Page 31 of 31 FirstFirst ... 21293031
Results 301 to 310 of 310

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #301
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,437
    He can't even help himself
    I'ma make it look sexy
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  2. #302
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,437
    Should I start posting walls of text?

    Nah, I'll just link articles.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...ly-likely/amp/

    Don't worry guys, Josh, who didn't (doesn't?) understand the basics of energy accounting for TSI, will tell us those idiots at MIT just don't understand the science as well as he does. He's gonna science the shit out of this.
    I'ma make it look sexy
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  3. #303
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Posts
    1,994
    Wow, a basic argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.

    Lindzen was MIT's, well, lets let wikipedia tell it:

    Lindzen has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, ice ages and seasonal atmospheric effects. His main contribution to the academic literature on anthropogenic climate change is his proposal of the iris hypothesis in 2001, with co-authors Ming-Dah Chou and Arthur Y. Hou.[8][9] He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council at the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. He joined MIT in 1983, prior to which he held positions at the University of Washington (1964?65), Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965?67), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) (1966?67), University of Chicago (1968?72) and Harvard University (1972?83). He also briefly held a position of Visiting Lecturer at UCLA in 1967.[10] As of January 2010, his publications list included 230 papers and articles published between 1965 and 2008, with five in process for 2009. He is the author of a standard textbook on atmospheric dynamics, and co-authored the monograph Atmospheric Tides with Sydney Chapman.[11]

    He was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT from 1983,[1] until his retirement which was reported in the Spring 2013 newsletter of MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS).[2] On December 27, 2013 the Cato Institute announced that he is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in their Center for the Study of Science.[12]
    He is also a skeptic. What did HE say?

    Lindzen: "Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ?science.? Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure."

    "The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ?overwhelming evidence? for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all."
    Small note, we are not at a doubled state - just at a fraction of that. My understanding is in alignment with his, and his position on TSI. Is he wrong? Does Lindzen not understand it? As I have shown before, unlike your MIT link, Lindzen is the first one to do actual Emperical Data collection on the Energy Budget heading back out to space - and he found a negative correlation with water vapor vs the models. This is evidence vs models.

    Again, the models are all falsified and that paper you linked to is just based on a model. That is what is wrong with the argument. I have seen this link in the past. More of the same "Models show we are going to hit [insert level here] and we should all be panics!!" Yet every prediction based on them? Failed. Every model trying to track even just 10 years in? Failed.

    Why are you still believing them to be relative? ALL failed. I have showed that fairly clearly.

    My reply stated very clearly that if you show the range in absolutes, the TSI change and Temperature change are both shown on an absolute range, that TSI and Temperature correlate. You just ignored that because it ruins, falsifies, every single one of your and Gordon's replies concerning TSI.

    People reading this can see that. You have only made a point in avoiding the information I provided and trying to take a basic fallacy as a response.

    You are better at this, but your position is not held by any example you have brought forth, and just by arguing around solid points I bring up.

    If I have 100 examples of proxies that show temperature tracks with solar output, empirical data, just this year alone and all you have is a 73 long term projection models that are falsified within 10 years to back up your position, then your position is really poor.

    I can understand your need to pull out fallacies in response.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 12-10-2017 at 11:04 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #304
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,437
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Is he wrong?
    Yes. He's an old nut. I knew an old emeritus professor at school who studied gravity and didn't believe General Relativity. As you've said before in this very thread, science progresses one funeral at a time.

    BTW did you see the news that Juno is out of position? The Theory must be wrong, time to scrap everything we know about gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Does Lindzen not understand it?
    No, he doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    As I have shown before, unlike your MIT link, Lindzen is the first one to do actual Emperical Data collection on the Energy Budget heading back out to space - and he found a negative correlation with water vapor vs the models. This is evidence vs models.

    Again, the models are all falsified and that paper you linked to is just based on a model. That is what is wrong with the argument. I have seen this link in the past.
    Please explain to me what they did in the paper. I'm genuinely curious to get your take because that's not what I read at all.

    And how far in the past? The paper was published like 4 days ago. Edit: looks like I posted it the day it was published.
    Last edited by PBSteve; Yesterday at 01:31 AM.
    I'ma make it look sexy
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  5. #305
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Posts
    1,994
    If you have seen interviews with Lindzen you would see he is not a loon or short on his wits. And since he actually wrote a good portion of the basic science for atmospheric actions, maybe he can't be dismissed by an offhand comment on a backwater paintball blog. I mean, Hansen, the one that started the whole thing has been arrested a few times for kinda nutters protests. Using the same sword, you would be undercutting your own position deeper than mine on the follow through.

    Even going into that, Physicist Robert Jastrow was the founder of the GISS program (and very world reknown, but before your time) and he found many problems with how James Hansen took over the GISS project, because Hansen came into the project looking for the human footprint in the climate more then looking for what other items could be involved. Jastrow was a bit disappointed in his former fan, and wrote many reports on the problems with the climate models initally. In fact, that really was the point where the two positions came into being. Hansen was very convinced humans were at fault for temperature increase. That, plus last minute work from Ben Santer on the early IPCC reports is why this even is a thing. The first two reports were about to say CO2 didn't have much pull, and we should be fine. The medieval warming period was even shown in early reports, then...wasn't.

    That's where we get the divergence that had Lindzen and Christy and others actually as lead authors for the early IPCC reports, then not on the later reports. That is where it was overheard that, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." Here is the senate testimony on that, and there is email evidence of that also:

    https://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_s....cfm?id=266543

    That led to the 'Hockey Stick' graph, MBH99, which led to the Kyoto accord, until a review by a statistician found that the scientist was withholding code and data for his program, until a senate hearing got it, and found that the code was a huge mess, over sampled tree ring data, and if white noise was put into it the same resulting hockey stick graph was a result.

    That graph made it to the IPCC report for one cycle, but was purged from later years. The NAS said to never use tree ring data, but guess what? They still do.

    That really was the divergence of the Alarmists and Skeptics, who was involved, and some of the basic mess.

    Oh, then the Climategate emails popped out. And it confirmed quite a bit - including the FIOA requests were hidden, emails purged, and many scientists were denied peer review deliberately because their findings were skeptical, and the problems they had with the data and the models. It all is a cluster fuck really.

    But Lindzen was there for the first couple IPCC reports as an expert. He really can't be dismissed offhand on your whim. He is as integral and involved as Hansen or Christy or Mann or Santer or.... you get the idea. This is a very involved mess. With two camps. I totally accept I am in one camp, but I also got here by challenging my beliefs, which is not a common thing people seem to do any more. One book on the IPCC process is rather interesting though:

    http://cornwallalliance.org/2013/05/...limate-expert/

    A. Mess.

    ___________________________________

    On the paper: Well, it says things are going to be worse than previous models have predicted, and there will be more warming. But previous models already showed too much warming.

    Then the researchers compared that “top-of-atmosphere” data with the results of earlier climate models to determine which ones most accurately predicted what the satellites actually observed.

    The simulations that turned out to most closely match real-world observations of how energy flows in and out of the climate system were the ones that predicted the most warming this century.
    Here is one reply from an early reviewer on the paper:

    Dr. Benny Peiser of The Global Warming Policy Foundation commented on this paper prior to publication:

    The flood of conflicting global warming predictions for the 21st century — from harmless to alarmist — is evidence that climate modellers remain divided over the issue of climate sensitivity. Empirical observations are our best guide. They show that the warming trend over recent decades is much lower and much slower than models have predicted. As long as climate models fail the test of time and fail to replicate reality, they should be treated as GIGO.
    Okay, simple as that. Using the Carnegie Institute Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) climate model set (8.5), then tweeking it with some cherry picked CERES data to show more warming than previously found, resulted in 30% more warming than almost any IPCC predictions now. But the RCP model is already being phased out for overstating warming by a good amount because it can't tract with reality.

    Until a model comes close to tracking with the Empirical data, it really shouldn't be considered. Taking an old model and adjusting it to find more warming isn't finding more warming, it is showing a problem with the model and the assumptions on the part of the modelers.

    Bring me a model that tracks with reality, then lets talk. Until then, Reality is the Gold Standard.

    RCP8.5 has some major flaws, as Dr. Judith Curry notes. The biggest one is 8.5 stands for 8.5wm^2 of forcing. So it is the 'OMFG DIAF!!1!' version:

    (1) AN INTRODUCTION TO SCENARIOS ABOUT OUR FUTURE

    In AR5 four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) describe scenarios for future emissions, concentrations, and land-use, ending with radiative forcing levels of 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5 W/m2 by 2100. Strong mitigation policies result in a low forcing level (RCP2.6). Two medium stabilization scenarios lead to intermediate outcomes: (RCP4.5, RCP6.0).

    IPCC's AR5: 4 RCPs

    RCP8.5 gets the most attention. It assumes the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions. For more about the RCPs see “The representative concentration pathways: an overview” by Detlef P. van Vuuren et al, Climatic Change, Nov 2011.

    RCP8.5 assumes a nightmarish world even before climate impacts, resulting from substantial changes to long-standing trends. It provides AR5 with an essential worst case scenario necessary for conservative planning.

    Unfortunately scientists often inaccurately describe RCP8.5 as the baseline scenario — a future without policy action: “a relatively conservative business as usual case with low income, high population and high energy demand due to only modest improvements in energy intensity” from “RCP 8.5: A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions” by Keywan Riahi et al in Climate Change, November 2011, This is a material misrepresentation of RCP8.5. Scientists then use RCP8.5 to construct horrific visions of the future. They seldom mention its unlikely assumptions.
    So, wow. That is kinda bad. Total worst case scenario.

    Now, the interesting bit - we have the Santer/Mann et al paper that states models are over warming by a factor of 2.5. SO.... that means RCP 2.6 is even high. We are down to 1.1wm^2 being the far more likely scenario, instead of 2.6, and hence why this paper fails.

    If RCP 2.6 is even too high, well.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #306
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Bring me a model that tracks with reality, then lets talk. Until then, Reality is the Gold Standard.
    I'm not going to try to sway you anymore but just for anyone dumb enough to reread this thread I wanted to link the supplement to the Santer paper we all love so much because it actually fills in the stats on the perfect model analysis and sheds a little more light on why adjusting feedback parameters doesn't produce a better model.

    http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matt...science_SI.pdf
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  7. #307
    "the fact is, Jack Rice and team make a paintball gun, that works, and works pretty well actually. I think that says everything that needs to be said about the state of paintball gun engineering"

  8. #308
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,437
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Bring me a model that tracks with reality, then lets talk. Until then, Reality is the Gold Standard.
    Great, let's talk about your reality.

    Since you like the satellite data so much, can you explain to me how a satellite measures the temperature at a specific altitude, and what are the challenges associated with taking such measurements? Since you're a skeptic I assume you've thoroughly examined this, and not just picked the dataset that aligned with your preconceived notions. I've studied optics academically and it's certainly not obvious to me how they do it. I thought this little bit was interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    The UAH data is now closer to the RSS data but differences remain, for example the Lower Troposphere global average trend since 1979, RSS currently have +0.133K/decade while UAH have 0.140K/decade, while the mid troposphere difference is even more marked at 0.079K/decade and 0.052K/decade respectively.[2][3] However, in a recent online YouTube video, Dr. Carl Mears, a senior scientist with the team behind the satellite data, explained how he believes his data set needed correction.[4]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Carl Mears
    I would have to say that the surface data seems that it’s more accurate, because a number of groups analyze the surface data, including some who set out to prove the other ones wrong, and they all get more or less the same answer.
    If I'm wrong and you don't like the satellite data, what are you basing your reality on?
    Last edited by PBSteve; Yesterday at 11:43 PM.
    I'ma make it look sexy
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  9. #309
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,437
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Here is one reply from an early reviewer on the paper:
    I think a source on that "reviewer" would be hilarious. I strongly suspect that whatever this is, it isn't peer review.

    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Okay, simple as that. Using the Carnegie Institute Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) climate model set (8.5), then tweeking it with some cherry picked CERES data to show more warming than previously found, resulted in 30% more warming than almost any IPCC predictions now. But the RCP model is already being phased out for overstating warming by a good amount because it can't tract with reality.

    Until a model comes close to tracking with the Empirical data, it really shouldn't be considered. Taking an old model and adjusting it to find more warming isn't finding more warming, it is showing a problem with the model and the assumptions on the part of the modelers.

    Bring me a model that tracks with reality, then lets talk. Until then, Reality is the Gold Standard.
    That's not what they did. They looked at CERES data and compared the direct measurements from CERES to the models' predictions of energy imbalance. At the end of the day that's what climate change is, an energy imbalance above the planet as a result of forcing a deviation from equilibrium. The model scenarios which most closely aligned with the current measured energy balance were high-warming scenarios.

    They're literally doing exactly what you've been demanding, comparing models to observations, and you don't even recognize it.
    Last edited by PBSteve; Today at 12:15 AM.
    I'ma make it look sexy
    I work for the company building the Paragon...once we figure out a name

  10. #310
    Insider ironyusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Tyler, TX
    Posts
    1,240
    Steve, you're so dumb. The problem with all your models is that they assume the earth is spherical. It's flat breh.
    R&D @ DYE

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •