiciously good model.
Really? You're calling a model from 1988 a failure where the only major deviations are the 1998 outlier and 2008-2009? Where the median estimate has gotten the overall trend and magnitude right? For a model that is 23 years old, I'd call that pretty damn good.
As for the IPCC prediction, the 1.5 and 4.5 degree of climate sensitivity are the generally accepted boundaries for climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing. The data collected so far seems to run in and out of those boundaries, with major differences traceable to exceptional events that are outside the climate model.
This is the best you have? That one of the very first global climate models isn't 100% accurate, and that a somewhat more recent model doesn't account properly for events that are outside its modeling parameters? Seems that these people might know what they're doing after all.
By the way, where's your model that calculates future temperatures more accurately?
Reading comprehension fail.
1) Irreversible Change != Doom.
2) Can != Must
Not to mention that contextual understanding is also fail.
Prove to me that you really believe the theory and go live in a fucking hit in Kenya. Until then, you are %100 pure bullshit.
Ah yes, the argument that either you're hypocrite and I don't have to listen to you, or you want to destroy the American way of life and I don't have to listen to you. It's nice to create a rhetorical structure where no matter what the reality of the situation, you are allowed to ignore it. Not to mention that you get to either have your lifestyle subsidized by the other person, or you are actually entitled to shoot them. Nice work.
Please point out where in that letter Chris Landsea says that the data used to write the IPCC reports is incorrect, or even that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are wrong. Furthermore, please point out the peer-reviewed studies that showed that the IPCC reports are incorrect, and where. If you're good, you'll actually come about with about a half dozen studies correcting some details. If not.... well, things about fools and talking come to mind.
I'm sorry, but #1, you had about 20 years to educate yourself on this issue. #2, there are plenty of rational discussions around this that are polite, fact-based and available online. IPCC reports are one. The NOAA studies are another. Those are just two samples out of a good dozen. There's a huge host of information available if you want to learn.
If you are still complaining that you don't understand the topic at at least a basic level, it's because you haven't been trying. And quite frankly, I'm tired of lazy people complaining that they don't know what's going on, and then voting based on sound bites they heard on CBS. You don't know what's going on? STFU and look it up.
Really, you're equating the CO2 released by Chinese river dolphins with the global burning of million-year old carbon-stores? I'm sorry, you have no clue about how the climate works.
Problem is we have so little understanding of how the earth reacts to these changes over time.
No, YOU don't. Climate scientists have a pretty damn good idea.
The earth has sustained itself through *much* more drastic changes than anything man has introduced.
Note how man wasn't present through those much more drastic changes? And how those changes led to mass extinctions? Do you really want to try your hand at surviving something like the PETM event?
You haven't dealt much with Russian servers and the botnets that run them, do you?
Believe models that have never predicted anything correctly.
You mean like the models that predict ocean currents, pacific oscillation, jet stream, gulf stream, and whose decadal temperature predictions are, if anything, a bit on the conservative side?
Trust data that is manually manipulated, incomplete, inaccurate, disparate, and only goes back a blink of the eye in terms of the planet's history.
Yes, every data set has been manipulated. Weird that no one seems to come up with a data set that is clean, or without statistical error. I mean, they'd get their names into the annales of science pretty much immediately. I'm sure Exxon has a few billion lying around with which to sponsor such a study. Weird that they don't... they must know something we don't. Wait, they just know something you don't. And how much data do you need? Are you going to be happy when climate data goes back to when the earth was a loose amalgam of space dust?
Trust politicians whose only concerns are money and power, and whose only "solutions" involve shifting money and power, and not reducing consumption or pollution, or building things that are actually green, like nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.
Al Gore might be a convenient whipping boy, but no climate scientist is quoting Al Gore. Not to mention that you'd crucify him if he weren't putting his money where his mouth is. Nice straw man, but no win.
Believe that man is the cause of the current trend, and that man can do something to stop it.
There's no need to believe when you have a physical model for how man influences the current trend, data that supports the existence of the physical model and data that disproves the assumption that CO2 emitted by man does not influence the global temperature.
Believe that the Earth will be doomed if temperatures rise closer to points in Earth's past, despite the fact that throughout all of Earth's history, higher temperatures are when life flourished.
One straw man, one lie through omission and one lie through commission in one sentence. Nice going.
1) No one is arguing that the earth is doomed, outside of people like you. Climate scientists are arguing that life is going to get mighty uncomfortable for a large swath of humanity, costing everyone on earth a nice chunk of change to adapt to.
2) Humans weren't around when temperatures and CO2 concentrations were much higher than now.
3) Mass extinctions are tied to high temperatures and high CO2 contents. Look up PETM extinction event.
Man, whatever it takes to continue living your own life, and screw whoever comes after you, right? Nice going. The last guy who made this his official motto caused massive international bloodshed.
That might be true, but lottery doesn't work that way. It's either get the massive payout, or get nothing. There is no "Here's a million, now flip the coin again for double or nothing". Furthermore, the concept of marginal utility ignores the fact that people aren't fully rational beings. People don't spend a dollar on the optimal food source that will sustain them the best through the day, they spend a dollar to feel good about starting the day. Whether that's a cup of coffee from Starbucks (ok, $8) or a lottery ticket, it really doesn't matter that much.
What is true, however, is that you should never, ever buy a lottery ticket with survival funds. The lottery isn't an investment strategy (well, except in some specific cases, apparently). Instead, it should be regarded as fun money. Whether you spend $5 on a movie or on a lottery ticket is pretty irrelevant. It's entertainment; go have fun. If that's how you want to spend your surplus money, be my guest. Just don't think you'll get out of a debt hole with that.
You're right, I'm wrong. It's triclosan, not tetracycline, that is a common ingredient in antibacterial soaps.
This depends on successful (as in, successfully targeted) creation to meet a market demand.
I see - you subscribe to the work for hire approach. Any reason you're completely discounting the approach taken by millions of freelancers of "I love doing this, I'll see if I can get paid for it"?
Because life is different. People and their immediate heirs are living decades longer than they used to.
I'm sorry, but that calls for the fucking moron of the year award. In the last twenty years, People have not started to live decades longer. Not to mention that extending copyright to protect heirs is the ultimate idiocy, because the government protected monopoly of copyright will at that point not get the original author to create more. The only thing it does is create trust fund babies and people clamoring for longer copyright terms.
Meh. Show me one thing that the German or French government can do without batting eye that the American can't do. I'll show you two things that the American government can do that will be unthinkable in Germany or France. Governments in all three countries are dysfunctional. The difference I see is that there are two fairly large groups in the US that want diametrically opposed things from government, and one of them is willing to sell the country down the shitter to achieve their goal.
Yep. The old adage about young communists and old conservatives has nothing to do with heart and brains, and everything with stuff. It's amazing how bad communism sounds to you when you finally earned enough money to purchase a house, a nice TV and are looking at retiring with some nice toys.
I really, really, really hope you're kidding. Right? You're just bad at sarcasm, or my sarcasm meter is broken. Right?
No, creating content for distribution is the business model.
If that were true, the business model would pay out based on how much is created. Instead, it is based on how much is distributed.
Or, put more simply: nobody makes money creating something. The only time that you make money on content is if you distribute it to someone.
Why do you think copyright keeps getting extended? Once you get past a certain point, longer copyright protection reduces the incentive to create something.
Gah. If ever there's something that deserves +5, Informative, it is this. The only thing worse than the people who think some 5 year old kid running around during recess has ADHD are the people who think that everyone is exactly like they are, and ADHD is just a made-up "disease".
Damn people, hand in your geek cards. Does no one recognize a dilithium crystal when they see one?
You're correct. Neutrino chirality is not the same as neutrino type. Sigh. That's why I shouldn't wade into these types of discussions. I end up screwing up another detail altogether.
Dismissal is the decision that further looking into something is not worth the time that could be spent looking into something else. It is based on doubt and skepticism that the question at hand is worth more work. Furthermore, dismissing an idea once is not the same as dismissing it forever. Based on changing data, a question can be revisited that was dismissed earlier.
But it is utter foolishness to require that every issue gets looked with the same intensity. If that would be the case, nothing would ever get done. Or do you spend as much time disproving leprechauns, the timecube and homeopathy as you do dark energy and the space elevator?