[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climat ... ediate.htm

Somebody who disses Watts loses his right to post Cook as his unimpeachable prophet.

Basically John Cook has an opinion about what models he considers science. I care about his opinion about as much as you do Watts'.

If you parse out what your Jeremiah is saying though, he's agreeing climate is chaotic. He thinks he can select studies that say what he wants others to believe about how close they're coming to predictability though. Good for you John Cook now try to come up with a study yourself that the scientific community doesn't laugh off the internet like they did last time.

Watt has a point. . . once in a while. But most of the time, he's full of fallacies.

The difference between Cook and Watts however, is funding. Watts is the perennial 'paid astroturfer', Cook is funded by donation. Which one would Sharyl Attkisson approve of?

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

People are people, computers are computers. People give computers biased information, that doesn't mean the computer is biased.

You're moving the goalposts and sliding towards mockery. I never said that the computers were biased.

I said that the models were.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

People are people, computers are computers. People give computers biased information, that doesn't mean the computer is biased.

You're moving the goalposts and sliding towards mockery. I never said that the computers were biased.

I said that the models were.

And I said "computer models can't have confirmation bias". ie: They don't have preconceived outcomes that they then try to prove. A person has to do that for them.

Did you ever consider that someone may have chosen specifically outdated or inaccurate computer models as examples for that graphic you posted? I'm not saying they did, because I don't know that. But knowing how this argument progresses in some circles, I wouldn't be surprised at such a tactic.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And I said "computer models can't have confirmation bias". ie: They don't have preconceived outcomes that they then try to prove.

Model bias is well documented. Example:

https://books.google.com/books?id=W2faB ... as&f=false

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_of_an_estimator

And even NASA admits that there's potential for bias in their computer models:

http://map.nasa.gov/documents/3_07_Meet ... od_MAP.pdf

Therefore NASA says you're wrong.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And I said "computer models can't have confirmation bias". ie: They don't have preconceived outcomes that they then try to prove.

Model bias is well documented. Example:

https://books.google.com/books?id=W2faB ... as&f=false

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_of_an_estimator

And even NASA admits that there's potential for bias in their computer models:

http://map.nasa.gov/documents/3_07_Meet ... od_MAP.pdf

Therefore NASA says you're wrong.

I give up. I surrender. Fiddly was saying that computer models could show a preference for their own points of view, I was trying to show him how silly that sounds because computer models aren't sentient enough to have such biases. How it got this far off the rails, I don't know.

But none of this will ever mean that NASA published a study that the Express or Daily Mail made up to get people to read on their rags.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I give up. I surrender. Fiddly was saying that computer models could show a preference for their own points of view, I was trying to show him how silly that sounds because computer models aren't sentient enough to have such biases.

And I'm telling you again GIGO means Garbage In Garbage Out. I didn't invent that.

And anybody who really can model a reliable prediction in a chaotic system is welcome to take me to the track.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I give up. I surrender. Fiddly was saying that computer models could show a preference for their own points of view, I was trying to show him how silly that sounds because computer models aren't sentient enough to have such biases.

And I'm telling you again GIGO means Garbage In Garbage Out. I didn't invent that.

And anybody who really can model a reliable prediction in a chaotic system is welcome to take me to the track.

I guess you've never heard of chemical thermodynamics. There are computer models for that too. And car collisions. And particle collisions! Hmm, seems lots of chaotic systems can be modeled.

And I probabally heard of 'GIGO' back when computers used punch cards.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I guess you've never heard of chemical thermodynamics. There are computer models for that too. And car collisions. And particle collisions! Hmm, seems lots of chaotic systems can be modeled.

And I probabally heard of 'GIGO' back when computers used punch cards.

It's far easier to build a computer model that accurately models events that take place in a controlled environment and that begin and end in such a short time that the observer doesn't even have to take a bathroom break. Flight simulators and all sorts of simulators have similar characteristics and are built upon such models.

This does not compare to projecting what the global climate will be like in ten years or even one hundred years. And climate doesn't take place in a controlled environment.

The alarmist climate predictions of ten years ago are wrong. The predictions of fifteen years ago are REALLY wrong. The predictions of thirty years ago now look to border on delusion.

$1:

“We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

$1:

“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

$1:

“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.

Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years (by 2008).

All of those quotes were based on information gleaned from computer models.

All of them were wrong.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It's far easier to build a computer model that accurately models events that take place in a controlled environment and that begin and end in such a short time that the observer doesn't even have to take a bathroom break. Flight simulators and all sorts of simulators have similar characteristics and are built upon such models.

This does not compare to projecting what the global climate will be like in ten years or even one hundred years. And climate doesn't take place in a controlled environment.

The Earth is a closed system. We just don't know all the variables yet.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The alarmist climate predictions of ten years ago are wrong. The predictions of fifteen years ago are REALLY wrong. The predictions of thirty years ago now look to border on delusion.

$1:

“We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

$1:

“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

$1:

“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.

Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years (by 2008).

All of those quotes were based on information gleaned from computer models.

All of them were wrong.

And those computer models have been improved since then. Expecting the predictions of 30 years ago to hold true is like saying the flight simulators of 2015 and 1999 should also act the same.

Except of course, a couple of those predictions you mention were right! England and Eastern North America have been experiencing an extremely warm winter so far, with England's being very rainy. Not to mention all the tornado and flood warnings coupled tightly with snowfall warnings in the US south. Where Australia is hot, and dry and flammable. Even here in the 'frozen' north, it's been a pretty mild winter, with very little snowfall.

December is looking to be, yet again, the warmest December ever on record. But according to the 'article', because we are burning so much more, our climate should be cooling!

Funny how those 'inaccurate' predictions you mention turn out to be on target.