• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

Wowbagger said:
But, what should replace them?!
Click to expand...
Empirical studies.

Wowbagger said:
Maybe not with 100% accuracy, but 80-90% accuracy is better than nothing, right?
Click to expand...
Not with computer models. #1 it is impossible to determine if they are 80% accurate. This is the basic flawed thinking because people use empirical standards and try to apply them to the virtual world.
 
Last edited:
Poptech said:
There is no goal post shifts! Only your lack of understanding. I have always been talking about the accuracy of the "laboratory" which by default determines the ability to get an accurate experiment! Over and over you repeat this but lack the basic mental ability to understand it.
Click to expand...

More than one person has called you out on this, and I'm doing it again for the umpteenth time. Anyone who clicks the link can see easily how you're attempting to redefine your original arguments once the going got rough. And since this is the Internet, you can't run away from it, try as you might.

Get used to it.
 
Myriad said:
How do you know?

Maybe it will actually be good for the economy. Or only affect the economy by an insignificant amount. Or have no effect at all. Can you show me some papers in peer reviewed economics journals that prove this alleged "crippling" effect?
Click to expand...

Cap and Trade: A Bad Trade-off for the Economy and Company Earnings (PDF) (Wayne Winegarden, Ph.D. Economics)http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Cap_and_Trade.pdf
Cap and Trade Primer: Eight reasons why cap and trade harms the economy and reduces jobs (PDF) (Institute For Energy Research)
Impact on the Economy of the Climate Provision in the Obama Administration’s FY 2010 Budget Proposal (PDF) (CRA International)
The Adverse Economic Impacts of Cap-and-Trade Regulations (PDF) (Arthur Laffer, Ph.D. Economics)
The Cost of Climate Regulation for American Households (PDF) (The Marshall Institute)
The Economic Impact of Waxman–Markey (PDF) (The Heritage Foundation)
Son of Waxman-Markey: More Politics Makes for a More Costly Bill (PDF) (The Heritage Foundation)
 
MattusMaximus said:
More than one person has called you out on this, and I'm doing it again for the umpteenth time. Anyone who clicks the link can see easily how you're attempting to redefine your original arguments once the going got rough. And since this is the Internet, you can't run away from it, try as you might.

Get used to it.
Click to expand...
You think that because you never understood my argument! Please show me the post where I was never referring to the "laboratory" of computer climate model.

Matt you just keep embarrassing yourself.

"Laboratory" Real World = Everything 100% Real
"Laboratory" Virtual World = Everything Not 100% Real

Experiment - "Laboratory" Real World = Experiment will behave 100% according to all natural laws. Possibility exists for accurate experiment.
Experiment - "Laboratory" Virtual World = Experiment will not behave 100% according to all natural laws. No possibility exists for accurate experiment.
 
Poptech said:
Empirical studies.
Click to expand...

Which are also not 100% accurate, and you clearly stated here that 100% accuracy was what was required for something in science to be trusted. So how can you say that empirical studies, which are not 100% accurate (ever heard of experimental uncertainty?), are somehow more trustworthy than computer climate models?

Does this not put you into a dilemma of logical inconsistency, PT? You must either admit that, by your own criteria, empirical studies are just as useless as computer modeling, or you must admit that you are arbitrarily creating a different standard for computer climate models.

Which is it? Answer the question, which is the same question I've been challenging you on for two weeks.
 
Wowbagger said:
Empirical studies are also models. Just not always in a computer form.
Click to expand...
The definition for "model" is often confused. I am only talking about computer climate models where the "laboratory" is "virtual reality". Empirical studies have a REAL "laboratory".
 
Poptech said:
You think that because you never understood my argument! Please show me the post where I was never referring to the "laboratory" of computer climate model.

Matt you just keep embarrassing yourself.

"Laboratory" Real World = Everything 100% Real
"Laboratory" Virtual World = Everything Not 100% Real

Experiment - "Laboratory" Real World = Experiment will behave 100% according to all natural laws. Possibility exists for accurate experiment.
Experiment - "Laboratory" Virtual World = Experiment will not behave 100% according to all natural laws. No possibility exists for accurate experiment.
Click to expand...

Nope, no good. You're attempting to redefine the argument, just as you've been doing all along once I pointed out the logical inconsistency. Here it is, again - and anyone can see what you're doing. The fact that you continue to spin like this just reveals how dishonest you're being.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Which are also not 100% accurate, and you clearly stated here that 100% accuracy was what was required for something in science to be trusted. So how can you say that empirical studies, which are not 100% accurate (ever heard of experimental uncertainty?), are somehow more trustworthy than computer climate models?

Does this not put you into a dilemma of logical inconsistency, PT? You must either admit that, by your own criteria, empirical studies are just as useless as computer modeling, or you must admit that you are arbitrarily creating a different standard for computer climate models.

Which is it? Answer the question, which is the same question I've been challenging you on for two weeks.
Click to expand...
No Matt it puts you in with an obsessive mental disorder of not understanding. You keep confusing the experiment with "laboratory". I have said this OVER AND OVER AND OVER. You just don't get it. I supposed someone honest here could help you but I doubt they will.

"Laboratory" Real World = Everything 100% Real
"Laboratory" Virtual World = Everything Not 100% Real

Experiment - "Laboratory" Real World = Experiment will behave 100% according to all natural laws. Possibility exists for accurate experiment.
Experiment - "Laboratory" Virtual World = Experiment will not behave 100% according to all natural laws. No possibility exists for accurate experiment.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Nope, no good. You're attempting to redefine the argument, just as you've been doing all along once I pointed out the logical inconsistency. Here it is, again - and anyone can see what you're doing. The fact that you continue to spin like this just reveals how dishonest you're being.
Click to expand...
LMAO! Matt you are lying because you don't understand, it is sad.

Yes anyone can see you are utterly clueless. Which is why no one is defending you.
 
Poptech said:
Not with computer models. #1 it is impossible to determine if they are 80% accurate.
Click to expand...
Why can't run the model, and then note how well it reflects the real world?

You know, just like how flight simulators are checked against the real world.

Poptech said:
This is the basic flawed thinking because people use empirical standards and try to apply them to the virtual world.
Click to expand...
Ah, but that is not what those people are doing. Scientists generally understand the difference between raw empirical data, and models. Just like they know the difference between data and theory. And the difference between observations and explanations.

It would be a stupid, irresponsible scientist to claim that models meet the stringent standards of actual data sampling. Thankfully, climatologists only use models... as models... to help inform them of what could happen... and NOT as the be-all-end-all ultimate truth of what's definately going to happen.

Sorry if you misunderstood that.
 
CapelDodger said:
Not a guess, but GISS includes Arctic temperatures while the others don't. IIRC. And the Arctic is warming faster than the world in general (as predicted decades ago, from the basic science). Arctic temperatures are to some extent estimated, but that's better than disregarding them completely, especially as events in the Arctic bear out the estimates.
Click to expand...

But last months GIS anomoly went up by about .15deg while RSS went down by roughly the same amount. Assuming they're reading similar between (say) 80 north and south that's a pretty big difference in a pretty small area.

The ice isn't melting that fast!
 
Poptech said:
No Matt it puts you in with an obsessive mental disorder of not understanding. You keep confusing the experiment with "laboratory". I have said this OVER AND OVER AND OVER. You just don't get it. I supposed someone honest here could help you but I doubt they will.

"Laboratory" Real World = Everything 100% Real
"Laboratory" Virtual World = Everything Not 100% Real

Experiment - "Laboratory" Real World = Experiment will behave 100% according to all natural laws. Possibility exists for accurate experiment.
Experiment - "Laboratory" Virtual World = Experiment will not behave 100% according to all natural laws. No possibility exists for accurate experiment.
Click to expand...

But that isn't what you said to begin with, is it?

Too bad. For you.
 
Poptech said:
LMAO! Matt you are lying because you don't understand, it is sad.

Yes anyone can see you are utterly clueless. Which is why no one is defending you.
Click to expand...

Funny, I never had the impression that I was on the defensive :rolleyes:
 
Poptech said:
Tell me exactly what I said and don't just post your butchered comment of mine. Post the exact quote only.
Click to expand...

Follow the link, it's all there, including links to your earlier comments. Anyone can see it. In fact, I'm certain many people have seen it by now. Like I said, too bad. For you.
 
Wowbagger said:
Why can't run the model, and then note how well it reflects the real world?
Click to expand...
What do you think skeptics have been asking for?

Wowbagger said:
Thankfully, climatologists only use models... as models... to help inform them of what could happen... and NOT as the be-all-end-all ultimate truth of what's definately going to happen.
Click to expand...
Then why is the IPCC's conclusions all based on computer models and it is these results that governments plan to enact economy killing energy restrictions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom